November 16, 2008 1:57 am at 1:57 am #625757
dont have internetMember
ok so i havent really been folowing this thred at all but i did notice at the begining(i havnt read since so i dont know if other people said s/t about it–i do know that this isnt what u are talking about -so sorry) thebigone said that he doesnt hold by the erev so if s/o who is coming to his house he asks that they dont either, my problem is (assuming its a kosher erev) is that there is nothing wrong with using the erev so why is it your buissness if he does or does not do it? lets say your friend is wearing red- will u not let him in the house? or if she is wearing a snood that doesnt cover all her hair? in other words please explain?November 16, 2008 2:23 am at 2:23 am #625758
dont have internet-
“The Big One” had cut-and-pasted something I posted.
To answer your questions:
I don’t use the eiruv because the rabonim I rely upon say that it is problematic.
My friend’s Rabbi holds that the eruv is OK and can be relied upon.
I honestly didn’t know if in this case I should say that since he is somech on his rav it’s not at all a problem, or if since he would be carrying on my account (because of my invitation) I should ask him not to.
I therefore asked Rav Feivel Cohen what I should do.
If a friend is doing something that me/my family would not do because of chumra I probably wouldn’t say anything regardless of the situation.
If a friend is doing something clearly asur due to lack of knowledge (such as adjusting the heat of an electric oven on yom tov) I would speak up.
If a friend is doing something that me/my family would not do because because my rabonim say it shouldn’t be done, but his Rabbi says it’s OK I probably wouldn’t say anything normally, but would ask him not to do it on my account – the same way I wouldn’t ask him to take my garbage out on Shabbos.November 16, 2008 2:35 am at 2:35 am #625759
Re: oomis1105- So what if you know people who are modern and have excellent sons whats that got to do with anything? This woman might have been Zoche because her house never saw her hair but other people are Zoche for different reasons e.g Hashem wanting to pay them back in this world, Zchus Avos etc.
I don’t disagree with you at all. I just don’t like these types of stories being held up as indicators of what constitutes tznius. There is no reason why a woman who uncovers her hair in her own home, EVEN IF NO ONE IS THERE, should be considered less tzniusdig than the woman in the story – yet that is certainly the lesson which may be inferred.November 16, 2008 2:42 am at 2:42 am #625760
Even if quoted in the Gemarah, the story of the woman is NOT halacha, nor meant to be considered as such, would you not agree with that statement? Whatever lessons the Tanna wanted to glean from his mother’s statement, she is not a rov, she has no paskening power, and this was not a p’sak. It was simply her own opinion, right or wrong. I am fine with the lesson to be learned, that a woman feels she has been zocheh to a great sachar from Hashem in Olam Hazeh because of her own added dimension of tznius. But that does not mean that THAT is the reason she was so blessed. We cannot presume to know why Hashem rewards or does not reward in a specific way.November 16, 2008 4:08 am at 4:08 am #625761
ICOT: Are you a mispallel by Rav Feivel?November 16, 2008 4:54 am at 4:54 am #625762
I’ve davened there, but not often.
The reason I asked him was because of his stature as a talmid chacham and posek.
(please understand that I prefer not to give personal info in a public forum)November 16, 2008 5:07 am at 5:07 am #625763
dont have internetMember
where do u live? brooklyn? fine then i understand bec i dont live there but from what ive heard its not good but where i live in the 5towns there is a great erev,they just redid it and e/o holds from it so in that case ur holding from something as a chumra and there is no reason to put a burden on the other personNovember 16, 2008 5:18 am at 5:18 am #625764
ICOT: Sorry, can’t resist (feel free to disregard this post); do you frequent a large shtiebel on 17?November 16, 2008 3:13 pm at 3:13 pm #625765
dont have internet-
There are three eiruvim in Brooklyn (two Midwood a.k.a. Flatbush, one Boro Park), none of which I personally use.
The issues which cause people not to use them exist almost nowhere else.
I won’t disregard – but I won’t answer either.
If you like pleaying detective (which I certainly do), why not pop into the riddle thread?November 16, 2008 3:57 pm at 3:57 pm #625766
ICOT, the issue being Ocean Parkway’s status as a rshus harabbim?November 16, 2008 4:09 pm at 4:09 pm #625767
Safek rishus harabim, yes.November 16, 2008 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #625768
A more thorough answer:
I don’t remember and may never have known what all the facets of the “Brooklyn eiruv” issue are, but as best I can recall they were:
Is Ocean Parkway a rishus harabim d’oyraisa?
