Forum Replies Created
Now I see that YitzchokM said that he is done with the topic. I sincerely hope this is just rhetoric, since we are supposedly having a rational, dispassionate debate, and, as shown in my previous post, he is absolutely wrong to assume that the question of whether it is permitted to smoke in public depends solely on the issue of whether it is permitted to smoke at all.
In any case, I’m not sure I agree that “you can’t be a Rodef if it’s Halachicly okay.” After all, the Gemara says clearly that Pinchas was a Rodef, and Zimri would have been within his rights to kill Pinchas, whose actions were most certainly Halachicly okay. A fetus in utero can also be considered a Rodef, despite not having done anything that is not Halachicly okay.
YitzchokM, Although I oppose your position on this topic, I agree that in order for a discussion to be intelligent it must be dispassionate.
It is true that Rav Moshe stopped just short of outright prohibiting smoking, however…
This conversation is incomplete without mention of Rav Moshe’s Psak [the same Rav Moshe – this Teshuva is in Choshen Mishpat 2:18] that even if smoking is permitted, the fact that it is damaging, or even bothersome, or simply annoying, to others can not be discounted. He therefore rules that you may not even smoke in your own home if the secondhand smoke will damage, or bother, or even simply annoy, your neighbor.
There is such a product, marketed by and for people who have no knowledge of the Halacha. Such ציצית are absolutely פסול because of the rule of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. Suppose you have a garment has three corners, and you attach ציצית to them, and then modify the garment so that it has a fourth corner. שלחן ערוך says clearly that you will need to untie the three ציצית which you had attached prior to the garment having had four corners, and put them on again (משנה ברורה points out that this means they must be completely untied).
MDG, I think you’re referring to a case where the original marriage was without קידושין. If the original marriage was with קידושין, however, she would be אסורה עולמית to the original husband once she was נבעלת לרצון [or even באונס if the first husband was a כהן] whether or not the second union was considered a Halachic marriage.
I wonder if this would be considered מסייע, since they have plenty of opportunity to pursue their chosen course even without CTL’s help.
Rav Hirsch explains it to mean that the foregoing thought should be held constantly in one’s mind. (Commentary to Tehilim 3, if I’m not mistaken).April 19, 2018 2:48 pm at 2:48 pm in reply to: Jewish Jobs – Shouldnt Say Female Only Very Many Times #1508944
“It is HARD ENOUGH for Frum people to get a job when others may very likely NOT WANT people that need to leave early Every Friday and Erev Yom Tov”
This is certainly discriminatory (on the basis of religion), and if it can be proven that an applicant was rejected for that reason, that employer will have a big problem on his (or her) hands.
I would appreciate if one of the Lawyers in Residence here in the CR would inform us laypeople whether the ads to which the OP refers are illegal. Is there anything wrong with wanting to hire, say, only females to preserve the religious acceptability of a workplace environment?
“To reiterate, I’m 100% aware that this is a Torah-ordained doctrine. The question is WHY it is so.”
Of course, we can not truly know the mind of Hashem. Nevertheless, we are free to theorize about the reasons for such things.
In my last post, I mentioned three of the theories advanced in ספרים.
Various theories have been advanced as to why Hashem would choose to conduct the world in such a manner.
For one, otherwise there would be virtually no such thing as moral freedom (what we call Koach Habechira) – we would be coerced to follow Ratzon Hashem by the clarity of our perception that He is the One Who runs the world (along the lines of what Rav Moshe Feinstein said about the Koach Habechira of Malachim – ע’ דרש משה פרשת בראשית).
Additionally, a world which operates on a logical system of action-reaction (cause and effect) helps us to understand and internalize the concept of Midah K’neged Midah, so that we can use our experiences as guides in our Avodas Hashem.
What’s more, as the Pasuk says, מלך במשפט יעמיד ארץ, the king establishes his government on the basis of justice (in somewhat more modern parlance, Law and Order). The fact that the world operates in a perfectly consistent way that is regulated by Laws which can not be violated is an expression of Hashem’s Majesty.
There is plenty more out there, but these are the three which resonate most strongly for me.
