Forum Replies Created
Also another random question: Do sheidim exist? If so, what are they?
Yahud: The aruch halshuchan says this din. However, he says it regarding Rabbeim being michuzak their talmidim. He similarly says it by kriyas hatorah; the ba’al korey can say amen louder so that everyone realizes that laining is about to begin. (I learnt this a while ago and don’t remember were to find it).
Why exactly is it a problem? There isn’t any yichud.
Health: Could you please tell me how you know that the government in Israel is a government of kfira?
I heard a really interesting joke (though used in an entirely different context):
If you told smokers that all the cigarettes they used were made with lard, they would stop smoking. If you told them it’s an issur di’oraisah to damage your body, and smoking damages your body, they’d continue anyway.
Health: If you would just consider the following
 It’s a mitzvah (or at least we are Halachlickly mandated) to establish a Medina in Israel (Ramban — mitzvos that the Rambam forgot — mitzvah 4; Rambam hilchos milachim perek 1 halacha 1).
 Im Timtzeh Lomar, that the Zionist movement are kofrim (which it isn’t, mind you; the entire Hesder and most Orthodox communities in America are Zionist), WE WOULD STILL NEED TO KEEP THE MEDINA.
I wish to make this abundantly clear; the current Medina in Israel is not at all “treif”. If you believe it is, I would greatly appreciate some sort of source or fact showing (or better yet, proving) that it is. But again, even if it is, it doesn’t matter.
Now you ask, “Hey, Abelleh. Where do you get that crazy idea from? If the Medina is against Torah values, of course we need to abandon it!” And then I would respond, “Well Health, if you look at Jewish history and Nach, we see all the time that the government in Israel is not at all religious, even anti-religious. Now, if we supported the government then, and I would like to note that not all of those times was the Beis Hamikdash extant, why shouldn’t we now? What changed Health?”
And you would respond how?
Health: “Why? Give me a reason acc. to Torah.”
Sure. First let’s start with the pasukim:
?????????????? ???-???????, ????????????-?????: ???? ????? ???????? ???-???????, ???????? ??????.
??????? ??????? ??? ????????, ????????? ???????????? ??? ?????????, ???-????? ????????? ????????, ????????????? ?????????? ???????
Now to the Ramban. In the back of sefer haMitzvos, the Rambam has a collection of mitzvos the Rambam “forgot,” and mitzvah 4 there says that you should make a medina.
The Rambam, Hilchos Milachim perek aleph halacha aleph says you need to appoint a king upon entering the land.
Need I go on?
yitayningwut: The term “derech eretz” doesn’t mean getting paid; it means working. By being self-supporting, you improve you person which is a fundamental part of Torah growth. Look at Avraham, Yitzcahk, Yaakov, and the Shvatim. They were all shepherds, which the Abarbenel calls the “avoda kedusha”.
Google “rupture and reconstruction the transformation of contemporary orthodoxy” to see R Haym Soloveitchick’s say on psak
gavra_at_work: I’m not sure what you’re trying to say.
Toi: I guess it just depends on how you define zionism. If Zionism means that you want to build up eretz yisrael then you would be a zionist. If zionism means that you want to build up eretz yisrael, but you want to do without the parameters of Torah, you wouldn’t be.
But only a small minority falls under the second category today. In the early days of the Reform movement, many people from the Reform movement did. Today that is not the case.
Toi: I don’t think the current kollel system in effect now is the one the Gedolim 50 years ago advocated. If you look at what Rav Aharon Kutler intended for the original kollel, it was only a few year program for a smaller number of people.
Toi: I don’t get what was so funny
Health: Let me clarify:
No matter what the reason for the Tzionim being pro-Israel are, you still need to support it. With that said, they are not kofrim. Rav Schachter is the biggest zionist in the western hemisphere. Is he a kofer? There are many people who are zionist. If some are kofrim (I, not having met any kofer-tzioni people, have no right to suggest that some exist. You seem to know from firsthand experience, or why els would you make such a statement?) that says nothing about the movement. There are some Jews who are kofrim. Does that mean it’s asur to be a Jew? There are some Charaidim who are kofrim. Does that mean it’s assur to be a Charaidi? There are some American Jews who are kofrim. Does that mean it’s assur to be an American Jew?
I can give you some summaries of the derech halimudim of the popular rosh yeshiva:
Rav Hershel Schachter: he explains the basis and shittos of the tanaim, amoraim, etc. For example, he would say there’s a machlokes between tosfos and the rambam on how to understand what a niddah is. The rambam says a niddah is an arvuh, tosfos says a niddah is not an arvuh. Where does tosfos get his opinion from? He would then proceed to take you on “the tour of shas” and answer up all difficulties as such.
Rav Mordachai Willig: I’m not as familiar with his style, but he is very halachick. He learns the mishna, gemara, rishonim, achronim, then shulchan aruch, pointing along chiddushim on the way. My friend once described his shiur as the whole thing being chiddushim.
