Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Yserbius123
“There was an issue in Monsey over סוכות where the eruv around the קרפוף was found to have fallen down and no one was able to say how long it had been down for as that part wasn’t checked weekly. This upset a lot of people as the reliance on the קרפוף to begin with was done in a way that relied on קוּלות.”Right, and there where issues with certain schita’s, did everyone stop eating meat? Why when it comes to eruvin are people more chumradig? It’s simple people do not know the inyan at all.
@Gadolhadorah
“The BMG crowd may not “want” an eruv because Rabbi Kotler et. al. were against it but in general, if there are those who want to build one using public utility poles etc, it can be done. It would be a real chilul hashem for some yidden in Lakewood to intervene with public authorities against an eruv when yidden in other towns have been the target of anti-Semitic opposition to their efforts to place an eruv on utility poles and lampposts.”Well said. Please all hotheads take note. Actually there is precedent, London 1993.
@ubiquitin: Who was speaking to you? Most of what I wrote was not addressed to you.
“Seriously, what is your agenda, money?”
More likely you are an obstinate person.
No, Rabbi Kaganhoff is entitled to his opinion. However, I am entitled to call him out when he errs. Such as his incorrect reading of the Yeshous Malko, and the Rema, and his misunderstand of the malachah of gozeiz. In any case, most of his arguments are not new.
You simply miss my point regarding Teshuvos V’Hanhagos. You don’t get the politics surrounding it. I stand by my argument, it is a krankeit to cite Brisker Torah l’halacha.
You don’t understand mesorah, and halacha psuka. Its not your fault, its a Brisker thing. There is no chance that you are not yotze.
I cite sources that there is halachic proof, but you are more interested in arguing that the main proof is scientific. More to come later.
By the way, no one is expecting the world to wear techeles.
@yekke2:
The answer to the first part of your argument is simple — when people argue from a lack of knowledge they don’t deserve respect. Most of those who are debating the inyan here, have no inkling of what the are talking about (some even admit it).Furthermore, it is no raayah what is mentioned in Teshuvos V’Hanhagos, since the Brisker don’t consider him one of them.
The only thing staggering is your chulent of those who are considered Manhigei Hador. I should add that it is interesting that those “Manhigei Hador” who did/do wear techeiles are those who are of the type to be mevakesh.
I think your additional questions are off the mark.
1) Pronunciation is mesorah. There is no need to be yotzeh other peoples mesorah when you have your own. However, as mentioned by others previously, mesorah in halacha means a derech in p’sak — how to go about paskning, not what to paskin (some here misunderstood this, I am not referring to halacha p’suka, but only to those issues that have not yet been finalized, such as this issue). Besides, one does not need a mesorah on metzious only on oifes (as the Maharil says we can find techeles). Furthermore, even according to your erroneous belief, I argue we do have a mesorah from no less than kadmonim (among others R’ Avrahom Harofe and the Chavas Yair).Moreover, your entire premise is incorrect. Not donning techeiles is akin to not saying kreis shema at all, whereas, wearing techeles is considered as accepting one pronunciation.
2) What? This is not a matter of being machmir, only of being mevatel a mitzvah. This is no different then any other mitzvah that I try to be mekayim, and therefore, there is no other motivation.
I believe most people on this tread are not oseik in halacha, and therefore, have little knowledge of what I am referring to.
Wow, there is so much to unpack here, but I simply won’t spend the time on all of it, The arguments range from those mentioned by Rabbi Kaganoff to pure drivel. All of Rabbi Kaganoff’s arguments are not original (besides maybe one of them), and have been answered. Moreover, some of them are simply incorrect, such as his argument in the name of the Yeshuos Malko (please read it in the original and you will see that he says no such thing). Furthermore, some of his claims stem from a lack of knowledge of the metzious.
@ubiquitin
I said: “and making use of scientific inquiry to buttress an halachic argument.”
You argue: “You have that exactly backwards.”OK I will play the game too. You have it exactly backwards.
ubiquitin: ”I disagree. IT is about academic research to decide a halacha. You cna say the CI was wrong, you can say here he’d agree. but they are certainly related.”
Simply inane. There is a vast difference between using new manuscripts to uproot halacha p’suka, and making use of scientific inquiry to buttress an halachic argument.
Rabbi Kaganoff: “Obviously, I am not the first one to note these difficulties with the process of extracting dye from Murex trunculus. However, the responses I have seen to answer these questions are tenuous. It should also be noted that the descriptions used by Chazal to identify the chilazon are not a very smooth fit to Murex trunculus.”
The only thing tenuous is to do your research and then you will see that b’mechlas toraso Rabbi Kaganoff is incorrect.
This is the back and forth, ubiquitin: “I dont think i am saying anything that crazy. Here it is in short. We practice the way our parents practiced we dont introduce new innovations even if they seem correct.”
To which I answered, “You simply miss the point. This issue is not innovation.”
And then you answered, “That is one issue. there are others.”
I think that this just demonstrates that you are a moving target.
ubiquitin: “Yes obviously. Do you think I meant the chazon Ish would have held if a munuscript says not to do avodah zarah, we should all start? I meant the Chazon Ish didnt support uprooting existing practice based on manuscripts.”
Just to quote someone, “Then it was abit dishonest for you to leave it out.” In any case, this issue has nothing to do with manuscripts.
I wrote, “This should never be said over in his name. This statement reflects extremely poor on him.”
To which you answered, “you are without question entitled o your opinion. I (and r’ Yoshe ber) disagree”
Right, the Rambam manuscript from that same genizah is also from the garbage. This just demonstrates that when a Brisker makes an argument, the facts are irrelevant. The entire premise that genizah is a garbage can, is ridiculous, and simply not true.
yekke2: “I think the answer to this is R’ Chaim’s vort. R’ Chaim explained that ספק דאורייתא לחומרא only obligates an action that will remove you from the ספק. For example – nobody who davens Nusach Ashkenaz will say Krias Shema in Sefardi or Temani pronunciation, although it is a חיוב דאורייתא and there is certainly a chance that the Temani mesorah is correct. So why doesn’t ספק דאורייתא לחומרא obligate you to say Shema in as many pronunciations as you can? The answer is – since even after you say Shema a second time, you still will not have ודאי been yotze the chiyuv, you are not obligated.”
Besides for which this vort is probably kneged halacha (as mentioned by Tom Dick n Harry) and that its only cited in Rav Chaim name, we have to stop using these Brisker vertelech in halachic arguments. Its important to note, Rav Nissan Telushkin — who was a Talmud of R’ Baruch Baer Leibowitz — wrote in Taharat Mayim (p. 89 see note on the bottom of the page) that Rav Chaim on the Rambam was not intended as a halacha sefer. Brisker are the ones who are messing up the mesorah with all these extracurricular arguments.
DaasYochid: “Actually, some of his points are relevant to murex as well.”
Since you seem to know the Yeshuos Malko so well, why don’t you share with us how his teshuva is relevant to the murex. Why so ambiguous?
ubiquitin: “I dont think i am saying anything that crazy. Here it is in short. We practice the way our parents practiced we dont introduce new innovations even if they seem correct.”
You simply miss the point. This issue is not innovation.
ubiquitin:
“The Chazon ish was opposed to paskening based on manuscripts.”This is one of the most often misquoted statements said in the name in the Chazon Ish. Of course the CI allowed the use of manuscripts. The CI did not allow for the uprooting of halacha pesuka with a manuscript.
R’ Yoshe Ber said we dont pasken from Genizahs (what he called the garbage can).
This should never be said over in his name. This statement reflects extremely poor on him. Maybe the Rambam’s manuscript from the genizah is also garbage c”v.