Yes, DY, I suppose that’s true.
Although perhaps the Limud to follow Chazaka is slightly more explicit.
√2, I apologize if you were offended. I assumed that you chose that screen name precisely because it is an irrational number. I was just saying that I disagree with the question. Whatever the value of √2 is (and it is obviously in the neighborhood of 1.414), it is an irrational number (like pi, there is no pattern to its decimal sequence).
The joke portrays a rabbinic leader as having infantile selfishness and vindictiveness. It also implies ever so strongly that non-Jewish life has no value. I was taught that such “jokes” are anathema to the Torah, even when said clearly in jest.
With all due respect to Avrah, I and others also answered the question, albeit not in so verbose a manner. If you prefer, here is a somewhat more elaborated expression of my response:
Suppose there were a Pasuk which said, “Hashem said to Moshe, saying: Even as I create all that exists, ex nihilo, at every moment, I generally conduct the world in such a way as to give the impression that there is a continuous existence. I choose to have the world function in a systematic, predictable way, except for such times as when I will conduct extraordinary miracles. You are therefore to conduct yourselves as though the existence of Creation were continuous, despite your realization that it is not.'”
Would you then still have a question?
But there is such a Pasuk – it is the one where the Torah instructs us to follow Chazaka.
I can’t help but point out that the square root of 2 is irrational.
The Torah itself instructs us to rely on Chazaka.
The fact that Hashem constantly recreates all that exists in no way conflicts with the fact that in His wisdom, He created the world to function in a systematic way.
Ubiquitin, I’ve never heard that “joke” before. I find it to be profoundly disturbing on many levels.
In my opinion, it includes the overwhelming majority of people who voted in the last Presidential election.
Here we go again…
I submit to you that there is not a person alive today whose taste in music is not influenced by “Goyish music.” The idea that certain songs are inherently “Yiddishe nigunim” while others are “Tamei” is a myth. With the reputed exception of the Nigun used for Birchas Kohanim, all of our music for hundreds of years has been influenced by the people around us, sometimes directly and sometimes indirectly, but always to a great degree.
I certainly understand that a person may have his own taste in music, and consider certain tunes to be nothing more than noise. However, the fact that you feel this way doesn’t make it so. For people who like and enjoy it, (and, yes, find that it inspires them to Simcha and feelings of spirituality,) the tune of Meilech Kohn’s V’uhavtu is no less “Yiddish” than Ka Echsof.
1. The Vilna Gaon famously states that Chazal always had multiple reasons for a Minhag, some of which they may have had some reason for concealing from us, and that therefore we may not unilaterally determine that a Minhag is no longer applicable. Obviously, this would only apply to Minhagim that are certified by Chazal. [As I have had to point out to skeptics many times, this is not at all far-fetched; both as a parent and as an educator I do this all the time.]
2. In the specific case of Yom Tov Sheini, Rav Hirsch explains at length that this Minhag preserves for us the true character of our Yamim Tovim, which would be lost if we were to observe only one day of Yom Tov. Check his commentary to Parashas HaChodesh [Shemos 12].
3. We should not be so arrogant as to assume that we fully understand the basis for a Minhag without extensive research, much less should we assume the authority to revoke a Minhag as obsolete. There are many stories of Rabonim who declared certain Minhagim to be Minhag Shtus, only to learn the hard way why they were wrong, corroborating this idea. [One excellent example, which I think has already been mentioned in the CR, involves the Rema and the Minhag in Cracow to say Mazal Tov after leil tevila.]
My personal favorite was when a potential mother in law asked me [about a good friend and former chavrusa and roommate], “How does he learn? Is he like Reb Boruch Ber, or more Reb Shimon’dik?”
So many possibilities…
באבוד רשעים רינהMarch 13, 2018 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm in reply to: Should Donald Trump be Crowned King of the United States? #1488236
CTL, I don’t trust him either. As I’ve said, I do not consider him fit to govern.
I also speculate that foreign governments/officials are trying to curry favor with the current President in that way.
I also think that this should not be legal, and that it is not ethical.