Do the various elevated train lines and overpasses count as breaks?
I believe many chasidim in Boro Park rely on the Boro Park eruv because that community is entirely surrounded by elevated (west end and culver) train lines, while in Flatbush they would not carry.November 16, 2008 5:14 pm at 5:14 pm #625769
Neither am I familiar with all the intricacies. Yet, didn’t Reb Moshe pasken that Ocean Parkway IS a Reshus Harabim M’doraisa?
And if it is, how far from Ocean Parkway can there be no eiruv?November 16, 2008 7:20 pm at 7:20 pm #625770
Only Simple Heilige Righteous Yidden – roshei taivos?
sounds to me like you hit the nail on the head.
sorry – couldn’t resist.November 16, 2008 8:26 pm at 8:26 pm #625771
VERY GOOD! Another Yid fun gegent?November 16, 2008 9:06 pm at 9:06 pm #625772
If we agree O.P. is a reshus harabim mdoraisa, what constitutes a “break”? Why is Queens (or even Nassau) not affected by O.P.? Brooklyn and Queens are both part of the same city. Why should the Brooklyn-Queens “border”, be considered any differently than say the difference between Flatbush and Crown Heights (insofar that O.P. would prevent an eiruv)?
These really are somewhat academic, as I think (for whatever technical reasons) Reb Moshe (and the Satmar Rebbe I believe) paskened an Eiruv wasn’t possible in Flatbush, Boro Park or Manhattan.November 16, 2008 10:32 pm at 10:32 pm #625773
“If we agree O.P. is a reshus harabim mdoraisa”
– Sorry, I don’t remember. I seem to recall it’s a safek, but I just don’t know.
“what constitutes a ‘break’?”
– To the best of my recollection, an overpass or something else that prevents other streets from being mitztaref with Ocean Parkway.
“Why is Queens (or even Nassau) not affected by O.P.? Brooklyn and Queens are both part of the same city.”
– If I remember correctly it is because there are overpasses orother breaks on all roadways that are wide enough that would allow tziruf.
I am not comfortable discussing this, because my knowledge of the issues is so incomplete, and it is halacha lemaseh.
There are many rabonim on both sides of the eiruv issue who are knowledgeable re: what’s involved and probably should be asked these questions.November 17, 2008 2:29 am at 2:29 am #625774
Most of these threads are people stating their opinions on gray matter. But to start arguing based on complete ignorance. Why dont we leave the arguing to the more knowledgeble?November 17, 2008 12:55 pm at 12:55 pm #625777
farshtaitzach, but i moved out years ago.November 17, 2008 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #625778
The whole eiruv business reminded me of a joke about two friends for ten years who used to learn together, etc. One day one friend called the other saying he needed him for a minyan and they only had nine. The friend apologized but said he couldn’t go. So the first guy begs him, it’s a snowy day, nobody is coming to shul, they really need him. Sorry, he sys, he can’t come. When pressed, he finally admits he can’t be part of the minyan – he’s not Jewish. “But what are you talking about?” Screams the first guy.
“We learn together, you come to shul, YOU KEEP SHABBOS!!! If you keep Shabbos and are not a Jew, you are chayav misah!!” “I know,” says the other guy, “but I always was mechalel Shabbos in one way. I carried on Shabbos.” “What do you mean,” says the first guy, “you can carry on Shabbo, we have an eiruv!” “AHHHH,” replied the friend, “but I don’t HOLD from it!”November 17, 2008 2:57 pm at 2:57 pm #625779
Ha Ha oomis1105. Great stuff should be on the humor thread as well!November 17, 2008 3:07 pm at 3:07 pm #625780
Avrohom Avinu kept Shabbos even before he was megayer. How could he, if he wasn’t yet a Yid (chayiv misa)? He wore tzitzis too. And since he had no chiyuv to wear them, he was “carrying” on Shabbos, hence “violating” it.November 17, 2008 3:37 pm at 3:37 pm #625781
oomis1105 states “Even if quoted in the Gemarah, the story of the woman is NOT halacha, nor meant to be considered as such…It was simply her own opinion, right or wrong…But that does not mean that THAT is the reason she was so blessed.”