Rav Rozenswieg: Brisk like no other
But you can see for yourself on YUTorah.org
popa_bar_abba: “Avi, I will teach you something interesting. Sometimes, the same words can mean something different! Imagine that!”
That’s true (though harsh). But it may or not be applicable here. But even if one were define derech eretz as work in all situations, I think the kollel system would still not be undermined. Jost because it beautifies Torah does not mean it’s necessary. And even within the current kollel system, no expects you to learn as a parnasah for ever. You’ll work eventually.
Health: You don’t know the reasons that the Gedolim (whoever these Gedolim that you speak of are) are against living in Eretz Yisrael.
Yes, Herod made the Second Beis Hamikdash.
Health: When Herod made the Beis Hamikdash, did the Gedolim of that generation say to move out of Eretz Yisrael? No! Of course not! Kal Vichomer, nowadays when the zionist movement is filled with people who are shomrei torah u mitzvos you need to support it!
Health: It’s a machlokas whether establishing a Madina is a mitzva Di’Oraisah. The Ramban says yes; the Rambam says no. HOWEVER, KOLEI ALMA LO PLIGEA THAT ONCE WE HAVE A MADINA YOU CAN’T GIVE IT UP!
AM YISRAEL CHAI!!!
I once asked this exact question to Rav Schachter. He responded, “I don’t know. It’s complicated.”
Health: “I’m sure you don’t mean it, but you are very ignorant when it comes to the history.”
I’m sure you don’t mean it, but you are very insulting when it comes to talking to people.
Oh, and that was not my idea. The whole idea that the Balfour Declaration exempts us from the Shvuah that we took (assuming that you do in fact think that shvuah is halchickly binding, even though the Rambam, Tur, and Shulchan Aruch don’t assume that way) is no longer applicable, wasn’t even my idea. It was the Ohr Sameach’s idea. You want to insult me for not knowing my history, well I can’t condone that. But you want to insult the Ohr Sameach?! No… that doesn’t fly…
YW Moderator-72: I totally agree.
But Health, you still never made an argument; the Stamir position is very hard to understand in light of the Balfour Declaration and the UN’s Decision to grant the Jews a homeland in 1948 (the Or Sameach has a letter about this; I heard this quoted by Rav Schachter, though I don’t recall were he said it could be found). In fact, during the Aggudah meeting in the 40’s when the Gedolim were discussing whether to make a state, Satmir didn’t even show up because they knew that they were (to use Rav Schachter’s term) “a minority she’bi’minority” and they wouldn’t even get the floor.
If you want to hear Rav Schachter go through all the opinions (Mercaz, Stamir, etc.) you can listen to his shiur called “Land for Peace” on YU Torah (I’ll post the link if I get permission)
2sense: If you let what people think of you stand in your way, you won’t become very much. If the Rambam never stood up to the Geonim, he wouldn’t have become the Rambam. If Moshe hadn’t stood up to Korach, who knows where the Jews would be?
Sam2: Even if you know 51%, we say Safek Di’Oraisuh li’Chumrah.
Health: I was under the impression that the Gedolim did support it. If you think they don’t, could you list the reasons why they say not to?
That said, I’m still not sure why one would say you can’t revive the mitzvah. If the gemara gave us qualifications, that it self indicates you should be testing to see if its the real techeiles. Additionally, if you know 100% what the real techeiles is, what does the mesorah add?
It happens to be a mitzvah do’arisah to live in eretz yisrael. You kind of need to move there, regardless of how good America is.
My question was really now that the medina is established (which it definitely is), how can you say we SHOULDN’T support it?
I heard Rav Schachter himself speak on the topic. Here’s how it breaks down:
PRO-TECHEILES: Because of the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex (I definitely spelled that wrong) is the chilazon, we should use it as techeiles.
ANTI-TECHEILES: Despite the enormous amount of archaeological evidence pointing to the fact that this trunculus murinex is the chilazon, we should NOT wear techeiles because we don’t have the mesorah for it.
>NOTE: Those who are anti-techeiles don’t think (necessarily) that the tunculus murinex is not techeiles, they think it just doesn’t matter, because if you lose the mesorah for something, you can’t reinstate (obviously, referring to before mashiach comes). It would be ridiculous to suggest that those who are anti-techeiles say the reason that you shouldn’t wear techeiles is because were not sure if its the chilazon. If theres EVEN A LITTLE BIT of evidence pointing to that fact, we say SAFEK DI’ORAISAH LACHUMRAH and we would wear it anyway. The debate is whether you can “revive” a mitzvah or not.
The Ramban counts having a Medina as a mitzvah (mitvos shehaRambam Shechach — Mitzvah 4). There’s a machlokes whether it is a mitzvah or not. That probably means you should do it!!!
