Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Meno, I believe we generally do accept that an airport is chutz l’tchum, but as I wrote, I question whether that applies to El Al in JFK.
Sam, I said I’m not sure. Here are some of the questions which lead to my doubt, despite it possibly not technically being in the t’chum of the NYC yishuv:
Do there need to be 10 frum Yidden, or any Yidden? Are there 10 Yidden in JFK? Do people in the 5t see the name of the airline on incoming planes? Is the fact that the schedule is public information enough to make it b’farhesia or does there need to be an actual sighting? Even if the above were problems, would the fact that El Al is known to be an Israeli company negate that? Are there El Al employees who live in ch”l being mechallel Yom Tov and is that the airline’s issue? Would non frum passengers who live in ch”l be an issue for the airline?
A ben E.Y. is not allowed to do m’lacha in ch”l on Yom Tov Sheini b’farhesia. I’m not sure if this qualifies as b’farhesia.
Would you say the same thing if it was a minyan for teens at risk?
I agree with Meno. Don’t daven there.
I think you can speak to the rav, but go into the conversation with an open mind about his reasoning, and understand that he may not be able to share it with you.
If this minyan were a youth minyan for at risk kids, we would all look at this very differently. Well, maybe the rav looks at it as a minyan for at risk adults.
If you think about it, for the most part, someone makpid on davening wouldn’t daven there (I’m sure DaMoshe’s father does care about davening, which is why I said “for the most part”).
So who’s attracted to such a shul? People who are lax in at least one area of avodas Hashem, and likely in more. If every shul would not tolerate the talkers, the talkers would not have a shul to go to. The rav’s cheshbon might be that they’re better off in his shul talking, where he can perhaps have a positive influence on them in other areas, than on the streets, or forming their own minyan with no guidance whatsoever.
I wouldn’t mention the reputation.
If you say something, maybe it should be in person.
we could always have a good chuckle as to how a particular country not only refuses to recognise the merits of a sport the world agrees is superior, and not only doesn’t even know what to call that sport, but can’t even pronounce what is now one of it’s most famous names.
The first part is true, the second isn’t. In England they know how to pronounce it.
No, the funniest thing is that you Brits call soccer football.
Newbee and popa are correct in their criticism of Joseph’s position. He gave marrying a non ger halachic import by comparing it to a kohen’s dinim, although his lack of providing a source shows that he completely made it up on his own.
One may also elect to davka marry a giyores.
Do you have a source for your reason, and for this chumra that a Yisroel or Levi should keep the dinim of a Kohen?
Joseph, what reason do you think Hashem had which would apply to non kohanim? You also didn’t address tumas meis. Do you also think that applies?
Yes, it’s called Conservative.
I agree with that part. I don’t agree with the implication that we can pinpoint Hashem’s reasoning.
Newbee, these are issurim d’Oraisa. I’m not saying the reason you give doesn’t have some validity, but it’s not THE reason, and you’re certainly aware that the dinim of who a kohen can’t marry are 100% applicable today.
Is it any more fair than electing to only marry someone born on a day there was krias Hatorah?
Than electing to not eat chometz a whole year?
Not to do melacha on Sunday?
Not drinking wine or taking a haircut for a non nazir?
Why is the issur to a kohen an indication that it’s a consideration for a non kohen?
Would you say the same about going to a cemetery?
Ari-free, to qote AZ:
If we change the boys middos then perhaps many more of the wonderful girls who may not possess all the superficial trappings will get married at the expense of of the rich pretty etc. At the end of the day, the only way to ensure ALL girls have a shot is to even out the numbers. Is that something you disagree with?
I think you might be defining “shidduch crisis” differently than AZ.
I don’t know why applauding would even fall under ein m’tapchin, which refers to rhythmic clapping with a song, which could lead to tikun klei shir.
Why don’t you tell us what you want from this?
Does the Rema actually fully allow clapping however and whenever? Or, is it more like “if someone claps because they don’t know better, they can rely on this tosafos. If you know better, then you shouldn’t clap.”
It seems that latter.
That’s why I’m recommending the one volume sefer.
Have you seen Rav Binyomin Forst’s seforim? He wrote a two volume sefer and a one volume sefer. The two volume sefer is more complex. The one volume is called A Woman’s Guide To The Laws Of Niddah, but there’s no reason a man can’t use it.
Have you tried Shabbat.com?
Can you please summarize for those who don’t have YouTube?
Thanks, kapusta. Look at this – I’m in agreement with squeak, and the topic is shidduchim!
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/shidduch-segullah#post-46539
Unfortunately, R’ Shimon Eider is no longer with us.
NC, I have seen some who don’t clap at all, and some who do with a shinui.
Perhaps there are those who mistakenly sometimes do and sometimes don’t clap with no significant halachic chilluk; that’s a mistake.
My point is that the R’ma was moreh heter for those who do clap, because they have a Tosafos to rely on (those who don’t clap hold its a shver’e. Tosafos which we don’t pasken like). Those who do dance and clap don’t hold that their minhag trumps halachah; they hold it’s muttar l’halachah (it was once explained to me that chassidim hold you’re allowed to follow a daas yochid b’sha’as had’chak, and dancing on Shabbos is considered a sha’as had’chak. Perhaps those with seemingly contradictory conduct hold when it’s not the purpose of dancing, it’s not a sha’as had’chak).
