Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I always whistle, because people tell me it attracts sheidim.
Want to hear something interesting? You can use the OUD non-dairy creamer in your coffee after eating meat.
It’s simple, really. If you look at the ingredient panel you’ll notice it says that it contains less than 2% milk (if you find one that doesn’t, this doesn’t apply). Now, bitul b’shishim is about 1.6% which is pretty close to that. But you aren’t drinking the creamer straight, you’re putting into your coffee. That means that there’s no chance that the milk won’t go under 1.6% of the total volume, which means it’ll automatically be batel! Normally we may not be mevatel lechatchila, but here you aren’t being mevatel any issur (the milk isn’t “issur”; you just can’t mix it with milk) so it’s allowed. (It is also possible that one is not allowed to do this type of bitul with the intention of mixing the final product with actual meat, but here that you are just drinking it after meat there is far more reason to be lenient.)
Others may disagree, but this is my opinion.
Pencil
rofl
Save a cow – eat a vegetarian.
mtydhd –
See here: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/kosher-travel
I had no clue it was a mistake. People always get cheaper tickets that time of year.
Yserbius123 – +1
Happy birthday
Syag – No worries, it’s all good 🙂
Sam – Yup.
Syag – Lol, no, I’m not. Do I come off as someone who would yell at you? If so, I apologize. I guess I need to change the way I express myself. I am so not the type to do that.
As for this thread, I’m out. I can’t deal with it. We are operating on different premises, so there’s no point.
mdd – Please, I don’t need you to tell me what to do. First of all, it’s not a daas yachid.* Second, it makes no difference if it would be, because I hold this is a davar pashut, and last time I checked numbers don’t determine Halacha. We are having a Halachic discussion and I am giving my honest opinion that I am confident about. Oh and FYI I’m in BMG. Not that I have something against YU.
*For example, the Chazon Ish (OC 16) was metzaded like the Aruch HaShulchan, R’ Moshe (Igros 1:42) relied on him, as does R’ Ovadia (Yabia Omer 6:13) and many others.
Health – This is not a woman. It’s a troll, and quite close to a type 2 at that. (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/a-study-in-trolls)
No comment to your Halachic statement.
No it’s not. If Rashi meant what you think then eyes would also be not tznius to reveal, because the same pasuk says ????? ?????. The Gemara is not trying to say that something inherently causes ????. The pesukim are asmachtas.
But now we are touching on the debate of whether there is anything inherently “ervah,” where I didn’t want to go. Suffice it to say that not all poskim are as sure as you that the Gemara means to say such a thing. For example there is the opinion of the Aruch Hashulchan that berachos may be recited in the presence of a married woman’s uncovered hair even though she is obligated to cover her hair; his reasoning is that while she is certainly still obligated to cover her hair, but since it is normal for people to see the hair of married women it has effectively lost its status of ervah.
mdd – Please don’t write in bold, it comes off as harsh. And I do not disagree that a woman may not dress in a way that will certainly cause men hirhurim assurim. But regarding this halacha it makes no sense to say that a specific area is by definition not tzniusdig, because it’s common sense that what causes hirhur is very subjective and can be different in every community. That was my point – that it’s all subject to the community norms (IOW what people are used to seeing), lechumra and lekula.
About the story in Berachos, again, of course there is such a thing as dressing in a way that is pritzus. My point is to say that there is no such thing as something being inherently not tznius. What is or isn’t tznius by definition takes into account the motivation and the way it is received.
I think we pasken like Shammai in your case.
What OneOfMany said.
I’ve met one.
Keep learning, it’ll teach you how to think properly. Then you’ll realize this is a faulty argument.
I’m going to step on my soapbox here for a minute.
Have fun, hopefully you won’t be nichshol anybody, read at your own risk… – Interrupting Mod
See, my question is – where does it say a woman has to wear anything at all? The answer is really nowhere. The only thing you’ll find is the fact that a woman dressing in an immodest fashion is grounds for divorce, but it doesn’t say anywhere “a woman is obligated to cover any area which is called erva.”
The discussion of erva in Halacha is about what causes men to become sidetracked and focus on certain thoughts, which one must avoid during kerias shema. This discussion is a good indicator of what is or isn’t modest for a woman to show, which is how it got caught up in the whole tznius sugya. But the truth is that the erva sugya is not about a woman covering up, and nowhere in that discussion is it mentioned that a woman is obligated to cover up.
A Jew dresses modestly. Modesty means developing your inner self to the extent that you don’t need other people’s validation every second of the day. Drawing attention to yourself by flaunting the physical side of you and playing on people’s base desires is the opposite of modesty. A truly modest person doesn’t need to dress that way. Modesty is something which enters into every area of life, of men and women. This is just how it pertains to dress, and particularly the way women dress.