The Gemara wasn’t written as a story book. If the Gemorah relates the story than 1) she was right 2) it is meant as a lesson for us, we can learn that being careful to cover ones hair even in private is a zechus for having good children 3) Nowhere does it say that it is halacha just a very praiseworthy hanhageNovember 17, 2008 4:04 pm at 4:04 pm #625782
My Rav, and I, discus matters of the Real World. I’m not seriously going to talk to him about an internet forum.
What’s the deal with the question mark? That is very disrespectful, and highly offensive. This is a RABBI you are talking about. (who has smicha, and IS Orthodox. Do you have smicha? I’m thinking, NOT) Learn a little something called DERECH ERETZ. Yikes!
p.s. I am not here to argue who is right or wrong. I’m just posting my details on this matter on an internet thread in YWN.November 17, 2008 4:44 pm at 4:44 pm #625783
When a person who is called an orthodox rabbi says something which is contrary to the opinion of ALL the leading orthodox rabbis of the generation yet IS in accordance with the opinion of ALL non-orthodox rabbis of the generation, his orthodoxy is called into question.
Hence the quetion mark.
No offence was intended. Nor do I mean to get involved with who’s right or wrong.November 17, 2008 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #625784
Well, after an absolutely, mamash, gevaldig shlomo zzl’l concert motzei shabbos that went on till one in the morning, I am back adding my two cents to some of the questions discussed.Joseph and others, notpashut,noitallmr, I had the opportunity to ACTUALLYy learn the BACH this shabbos and other “nosei keilim’ of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch.
It is INCONTROVERTBILE that the Bach and his succesors do not consider “beged ish’ a Piece of clothing of the opposite sex in two different situations: 1) even it is a “beged Hiddur”- meaning a fancy and important piece of clothing, if it is put on by the woman (or the man)for a specific purpose (like cold or rain), not related to wanting to look like the opposite sex, it is PERMITTED. The Taz ( Bach’s son-in-law) and the Shach CONCUR.
the other situation is of a piece of clothing that is not used for “hiddur’- importance, then it is mutter anytime.
Before jumping on me- PLEASE check the sources!!
Ok- now, the Bach does not specifically mention pants or the like and I surmise that the acharonim mentioned prohibit pants because of znius , not “lo silbash’. This fact is truly clear from the BACH, the TAZ and the SHACH.
Interestingly, the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch mention a “mitznefet” as a ‘beged ish”, because it is a piece of clothing that a man wears to look important. SO, women, to put on a (man’s) hat may be “lo silbash’!
Anyway- It is absolutely clear from these acharonim that what a “beged ish” is much more limited than you’d think. Woman’s pants are not even “beged ish”, so wearing pants may not be “znisudik” but ‘lo silbash’ it ain’t.
notpashut- I have not seen the various teshuvos that Joseph mentions but I can only quote the gedolei acharonim like the Bach ,the Taz and the Shach.
Joseph, I checked the Bi-ur halocho about woman’s hair and ,if you would quote it properly, he writes that , in her house, she is permitted to go without her hair covered. True- the Chofetz Chaim himself continues and strongly questions this custom but he writes it in Biur halocho, which ,as you know, is not the way he actually paskens.
The issue of hair coveing is very extensive and really cannot be covered in a short email posting. There are a multitude of halochos and customs -Das moshe, das jehudis, etc. The Rambam seems to have his own way of looking at this (see Hichos soitah)and “nahara ,nahara pashtei” ,the customs on this have spread far and diffently to various communities.
One correction- the mother who said that “the walls of her house never saw her hair’ had the zechus of “Kohanim gedolim'(not a Tannah ,as I wrote mistakenly) as descendants (Massechet Jummoh).Still ,it was a “madreiha’, not a halacha.
I won’t even venture into the discussion about eiruv. For that, you need a whole blog!November 18, 2008 12:58 am at 12:58 am #625785
I think that concert made your thinking go a bit wobbly! (joke)
Beged Hiddur – So pants, surely an important particle of clothing, would constitute hiddur. Yet surely you are moida that regular usage of pants by a female (c’v) is not covered by the beged hiddur exemption, as there is no special cause for its usage (like cold or rain.) So the Bach’s situation is inapplicable in this situation.