To be sure, I think it’s obvious that it is not consistent with the spirit of the Emolument Clause; I do not see, however, that it is a violation of the letter of the law.
The Clause does not prohibit any and all profitable relationships with any King, Prince, or Foreign State. It only disallows the accepting of any present, emolument, office or title. It does not seem technically to prohibit any other sort of business dealings, such as the sale of commodities or foreign governments holding conferences in hotels owned by the President, etc.
Please explain why this is not correct.March 13, 2018 11:31 am at 11:31 am in reply to: Should Donald Trump be Crowned King of the United States? #1488013
CTL, I’m not a lawyer or an expert in constitutional law. Please explain for the layman:
Emoluments is defined by Marriam-Webster as, “the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites.”
Perquisites is defined (also by Marriam-Webster) as, “a privilege, gain, or profit incidental to regular salary or wages; especially : one expected or promised.”
Is there any reason to think that the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution would preclude a President (or anybody holding any office of profit or trust under the United States) from profiting from a business relationship that does not have the character of employment?
Whether this should be permitted or ethical is irrelevant. The question here is whether the clause mentioned applies.March 13, 2018 8:55 am at 8:55 am in reply to: Should Donald Trump be Crowned King of the United States? #1487889
CTL, I am no fan of “the donald;” I think he is completely unfit to govern. Nevertheless, I don’t understand why you think he has violated the emoluments clause. What specifically did he do in violation of that clause?
My comment to Rabbi Hoffman’s excellent article about vaccinations was not allowed, I think unfairly.
This is the wrong complaint department.
I always thought Triangle was funny in a dark humor sort of way (they make fire extinguishers…).
I have no interest in entering the debate on guns, the second amendment, et al.
I was just wondering:
Why is it legal for a store unilaterally to impose age restrictions on purchases of certain items? Isn’t this discrimination on the basis of age?
Thanks, I stand corrected.
I searched with the search tool at the top of the page; I didn’t realize that YWN and CR have separate search tools.
Also, I couldn’t find a single thread or comment on YWN or in the CR or elsewhere that people expressed taking offense at any of the Lose4Autism ads over the years.
I’m not saying that nobody was offended (which I can’t possibly know; in any case, I would be surprised if NOBODY was offended), just that I couldn’t find a single comment about it.
(note from 79; if you search “lose4autism” in coffeeroom you’ll find this https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/attn-lab#post-1136883 “
This is getting to be absurd. I didn’t say that because I’m not offended it isn’t offensive. I only mentioned that I fit the demographic of the potentially offended. You certainly are entitled to an opinion no less than I am. I was simply stating my opinion, which is that I don’t consider it offensive.
I certainly don’t think it was intended to offend anyone, and I also think that it is within the parameters of benign humor. Is it possible for someone to see it in such a way as to find it offensive? Sure. Does that mean they should not have published it? I don’t think so, but that’s just my opinion.
I think that there are many people who are hypersensitive and take offense at the drop of a hat. I also think that there are many people who feign being offended because of the power it gives them to control how others speak, and I find this very offensive.
Obviously not. That’s a perfect straw man argument. The point I was making is that it is not practical, nor even required, to concern yourself with every possible way that a statement can be misconstrued so as to be insulting to someone or other. The way people feel always matters; this does not give free rein to the Serial Offended Class to silence all forms of expression. I, for one, would feel constrained if I had to submit everything I say to the PC Police.
I think it was quite clear that the Eat4Oorah video was meant as a promotional tactic and nothing else, and [despite being rather ready to lose weight myself] I don’t consider it offensive in any way. Certainly, it was much less so than the LoseForAutism video of which it was a spoof, and I don’t remember the protests over that one. This leads me to the conclusion that the facade of being offended here is just a pretense to put down a successful organization.
Of course, I agree that it is important not to say or do anything, or even use language, which could reasonably be expected to offend. One good example of this (which has already been litigated extensively here in the CR) is your use of the word “retarded”.
Haters gonna hate.
It’s not worth the time to go through all the [frivolous] complaints against Oorah. The only real complaint is that people are jealous of their success, and so clothe their own inadequacies in the טלית שכולה תכלת of “Chillul Hashem.”
