June 20, 2013 3:59 pm at 3:59 pm #962056
popa- we quite obviously disagree on many fronts. First, what do you consider “apikorsus”? Pray, tell me, what part of Torah that is obligatory, do I deny? If I disagree with any saying of a Rov ,does that make me “apikorus”?
As far as the “shulchan aruch”, for the umpteenth time, I said that what is in the shulchan aruch is obligatory,.Nothing else. And your remark about shemita is false. The “Aruch Hashulchan” has a whole chelek on “mitvos hatluyos bo-oretz”. R” Yossef Karo did not address it because it was not relevant at the time. The Rambam, by contrast, writes about every halocho (including korbonos,btw) even it is not applicable today. Please tell me what ,in the examples I gave, is obligatory?June 20, 2013 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm #962057
I’m still not convinced they meant to malign Rav Ovadiah along with the thugs.
But, even if I am correct about that, I agree with PBA and disagree with Sam2 that the intended audience of the letter makes any difference.
As I posted earlier, PBA’s discussion with ROB about halacha is not going anywhere because, in ROB’s view, halacha conforms to ROB’s ideals (including Zionism), not the other way around.
ROB cannot even admit that the three oaths are halacha (which even “Religious Zionist rabbis” bring down and, unfortunately, bring fallacious arguments to get around them). So it seems ROB certainly can’t admit that lo sasuru and lo sikrivu, are halacha.
He keeps repeating the Zionist lie that the opinions both ways are well settled. I suppose Korach was also well-settled in his opinion against Moshe Rabbeinu, until he did teshuva after the ground opened up. Zionism is not “Eilu viEilu”, even though the Zionists really wish that to be true. Zionism is treif and shmad.
The Brisker Rav said the State is the Satan’s greatest achievement since the eigel. Rav Elchonon Wasserman said Zionism/Nationalism is Avoda Zara. Zionists think they know better, and most probably don’t even know just how much Zionism is shmad.
As the Brisker Rav observed, it is not that the Zionists shmad in order to have a State; rather, they need a State in order to shmad. This is clear to anyone who has read Herzl’s writings, knows the history of Zionism and observes what goes on in Israel even until today.June 20, 2013 4:12 pm at 4:12 pm #962058
popa- we quite obviously disagree on many fronts. First, what do you consider “apikorsus”? Pray, tell me, what part of Torah that is obligatory, do I deny?
I don’t know. You need to clarify what you re talking about, and then we’ll see. So far, it seems you deny shemita, but then you took that back, but in doing so destroyed your entire premise, so I can’t really tell.
As far as the “shulchan aruch”, for the umpteenth time, I said that what is in the shulchan aruch is obligatory,.Nothing else.
That is definitely apikorsus.
And your remark about shemita is false. The “Aruch Hashulchan” has a whole chelek on “mitvos hatluyos bo-oretz”.
Very troubling. You should be aware that the Aruch Hashulchan, and the Shulcan aruch are different works published by different people. I realize the names are confusing though.
lakewoodfellow: As an aside the Oi Limie Shlamdo Torah part of the letter is clearly going on the Bochrim who attacked Rav Stav at Rabbi Rabbinowitz’s Daughter’s wedding.
That is not clear at all. To the contrary, the simple reading is as I am reading it. If you are correct, I expect them to issue a clarification and apology.June 20, 2013 4:37 pm at 4:37 pm #962059Feif UnParticipant
HaKatan, what does Zionism have to do with this discussion? I think that it’s like it was said before, you’ll look for any excuse to attack Zionists, probably because your sad life was affected by Zionists in some way.
Now just come out and say you agree with the letter because R’ Yosef is a Zionist, and therefore you think he’s an apikores. It’s obvious from your posts that you feel that way, so why not come straight out and say it?June 20, 2013 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm #962060Lakewood FellowMember
I read the letter and disagree. I think it’s clear that is reffering to the thugs at the wedding.
The point is thatthat it is not our place to stick our personal opinions or comments in on fights that go on between Talmidie Chachomim and Gedolim.
Most people understand this when it comes to fights between earlier Gedolim Like Yaavetz and RY”E (where as I said earlier the things Yaavetz were saying was a whole lot worse then anything being said in these modern fights…)I don’t understand why people who claim to respect Talmidei Chachomim think they can stick their heads into modern fights between towering Talmidie Chachomim when it is about Zionisim…..June 20, 2013 4:53 pm at 4:53 pm #962061
I read the letter and disagree. I think it’s clear that is reffering to the thugs at the wedding.