Now, even if you taaine it is NOT hiddur, you seem to be whitewashing the tznius problem. A miniskirt (c’v) is not a Beged Ish either. Yet surely you are moida that it is assur due to tznius. So how can you allow pants, EVEN IF lo sibash IS inapplicable!?November 18, 2008 1:43 am at 1:43 am #625786
joseph, we are talking at cross-purposes here. A miniskirt is-as you write- not zniusdk and should not be worn. Absolutely. I don’t whitewash the znius question at all. If my memory still serves me right- the Bach and the other acharonim allow any piece of clothing of a man if it is not an important beged. For example- long johns in the winter. “Lefi anyus daati”, this would not be considered ‘lo silbash’,even if they were men’s long johns.They surely are not an important part of clothing and are worn to fend off the cold. Culottes- a kind of combination skirt-pants, is ONLY worn by women and is actually quite zniusdik should be allowed. Pants UNDER a skirt (such as soem yemenite women wear) should be allowed.It is zniusdik and it is surely not a ‘beged ish”.
Please remember that the Bach is talking about a beged who actually belongs to a man, unlike my examples where they are absolutely a woman’s garment.
Look, I am not here to pasken and the acharonim whose teshuvos you bring have their reasons for the issur. My main point was that it is not ‘lo silbash”. Simply put ,if all these pieces of clothing would be actually “lo silbash” I am not sure thet Bach and his followers could say it is Ok. Additionally, there is also a hetter of “the community’s customs” (lefi minhag hamokom).Look it up.
Anyway- regardless of our different political views, I respect your knowledge, If you have a chance, look at the Bach. it is very lengthy but it will be worthwhile. (You can also check the Taz and the Shach subsequently, who follow in his footsteps.)November 18, 2008 1:55 am at 1:55 am #625787
Actually, the concert was ‘amaesh gevaldig!
Anyway- I am not debating the reasons that the later acharonim prohibited pants. All I wanted to say is that pieces of man’s clothing-if worn for a reason or if not being an important piece of clothing do not come under the heading of ‘lo silbash’. Yes- a miniskirt is not zniusdik and should not be worn, the same way that tight pants should not be worn,even if they are woman’s pants. On the other hand ,long johns in winter, for example, could be worn. They surely are not an important piece of clothing and they are worn to ward off the cold. Similarly, culottes, which are a combo skirt-pants and are actually very zniusdik should be able to be worn ,especially as they are only worn by women.Loose pajama pants, wide ski pants and other pieces of clothing where there is no problem of znius should be able to be worn ,especially if they are women’s garments.
Anyway, regardless of our different olitical viewpoints, I respect your learning and knowledge.Find the tiem to look up the bach,. it is a very lnghty piece but you wil lfind that it is apparent that to make the issur of ‘lo silbash”, you need a lot more than just the designation of a man’s clothing. Additionally, there is an exemption of “minhag hamokom”. The Taz and the Shach both mention the Bach and concur with him.November 18, 2008 2:35 am at 2:35 am #625788
Thank you, RabbiofBerlin, for a very informative couple of posts.November 18, 2008 2:47 am at 2:47 am #625789
With regard to the Flatbush eiruv. I didn’t use it when I lived in Brooklyn because the Rav of my shul ( a Young Israel ) paskened that we couldn’t use it. However, the question I asked then was if O.P caused the problem in Brooklyn, why didn’t anyone have a problem with Queens Boulevard in Forest Hills and Kew Gargens , among others. It is much larger than OP and carries far more traffic and, with all the apartment buildings has a greater population density.November 18, 2008 3:08 am at 3:08 am #625790
rabbiofberlin, So you agree that, due to the tznius violation, a woman wearing jeans or corporate suitpants on a summer day is assur?November 18, 2008 3:53 am at 3:53 am #625791
I’ll give you jeans – they particularly are in contradiction of znius standards – and may even admit that a pantsuit should not be part of “bas Ysroel” clothing. I am less sure of ski pants (when skiing)or culottes or pants worn UNDER A SKIRT. BTW- on a summer day , it seems to me to be a lot more comfortable to wear skirts.
But our discussion has more relevant issues like – halocho lemaase- a family goes on a long car trip of say, eight to ten hours. Only the family members are present.It is a lot easier for a woman to travel in a pair of comfortable pants (to get in and out of the car, for example.)What if she asks to wear a comfortable pair of sweatpants? No major issue of znius- the pants are made for a woman, they are not tight and only her husband is present anyway.
