SJSinNYC-

That’s a faulty argument. When that’s the case, you’ll have a good question. But in any other scenario, the fact remains that a man will have the capacity to do more for the world at large than a woman.

SJSinNYC and Trying my best –

If I understand SJS’s question correctly, it is if everyone can get schar for everything, why does saving a man come first?

I think the answer is as follows. Yes, everyone can get schar for everything. But the purpose of mitzvos is not only for the reward, it is also to create a certain atmosphere in the world, and that won’t happen unless people actually do the mitzvos. Saving specific lives isn’t about judging who ‘deserves’ to be saved, rather it’s about prioritizing who the world at large needs more. One who actually does the mitzvos is necessary for the betterment of the world more than one who only gets schar for them.

cherrybim-

I’m not sure what you meant.

‘Some consider it a chumra’ is not the same as ‘some are machmir.’ Being machmir means being stringent, and the term is not just used for ‘chumras’ per se, but for keeping any stringent position in halacha as opposed to a more lenient one. That’s just the nomenclature.

Thus, when I said some are machmir because of that I meant some hold l’halacha that it’s assur for that reason, not just a chumra. I am not noheig that way, but you asked Trying my best why one would differentiate between c.s. and other areas of kashrus, and I was merely clarifying the approach he/she* brought up.

*Sorry, I really can never figure out the gender of each person here – perhaps someone should suggest to the mods that next to each user name there should be an ‘m’ or an ‘f’.

I agree with Trying my best. That is, unless someone is capable of judging the matter for themselves, which I think to qualify one would have to be very knowledgeable in Torah and very disciplined.

WolfishMusings:

From a purely halachic standpoint I am not sure you’re right. The halacha you cited is only by a mitzvas aseh, and not by a lav. By the way the most one is required to spend is probably much less than 20%, see the Rosh and Tosafos to B.K. 9b. At any rate, everyone agrees that for a lav one is required to do whatever it takes as long as he is not putting himself in danger. One could possibly make the case, through an understanding of the difference on the d’oraysa level between a lav and an aseh with regard to this aspect, that an issur d’rabbanan (assuming there is an issur d’rabbanan on a woman not to dress in a provocative fashion) has the same status as a lav regarding this and not the status of an aseh.

heretofore-

Even if the SA has what to say, if the specific case is not in the SA one can only pasken through the gemara with the help of the rishonim. R’ Moshe and any other meikil in this area are understanding that this is the halacha based on what the gemara and the SA say. But anyway, I wasn’t talking about the halachic status of c.s. regarding paskening from the gemara, I was talking about the story which talks about chumras that one isn’t holding by. You won’t find in SA that he says you should keep an added chumra that you aren’t holding by, hence, the gemara is adequate proof that this is the way to be noheig until someone proves otherwise. As to whether c.s. is a chumra or halacha, we’ve already covered that at length and I’ve shared the views of my rabbanim and have seen and respect yours.

A ba’al nefesh is a person of exceptional yiras shamayim and discipline, literally a soul-master, and such a person knows when he reaches that level.

If the shul sanctions breaking halacha, it is not a kosher shul. If it does not, only the people there happen to not keep halacha, then as long as the services are done in a way that is al pi halacha, one may daven there. To define what is al pi halacha, learn shas and shulchan aruch or ask your rav.

The built on Shabbos sheilah is a separate sheilah, it has nothing to do with the fact that it is a shul. Depending on whether they told them to build it on shabbos or the builders just did it on their own and some other factors, it would be assur or muttar to enter any such structure, and you should ask your rav.

heretofore-

I’m sorry I was unclear, let me clarify: I did not hear specifically from R’ Moshe’s sons that it is assur to be machmir. What they did say was to the effect of “there is no reason for you (not me personally, you as in stam a person) to be machmir” and “don’t worry about it, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with it.” And they were speaking to choshuve bnei Torah who learn full-time in yeshiva. And I know firsthand that R’ Dovid consumes chalav stam on a regular basis, and when a friend of mine asked (with a bit of chutzpah) “Isn’t the Rosh Yeshiva a ba’al nefesh his father spoke of?” He replied half seriously “It’s not your business.” From my impression of his responses it seems to me that he is against being machmir in this area, but that is only my conjecture. However my personal rav, Harav Yitzchak Abadi, does happen to hold that way.

