Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First of all Tu B’shvat is in this month obviously, and The torah compares man, to a tree “Ki H’Adam Eitz Hasodeh”
Sorry, this just happens to be one of my pet peeves. Look up the pasuk and the basic meforshim, you’ll see the pasuk is not comparing man to a tree, on the contrary, it is asking a rhetorical question – i.e. “Is a tree a man?” In the context of the pasuk this is obviously the pshat, for the pasuk is clearly trying to say that “saving the trees” is not as important as human life. Yes I know this all has nothing to do with the thread, but I just couldn’t keep my mouth shut. Or whatever the literary equivalent is. So I apologize to the OP.
I think we’re starting to see some CR McCarthyism. Anyone else think this witch hunt is getting a bit out of control?
apushatayid-
One can make the same argument for YWN
Perhaps, but that gemara talks specifically of going to watch a game in a stadium, which is much more easily identifiable with the OP’s case.
Regarding supporting avodah zarah ?????? there is no problem.
However see the gemara A.Z. 18b, ?????? there should be no reason why this isn’t included in what the gemara calls ???? ????.
Wolf-
1. Great question! Ibn Ezra points this out in Vayigash and he explains that these are actually two different locations! Ramesess was the area in which the sons of Ya’akov settled, while Ra’amsess was one of the cities Pharaoh ordered the Jewish people to build.
2. Don’t know. I know the general rule is that the segol becoms a kamatz by an asanachta, and that there are exceptions, but don’t know why.
Charlie, did you know that Penzias is a frum yid who worked at Bell Labs in NJ?
I once heard a great story about Rav Solovetchick, from R’ Motty Berger of Aish. Isidor Rabi developed a theory in the 30’s that was a harbinger of the Big Bang theory. Arno Penzias was one of the scientists who discovered proof of it in the 60’s. Rabi was born frum but went off, and in his autobiography he tells a story in which he relates why he went off the derech. He writes that when he was 10 years old he was told that if someone looks at the kohanim during duchening, they will go blind. He wanted to test this out to see if it was true, but didn’t want to lose his eyesight in both eyes, so he took a peek through one of them. When nothing happened, he opened his other eye, and when he saw that what he had been taught was indeed untrue, he decided to leave yiddishkeit. That was Rabi’s story. Penzias, on the other hand, I have heard, is a ba’al teshuva. He once stated (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2007/06/would_dr_arno_penzias_nobel_la003733.html) “The best data we have [concerning the Big Bang] are exactly what I would have predicted, had I nothing to go on but the five books of Moses, the Psalms, the bible as a whole.” Clearly he did not see science as a contradiction to keeping the Torah. They once asked the rav, “why is it that while Penzias became frum, Rabi went off?” Without batting an eyelash he replied, “Because when he was ten years old, he went blind…”
Pashuteh Yid-
I referred to that thread and you make a very interesting point. Nevertheless, I do not understand how you can possibly take the specific Rambam you quoted in the way you understand it, and ignore the numerous places the Rambam plainly states that one who denies ???? ???”? is indeed an apikoros.
Rabbi Akiva. He returned to his wife after 24 years of learning that he did her behest, with thousands of students, and when they saw her approach they did not know who she was, and all they saw was a poor woman dressed in rags, and they did not want to let her come through because they felt it a lack of honor for such a disheveled person to greet their great rebbi. R’ Akiva saw and called out to them, “let her be, for all [the Torah] that is mine and all that is yours, belongs to her.” She was the one who saw to it that R’ Akiva went to the yeshiva and became who he was.
Charlie, just a small point – the Sefer Ha’ikkarim was written by R’ Yosef Albo.
Pashuteh Yid-
Your citation of the Rambam is very problematic, for there is more than one place where the Rambam says openly that one who denies ???? ???? ?? is in fact an Apikoros. For example:
1) Hilchos Mamrim 3:1 – ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? … ??? ?? ????
???????????
2) Perek Chelek, Yesod 9 – ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??”? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??
3) The perek you quote from the Rambam comes from is loosely based on what he writes in ????? ??????? on Chullin 13a. However, there he is ???? all ?????? of ??????, no matter what. (I must acknowledge however that this is only according to the new Kafih translation, in the old Ibn Tibbon translation and the one found in the Meiri I have found the opposite. However I was told by my history teacher who is also a rav and a talmid chacham, R’ David Katz, that the only reliable translation is Kafih’s.)