If the issue is not one of “lo silbash”, then it should be permissible,as there aren’t any znius questions. If there is a problem of ‘lo silbash”, then it changes the whole question. Nu,how would you pasken?November 18, 2008 4:56 am at 4:56 am #625792
rabbiofberlin, Regarding your car trip example: if instead of sweatpants, she used a miniskirt, would that change the metzius of its permissibility? If you claim that tznius is unnecessary when only surrounded by immediate family, then you seem to say that a miniskirt too would be acceptable in that environment.
But even more importantly: is she able to get from her home into and out of the car unseen? When driving, is she invisible to others on the road or street?November 18, 2008 5:53 am at 5:53 am #625793
Additionally, sweatpants would be just as untzniusdik as pantsuits (which you are maskim is problematic.) They both demonstrate the outline and/or split (which the poskim I quoted previously, i.e. R’ Ovadya Yosef, R’ Scheinberg and R’ Elyashiv [amongst others], say is impermissible.)November 18, 2008 1:20 pm at 1:20 pm #625794
Joseph – what about women’s pajamas? Are they allowed to wear pants then? Just curious what you hold by.
I personally have to wear pants for work many times. I work in power plants that are old and dangerous. Skirts are a hazard. I am constantly climbing over and under pipes, walking on grating – there are dangerous pieces of equipment that a skirt could get caught on. My rabbi allows it.
When I lived in Brooklyn I asked the Rabbi of the shul I davened at about the eruv. He said it was kosher so I used it (and still do when I go back). To me, it was important to have an eruv because I had never lived without one, so I wasnt so sensitive to making sure my pockets were empty. My sister on the other hand didnt hold by the eruv. Her Rabbi forbid her from inviting people who used the eruv because it might possibly cause them to carry. Since I lived in the building with her, it didnt affect me, but it affected my sister. I personally disagreed with her Rabbi because it was a lack of disrespect for other poskim. However, he isnt a Rabbi I hold in high regards for many reasons, so this didnt shock me.November 18, 2008 2:07 pm at 2:07 pm #625795
For one posek to disagree with other poskim is not a lack of respect – especially concerning an eiruv which MANY rabbanim hold is worthless.
I’m not saying you can’t rely on your rabbi – I’m just saying that the last two lines of yor post are unreasonable.November 18, 2008 3:18 pm at 3:18 pm #625796
Question: Wanted to hear your opinion, and why.
A skirt that passes the knees by 2 inches.
A skirt down to the ankles, with a slit that reaches 2 inches up before the knee.
Which one (or both?), do you think is less appropriate, and why?November 18, 2008 3:23 pm at 3:23 pm #625797
Joseph, I have to be brief today because I have other matters to worry about today.
Actually, I disagree with your description of sweatpants. I don’t think they are un-zniusdik, as you describe. You can also add culottes (absolutely no outline at all) to this and pants under a skirt. So, we differ on the actual matter at hand. SJS gave you another possibility. The point is that, if this does not come under the guise of ‘lo silbash’, there is much more latitude for allowing it as the concept of what is considered znius is a more nebulous one.
As far as miniskirts and cars. Can a woman wear scanty clothing in her own home? Depending on how you answer that, you can deduce whatever decision you want to make about a miniskirt in a car,although she is less protected in the car, and it might be more problematic.November 18, 2008 3:29 pm at 3:29 pm #625798
I could not ressist adding a “knaitsh'(angle) to the discussion about eiruv. I truly don’t understand how Rabbonim can tell their congregnats NOT to invite OTHER people in case they may use the eiruv, which they think is kosher. Even if that particular Rov does not “hold’ of the eiruv, there is a gemoro in Jevomos that says that Bais Shammai and Bais Hillel “lo nimnemu milehasi”. They did not refrain from marrying into each other’s families although they had diametrically opposite views on ‘tsoros’ (too complicated to explain now to the layman-please forgive me!)In other words, they would hold one shittah but accept the other person’s shittah without it affecting how they acted towards them. I fail to see why this could not be done today.November 18, 2008 3:40 pm at 3:40 pm #625799
Notpashut – the reason I think its disrespectful is that I was in no way shape or form making my sister use the eruv. I was choosing to follow my halachic psak regarding the eruv and the rabbi making a decree against my sister inviting me based on something that doesnt affect her at all is disrespectful in my opinion. What if I didnt live in her building? Then she would not have been able to invite me all for something that I hold is halachically acceptable! Its not like I was bringing something that was of questionable hechsher into her home that could possibly contaminate her pots or something…it only affected the person using the eruv.November 18, 2008 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #625800
rabbiofberlin & sjsinnyc,
The answer to both of your questions is one in the same.