Ubiquitin, I don’t agree with all of your examples. Eruv is a pure halachic shailah, and FWIW, some well known poskim completely rejectct the validity of the eruv no matter what your rav says.
Similarly, I think eating in the house is an absolute no-no, it’s just that I can’t argue with the process of following rebbeim (maaseh rav) against the Shulchan Aruch when those rebbeim clearly believe in following halachah 100%; it’s the specific application I’m arguing with. Hence, I can fully respect that the person thinks they are following halachah while at the samextime thinking they are wrong.
Again, the reason talmidim were told to sit in the succah is that not doing so is a mistake in halachah (see Aruch Hashulchan for a strong possibility for how that mistake happened) and the fact that it’s the family minhag doesn’t mean a thing against a clear halachah.
I think everyone agrees that minhag doesn’t trump halachah, the disagreement is about what suffices to allow the assumption that the minhag is in accordance with the halachah.
After thinking it over, it’s not merely that one can have two motivations (which is also true), the point here is that the motivation is not the same thing as kavanah.
Even if the reason one undertakes to daven for another is selfish, they can still daven with kavanah purely for the other person.
Perhaps this is even the p’shat in not serving Hashem al m’nas l’kabel p’ras. Even if the motivation is for s’char, the kavanah at the time one does a mitzvah should be purely to do Hashem’s will.
If a girl undertakes to daven for another girl who needs a shidduch, she should completely put her own needs out of her mind, and just daven for the other.
I agree with this part of his statement:
if you are only doing it to be answered first you cancelled out the zchus. Or so it seems
As I said, though, there can be two motivations.
Does anybody know where the old thread Kapusta refers to is?
And I’m good at searching.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/website-daven-for-me
Why is it all or none? Sure it’s nice if someone is on such an elevated level, but why can’t we take the lesson that we should care about others’ needs, even if we’re from the 99.99…% of humanity that will never reach the level of caring more about others than we do ourselves?
There was once a thread about this? You have such a good memory for minutia!
Even if you bumbled your way through it…
Beautiful p’shat, feivel.
Popa, I would definitely agree that that would be far more powerful, but it’s still very possible that thinking of someone else’s needs, even when your own are so pressing, is still a segulah along the same lines.
It’s even possible for someone, even if the original motivation was selfish, to put themselves in a mindset that the other’s needs are more important.
Judging from oilyhair’s excitement, she is truly happy for her partner, not only in anticipation of her own simcha, but because it became important to her on its own merit.
I join the others in wishing she finds her bashert very soon.
The source is .?”? ?”?
?”? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?”? ????? ??’ ?? ?? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? [???’] ????? ??’ ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???’ ???? ??? ????? ?? ??????
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=21&daf=92&format=pdf
I don’t think “Hu ne’eneh t’chilah” is a guarantee, it’s a segulah.
A person can have two kavanos simultaneously, so the fact that she davened for the other person in order to find her own shidduch doesn’t completely negate the segulah.
You mean for applause?
I am not familiar with the details of the transaction, but one rav told me that we want the transaction to be in the goy’s favor. I assume it’s because we want him to be sincere.
He does not say a reason, and it’s not clear that he means there’s a minhag not to, just that l’ma’aseh they didn’t. I think he may mean like the Biur Halachah that it’s not a requirement. He seems to be showing only that we don’t pasken like those Rishonim who do require it.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=7705&st=&pgnum=365
NC, it’s a R’ma based on a Tosafos.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14171&st=&pgnum=372
Mw13, it’s on the Shulchan Aruch I mentioned earlier.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14164&st=&pgnum=189
So in that example. Given that my family doesnt eat in the sukkah on shemnini atzeres, are you saying I should eat in the sukkah?
Who cares what I would say? I know of two people who were told by two different Litvish roshei yeshiva to do so, and yes, if somehow I were in the position to tell people what to do, that’s what I would say (but I don’t look negatively at someone who doesn’t, although I tease some of my friends about it).
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of any other widespread minhagim that way.
Ubiquitin, it is well known that Litvish gedolim have told people to eat in the succah on Shmini Atzeres.
It is also well known that many great Chassidish Rebbe’s who were talmidei chachomim didn’t, and to be dan l’kaf z’chus, even if we don’t understand it, we assume that they must have had halachic justification.
Nevertheless, that is an example where poskim have said to abandon a minhag because it can’t override halachah.
Sam, did you see the M”A I linked?
And here is the Mogen Avraham
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x3070
who is explaining the concept of ???? ???? ???? almost precisely as Benignuman said.
P’ri M’gadim:
The more important question then is why do we feel that way and how can we work on our ahavas Yisroel to fix that.
Lakewoodwife, I will bl”n research it.
I have seen it done in places where the rav has told people to abandon minhagim which are clearly against halachah, so I’m confident that there is halachic justification.