Therefore I think your quote is much more a ???? than a ????. I am not sure of the answer but I would speculate that the Rambam needs to be understood in context. The only reason a non-Jew’s shechita is no good according to the Rambam is as a ???, for perhaps he will shecht ??? ????? ??? and render the animal ???? ?????. Therefore a Jew who is not ???? for this, even if he is a ????, may shecht and his shechita is kosher. One who believes in Torah Shebiksav but not Torah Sheba’al peh, might very well be an apikoros, but he is not ???? on avodah zarah if he does not deny Torah Shebiksav; thus his shechita is kosher. What the Rambam means is that only Apikorsim who deny both may not shecht, because they are indeed ???? on avodah zarah. But he did not mean to imply that someone who only denies Torah Sheba’al Peh is not an Apikoros.
Whether or not you agree with this pshat, I think it is clear from many other places, some of which I have cited above, that the general shita of the Rambam is not as you say.
I will say this though; I recently came across a Maharal in Gur Aryeh on Shabbos 31a who says explicitly that one who denies Torah Sheba’al Peh is not an apikoros, and he concludes that therefore the Karaites are not Apikorsim.
?????? ??? ???? ??? ??????
“Yachid V’Rabim halacha K’rabim” “normative Halakhah”…
Myfriend, please find me a legitimate source which states that there exists such a concept with regard to gedolim who do not have real semicha and whose words are not upheld by a Beis Din of semuchin, or at least were not debated with the parties holding both opinions present. I do not believe you will. So while you may be correct regarding belief in mashiach (Actually I do not believe you are. The Chasam Sofer’s shitah over there is that belief in mashiach is not its own ikkar but rather simply comes from the ikkar of belief in the Torah and the nevi’im, as the Sefer Ha’ikkarim says, who disagrees with the Rambam, and according to him R’ Hillel wouldn’t be a kofer today either because he simply interpreted the navi that the mashiach spoken of had already come; but that’s not what I want to focus on now.) you cannot stretch that idea to a place where there is a machlokes rishonim.
mdd-
While I think he is very mistaken on a few counts, what he is referring to is not completely made up, it comes from a mishnah in Sanhedrin (73a) which reads, (sorry I do not have Hebrew on this computer) “v’eilu hem she’matzilin osan b’nafshan, harodef… achar hazechur, v’achar na’arah hame’urasah”.
Kashrus agencies rely on many kulos that you would never use in your home.
You are mistaken, in fact the opposite is more correct.
Cedarhurst-
The gemara in Shabbos (30b) says that with regard to Torah we apply the next verse; ???? ???? ??????. Rashi explains why Rabban Gamliel held this way in practice – ??? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?????.
Shev143-
Blueprints thought that it might be a good idea to have religious standards like the Taliban or Iranians.
Excuse my tone, but that is just a really bad argument. You could make the same point about kosher meat. You can’t disprove a religion by saying it’s hard to keep. If you want to prove that he’s wrong you’re going to have to back yourself up with a real argument, like, maybe try to prove from the Torah itself that he’s wrong. Otherwise your comments sound either really narrow-minded, or they preclude the premise that the Torah as is defined by the general consensus of Orthodox Jewry is true.
Shev, Feif Un, Tzippi-
I have no idea why this poster deserves such a mean attitude, and I fully agree with blueprints’s comment. Does someone else’s desire to do the right thing make you feel uncomfortable? And by the way, if someone were ask how to take ma’aser from salt it would be a disgusting thing to tell him it’s a stupid question. When we say that’s what Eisav used to ask Yitzchak the point is he knew better and asked anyway in order to feign piety, which BY THE WAY Yitzchak was fooled by, so obviously such a person, at least according to Yitzchak Avinu, is not meant to be brushed off, if you don’t know that he’s trying to cause problems, which in this case YOU DON’T. I once heard over I think from R’ Moshe – “There are no stupid questions; only stupid answers”.
Oh and by the way this is coming from someone who actually listens to kol isha on the radio. But I can actually stomach other opinions.
frumladygit-
I don’t understand. If emunah is the answer than why buy even one ticket? Just believe if Hashem wants you to have the money you’ll get it. Is it because making a hishtadlus doesn’t contradict your bitachon? Then make a hishtadlus, and better your odds by buying more than one ticket!
Cedarhurst-
Basically the halacha is that a woman’s words are not upheld in beis din (to demand a divorce) if she ‘admits’ to her husband that she cheated on him willingly, unless he believes her. The reason is that maybe she is just saying this because she wants to force him to let her get out of the marriage so she can be with someone else. If she wants a divorce that’s fine, but she has to go through the process like everyone else. The man, according to the din of the gemara, is believed in a parallel situation, without going into details. The reason he is believed, again without going into details, is because he has something to support his claim – that is, according to the din of the gemara, a man can force his wife to accept a divorce, so since he could’ve done that anyway, he’s believed with this claim. This is called “b’yado l’garsha ba’al korchah”. However, the Rema (quoting a Hagahos Maimonis b’shem the Ri M’gash) says that being that we have accepted Rabbenu Gershom’s cherem that a man may not force his wife to accept a divorce, he is no longer ‘b’yado’, and therefore nowadays he will need further proof of his claim to demand a divorce. My point was to say that if indeed a heter me’ah rabbanim is so common, then perhaps it should still be considered b’yado. After further thought however, I think that this may be a faulty proof, because there is a Tosafos Yeshanim in Kesubos 22a, which, while it is ambiguous, I understood it to imply that anything which requires the consent of others is not called b’yado. V’tzarich iyun.