The story in the Gemara was not about the Zohar. The person was wearing black shoes as a sign of Aveilus for Yerushalayim, something he was not halachically required to do. Yes, there are 70 faces to Torah, but that is for expounding and drush, not for pshat, and I think the pshat is clearly indicative of my point, that in matters of issur v’heter one should not do more than what the halacha requires if he is not holding there.

I am not saying that you have to accept c.s. as l’chatchila or mutar gamur etc. On the contrary, if your rav disagrees you should follow him. I am just trying to inform you that there are those who disagree, and they are great people too, so you shouldn’t be dismayed when you see people being noheig differently than you.

d a-

There is a general gezeirah against listening to music which was decreed when the Beis Hamikdash was destroyed. (Gittin 7a, Sotah 44a) Some limit it to listening b’kvius, and their example is those who go to sleep to music. (See Rema O.C. 560) However the whole gezeirah is controversial as to what exactly it pertains to – if you look around people don’t seem to be keeping it. R’ Moshe for talks about it at length in the Igros, as do many recent poskim. One interesting shitah is the Chelkas Yoav who maintains that the entire gezeirah was never ‘chal’ on any kind of instrument that didn’t exist then, and so electric or recorded music would not be included at all. But there is a lot to discuss, and it isn’t something to pasken al regel achas, so my advice is to ask your rav.

qa-

You keep repeating yourself. Maybe if you elaborate on where you’re coming from with that statement, you might convince me.

There is no such thing as being mattir a davar assur. If anyone ‘finds a heter’ what they are saying is that there is a loophole in the halacha that allows this, and therefore according to the letter of the law it is fine. Sometimes there is room for a chumra, and when one uses the term ‘l’chatchila you shouldn’t eat x’ what they mean is that it is mutar but there is room for a chumra. Just because something was thought to be the halacha doesn’t make it the default position, which automatically de-legitimizes anyone who figure out that the assumption is incorrect. Someone who ‘finds a heter’ is simply demonstrating that the previous assumptions were incorrect.

I’m not sure if you are just arguing about semantics, but if you are not then in essence what you seem to be saying is simply that the gezeira d’rabbanan of chalav akum applies to chalav stam. That is something R’ Moshe, and many rabbanim disagree with, and if they didn’t they wouldn’t have ‘found a heter’.

qa

The gemara says that someone was once being machmir for aveilus on yerushalayim on a level that he was presumed not holding at, and the (Jewish) government threw him in jail. When they found out he was greater than they had thought he was and he really was holding there, they let him out. There are plenty such examples in the gemara where it clearly teaches that one who is not holding somewhere shouldn’t act as if he is. One must be makir mekomo. Otherwise, one can do all the chumras and get carried away with himself, thinking he is perfect when he actually has loads to work on. See Alei Shur, the chapter on self-knowledge, I am only repeating what he said. So there is much basis for those who say it is assur to be machmir if you aren’t a ba’al nefesh. Furthermore, this is the psak I have been given by my rav, and so I have heard first-hand besheim both R’ Dovid and R’ Reuven, so don’t just assume so simply that R’ Moshe didn’t hold this way.

Your logic that one is a ba’al nefesh until he proves himself otherwise is faulty too, because 1) a person is not born a ba’al nefesh, and 2) most people are not ba’alei nefesh, and therefore there is both a rov and a chazaka to refute your claim. Anyone who’s learned some gemara and poskim knows these are perfectly valid means of determining the halacha.

At most it’s an issur d’rabbanan, so obviously you weren’t over a lav b’dieved. According to you, why use the term l’chatchila? Just say it’s assur mid’rabbanan.

