Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
147 is completely wrong and ignorant of halacha.
Yes, but I don’t disagree with his comparison. 😉
You joke about it, but there was someone on these boards who actually insisted that it was forbidden for me to cook meals for my family.
I’m pretty sure he wasn’t serious either (on anything).
I always found it odd that his bet din is accepted on gittin, geirus, etc.
I can’t disagree with your equation, because I wouldn’t go to his beis din either.
and where on the internet might they find one?
How did they post in ‘the heim’?
Didn’t they have post offices?
I found a recipe on Epicurious
How could you go on a website with treif’e recipes chas v’shalom lo aleinu? Besides the fact that you might chas v’shalom be tempted to try one of the recipes, the very sight of these things is metamtem es halev! Plus, since it’s assur to get hano’ah from basar b’cholov, you were probably oiver on at least seventeen lavin for using a website with those recipes on it.
Can’t you do like they did in the heim, and use Susie Fishbein? Have you lost all vestiges of your pintel’e Yid?
Rachmono Litzlan!
🙂
Your emunah is so weak, it has to be bolstered by insisting chazal were incredible science geniuses ahead of their times
Why the personal insults again? That’s also an odd way of looking at things, that someone who doesn’t feel the need to conform to “rational” thinking is weak in emunah.
In think it’s a Gemara on 86.
It took you long enough 😉
You practically handed it to me on a silver platter. I will be gone for a bit, but I’ll leave you with one:
“Through Egypt and Spain, generations of pain, must we live through such torture and hate?”
If something is feminine because it’s based on normal feminine tendencies (I think preening in front of a mirror is an example, see Igros Moshe we mentioned earlier), or masculine because it’s immodest for a woman (trousers), we can say it’s objectively feminine or masculine, and I think that’s what happening in these cases.
I think contemporary people (especially Chassidim) apply Sod Hashem Lireiav to Gedolim today.
That’s not muchrach, though. Applying it to Chaza’l is, though.
I think you need to prove that Sod Hashem Lireiav means they know everything.
I never claimed such a thing. It means they knew what Hashem chose to reveal to them, which may very well be only things which are halachah l’maaseh, but it would be mistaver to say it applies to all things recorded in the Mishnayos and Gemara.
I had a Rebbe in 8th grade who said it’s Apikorsus to say that Rishonim made a mistake.
I agree that the term is used too loosely. Technically, the word apikorsus actually means, I think, “hefkerus”, which it may be. I know some people who, if they don’t understand a Rishon in a sugya, will simply say he was wrong. That is indeed hefkerus. It’s not kefirah, though (which is how the term is used), it’s just stupid.
I find that 6 minutes, 20 seconds is too long.
DY, this isn’t R Zonnenfeld speaking, this is the RY of an institution that allows and encourages it.
But isn’t suggesting it for E.Y.
There’s a long history of the gedolim in E.Y. fighting against secular studies, because the imposition of it was designed to weaken Torah. In such a situation (political reality) it becomes the halachah to fight it.
As an example of politics affecting halachah, see R’ Herscel Schachter’s reasoning to asser ordaining rabbettes. As I posted elsewhere, there is precedent, including but not limited the Chasam Sofer.
Without literally calling this a sha’as hashmad (I’ll leave that for poskim to decide), we can certainly use the concept to demonstrate that political context most definitely informs halachah (or at least its application).
There was never a p’sak that it’s categorically forbidden for bochurim to learn secular studies; the issur is it’s imposition under certain circumstances. Applying halachah to practical circumstances is part of the eternal Torah.
I think the key phrase is, “??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??????”.
There are things which are inherently feminine, and the ???”? holds that ????? ??? ??? ???? is inherently feminine. The poskim who asser trousers feel the same way about trousers, possibly because of the ????? ????? issue.
I take that back. I do have it.
I guess it must be from Listen Nations which was on the Miami/Toronto record. I don’t have it any more and haven’t heard it in years.
R’ Ralbag is respected world-wide.
There are some very choshu’ve people who have major issues with him (not only regarding kashrus).
Let’s just say that he is not universally accepted and leave it at that. (I wouldn’t normally post this, but I feel the need to counter rebdoniel’s misleading statement.)
Sam2,
Again, quoting R’ Feldman:
(I know there’s another viewpoint regarding this as well.)
“The reason the Gr’a argues on the Ramba’m”
He doesn’t just argue on the Rambam, he argues on the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema as well.
My point was twofold:
Rishonim are not Chaza’l. The concept of ??? ?’ ?????? was never aplied to Rishonim, AFAIK. There was a chasimas hashas, at which point later authorities will not overrule earlier ones, they will only interpret and choose an opinion to follow from those offered by the Amoraim. After that, for example from the works of the Rishonim, one can argue.
Nevertheless, it’s uncommon to find an Acharon disputing a Rishon, because it was generally accepted that the Rishonim were superior.
In one particular case, Y’D 179:6, the Gr’a takes issue with the Rambam’s rationalist approach, stating that it was influenced by philosophy, and that his approach was already rejected by many after him.