Disclaimer: This has been written from memory.
As for the story, I’d rather not go into details. If someone understood, fine, and if not, I’m not really sure I should’ve posted it in the first place, so we’ll leave it at that.
Buying a lottery ticket is not an asmachta, since there is a kinyan. However, it is certainly unwise to gamble regularly.
RuffRuff, please see my above post. It took a while till it went up, but it’s a response to your argument with Charlie.
Oh come on. Find me ten people that actually got a heter me’ah rabbanim. I don’t know statistics, but I assume it isn’t very common. In fact, in halacha the man is not called a b’yado l’garsha ba’al korcha, (See Rema E.H. 178) so clearly this heter is not very accessible.
Funny story; I once had a farher at a yeshiva and had to tell the Rosh Yeshiva a shtickel, and I said over a vort based around this Rema. He was very attentive and asked a few questions. At the end he asked me how I came to this sugya. I told him from the last mishnah in Nedarim. Suddenly I realized that this Rosh Yeshiva himself was once very involved in a heter me’ah rabbanim, v’day l’meivin. Well, he let me in, but it was quite an awkward moment for me that I am not going to forget.
By the way, the Rambam I quoted before is in the Guide, 1:34. It reads as follows:
???? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ????, ??? ???????? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ???????, ??????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ?????, ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ??????; ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???-? ????? ?? ??? ???-?, ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?????.
This idea is also found in Emunos V’deos of R’ Saadya Gaon, in Chapter 6 of the introduction, and in the Sefer Ha’ikkarim of R’ Yosef Albo, 1:2.
RuffRuff
You cannot apply the Aggadaic rule to the Torah.
There are two rules in question: 1) That Aggados are not always meant to be taken literally; and 2) That one may disregard something found in an Aggadic passage if it does not accord with how he sees the world. The second rule, strange as it may sound to you, is explicit in all the sources Charlie and I mentioned.
It is only the latter rule that we do not apply to the Torah, because we believe that Torah is min hashamayim, so obviously one cannot disregard what is contained therein. However, the first rule does apply even to pesukim, at least according to the Rambam who in many cases diverts from the accepted pshat because in his mind it is not ‘rational’ (Probably most notable of this is his position that the whole parsha of the malachim and Avraham Avinu was just a dream), and many other “Pashtanim”, such as Ibn Ezra, who will openly and explicitly argue on a gemara’s explanation of a pasuk because he doesn’t believe it makes sense.
When it is an obvious exaggeration, as in towers in the sky, we don’t take it literally.
Many disagree. And a rationalist could simply respond that to anyone who knows science well, many things are obviously not meant to be taken literally, even though a simple minded person doesn’t realize the strangeness of the statements. This the Rambam says openly in his introduction to the Guide, about Bereishis, and he writes that is was written the way it was, so that simple minded people would have a nice story to read, but someone well-versed in science and philosophy will and should realize that nothing in Maaseh Bereishis is to be taken literally. The Rambam says this in many places.
The Rambam, the Chovos HaLevavos, and many, many others proved intellectually that a Higher Power created the world, and that He gave us the Torah.
Actually the Rambam never proved this. He says in the Guide (don’t have it offhand but if you want a source I will gladly find it for you) that we believe it and have good reason to believe it, but he also says that one who does not have the tradition that we do can sit all his life honestly trying to figure it out but he may never figure out beyond a shadow of a doubt that God created the world.
Another notable quote of the Rambam is in Teshuvos HaRambam (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1989) p. 488:
Add to Charliehall’s list R’ Hai Gaon and R’ Shreira Gaon in Otzar HaGeonim Chagigah pp. 59-60.
One can find the Rambam’s words on this in Perek Chelek, but he most poignantly expresses his view in Teshuvos HaRambam (Jerusalem: Mekize Nirdamim, 1989) p. 739, where he writes: “We do not pose difficulties in the Aggadah. Are they words of Tradition or expressions of reason? Rather each individual considers their explanation as it seems fit to him. In this [Aggadah]
The Ramban openly expresses this view in his vikuach which can be found in the Chavel Kisvei HaRamban, Vol. 1, p. 308. See R’ Chavel’s note on the bottom.
There are more sources, but it is quite clear that at least in the times of the geonim and the rishonim it was not considered kefirah to believe that aggados are not meant to be taken literally or even to deny things which are found within them.