My personal connection with Oorah (I have never been paid by them for anything, but I have volunteered for them on occasion) has allowed me to gain some intimate knowledge of how they work. I believe that any objective observer would be satisfied that they are honest, fiscally responsible, and stay true to the guidance of their Rabbinical leadership. What more can you ask of an organization?
I have long said that the Gemara which says כולם באבק לשון הרע is to be understood at face value – no matter what you say, somebody, somewhere, is insulted.February 19, 2018 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm in reply to: Is the fact that 40% of the public school is Jewish any less of a tragedy #1472245
The two are totally unrelated.
Of course, it is an unspeakable tragedy that so many of our brothers and sisters do not learn about their true mission in life.
This does not, in any way, mitigate the horror of the shooting.February 16, 2018 11:36 am at 11:36 am in reply to: Kallah Taking Chosson’s Last Name Upon Marriage- Jewish or Gentile? #1470630
Rav Elyashiv’s father took his wife’s surname (Elyashiv was the surname of the Leshem, Rav Elyashiv’s maternal grandfather).
Well, for one thing, seeing as we are all either definitely or presumed טמא it would be impossible to fulfill this מצוה in the current situation.
My Rav told me that the definition of שוק with regard to the rule of האוכל בשוק וכו is “a place that is not designated for eating,” so, for example, there is nothing wrong with eating in the food court of a mall, or at the sidewalk tables outside a cafe.
One thousand years from now, people will look back at the era of professional sports with the same puzzlement that we have for idolatry and paganism.
Nevertheless, as someone who was born and grew up in the NY area, I understand how professional sports has a certain attraction to it, and I understand how people get caught up in it.
All in all, there are things which are much worse going on in our community. I’d much rather people be sports fans than, say, racist or dishonest, especially if they are מתעטף בטלית שכולה תכלת and claim that what they are doing is רצון השם…
What you describe in your most recent post is in fact the presence of evidence to the contrary.
If I claim that there is gravity, but unsupported objects fail to get pulled to the Earth, this is not merely the absence of evidence sustaining my claim; it is the presence of conclusive evidence that my claim is incorrect.
In the words of חז”ל,
“לא ראינו אונה ראיה”
However, absence of evidence is a useful tool when deliberately obfuscating an issue. It is especially so when coupled with oversimplification and absurd exaggeration.
Wow, Rockaway Resident, you seem to be really adversely affected by the weather. I hope that this is not your normal temperament…
Maybe you should consider moving somewhere with a warmer climate.
The Ramban discusses this issue in this week’s Parasha. He says that the Torah only reports those Nisim which were predicted prior to the fact by a Navi.
I’m sorry to hear that you had to go through that. I have a close friend who endured something similar. His first marriage lasted less than three months.
However, in his case (and perhaps in yours as well) the culprit was not the XX chromosomal condition, but a bad case of OCD (she hid it from him the whole time, and went off medication to try to conceive), coupled with an obscene form of premeditated abuse of trust [this last may well have been genetic – it is rather similar to what Lavan did…].
Your mother’s rather healthy training of her child(ren) seems to be evidence that not all ailments suffered by XX carriers are related to that particular chromosome.
In any case, I am happy that you were able to move on from a toxic situation.
My apologies. I somehow missed your sarcasm.
Joseph, I feel for you. It must be difficult to be so righteously indignant about something that you can not define, or even properly identify.
I was enjoying this thread until you trotted out the tired old diatribe about “what they call Jewish music today.”
I, for one, have no patience for the highbrows who seem to think that only their taste in music matters.
It’s no coincidence that Ashkenazi music sounds so similar to Eastern European music, while Sefardic music sounds so similar to Arabic music. The fact that you don’t enjoy contemporary singers or find their songs inspiring doesn’t mean that it’s any less Jewish than Regesh, Carlebach, Rabbi’s Sons, or even Yossel Rosenblatt. You can include every Chassidishe nigun from the Baal Shem Tov’s Nigun straight through Modzitz and next year’s Simchas Beis Hashoeiva from Belz in this list. (Honorable mention goes to the Chassidim, who managed to produce the Emperor’s New Album to match his clothes, by saying that “the Rebbe was Mikadeish the Nigun.”)