It is a subjective understanding; I certainly cannot prove to you which way is clear. At the very least, I can state that many people are reading it like I am, and that the authors are aware of that (I made them aware), and that therefore they should publicly state so if it isn’t what they meant.
Feif: I agree; this has nothing to do with Zionism.June 20, 2013 4:58 pm at 4:58 pm #962062
popa-I don’t know you at all but you have a real gift of twisting other people’s words. I never denied shemita-these are your words. And, please, I am as familiar as you with the “Aruch hashulchan” (by Rav Epstein)- it is the one with a chelek on “mitvos ho-oretz” ! Don’t insult my intelligence.
And can you tell me why it is ‘apikorsus” to say that anything that is not in the shulchan aruch is not obligatory??
HaKatan: Enough said. Please show me where the three oaths are considered “halacha”.June 20, 2013 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #962063Sam2Participant
PBA: I don’t think that it was okay to say in private either. I just think that it having been said in private means that there’s no need to make such a strong (or any) statement like you are against it.June 20, 2013 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #962064
Sam: I agree with you to an extent. But at the same time, now that it has been made public, I think they need to clarify and disavow it.
You should email them. Tell them.June 20, 2013 6:23 pm at 6:23 pm #962065
im not so keen about getting involved in this thread. id just like to point out to ROB the inyan of menuval bi’rishus hatorah. its real, and really bad. and, as far as i know, not in the S”A.June 20, 2013 8:40 pm at 8:40 pm #962066
toi- “menuval birshus hatorah” “Man dekar shemei”? we are talking about allowing individuals to make their own decisions on matters that are not mentioned in shulchan aruch. Nothing to do with your quote! (which comes from the ramban,btw)June 20, 2013 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #962067
Nothing to do with your quote! (which comes from the ramban,btw)
No matter how many times you insist it, the Rambam will never be part of the shulchan aruch. I assure you this is true–you may look on wikipedia if you don’t believe me. (Actually, let me go change it so it is.)June 20, 2013 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #962068
Rob- im fully aware of the mekkor, thank you.
My point was, this ramban is exactly addressing what you are speaking about. there are things that arent brought down in S’A and if one does them, they are considered a minuval. in other words, your free choice to do or not do things that arent required by halacha can give you the title minuval. voila.June 20, 2013 9:25 pm at 9:25 pm #962069
Everyone look at wikipedia page for the Rambam. It is under Mishne Torah.
I updated it to reflect ROB’s opinion that it is part of the shulchan aruch.June 20, 2013 9:39 pm at 9:39 pm #962070
pba- you are retarded.June 20, 2013 9:41 pm at 9:41 pm #962071🐵 ⌨ GamanitParticipant
nopes, semi-retardedJune 20, 2013 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm #962072
And of course i cross-referenced the same thing on the Shulchan Aruch page, so that it would be self sourcing.June 20, 2013 10:57 pm at 10:57 pm #962074
toi= but this is exactly th point- you may be called a “menuval” you still are “birshus hatorah”!June 20, 2013 11:15 pm at 11:15 pm #962075
I didn’t fix the cross reference.June 20, 2013 11:19 pm at 11:19 pm #962076
Now I did.June 21, 2013 3:56 am at 3:56 am #962077
ROB, there are Torah-true and obligatory directives which come out from divrei Chazal, Rambam and other Gedolim. Not everything is brought down in the S.A. I am sorry to tell you this — but you just have not learnt enough.June 21, 2013 3:57 am at 3:57 am #962078
ROB, there are Torah-true and obligatory directives which come out from divrei Chazal, Rambam and other Gedolim. Not everything is brought down in the S.A. I am sorry to tell you this — but you just have not learnt enough.June 21, 2013 6:17 am at 6:17 am #962079
ya know, i didnt think of it like that. wanna get totally smashed tonite?June 21, 2013 7:33 am at 7:33 am #962080
Clever clever. But not as clever as me. Do you think I would not realize that I was making my IP public, and would do that if the information gave anything away about me?June 21, 2013 7:48 am at 7:48 am #962081
Boo to DY and yossiea for fixing my vandalism.June 21, 2013 11:33 am at 11:33 am #962082
ROB, about the “noval be’rshus ha’Torah” — wrong again. Ramban brings down the concept under the mitsvah of “Kedoshim tihyu”.June 21, 2013 12:19 pm at 12:19 pm #962083
PBA, that post was never approved so how do you know what I posted?June 21, 2013 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm #962084
PBA, that post was never approved so how do you know what I posted?
