May 21, 2012 2:35 am at 2:35 am #1218344
Eduyyot 2:2 reads, “Lo ra’inu eino ra’ayah.”
I hope I’m not violating this thread’s rules by posting a serious response. The rema says that Lo rainu is a raiha regarding minhagim. CM 37:22. That is why we say that women cannot be a shochet, because the minhag is that they don’t, as we know because we don’t see it done. Rema YD 1:1; Shach 1:1.May 21, 2012 3:49 am at 3:49 am #1218345rabbiofberlinParticipant
janedoe18- that is the question. who decided that it is against halacha?May 21, 2012 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #1218346
Please thoroughly read the article in the link that I posted.May 21, 2012 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm #1218347
That is just one interpretation of what the mishnah in Eduyyot means. The halakha-based Orthodoxy of Eduyyot 2:2 is reiterated by the Beit Yosef Yoreh Deah 1:1, where the Mechaber says that women’s slaughter is not forbidden merely because we haven’t seen it. In fact, a female shochet is Talmudically-authorized by Hullin 2 (haKol Shochtin and Zevachim 31b and the Beis Yosef challenges whether there can exist a minhag “not to shecht”. Although we have never heard or seen a women shechting, that would not have status of minhag, citing the same principle I cited from Eduyyot of Lo ra’inu eino ra’ayah). He says explicitly that the claim that it is assur for women to shecht because we don’t see it is wrong. If they wanted to slaughter and people did not let them, this could be called a proof. Not seeing it is not a proof! The Rema holds like the Agur, while the Beis Yosef holds like Eduyyot, which is canonical. Rambam, Hilchos Shechita 4:4, says that anyone who knows the laws of Shechitah and slaughtered in front of a Chacham until he is used to it, he is called an expert. Any expert may slaughter l’Chatchilah by himself, even women and slaves. The Magid Mishneh here says that all Poskim agree that women may slaughter l’Chatchilah. This is clear from Zevachim 31b. The Mishnah does not say that it is b’Di’eved due to women, rather, due to Temei’im, who may not slaughter l’Chatchilah. We rely on the Gemara, which permits women l’Chatchilah even for Kodshim.May 21, 2012 1:27 pm at 1:27 pm #1218348
The idea held by the Agur, Rema, and Shach in this case is Minhag Brecht a Din. Minhag does not override gemara. When the popular practice of the people overrides what is authorized by Torah she ba’al peh, than we are making the claim that the people know better than HaShem, ch”v, who gave Torah she ba’al peh. This is dangerous thinking and is precisely the ideology that the kofrim Mordecai Kaplan and Solomon Schechter came up with; Catholic Israel shifts the locus of samchut from the Gemara onto the people, which is why his movement has done so many things contra Talmudically-binding halacha.May 21, 2012 1:36 pm at 1:36 pm #1218349
The article you cited is a highly inflammatory piece which is light on the mekoros and heavy on the slander.May 21, 2012 5:10 pm at 5:10 pm #1218351
Rav Avrohom Joffen, Rav Avrohom Kalmanowitz, Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Gedaliah Schorr, Rav Chaim Mordechai Katz, Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky, Rav Yaakov Yitzchok Ruderman, Rav Yitzchok Hutner, Rav Menachem Yosef Zaks, and Rav Dovid Lipschitz were not light on Mekoros and were not slanderers.May 21, 2012 6:25 pm at 6:25 pm #1218352
JaneDoe: While you happen to be in the right here, you evaded his point. They said nothing about YCT in particular.May 21, 2012 7:11 pm at 7:11 pm #1218353rabbiofberlinParticipant
janedoe18: they were alive when YCT was founded (1999) ?May 21, 2012 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1218354
They issued a Psak Din against the same type of Pluralism that YCT believes in today.May 22, 2012 4:26 am at 4:26 am #1218355
JaneDoe: Okay, but how does that help your point. Your point is inflammatory because it implies that an attack on the article is an attack on them. The flaw in that logic is obvious. They would all have been able to write articles against YCT that even Rebdoniel would have to agree to. Rebdoniel never attacked them, only the article in question.May 22, 2012 11:05 am at 11:05 am #1218356
I have the utmost respect for the talmidei chachamim and gedolim mentioned. I am familiar with their signing a document against Orthodox involvement in the Synagogue Council of America. However, Rav Soloveitchik, zt”l, and other Modern Orthodox leaders were matir such involvement.May 22, 2012 12:52 pm at 12:52 pm #1218357
Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.