Are there only arguments against ESTABLISHING a Medina? I’ve heard a few of those, but I’ve never heard one against CONTINUING to have the Medina, and they’re obviously very different things.
I would recommend the Kerem Yehoshoua (an English sefer; I forget the author… his name is probably Yehoshuoa). I used it a few times, and thought it was fantastic. He gives a study plan (which I no longer use) and a methodology for chazara (which I still try to use). Both are great
HaKatan: “Zionism is certainly not part of the Jewish faith”
Zionism happens to have basis in the Torah. The pasuk says “?????????????? ???-???????, ????????????-?????: ???? ????? ???????? ???-???????, ???????? ??????.” (Bamidbar 33:53). The Ramban believes this is a mitzvah di’oraisah to establish the medina (Mitzot ShShichach Harambam — Mitzvah 4), and while the Rambam doesn’t count it as a mitzva to have a medina before mashiach comes, he does believe that one MUST continue the medina if already established. [T]here’s a fantastic shiur by Rav Shachter on the topic
Edited for link. Please just give directions how to google for it.
I don’t mean the argument about establishing or not establishing a medina. That’s another story. Once the medina is established (which is now) what’s the argument for saying to not support it?
MDG: You might want to check out the Rambam’s 4th Perek of Hilchos Teshuva. Lashon Harah about large groups of people/organizations is really awful.
But why should white shirts be the uniform for yeshiva students?
yungerman1: Modern Hebrew is actually lashon HaKodesh according to Rav Shachter (I heard him say it myself). His svara was that all languages evolve. Biblical Hebrew is not the same as the Hebrew used in the Mishna, which in turn is not the same Hebrew used by Rambam, Rashi, etc. Nonetheless, we consider all of these lashon HaKodesh. So too Modern Hebrew, which is simply another point in Hebrew’s history, is Lashon HaKodesh.
Jothar: My point was not to justify charade-ism or Modern Orthodoxy. I’m trying to say that the labels themselves are destroying achdus.
PBA: That’s completely true. Just because a talmid chacham said something nice about him doesn’t mean he is a gaon and talmid chacham. He is a goan and talmid chacham in his own right.
PBA: Well I have smicha from someone who is a greater talmid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than Rav Schachter, and that person also respects my Torah knowledge and also called me a “Rav Hagadol B’Torah U’vyirah”
And since I think that Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm is a Talmid Chacham, and the person who gave me smicha is a bigger tamid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than Rav Schachter, that means Dr. Norman Lamm *is* a Talmid Chacham (unless of course, someone else comes along, who was given smicha from a greater talmid chochom that the the person who gave me smicha who is a greater talmid chochom than the person who gave you smicha who is a greater talmid chacham than Rav Schachter, and that person also respects his Torah knowledge and also called him a “Rav Hagadol B’Torah U’vyirah” and he thinks Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm isn’t a talmid chacham.)
Charn: With all due respect, you seem to be over-generalizning, over-exaggerating, and ignoring legitimate approaches in Judaism, simply dismissing them as “wrong”. This is what the Netziv said destroyed the second bais hamikdash (HaEmek Davar: Psicha Lsefer Bereeishis/Sefer HaYashar).
Charn: So then we both agree that R Wasserman says one can go to college.
Jothar: I’m saying we should be more accepting. When Rav and Shmuel had a machlokes, Rav thought Shmuel was wrong and Shmuel though Rav was wrong. Shmuel still respected Rav’s opinion and didn’t call him an apikores. Rav still repsect Shmuel’s opinion and didn’t call him an apikores.
Now you say, wait a minute… both Rav and Shmuel actually had basis for what they were saying… they weren’t going against the mesora… they knew what they were talking about….
Well wake up! “Modern Orthodox” people also know what they’re talking about, they are following the mesora, and they also have basis for what they’re saying!!!
Dr. Suess, do you have a source for that?
If you were to look in the back of Kovetz Ha’aros you will find a tshuvah given by Rav Elchonon saying that secular college — let alone YU– is permissible assuming you don’t fraternize with ovrei avairuh, you dont learn/ study and kfiera, and a third requirement which I don’t recall.
I think you may want to verify any statement you make before ascribing it to someone, because then you portray that person (in this case Rav Elchonon Wasserman) as espousing a belief which he did not.
Who says all our tzaros will go away?
It seems as though, from the definitions given above, that most “MO” people I know would not consider themselves “MO” if this is what “MO” means. If you looked at me, you would probably think I’m “Modern” because of the clothes I wear and the kippas I have. I don’t fit into any of these definitions more than the average “yeshivish” guy. It really seems that the definition of MO and yeshivish is your clothes and kipppa, in which case the whole differentiation ruins achdus. (Unless you think that other kippas are so inferior that those who wear them are not as religious, in which case you have other issues)
2scents: What do think makes someone Modern Orthodox then?