Let’s examine some of the choices.
1. I am a prophet.
2. I am the son of a prophet (and she told me)
3. I am a moderator.
4. I am the son of a moderator (and she told me).
5. I am dating a moderator (and used her login).
6. It was approved, and then deleted overnight.
In either event, the implication you drew was wrong. I don’t have an affiliation with the organization you mentioned.
And in either event, was that a very nice thing for you to do? Please don’t answer; just consider it.June 21, 2013 2:17 pm at 2:17 pm #962085
When I posted it I never thought it would get approved. Since every post is moderated, I knew that the post would be read by a moderator.
I presumed it would be edited and then one of the mods would have insered a snarky comment.
Which brings up an interesting point, if we know that 100% of the posts are moderated, does that make us or the mods ultimately responsible for a harmful post? Say I post that arsenic is good for your health and if you take a tablespoon of arsenic it will cure all diseases. Who is responsible for the hundreds of dead vaccine-free kids who follow such stupid advice? The poster or the one who approved the post? I think legally, it would be YWN but I’m not sure halachically.June 21, 2013 2:28 pm at 2:28 pm #962086
mdd: You are certainly right in saying that I have not learned enough! As far as the matter of “novol birshus hatorah”, check the Ramban and you will see that he quotes this as a matter of extra kedusha, even as it is actually muttar (allowed). Clearly, he deals with matters that are allowed as per halacha but the Torah asks us to do something extra. Other rishonim disagree but this is the Ramban. Nonetheless, this Ramban has little to do with the our subject- which is whether one can use his/her own mind in “milei d’alma”.June 21, 2013 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #962087avrahParticipant
I am not attempting to be controversial , however if strikes me from this thread that the MO have no definition. The Chareidim define themselves as those who listen to their Gedolie Hador and that is true across the board. We respect what Rav Ovadiah Yosef says, and even if it doesn’t sit well with us; we understand his Daas is the manifestation of all of his Torah, and there is no argument to be made that anyone has more knowledge of Torah than him. However, the MO base themselves on their own understanding of the situation, hence it reflects the prejudice of the era. 100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul, now that varies based upon opinion.
I have no opinion of Rabbi Stav, and I don’t need to. Rav Ovadiah Yosef only commented on him when the potential that he would hold a position that would affect others. That isn’t a personal attack, it is defending what Rav Ovadiah holds dear. An attack on the person of Rav Ovadiah isn’t a defense, for a defense would state the RCA backing Rabbi Stav. Only a defense of one who is trying to stop an opposing force from entering must attack, therefore Rav Ovadiah had to attack. The defense of the RCA should have only dealt with Rabbi Stav himself. In regards to Rabbi Shachter and Rabbi Willig, I will not say in their name what I have no source for.June 21, 2013 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #962088
avrah: your post is incomprehensible. First of all, the so-called “modern orthodox” name is an american invention and has absoluterly no traction in israel. You can speak about “dati leumi”- which means ‘religious national” and you would be correct.
Secondly- you don’t think that different generations impel different solutions? Did RSR Hirsch adapt to the nineteenth century? Did the early yeshivos in america -having limudei chol through high school- adapt to the americna model? Did the baal shem tov adapt to the problems of eighteenth century russia?
Of course, they all did. It is “jiftoch bedoiro and shmuel bedoiro” Every generation has its challenges. And -just for your attention- the matter of women in religion does pose a new challenge that was not here a hudnred years ago. How to solve it is the present generation’s role.
As far as Rav Ovadia shelita- yo udon’t tbhink his language was intemperate?June 21, 2013 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #962089
“The Chareidim define themselves as those who listen to their Gedolie Hador and that is true across the board.”
Yet you are posting on YWN.June 21, 2013 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #962090
Of course, they all did. It is “jiftoch bedoiro and shmuel bedoiro” Every generation has its challenges
That isn’t in the shulchan aruch.June 21, 2013 6:41 pm at 6:41 pm #962091
Popa , I did try to leave a zecher of your vandalism, but yossiea took it out.June 21, 2013 8:20 pm at 8:20 pm #962093
DY: thanks, I noticed that.June 23, 2013 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm #962094charliehallParticipant
“100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul”
Ever hear of Rebecca Gratz? She lived a bit longer than 100 years ago!June 23, 2013 5:07 pm at 5:07 pm #962095benignumanParticipant
“100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul.”