In my opinion, the article is fine.May 22, 2012 2:09 pm at 2:09 pm #1218358
JaneDoe: I thought the article was fine as well. My point is that you equating an attack on the article with an attack on those Gedolim was unfair.May 22, 2012 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm #1218359
I NEVER said that an attack on the article is an attack on those Gidolim.
I wrote that speaking out against those who publicly advocate beliefs and practices which are against the Torah is neither Loshon Hora nor Motzee Shem Rah.
I cited the article as an example of what YCT is saying, writing, and doing. All of this information is public and mainstream.
I was then asked, “Who decided that it is against Halacha?”
I then cited those names of the Gidolim ZT”L who issued the Psak Din in 1956 against the same type of Pluralism that YCT endorses today.
Also from the article:
Although the pre-eminent Modern Orthodox Torah sage, Rav Yosef B. Soloveitchik, permitted collaboration in issues NOT relevant to religion, such as social services, and advocacy on behalf of the State of Israel,
he unequivocally opposed any religious, spiritual, or theological dialogue.
He wrote an article in the newspaper, The Morgen Journal, outlining his opinion on this vitally important matter:
It is impossible for me to comprehend, for example, how Orthodox Rabbis, who spend their best years in Yeshivos and absorbed the spirit of the Oral Law and its tradition, for which Rabbi Akiba, Maimonides, Reb Moshe Iserlis, the Gaon of Vilna, Reb Chaim Brisker, and other Jewish sages are the pillars upon which their spiritual world rests, can join with spiritual leaders for whom all this is worthless. A rabbinical organization is not a professional fraternity, which fights for the economic interests of the rabbi. It is an ideological entity where members work for one purpose and for one ideal. The fundamental difference in ideology and in observance makes such a unity impossible. From the point of view of the Torah, we find the difference between Orthodoxy and Reform Judaism much greater than that which separated the Pharisees from the Sadducees in the days of the Second Commonwealth, and between the Karaites and traditionalists in the Gaonic era.February 17, 2013 8:11 pm at 8:11 pm #1218360
ummm bacon bits?? excuse me, but that does NOT come along w traditonal orthodox jewish customs!!;)
YCT says you can eat bacon because we aren’t concerned for Trichinosis now that we have good refrigeration and cooking methods.
Also because it is kavod habrios that non-frum people shouldn’t feel bad when you don’t eat with them, and kavod habrios is an asei, and asei is doche lo saaseh.
Also because deracheha darchei noam, and bacon tastes good.
And also because the gemara says that there is a muttar way to do all issurim, and the way to eat pig is to eat shibbutta. But since we don’t know what shibbutta is anymore, it has to be muttar to eat pig because it can’t be assur when there is no muttar way to do it.
Also because the passuk says ???? ??? ?? ???, so it only applies to male pigs. And when you buy pig in the store it is a safek if it is a male or female, and rov says it is a female because they are bigger and have more meat.February 17, 2013 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm #1218361
Also, the asei of making a simchat bat (regardless of the name you give it) is doche the lav of chazir.February 17, 2013 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1218362benignumanParticipant
That last heter is ingenious.February 18, 2013 4:41 am at 4:41 am #1218363
I’ve realized a lot about the ideas emanating from YCT lately.
They promote socialism, gun control, and the normalization of homosexuality, things which I cannot accept as a Jew and as a Republican conservative.
Also, R’ Weiss penned an off-putting editorial in the lefty Huffington Post after the shooting in Newtown, calling for gun control.
This is very ironic for the following reason: in his article on Open Orthodoxy in 1997, R’ Weiss condemned the doctrine of “daas torah” on the grounds that rabbis should only speak with authority on areas of halakhic or theological importance. Yet, he is doing exactly the opposite and using his position as a rabbi to advance a particular political agenda. Since when does a rabbi without any legal training dare to express an opinion on a topic he knows little about? Is he an expert on the Second Amendment? I think not.
To their credit, organizations like Agudath Israel thankfully have not added their names to the chorus of statists looking to trample on the U.S. Constitution and on the liberties granted to us by HaShem, namely the right to bear arms.
I also have used the above-mentioned episode as an opportunity to support Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (led by R’ Dovid Bendory, who has numerous semichas), as well as the NRA and the Gun Owners of America.
