Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
why isn’t this your daughter’s fault?
that’s the Jewish way.
ideally, random individuals would never be involved. Any coercion can only be carried out by beis din or its formal agents.
birdson- I think it’s inaccurate to state that a yeshivah like KBY is “closer to the yeshivish model.” While the learning is definitely more serious there than at other MO american yeshivos in Israel, the kids going aren’t yeshivish at all (although some rebbeim are).
the gemara itself (berachos 8) gives a rule to go by: gadol haneheneh miyegia kapav yoser miyirei shamayim. there is intrinsic value to working. While I think this gemara is a guzmah, you could interpret it literally to mean that a worker is a better Jew than a yirei shamayim who does not work.
it’s a machlokes that dates to way earlier than the rishonim, In an interview published in Ami a while ago, a YU professor (I forget who) said that archaeologists have found 2 complete pairs of tefillin in the bar kochva caves that they could actually open without damaging them. One was ordered according to Rashi, the other according to Rabbeinu Tam.
Also, if DY (and the rema http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14170&st=&pgnum=80)
are right that the order is meakev, then wearing 2 pairs isnt a halachic issue at all. if it was really about a chashash of being yotzei bedieved, then you would make a beracha on both pairs and wear both for kerias shema.
Joseph reads shakespeare?! or this like the rashi on the ephod, that once in his life hashem caused him to see a noblewoman riding by on a horse, just so he’d know what the ephod looked like?
thats just not true. why the guzma?
the thing to lose is if people take this very seriously and then have real yeiush or a detraction in emunah if they don’t get what they want.
Joseph- the privileges depend on the family and circumstance, obviously, but the logic remains the same.
what Jews other than rubashkin need justice? also, there isn’t anything we could possibly do for rubashkin anyway other than a presidential pardon.
discipline will change post-12/13, but the concept is the same. for example, if your 15 year old son stays out too late, you should certainly have a conversation with him about your rules, safety, the negative influence of peers, bitul zman, etc. if he doesn’t listen to you, then can take away a privilege like using your car or something.
in my experience, women like the creamy, sauce-drenched herring, while the men who eat it at all generally prefer the real shmaltz stuff.
Rambam says it best:
??????????? ??? ???????–????? ??????????? ?????????? ????????, ????? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ?????????–??????? ??????????? ??????? ?????? ???????, ????????? ??? ???????? ??????????? ??????, ??????????? ????????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????????, ???????????? ???????? ???????? ??????.
1. discipline in private.
2. speak b’nachas.
3. explain to them very clearly why they are wrong (don’t just say “because I said so.”)
here is what rashi says: ?????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?????. baruch shekeivanta.
interesting midrash. I wonder though about the cases where obesity actually leads to bad health problems, heart attacks, etc. In those instances, it would seem to me that a person does have bechirah. Ironically, sometimes weight is a choice, in the literal sense of “uvacharta bachaim.” Dying prematurely because of poor eating/exercise choices is due to a person’s own choice *not* to live a healthy life (something that rambam in hilchos deios says is really really important). So since weight affects life expectancy, it does fall under the category of kol maasecha l’sheim shomayim, since hashem expects us to make choices to maximize life.
The phrase probably dates back to a time where there were less rabbis and more emphasis on local minhag. Thus, in a given town, you would have one or two poskim recognized by all, who determined the practices of that town. nowadays, plenty of people have semicha and minhag hamakom doesn’t really exist in america (see rav moshe’s teshuvah abt tefillin on c”hm on this).
Sam- it is mutar to have children with a pilegesh, but it’s unlikely that any woman would agree to that arrangement. having kids without a kesubah is just stupid.
beautiful message. one tiny edit: your girsa should be nihiyeh (everything continues and will continue to be) as opposed to nihiyah (everything came to be).
of course you should leave. how can you make it a matzav if the guys are slackers, you have a bad chavrusa, and you don’t like your rebbe? This is gonna be a long zman (winter+ibber yohr), so I suggest you back out now and not waste the next 5 months. Hatzlacha.
They know you are allowed to hypothetically, but they don’t know if you are in any specific situation (unless they are a mind-reader).
Hakatan- My diyuk is pretty fair. Both statements A and B are objectively true, based on how the halachos of avodah zarah work. It’s very simple. The Zionist flag is objectively the “key symbol and object” of the movement. Acc. to the shitah that it’s a”z, then objectively, the flag becomes an object of a”z. Just like the cross is an object of a”z. Since Rav Moshe doesn’t say this, he must think the movement isn’t a”z.
In regard to the charedi-chardal split, they disagree on very important points. Chardal people serve in the army, learn in hesder yeshivas, pursue work, strongly promote living in settlements, follow the messianic zionist views of Rabbi Tzvi Yehudah Kook, etc. Most chareidim do none of these things, and think a lot of them are stupid, or even heretical. I hope that explains the friction.
Edited for respect to Rabbonim.
Hakatan- “That the flag is not A”Z doesn’t make Zionism itself any less idolatrous.”
Forgive me, but yes it does!! In that teshuvah, Rav Moshe clearly calls the tziyonim reshaim (as opposed to ovdei a”z), but just as clearly says the flag isn’t an object of a”z. If he really felt zionism was a”z, then the key symbol and object of zionism, the Israeli flag, should be considered an object of a”z, just like the Xtian cross, is an object of a”z. Would you daven in a shul with a cross? No! Then why would you daven in a shul with an Israeli flag, unless you believed it was *not* the object of an idolatrous movement?
Joseph- lol I didn’t think of that,re the women being published complaining. I guess there should be some basic guidelines along what rebyidd was saying– maybe make a under 10/over 65 rule? tznius included, of course.