Your point?
I know of a rav who once wished an elderly man “until on hundred and twenty”, and the guy looked at him and said “that’s it?” So the rav said “ok, may you live until 180”, and the guy was satisfied. Now he says 180 to everyone.
speech therapist
hair conditioner
delayed green
You could probably translate frum as ‘religious’. It pretty much has the same ambiguity.
Depends on who is using the term, and in what context…
Because they don’t care. Why would they, if they don’t believe in the Torah?
The gemara in the beginning of Sotah asks a question that we find two seemingly contradictory statements: 1) That 40 days before the fetus is formed a voice calls out saying whom he will marry; and 2) That making a shidduch is as difficult as splitting the sea. Now surely one could speculate and say different answers or reasons why it isn’t a question, BUT, the gemara answers by saying “ha bezivug rishon ha bezivug sheini”; that is, the 40 days thing is only for the first zivug, while a second marriage requires such difficulty to arrange being that it is not ‘bashert’, at least not in that sense. I think one could infer from this gemara that there aren’t two ‘basherts’ for one person. I don’t know why that would make any difference in the quality of the relationship though, and don’t see from the gemara that it would.
I am aware. If I had time I would cite the entire teshuva where he discusses this at length, but I just don’t have the time right now.
Popa-
I’m not so sure it’s not a lifnei iver issue. Find me a different makor.
LOL!!! That’s like the cemetery joke, why do they have locks on the cemetery gates – because people are dying to get in!
Lol, so someone finally gets my name. No, I’m in Lakewood. He moved back a couple of years ago and has a small shul in Lakewood.
lol, beseder
Ha gufa. You think it’s ok for anyone to walk around with graphic posters? Let’s start over. Meheicha teisi a woman has to wear any clothing, forget about a sheitel? Don’t quote me ervah, that’s just referring l’gabei devarim shebikdusha or issur histaklus.
waiting4mashiach-
The modern wig is a new invention, Chazal could not ban it.
Where exactly are you getting this information from. The gemara talks about ??? ????? and btw the Yerushalmi in Kesubos says that a woman is allowed to go out wearing what some translate as a wig.
Popa-
Chazal say that hair of a married woman is ervah, she is not showing her hair. Now, I don’t see any extreme insensitivity to tznius involved in wearing a sheitel.
L’halacha I do not think there is any problem with sheitels, but I have a problem with your line of reasoning. If a woman’s hair is ervah, I don’t know why she should be allowed to wear a shaitel. Would it be proper for her to wear a shirt with a lifelike picture of her body on it? It’s not her body, it’s just a shirt! I suppose you will answer me that ain hochi nami the shirt would not be ‘ervah’, but it’s assur because it will cause hirhur, which is not so by the sheitel. In that case I don’t know why she should need a sheitel in the first place, because I think I can present a solid argument that there is room to say that anything which the chachomim called ‘ervah’ but to us does not cause hirhur, loses its din ervah. And to say that without the sheitel there is more hirur than with the beautiful, lifelike sheitel, is very ???? to me.
I do not think the ikkar requirement for women to cover their heads has anything to do with hair being ervah, but that is a different discussion.
haifagirl-
I happen to agree to what I think is your unspoken point, but fyi according to the online dictionary http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/gender the term gender was used correctly according to the second definition.
From 8th grade through 12th I used the regular metzuda siddur and it’s still my favorite. And I got all the words!
Eclipse, please don’t stop posting. Nobody wants you to stop, and just because someone went a bit overboard shouldn’t convince you otherwise. I personally have been inspired by things you have posted.
Chesedname is male, unless he/she is a liar. See, for example, http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/breach-in-tznius-recent-affliction-attacking-klal-yisroel, a little over a quarter of the way down.
SJS, I started thinking about your post, and my brain started to fry…
My rav (Rav Yitzchak Abadi, in ??”? ??? ???? ?”? ??”? ??’ ??-??) brings a shtickel from a talmid that with regard to ????? one is allowed to throw them out, even according to the Rema who brings a Kol Bo and says ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????. His basis for this is a ???? that the Gra asks, and the words of the Kol Bo himself who writes ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????. He therefore explains that ????, throwing it in the garbage, is not the ????? the Rema refers to. In the second teshuva he has an arichus about problems with the ???? of the mechaber and the Rema and what exactly their shitos are, but ????? he comes out that the only problem of ??? ????? is for something like ?????, but not throwing in the garbage.
eclipse –
LOL. I didn’t even realize that my screen name could be read as yita something, it has nothing to do with the name Yita. It’s a rather corny yeshivishe play on words, that is, “ur tayning (claiming) what?” a yeshivishe phrase used to ask someone what he means to say.