Also, they call for an increase in the minimum wage, which would be a job killer and according to R’ Dr. Aaron Levine, zt”l, is a concept antithetical to normative Jewish thought and economic common-sense.February 18, 2013 5:49 am at 5:49 am #1218364
The irony is that Rebdoniel’s post is very much on topic, because the reason YCT has such krum politics is because they don’t know how to learn.February 18, 2013 2:18 pm at 2:18 pm #1218365yehudayonaParticipant
RD — Where in the Torah did Hashem grant us the right to bear arms? Certainly, women bearing arms is problematic.February 18, 2013 3:56 pm at 3:56 pm #1218366
The Constitution gives us the right to bear arms, and our constitutional rights come from G-d.
The Talmud guarantees a right to self-defense (Sanhedrin 72b).
Maharshal paskens that one can have a vicious dog in an area of danger; therefore, for self-defense, one can have an object of danger. Rashi (on Shemos 22:1) says that a burglar has no blood, therefore, it is not retzicha to kill an intruder.
Furthermore, Rav Shlomo Goren and Rav Meir Kahane were ardently pro-gun, even allowing one to use them on Shabbat to avoid danger.
The objection you were pointing out was a woman wearing a gun decoratively, like a man. For self-defense, anyone can use a gun and lo yilbash doesn’t apply there.
I don’t know enough about how they learn to make a statement on that. I am much more familiar intimately with YU’s learning, since they make it available to the world on the internet.February 18, 2013 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #1218367yehudayonaParticipant
The idea that our Constitutional rights come from G-d is certainly what the Founding Fathers believed, but it doesn’t exactly jibe with the Torah. For example, the free speech guaranteed by the Founding Fathers would include the right to curse one’s parents.February 18, 2013 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm #1218368
Rebdoniel: Rav Soloveitchik *never* permitted interfaith or interdenominational participation. Ask any of his Talmidim. That is a slanderous lie that many who wanted to violate Halachah used his name as an approbation for when he was dead-set against it himself.February 23, 2013 11:27 pm at 11:27 pm #1218370The Kanoi Next DoorMember
In honor of Purim:
Q: Should one get drunk on Purim?
Of course not; it’s frowned upon by society. But here’s a (arguably) halachic excuse:
It can’t be that we have a chiyuv to wipe out the nation Amalek; it isn’t nice. It must be that Amalek is only a metaphor for the selfishness and close-mindedness inside of us, which is what we must wipe out. And if Amalek isn’t real, Haman can’t either be real. So the story of Purim must be only a symbolic metaphor, much like the story of Bireishis. Therefore, we should only get figuratively drunk off the sheer joy of our open-mindedness.
Q: But isn’t getting drunk brought down li’halacha by rov Rishonim and the Shulchan Oruch?
Anyway, we hold that the halacha will be like Beis Shammai after Moshiach comes because B”S was smarter then B”H. Now that we have the Medinah it is clearly considered the zman of Moshiach, and according to Darwin’s theory of evolution people keep getting smarter, so we’re smarter than the Shulchan Oruch and the Rishonim. Therefore, we can decide what the Halacha is without giving a flying hoot as to what everyone else has paskened over the past thousand years. Zeh klal gadol bi’YCT.February 24, 2013 3:28 am at 3:28 am #1218371
No joke. This is not Purim Torah.
I read an article on the website of the “Shamayim v’Aretz Institute” where they “pasken” you can be mechallel shabbos to save a pet.
This org is founded by Shmuly Yanklowitz of ULT fame and advocates veganism and “animal rights” (sic).March 8, 2013 1:05 pm at 1:05 pm #1218372The Kanoi Next DoorMember
bumpMay 28, 2014 1:57 am at 1:57 am #1218373PulsingFlowerMember
failed bumpJuly 1, 2014 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #1218374squeakParticipant
So at the wedding last night, somebody slipped up because the two eidim were half brothers (same mother, different last names). This was only discovered after the chuppah and yichud were over. We were all ready to go back out there and do it over but one guest stepped up and spared the tzibbur the extra tircha. Since eid echod neeman b’airusyn, it is not truly eidus and there is no reason to disqualify krovim. She then went up to the couple and made the brocho of matir airusyn and wished them mazel tov.July 1, 2014 11:35 pm at 11:35 pm #1218376
Anyway acheinu kol beis yisroel, so if we were makpid on that then nobody is married.July 2, 2014 12:45 am at 12:45 am #1218377nishtdayngesheftParticipant
That is probably the best solution the YCT chevra have actually had for their agunos.