That is a poor argument. Not contemplating something in the past doesn’t mean that thing is bad. 100 years ago nobody contemplated frum EMT services, the Modern Kollel system, seminaries in Israel, cell phones, cds, etc. ect.
Your argument would be better if poskim did think about it 100 years and rejected it.June 23, 2013 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm #962096
Ever hear of Rebecca Gratz? She lived a bit longer than 100 years ago!
I haven’t. But when you bring proofs from “one in a thousand”s, it doesn’t prove your point–it proves it is the exception.June 24, 2013 3:06 pm at 3:06 pm #962097DaMosheParticipant
I spoke with my Rav (who’s an RCA member) about the letter over Shabbos.
He said the membership of the RCA was never consulted about the letter, and the first they heard of it was when it was leaked. He said the internal message board for RCA members was the busiest he’d seen it in a long, long, time – and none of it was positive. Most members were furious with the 3 people who wrote the letter, and they let them know about it!
He said that Friday afternoon, an internal letter was sent to RCA members from the 3 writers, apologizing for claiming that they spoke for the membership of the RCA, when they had never discussed the issue. He did not know if they will also be apologizing to Chacham Ovadia.
He also told me that while he doesn’t always agree with R’ Stav’s position on many things, he does recognize that he’s a huge talmud chacham, and he has tremendous respect for him. He also respects Chacham Ovadia tremendously. He said he doesn’t know the context of Chacham Ovadia’s remarks about R’ Stav, so he can’t speculate on why it was said.June 24, 2013 4:22 pm at 4:22 pm #962098zahavasdadParticipant
Thats what I heard as wellJune 24, 2013 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #962101HakunaMatadaMember
ROB – a few things
1. For you to claim that certain positions of the gedolim, i.e. the draft, are clearly against halacha, is foolish. These gedolim are quite knowledgeable in everything you know, plus a lot more you’ll never touch. Additionally, part of daas torah is knowing how to apply halacha to certain situations, and, as was mentioned, being mavin davar mitoch davar, two abilities which you, and just about everyone else with an opinion, lack.
2. Hashkafa is halacha. The rabbonim don’t make up how a Jew is supposed to live. Based on the Torah that they’ve learned, both the technical halacha, the shulchan aruch that you refer to, and everything else in gemara and midrashim that shows how we are supposed to conduct ourselves in day to day life, and how to deal with certain situations. All the Hashkafa is either derived from the Torah or is based on their shikul hadaas, which is more accurate because their whole way of thinking is dictated by the Torah, and therefore their conclusion is more likely to be in line with the Torah.
3. Gedolim aren’t perfect, they’re allowed to make mistakes. The Avos made mistakes, Moshe Rabbeinu made mistakes. But, the chance that they made a mistake is much smaller than the chance that you made a mistake, so for someone so severely lacking in daas Torah to claim that a gadol is wrong and he is right is idiocy, and probably wrong.
4. You are correct that Gedolim argue and you have to pick a rav. The same way that in a shulchan aruch related shayla there can be a machlokes, and they can BOTH be right, Hashkafa is the same thing. And just like there you have to follow your rov, and you wouldn’t pasken for yourself, Hashkafa is the same thing.
So in short, yes, you do have to listen to them, it’s the same as shulchan aruch, and they’re probably right.June 24, 2013 6:39 pm at 6:39 pm #962102
HakunaMatada: thanks for your comments. I disagree.June 24, 2013 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #962103rebdonielMember
Hashkafa is halakha? That’s convenient for people of your mindset. So anyone who disagrees with you is suddenly acting outside the bounds of what is acceptable.
The Talmud says that a man has to teach his son a trade. The Talmud is the only binding source of halakha we have, since we haven’t had a Beit Din haGadol since Ravina and Rav Ashi. So, you’re actually proving yourself wrong; if you disagree with hashkafic statements in the Gemara, according to your claim, then you’re acting unhalakhically.June 24, 2013 10:10 pm at 10:10 pm #962104
Hakuna Matada, yasher koach; excellent post, in my humble opinion.
rebdoniel, you are “proudly MO”, and your theology maintains the mistaken notion of “halachic Judaism” as opposed to accepting “daas Torah” and being “machniah daas” to the same. No, that doesn’t mean you should turn your brain of; as as may questions as your Rabbi has time to answer and get the schar limud for doing so. But you are merely defending the indefensible, as HM posted.