Some times a Rov can hold A & understands that there is room for another Rov to hold B – he simply does not agree with that p’sak.
However, sometimes (& this is the case with the Flatbush eiruv) the Rabbonim who hold A are of the opinion that B is completely & totally erroneous & therefore there is no room to be lenient whatsoever.
I myself saw signs up signed by two of the most prominent poskim in America as well as Rav Elyashiv Shlit”a stating that anyone who carries in the eiruv is a “mechalel shabbos b’farhesia”.
So again, I’m a nobody & I can’t tell you not to rely on your Rabbi, but the aforementioned Rabbonim are of the opinion that your Rabbi is making a MISTAKE, they don’t merely disagree.November 18, 2008 4:16 pm at 4:16 pm #625801
SJSinNYC, it is hurtful when someone has a psak that makes you feel rejected, however our opinion is not really what counts in Yiddishkeit. The only opinion that is accepted is Torah and Daas Torah. My parents actually got a similar psak. They are allowed to invite our family who carries as long as they don’t carry to their house. It was a little of an uncomfortable situation but for the sake of Shalom and to maintain the closeness of the family they accepted this and don’t carry to my parents’ home. Just as you expect people to accept other peoples’ more makil psakim whether or not they understand it, you must respect more machmir psakim whether or not you accept it even (especially)if it affects you indirectly in which case you are nogeia badavar and cannot think straight about it.November 18, 2008 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #625802
Notpashut, I have not been following this whole discussion, but seem to vaguely recall that Reb Moshe writes that even though he has his opinion on the flatbush eruv (machmir), he has no problem with a Rov who disagrees and paskens to be maikil.November 18, 2008 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #625803
Pashuteh, I believe you are mistaken.November 18, 2008 5:29 pm at 5:29 pm #625804
I have no problem with accepting other people’s stricter psak. I have no problem abiding by it either, when necessary (I only use bodek spinach when my sister comes, per her request). But I do have a problem when people make it seem like my psak is totally wrong and halachically unacceptable.November 18, 2008 6:02 pm at 6:02 pm #625805
Joseph, please look up Ig”M OC 4, siman 87 where Reb Moshe does not want to come out and say an Eruv in Brooklyn is assur, just that he personally believes it is. However, in Siman 88, he seems to be more definitive after being shown an exact map of Brooklyn.November 18, 2008 6:37 pm at 6:37 pm #625806
It can’t be that their Rav said your sister can’t be invited at all even if she agreed not to carry, that makes no sense! Either I’m misunderstanding you or you misunderstood them.
As far as your statement “I do have a problem when people make it seem like my psak is totally wrong & halachically unacceptable.” Perhaps I can give you an analogy which will help you understand.
Imagine I say that I think Bloomberg is a better mayor than Guiliani & you disagree. We can then have a pleasent argument & I’d hear your reasons & you’d hear mine & we would not be able to agree.
Now imagine I say Dinkins was a better mayor than Guiliani or Bloomberg – you wouldn’t even argue with me! We wouldn’t be having a DISAGREEMENT, you would simply say that I am making a MISTAKE.
Same thing here, these Rabbanim hold that it’s chillul shabbos mammash, they don’t even agree that there is a legitimate tzad to be maikel.
I don’t know what to tell you about R Moshe but this is the way I understand the situation.November 18, 2008 7:02 pm at 7:02 pm #625807
Pashuteh, So Siman 88 would settle the matter then.November 18, 2008 7:05 pm at 7:05 pm #625808
I did not misunderstand your post. I understood that they cannot invite at all. You still have to accept the Psak. It’s hard but you wouldn’t get Schar for anything if it’d be easy. (What would you say if I would ask you not to prepare spinach at all for me because my husband does not trust bodek’s standards…?)
- The topic ‘Tenor of Discussion on YWN: When Discussions Become Acrimonious’ is closed to new replies.