Although, I am sure that R Moshe’s heter would work as well. (“Rabbis”)July 2, 2014 12:56 am at 12:56 am #1218378
Although, I am sure that R Moshe’s heter would work as well. (“Rabbis”)
Nice. I think it would.July 2, 2014 1:03 am at 1:03 am #1218379
Does that mean the new chovevei rabbi is off the hook? Although I doubt that’s what Charlie meant.October 30, 2014 8:56 pm at 8:56 pm #1218381
Shailah: Is it muttar to write entire words at a time on Shabbos?
Teshuvah, yes, as long as we can replace the issur by making up another one, namely combining preexisting letters to form a word (see Taz 340;2).October 31, 2014 1:32 am at 1:32 am #1218382ChortkovParticipant
DY – Can you explain what they were trying to do in more detail? I didn’t even begin to understand it, my mind just doesn’t go as krum as that!December 10, 2014 4:54 pm at 4:54 pm #1218383
A YCT teshuvah by popa:November 3, 2015 10:47 pm at 10:47 pm #1218384
Can YCT people drink their own wine?November 4, 2015 2:25 am at 2:25 am #1218385
Sheilah: Does a change.org petition have validity to change the halacha?
Teshuva: The mesorah is that it does, although we do not know the reason.November 4, 2015 4:59 am at 4:59 am #1218386
Shailah: If a woman sings a song to get RCA Rabbis to like Maharat, are they allowed to listen to it?
Tshuvah: Kol Isha is Muttar nowadays because we are used to hearing women sing.February 23, 2017 1:22 am at 1:22 am #1218387
Did they really permit eating pigs?February 23, 2017 2:28 am at 2:28 am #1218388Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
No, this is a thread where we make fake Open Orthodox teshuvahs.
I just realized from scrolling up, the whole thing with using the idea that G-d wrote the constitution as a basis for an halachic argument actually sounds like it would belong very well on this thread. However, it doesn’t seem to be in jest, especially since it was made by a poster who previously was defending the OO. I’m wondering if rebdaniel just trolled all of us by doing an inverse make-your-own-YCT-teshuvah.February 23, 2017 2:39 am at 2:39 am #1218389
Oh thank you Neville Chaimberlin!
Wow… just realized that the title was self-explanatory but I guess I didn’t see the forest because I was confused about the trees. Or something like that.February 23, 2017 11:53 am at 11:53 am #1218390
NC: Just to clarify please, isn’t a big thing about OO is that it is not with the majority [Chazal majority, not laypeople]?
Same goes for reform, conservative, etc?
They went against the majority of what Chazal and current Jewish scholars and leaders.
So that in itself poses a problem. Even if there were reasons why something should be or whatever, if it’s a fringe then it’s unaccepted. Thus it is against Torah?February 23, 2017 5:51 pm at 5:51 pm #1218391MDGParticipant
“Can YCT people drink their own wine? “
I found that funny because it’s true. IMO the answer would be no.
It reminded me of a Gemara towards the end of Ketubot (IIRC) where it talks about a deaf person giving a get. The Gemara asks how can a deaf person, lav bar daat, give a get? It answers that the way he got married, he can get divorced – whatever level of daat. Therefore, if a YCT person is a true maamin, then he/she/it can drink his/her/its own wine. And if that person is an apikoros, then they don’t care anyway. Still assur, but a moot point.February 23, 2017 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm #1218392
The first teshuva is decent.February 23, 2017 10:56 pm at 10:56 pm #1218393bmyerParticipant
q: if we say everything goes after the majority most of the world is not jewish so why are we jewish?
yct: rov only applies if theres a nafka mina l’halachah but since being jewish has no n’m l’halachah we dont go after rov…February 23, 2017 11:32 pm at 11:32 pm #1218394the_shverMember
bmyer: theres a nafka mina ligabay the fact that non jewish woman cant get smicha, so we shud go after the rov…February 24, 2017 12:15 am at 12:15 am #1218395Neville ChaimBerlinParticipant
lightbright: correct for the most part. However, that argument alone would/has also been used against Chassidus (and that’s been brought up in other threads). The thing that makes YCT truly different is that some of them will make statements that are unambiguously contrary to the Torah (eg. denying the idea of the coming of moshiach, which, as most of us hold, makes you ineligible for a minyan).
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.