Hakatan: if it is not tznius for an elderly, ‘well-dressed’ woman to be featured in a magazine, shouldn’t the same be true for men? When histaklus and harchakos of ervah are out of the question, then the rules of tznius are the same for both genders. Should they take out pictures of men too, per your reading of hatzneia leches?
forget the “loudmouths,” this is about halacha. That’s why I think the papers are holding like the shitah that even minimal histaklus is assur, rather than holding the meikil shitah and making the lo plug you just described.
DY- maybe, but if they really held that a quick glance is mutar, then they could probably publish headshots of women who are older and tznius, like Oomis’s point about rebbetzin kanievsky.
Kol Hator is not authentic. See Rav Shternbuch (who is a descendant and actual follower of the Gr”a’s traditions) on the topic here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20027&pgnum=414&hilite=
Also, I have a question for Hakatan, based on Rav Moshe’s teshuvah (oc 1:46) that it is mutar to daven in a shul with an israeli flag. he claims it is mutar to have the flag there because the flag is a d’var chol, and even if the original tzionim were reshaim (his words), the flag itself is not a symbol of avodah zarah. Rav Moshe seems to go against your view that zionism is avodah zarah, no?
the gemara on avodah zarah 20b says that histaklus is assur (whether the issur is midirabanan or midioraisa is a machlokes). later rishonim/acharonim argue over if histaklus refers to just a quick glance or a long, intentional gaze. mistama, the frum papers hold strictly (probably to satisfy their client base) that even a glance is assur, and since they *don’t* want to be oiver on mesayeh l’aveirah and *do* want to prevent histaklus, they refrain from publishing the pictures.
Yakut Yosef is great, and there is an English version too!
Rama (o.c. 128:45) says we don’t duchan in chu”l every day because simcha is a precondition for duchaningm and we are only truly b’simcha on yom tov. Also, there’s a story somewhere that the Gra tried to reinstitute birkas kohanim and then the shul burned down, so he stopped it.
don’t know, but why does this affect your kavanah?
Avi is correct; see biur hagra orach chaim 31:2 where the gra spells this out.
This is actually one of the few hot button issues where R’ Schachter and Agudah agree 100%. That said, having talked to more than a few former YU students, I doubt that 90% of their students agree about this. I think I remember them publishing an article in their newspaper from a professor arguing that there’s no issue with women wearing tefillin.
Has Rav Shteinman said/written anything about the shachar program?
R. Wilig’s prenup came out a few years after Rav Moshe was niftar, so it’s hard to know how he would’ve felt about it. Even given his opposition to all prenups, it’s not muchrach that he’d oppose this one b/c the prenups in his day were all from Conservative ‘batei din.’ To prove that he’d disapprove, you have to show that the newer prenup is the same thing as the conservative ones halachically and makes the same mistakes. I wish Rav Moshe was around back then….
CC learns iyun especially slowly; the joke made when a guy leaves CC is that he wanted to ‘get out of the box’ (the one on every 2a…). They also seem to take mussar more seriously than a lot of yeshivos I know and it was originally founded by R’ Dovid Leibowitz, who had a kesher to slabodka, but I’m not sure if that affects their learning today.
You can use a knife to take off a tag from an item of clothing, and it isn’t makes b’patish since the tag wasn’t originally part of the clothing, and was temporary. See shemiras shabbos ehilchasa 15:63.
Also, while I thought it was obvious, I don’t support wife beating. This is a theoretical argument on how to read a rambam, with zero l’maaseh applications.
DY- I hear you. Was Rambam writing this halacha ;’maaseh, that batei din today have the (potential) power to beat a woman who doesn’t want to do work?
In any case, Raavad says ????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????, beis din or no beis din, and the Shulchan Aruch does not mention beating her at all. I wonder why they would object to a husband taking his wife to beis din, on your reading.
Right– why *doesn’t* the SA specify the means of compulsion? Mistama he doesn’t hold like rambam that a physical beating is allowed through any means (if he did, he would’ve said ????, davka). Moreover, he doesn’t mention anything about beis din, so I don’t think the Mechaber holds like your reading of rambam either.
Additionally, I’m not sure that ???? implies malkos beis din; rambam could’ve said you give her malkos in a more common way, and rambam is very very meduyak in his lashon.. Finally, raavad understands the rambam literally. So which “nearly all” meforshim are you referring to?
Also, could you answer my question (for the 3rd time) of whether your wife washes your hands, feet and face, or if you take a shower? If you take a shower, why are you mochel on your kavod, and is that even mutar?
Joseph- A pshat reading of the Rambam would say that he permits a physical beating. What’s the sevara to say read Rambam non-literally? The Raavad seemed to understand Rambam to be literally referring to wife-beating, which is why he rejects it. Also, the Mechaber in S”A Does not mention anything about wife-beating, court or no court. Why not?
And even granting that, you didn’t answer if your wife washes your hands, feet, and face, or if you take a shower?
Joseph- ein hacha nami. Rambam is a real source, and a halachic one to boot. All I objected to was you defending the authenticity of an article in a magazine that I’m skeptical ever existed. And on the rambam, I’ll just point out that it seems like the olam isn’t noheg like him in this issue. For example, does anyone here force their wife to do housework? If so, have you ever forced her through a physical beating, which rambam permits (raavad disagrees)? Does your wife wash your hands, feet, and face in the morning, or do you take a shower? it seems like husbands have been mochel on all these things.
Actually, the Internet does have information on nearly every nook and cranny. And besides, it’s laughable that you blindly accept the claim of an anonymous commenter to the point that you think the conversation is moot. It sounds like you have an agenda just as much as snopes does.
Joseph- the internet has information on all sorts of people, things, books, and magazines that existed before it was created. that’s not so relevant. It’s reasonable to expect to find at least a bit of evidence of Housekeeping Monthly from google if it really existed. there are archives and such.