October 23, 2011 2:39 am at 2:39 am #600085morechumrasMember
Considering that there are areas where we can all agree that the klal needs vast improvements in observance (for example the terrible amount of loshon horah spoken, and the terrible lack of tznius in some communities);
Considering that obviously the existing chumras are not sufficiently hindering many of us from breaching halachas in these areas;
Considering that one of the purposes of chumras is as a geder (“siyag ve-geder” – a hedge and a fence) against coming to do an actual aveira;
Therefore be it resolved that we call upon our Rabbonim (who are the arbiters in establishing chumras) to consider various areas where new chumras would benefit Klal Yisroel.
Now for those who are on principal opposed for a layman calling for the establishment of additional chumras (and feel it best be left to the deliberations of our Gedolim), I say your point is a fair one. But you only have a leg to stand on in advancing that argument if you are on the record as similarly opposing the various calls made in these hollowed blogs for a reduction in chumras.
Indeed removing an existing chumra is far more halachicly problematic than establishing a new one. If a Minhag has developed as a Siyag Ve-Geder to correct some michshol, and that Siyag Ve-Geder was effected by a Chacham and then it was ratified by being popularly adopted as the Minhag (i.e. the Minhag did not evolve from a Machlokes in Halacha but from some weakness in Mitvah performance) then a new Chacham may not nullify that Minhag (see Teshuvos HaRosh 55:10 and Igros Moshe OH V.3, siman 64 and Igros Moshe YD V.1, siman 13).October 23, 2011 7:54 am at 7:54 am #819853ToiParticipant
ok. get a grip. all of our gedolim argue on you. just stop before you get further behind.October 23, 2011 8:12 am at 8:12 am #819854YW Moderator-42Moderator
Today’s new chumra is that you should not take on any new chumras without consulting a Rav who knows you well. Let’s see if you can hold by that one!October 23, 2011 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #819855apushatayidParticipant
I have a personal chumra not to be machmir.October 23, 2011 8:39 pm at 8:39 pm #819856
morechumras, keshot atzmecha va’achar kach keshot acheirim. I have a good one for you: Mar Ukvah said he is “vinegar, son of wine” for not waiting 24 hours between meat and milk. I dare you to succeed where he could not. I suggest you take this one up first.
Next would be taanis behab every week.October 24, 2011 2:58 am at 2:58 am #819857
If a Minhag has developed as a Siyag Ve-Geder to correct some michshol, and that Siyag Ve-Geder was effected by a Chacham and then it was ratified by being popularly adopted as the Minhag (i.e. the Minhag did not evolve from a Machlokes in Halacha but from some weakness in Mitvah performance) then a new Chacham may not nullify that Minhag (see Teshuvos HaRosh 55:10 and Igros Moshe OH V.3, siman 64 and Igros Moshe YD V.1, siman 13).
So once a stringent minhag is established (based on a geder — i.e. separate seating at weddings) it can never be revoked, based upon the above?October 24, 2011 3:17 am at 3:17 am #819858HealthParticipant
morechumras – I agree. Anybody who makes Gezeiros on the rest of us or speaks LH, should have their tongues cut out, so they shouldn’t do it again!October 24, 2011 5:57 am at 5:57 am #819859YW Moderator-42Moderator
I know of someone who did behab every weekOctober 24, 2011 11:10 am at 11:10 am #819860Sam2Participant
Obaminator: You need to define “established”. There are still many, many people and places that have mixed seating at weddings.October 24, 2011 1:41 pm at 1:41 pm #819862
Gezeiros have been repealed, eg ezra’s takanahs, the ban on stam silsam and stam shamnam by the “bei dina dsharu mishcha”October 24, 2011 3:33 pm at 3:33 pm #819863
Sam2: For the wide swath of communities who were mekabel the geder of separate seating.
Jothar: How does that square with the aforementioned Igros Moshe and Teshuvos HaRosh?October 24, 2011 4:37 pm at 4:37 pm #819864zahavasdadParticipant
There is a book by Hanoch Teller about Reb Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and he tells of an incident where the Rav was at an affair with mixed seating and someone asked him why he was at this event.
After the event The Rav gave the person a sharp lesson in Derech EretzOctober 24, 2011 4:58 pm at 4:58 pm #819865Sam2Participant
Obaminator: The communities accepted it upon themselves or they just wanted everyone to come so they made it separate for those who wouldn’t have come otherwise/were worried about the social repercussions if they hosted a mixed event?October 24, 2011 5:27 pm at 5:27 pm #819866
Sam2: Those that were mekabel the geder upon themselves.October 24, 2011 6:46 pm at 6:46 pm #819867mddMember
Adding more chumros is wrong — you do not want to drive more people off the derech (completely or partially).October 24, 2011 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm #819868
The answer is that the gezeiros i mentioned were never ratified with widespread acceptance, kinda like lakewood’s ban on texting.October 25, 2011 1:40 am at 1:40 am #819869Yosi7Member
I definitively agree with morechumras. Chumras are what our society needOctober 25, 2011 1:46 am at 1:46 am #819870HealthParticipant
Yosi7 – Do you also agree with me about people’s tongues?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.