None of that was inherently “Jewish music” either, and I’m sure that in each generation, the old fuddy duddys complained about “what they call Jewish music today.”
In response to Joseph, nearly all Jewish music for the past ten years, and a lot of the earlier stuff, is available for digital download, and on subscription music apps.
Now back to our regular feature program…
Nobody is perfect, but the Y chromosome seems to give its carrier a more relaxed (dare I say, realistic) attitude about the failings of those around him.
In response to your survey, the answer is, much less often than my wife.
Also, I never thought I would agree to wholeheartedly with Joseph, but I think he is right. One of the side affects of having a Y chromosome is apparently to prevent a carrier from suffering the side affects of having an X chromosome.
The other side of the population, on the other hand, have a double dose…December 19, 2017 1:53 pm at 1:53 pm in reply to: Explaining to girls that only boys light the Chanukah Menorah #1430171
It shouldn’t be explained. The girls should light, שאף הן היו באותו הנס. I encourage my (above Bas Mitzvah age) daughter to light (but I don’t force her to). [My younger daughters need no encouragement.]
My wife does not light, mostly because her mother doesn’t either. My father in law, who is a תלמיד חכם, explained this with the rule of אשתו כגופו. I don’t exactly understand the application of that concept here, but I went along with his פסק.December 5, 2017 11:41 am at 11:41 am in reply to: Where can Antartican Jews escape if there is an emergency? #1418860
They would have to go north.
This thread is a conspiracy to distract us from the conspiracy facts.
Just a theory.
With all due respect, there are hundreds of threads in the CR dedicated to nonsense.
Most of these far outdo the present thread in senselessness, though they can’t compete in prosaic beauty.
I asked Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky specifically about whether one who is not makpid on Chalav Yisrael should reconsider because of the stomach puncture issue, and he said no.
DY – Thank you. I respect your opinion as quite educated and levelheaded, so I consider your attention a compliment.
Nevertheless, I disagree with your corrections.
In Sefer Chazon Ish (although I can’t provide a Mareh Makom, as it’s been so long since I saw it), the same logic relied upon by Rav Moshe is presented. It is possible that the Ch’I didn’t want to rely on this Lma’aseh, which explains why he only allowed milk with the P’Ch, but he does use the Sevara.
Similarly, in constructing the Paris Eiruv, the Chazon Ish also did not rely on his own leniency. This interesting historical footnote notwithstanding, his Sevara is an important part of most municipal Eiruvin today.
Butter doesn’t need supervision because we know by process of elimination that it must be kosher milk; Chalav Stam is an extension of the same principle.
I don’t remember Rav Moshe saying to Kasher Keilim – Can you provide a reference?
One could say by the same token, Gadolhadorah, that it’s easier to criticize others for focusing on Halachic issues instead of on introspection, than it is to be introspective yourself.
Not that I disagree with you; people like me should certainly spend more time on introspection than we do.
However, I do not agree with your attempt to slam the door on this discussion, and I emphatically disagree with your tactic. There is no reason for personal attacks here.
Actually, this is a perfectly valid debate about an important Halachic issue. The fact that the practical aspect of this Halacha relates more to women than to men is no reason for men not to discuss it and invest great energy in it. I doubt you would have made the same observation about a discussion of the Halachos of lighting candles on Friday night.
All of these issues were litigated multiple times over the years, most recently about ten years ago. I heard from a source very close to Rav Belsky that when Rav Belsky went to Rav Elyashiv’s house to discuss the questions about Sheitlach, Rav Elyashiv acknowledged that he was not provided with compelling evidence to support an Issur, and that according to Rav Belsky’s data it would be Muttar. No change in the Metzius is alleged in the recent Kol Koreh.
If I remember correctly, Rav Belsky was joined in allowing Indian Sheitlach by Rav Shmuel Kamenetzky, Rav Dovid Feinstein, Rav Dovid Cohen, Rav Feivel Cohen, and the vast majority of Poskim in America at the time. Unlike the Anisakis worm and Copepod issues (which were going on at around the same time), there was broad consensus on this, at least on this side of the Atlantic.