No it is not. I don’t know how much you know, but from what I know l’chatchila is a completely irrelevant term here, and if you want to make such a statement please explain it.

volvie-

The fact is that R’ Moshe’s sons say he held it was fine, even lechatchila. You can ask them and that’s what they’ll tell you. And I’m sure even you will agree that they have nemanus…

Volvie-

We aren’t relying on the non-Jew’s nemanus. We are relying on what is reasonable to assume. There is no need for eidus, so nemanus is irrelevant. This is commonplace in halacha.

That which you and others claim that R’ Moshe’s psak was only b’shaas hadchak is something both of his own sons, R’ Dovid and R’ Reuven disagree with. They both hold, besheim their father, that c.s. is lechatchila.

They need to find a rav they can trust and rely on him. Otherwise they will have to pasken everything for themselves, and if they are not qualified to do that they will have a hard time following halacha properly.

volvie –

One can argue that the fact remains that the stam store-owner is afraid to violate the law, and even if you find exceptions to the rule, halachically you don’t have to worry about it because in halacha we never say you need to be absolutely sure, only reasonably sure, especially with an issur d’rabbanan, and that much we are.

Also, please clarify that which you say c.y. is not a chumra but rather a lechatchila, because in this case there should be no difference.

jewish girl – You have a point when it comes to people who in principle do differently inside the house than outside. But many just do it practically, i.e. in truth they have no problem with c.s. but since they want people to eat in their house they only have c.y. at home. This kind of thing is fairly common in Israel with regard to different hashgachos; though many people eat, say, Rabbanut, they will only bring Badatz into their house so that more people will feel comfortable eating by them.

Another thing is that even among those who forbid c.s. there are those who say it’s only a chumra, not a halacha. In your own home you may want to keep this chumra, but when it is at the expense of another person’s honor it might not be the right thing, hence the “we only eat it at our grandparent’s house” rule.

On a side note, it is always important to know what is halacha and what is only chumra, especially for this kind of situation.

the.nurse – According to some, chalav Yisroel is preferable where it is readily available. However, my rav holds that there is no preference whatsoever, and there are other prominent rabbanim who hold the same way. I’m not saying everyone should be noheig that way – everyone should follow their rav. But this is why many people don’t bother specifically buying chalav yisroel.

Harav Yitzchak Abadi says it’s fine. However in general I don’t think the right approach to halacha is to seek heteirim without knowing the sugya. I would advise you to get a reliable rabbi and follow him consistently, lekula and lechumra.

cherrybim – If we could decipher it why wouldn’t we be able to reproduce it? Even if we don’t have the exact instruments we could still know the tunes and the basic arrangements.

wolfishmusings – I never said it’s a given. I only said it’s possible.

cherrybim – Most frum people who sing in choirs are memorizing relatively simple songs and harmonies. But for a large orchestra where each person has to do his own ‘kneitch’ on his particular instrument at different places in each song, and has to be told what to do by the one arranging the music, it is unheard of that each one of the musicians simply memorizes his part. The levi’im had a fairly large orchestra, it wasn’t just singing (see Arachin 10a-11a), so it’s hard for me to believe they didn’t use some form of notation.

That which you say these notes would be meaningless in terms of recreating the sound is not true at all, first of all the same way there are people who can decipher old languages they could probably figure out this too – and they do, as we have songs from ancient Greece. Second of all it’s probably easier to decipher a musical language because there are a limited number of scales and it’s all mathematical; all you’d need to do is guess a little bit until it makes sense.

goody613 – Actually, I was not going to use that to prove my point because the halacha is that shiros ve’tishbachos are not assur. However I saw that the Rambam, when bringing the halacha, says a lashon “ukvar nahagu kol yisroel lomar divrei tishbachos…”, which I think implies that this is new, but originally they were not noheig like that, as you said. Thank you.

cherrybim and wolfishmusings – There’s no way you can know that the songs weren’t written down. How do you think they got all the levi’im musicians to memorize their roles? It would make sense that they had music sheets. They probably just got lost, that’s all. That which wolfishmusings says notational systems did not exist in Dovid’s time is not accurate, in fact there are musical notes preserved from ancient Greece from just about that time.