However, unlike your claim that “this is only convenient for people of your mindset”, the truth is that nobody is stopping you from asking your own Rabbonim what their hashkafa is about any topic including teaching a child an umanus. This is not something exclusively allowed to traditionally orthodox Jews. The MO have decided to exclude themselves from this whole matter, and this is not only to their own detriment, it is also self-imposed.June 24, 2013 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm #962105
ROB, as I posted in the Lipman thread, which I already referenced for you here, you would not give up your idolatry of Zionism even if you were proven wrong. But you can check that thread, as I wrote. Your idolatry was and is treif and indefensible no matter how much you wish that weren’t so.
Lakewood Fellow, (assuming you have learned in BMG) your past holy R”Y Rav Aharon Zatza”L was quite clear about his thoughts on Zionism. Regardless, Zionism is not a machlokes between gedolim.
Who can you bring that will take him on, and the Brisker Rov, Rav Elchonon Wasserman, the Chazon Ish, among many others, who declared Zionism to be the terrible heresy that it is? There is no machlokes. I am simply repeating their holy rulings.June 24, 2013 10:23 pm at 10:23 pm #962106
According to DaMoshe’s story, I believe PBA could possibly owe an apology to the RCA (although the RCA should issue a clarification, since the letter was leaked).June 25, 2013 2:35 am at 2:35 am #962107shikronMember
Even if DaMoshe is correct, PBA does not owe the RCA any apology. Au contraire. The RCA owes its members (and Rav Ovadia) an apology. It was the political leadership of the RCA, writing on their letterhead, that issued this scandalous statement. Even if it was intended to be private, that is no excuse. Regardless, they are the RCA leadership and they spoke in the name of the RCA.June 25, 2013 3:21 am at 3:21 am #962108
Shikron, the leadership owes an apology to its membership (and possibly a resignation as well) and of course to Chacham Ovadiah, but according to this information, the leadership was not, in this case, representing its membership, which therefore does not deserve reprimand.June 25, 2013 3:22 am at 3:22 am #962109rebdonielMember
Unrelated, but if I had semikha, I would not join the RCA due to the organizational positions on the following:
1) Their refusal to deal constructively with the agunah issue. Rav Soloveitchik, zt”l, knocked down any possibility of a bet din using kiddushei ta’ut or kiddushei al tenai. Perhaps the issue was personal disagreements with Rav Rackman, zt”l, or Rav Berkovits, zt”l.
2) Their position on conversion. The entire GPS conversion system is a big mistake, and the fact that they routinely exclude converts sitting on a conversion bet din (100% mutar according to Maran haMehaber) are bad policy, and the fact that they rejected the efforts of R’ Marc Angel (a mumche in inyanei giyur, and the RCA’s president in the early 90s) is shameful.
As with conversion, such kashrut policies are intended to centralize and cement power in the hands of a chosen few, rather than allow qualified Orthodox rabbis to act according to their own psakim.
5) Get me’usa: my above mentioned beliefs on the kiddushei al tenai or kiddushei ta’ut do not preclude a legitimate concern that gittin given through protests can very well be considered me’usa. Some say that there is no hashash nowadays for a get me’usa; the burden of proof falls upon them. They engage in public humiliation by holding protests outside the homes of recalcitrant husbands. Rambam, in Hilkhot Gerushin 2:20, says that If it isn’t required according to the halacha that the husband be forced to give a get and beis din made a mistake or it was a beis din of laymen – [Rabbi Tougher’s translation is ” a Jewish court or simple people compel him”] and they forced him until he gave a get – the get is not valid. But since Jews have forced him he should give her a valid get [because he might think it was valid and when he marries another without obtaining a valid get it produces mamzerim]. However if goyim force him not according to halacha it is not a get…. since the law does not require it and the force was from goyim it is not a get.”
Forcing the husband to give a get by unauthorized persons makes it a get me’usa according to my diyuk in the Rambam. Lekhem Mishna explicitly says that if individuals pressure him where he is not required to give a get the get is posul mi d’oraita, same as if a non-Jewish court forced him to give a get. The only reason that we can, on certain occasions force a get is because “it is a mitzvah to listen to the sages.” We therefore assume, Rambam explains, that the husband wants to remain a Jew and that the coercers are masters of Jewish law and are to be obeyed. But if plain people who are not accepted by the husbands as the experts on the Torah that he must obey, the get is invalid, hence my reservations about ORA activism.
6) I believe that the attacks against Yeshivat Maharat are unfounded (See Mishpetei Uziel HM 3:6; Piskei Uziel 43, R’ Daniel Sperber, “On Women in Rabbinic Leadership Positions, etc.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.