Rav Moshe’s Psak (based on the straight reading of most of his Teshuvos on the issue, as well as the testimony and practice of his children and many of his leading Talmidim) was that “Chalav HaCompanies” is Muttar mei’ikar hadin.
There are only two types of milk: Chalav Yisrael which is Muttar, and Chalav Akum which is Assur. There is no debate about this. The point Rav Moshe made (which, for the record, is echoed by the Chazon Ish) was that based on the Umdena created by government regulations, Chalav HaCompanies qualifies as the Chalav Yisrael mentioned in Shulchan Aruch, just as butter does not need supervision.
Nevertheless, he recommended that Baal Nefesh Yachmir. Most Poskim seem to agree that according to this Shita, it would not assur keilim. The Poskim who disagreed with Rav Moshe and held that Chalav HaCompanies is Chalav Akum hold that it is regular non-Kosher food, it assurs keilim, etc.
It seems that the OP could only have held like Rav Moshe, since otherwise there is not really any room to maneuver. In any case, the entire concept of “Shaas Hadchak,” and related issues (hefsed meruba, et at) is about the financial cost of maintaining higher than the minimum Halachic standard, even where such higher standards are universally accepted, and even (sometimes, specifically) when the food will be given to guests.
As a general point, the basic ground rule of Halacha, as established in Teshuvos HaRama, is that any Kula accepted in extenuating circumstances (Shaas hadchak, hefsed meruba, tzorech Shabbos/Yom Tov, etc.) must in fact be the Halachic standard, even if, under normal circumstances, we do not rely on it. In other words, no lenient opinion which is decidedly against the Halacha can be relied upon in any case. So those Poskim who allow Chalav Stam (even if only in Shaas Hadchak) by definition hold that it is Muttar mei’ikar hadin.
Also, the issue at hand was not one of insulting the host (they apparently have no problem eating together despite the different standards that they maintain), but one of cost. The guest wishes to avoid causing his host to spend more than he has to, and wants to know if in such a situation he may eat CS, which is certainly a Shaila for one’s personal Rav.November 3, 2017 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm in reply to: Kiddush Hashem, Chillul Hashem, Anti-Semitism, and Self Awareness #1395442
1. Well, the Gemara does say that impressing people with your conduct is the definition of a Kiddush Hashem. Why wouldn’t the same concept apply for some other religion? I think it is fair to ask what the Torah expects us to think of the righteous conduct of others. How, for example, are we to think of the self-sacrifice of those Polish and other Eastern European non-Jews who risked their own lives to save those of our grandparents? If their righteousness is to be attributed to “humanity”, then why is ours assumed to be attributed to the Torah?
So I agree that your first point is valid, and that the Gemara needs further review.
2. To be honest, until last night I never understood why so many people get so angry when someone puts on blackface. After your comment, I did some rudimentary research, and found that it has quite a history, and is an important part of the racism practiced against blacks in this country. In other words, it isn’t just a costume, it has a lot of baggage.
The parallel would be if the kids had dressed as Jews who had murdered little non-Jews and used their blood in the production of Matza (although, I’m not sure how a costume could convey all that).
Please tell me which parts are right, and which are wrong. I am very happy to acknowledge when I am mistaken, but I can’t have a conversation that doesn’t address specific points.
In any case, I agree absolutely with lesschumras. Your assumption that a certain group of people will bring crime is terribly racist. I would much rather live among black professionals than among white trash. I don’t assume, however, that someone black must be a professional, or that someone white must be trash. In reality, I don’t care about my neighbor’s skin color, but about his character.
What’s more, you actually got precisely the wrong message from my original post. I wrote that , “When a town deliberately changes zoning laws and building codes so that Jews will not be able to move in, that is anti-Semitism. ”
I always understood that Mishna either to mean that “Seiser” and “Galui” are relative terms, or that a person can hide behind some anonymity even as he is easily identified as an Orthodox Jew. Nevertheless, I hope to look around a bit to see if there is more out there.