Tznius is not about what is technically called erva (assuming there is such a thing). The sugya of erva was never meant to be brought into the tznius discussion as anything more than a conceptual comparison. Tznius is about the motivation behind what you are doing, and how it will be taken by others. It is very subjective, lechumra and lekula.
(And people who give specific, technical guidelines for tznius, and say that they are not subject to change, are machshil the community.)
With all due respect to R’ Wosner (I mean it); 1) there is no such thing as something which is “inherently beged ish” in relation to any practical Halacha; and 2) pants are not beged ish.
I don’t believe this is a woman.
It would be nice if you’d also mention the Rambam in the Halacha just prior to the one you quoted:
??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ????.
And the Sages also commanded that a person honor his wife more than himself, and love her like himself. And if he has a lot of money, he must add in her favor according to the money. And he should not place upon her excessive fear, and his words with her should be with patience; he shouldn’t act depressed or angry.
troll
It’s propaganda. Or a sales pitch, whichever you prefer.
I don’t think it’s a good idea.
It isn’t worth burning bridges.
BTW the Chizkuni brings another pshat that the pasuk is referring to the land, not her. IOW she turned around and saw that the land had become a pillar of salt and sulfur.
Lol Sam, of course.
Ignore.
Bustercrown –
If you want anything to change, I think you are going to have to confront him. At the same time, there is no point in confronting him if he is going to feel like you are judging him, ashamed of him, or if he even just gets the impression that you think he isn’t likely to change. If you confront him and are seriously looking for thinks to improve then you are going to have to make him feel that you believe in him and want to be with him, and that you will be with him every step of the way while he works on breaking this habit. If he doesn’t feel this then there’s no point in confrontation, but I think that confrontation is the only chance things will improve for you, so what I’m really saying is that you should work on yourself and your own attitude so that you’ll able to confront him in this healthy and productive way. Bitzzz (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/when-your-spouse-gets-outed/page/4#post-395805) has already enumerated various practical applications of this.
As I’ve said elsewhere – Pesachim 49b. It talks about stuff like killing trolls.
Also, Niddah 30b, because it says there that the chachamim used the scientific studies of their contemporaries to argue against a drasha.
on the ball –
Yes there is a chiluk. But without a halachic source, it is not a ‘mechalek’. You must admit that it is at least very possible that Rashi (from Chazal) meant any form of non-Jewish entertainment even non-violent and non-salacious ones. Ergo, you have no right to create an arbitrary limitation on his words just because you can identify a difference.
Funny how everyone throws around sevaros and doesn’t bother opening up an Halacha sefer. ‘Theaters and stadiums’ is mentioned in Toras Kohanim, and the Rambam (Lav 30) explains ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??????. The Bach (YD 178:5) says that the reason the Rambam didn’t explain them as referring to stam places of ???? and ?????? is because the context of the pasuk implies that it is only referring to ??????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????????, but theaters made stam for ???? and ?????? is not a ??? ????. The Gra (178:1) also brings down this Rambam. I don’t know anyone who argues. Therefore Sam’s definition of theaters and stadiums is actually very well-founded, and ???? ????? ????.
bitzzz – Excellent post.
According to Chazal, the original human was both male and female.
Vayikra Rabba 14:1 et al:
??? ?’ ????? ?? ????: ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ????. ??? ??? ????: ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????. ??????? ???: ???? ??? ????????! ??? ???: ???????, ??????: ????? ?????.
R. Shmuel bar Nachman said: When God created Adam, he created him androgynous. Reish Lakish elaborated: At the time [Adam] was created, two faces were created. Then they were split and two backs were made; a back for the male and a back for the female.
He answered: [Therefore what the Midrash said stands, because she was originally one side of the entire human; Hashem simply cut her side off and made them two separate persons.]
Accordingly, answers like ‘to help man’ only explain why the woman was split from the man (and that is where the Torah says it). They do not explain the purpose of her essence, which was created together with the man’s.
Shopping613 – Again, it’s not. The OP made it up.
hehe
Health – Yes, it is. No one is changing any laws with my twenty bucks. It will go from one person to the next, to the next, to the next, and then together with a million other dollars it might possibly be one of many factors in what causes whatever legislation you are referring to to be passed. And I have no idea which one of the seven mitzvos it would break anyway. Last I checked it was already legal for two people to do whatever they want in that regard. This is just about pride, which may be offensive to Torah values, but is not one of the seven mitzvos. If you have a hashkafic issue with it, fine. There is no question of issur though.
Spoiler alert!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
This is lifnei d’lifnei.
golfer, ever heard the expression “not relevant to the discussion”?
DY – He can’t even eat from his own shechita, ??? ????? ??? ???.
Mishkav zochor is in the same category as murder. Both are death penalty crimes.
By that logic, murdering one person and murdering a million people are in the same category as well.