I wasn’t addressing the fact that there are halachic disagreements between the Vilna Gaon and the Mechaber or R’ma.
it is entirely inappropriate to criticize them for that
Chas V’shalom! I’m just saying that they also used better methods than that.
From R’ Aharon Feldman:
Leshem Shevo Ve-achlama writes:
The main thing is: everyone who is called a Jew is obligated to
believe with complete faith that everything found in the words of the Sages whether in halachos or agados of the Talmud or in the
[the Sage] [that he knew this because]
Again, I’m not saying someone who doesn’t holds like this is a kofer; there were some minority opinions who held that Chazal’s science was only based on the current available information (although that doesn’t explain how Chaza’l knew scientific information which wasn’t known to scientists until hundreds of years later).
But there’s no reason for me to accept that minority view.
He asked a question in one post, then answered in another. I don’t know why he did that, but apparently, some trolls do that (but they answer using different screen names). I don’t participate in other forums, but Joseph did a lot of that (it’s humorous to see, when looking back at old threads, because the mods have id’d many of his screen names).
Well, for one thing, that minimal connection is not ongoing, or daily.
DY: how could the Gra argue on the rambam? And rambam was a Chacham and he was niftar 800 years ago- ergo chazal.
The term Chaza’l is used for chachomim until chasimas hagemora, i.e. Tannaim and Amoraim. The reason the Gr’a argues on the Ramba’m, even though it’s quite unusual for an acharon to argue on a rishon, is probably because he felt that writings of the Ramba’m which were influenced by outside sources have no special reason to be accepted.
L’olam va’ed certainly doesn’t apply to say, cholov yisroel
Can you please explain? I have a feeling that you might be misunderstanding the reason for those who are matir.
Ben,
To say that the minimal limud of “al m’nas la’asos” and Hakhel is sufficient, and the equivalent of a man’s “v’higisa bo yomom volayla” makes no sense, nor the whole “moshcheihu l’beis medrash” in his context.
I assumed you were trying o hide your lack of understanding with insults
No, I was stating my halachic opinion (about your arguments; I was careful to use the term apikorsus, and not the term “apikores”). But you were using insults to bolster your argument.
I hope you don’t think chazal were infallible and cannot possibly be wrong about science.
Sorry to dash your hopes. The Gemara strongly implies that their “scientific knowledge” was Divinely inspired. Do I know the answers to all of the answers to the “contradictions” between Chaza’l and science? No, although I’ve heard some which sound reasonable. For the rest, I’ll take it on emunah (as is my mesorah to do so).
Chazal’s values aren’t primitive and I never said that chas v’sholom.
All I said is that CERTAIN (I have to capitalize for you people) ideals they believed were influenced by non Jewish ideals and thinkers
Those two statements are contradictory. If Chazal’s ideals were able to be influenced by outside forces, then all of their ideals are subject to be questioned, and might as well all be primitive. We can’t call the source for their values anything but Divinely inspired and still not subject any of their teachings to our own feeble opinions.
see rambam learning from Aristotle for a prime example
1) Ramba’m was not Chaza’l.
2) Those who would defend Ramba’m would say that he only quoted and agreed to Aristotelian philosophy where he felt that it was in accordance with his already formed Torah opinions.
3) The Gr”a was not among those, and famously rejected his philosophy, and any halachic conclusions which he felt were a product of his philosophy.
Since “A Modern Chasid” hasn’t checked in, I’ll guess what he means (although I don’t think I agree).
I think he’s objecting to posting an article in which the omitted details are obviously of a nature unfit to put on this website. Parts of the story are obviously sordid, even though of course they were left out of YWN reporting. In addition, the fact that so many details are obviously missing, one reading the story on YWN is made curious as to what the missing details are, and is tempted to follow up by searching for articles which aren’t so careful about what they post.
Is this YWN’s responsibility? Or, as Mod 42 said, are they doing a service, even in this case, because one who sticks only to YWN will not feel that he is missing out on popular stories? I don’t know, but I assume and certainly hope that the editor has some Torah hadrachah (AKA “daas Torah”) regarding these issues.
There is no halakhic reason for Ashkenazim to be makpid on glatt.
You’re wrong under almost (if not literal) every definition of “glatt”.
1) If glatt is used in the vernacular, it refers to a general higher standard. Of course there’s a reason to be makpid on a stricter standard of who is a yarei shomayim for shecitah and bedikah (as an example).
2) If glatt is used as in “OU glatt”, which is acceptable for Ashkenazim but not Sefardim, then “not glatt” would refer to a looser standard, within the Rema’s shittah, of how easily a sirchah is removed yet still considered glatt.
3) Even if referring to Bais Yosef glatt (which in this case it isn’t), saying “there’s no reason” ignores the fact that the Rem’a himself refers to it as a “kula gedolah”, and that many yorei shomayim, even Ashkenazim, are makpid on the Mechaber’s glatt.
Crying apikorsus is just low and unintelligent in an argument.
As opposed to that comment?
I’m not merely saying it’s apikorsus, I’m explaining why. If you think you win the argument by calling me (or my opinions) unintelligent and a shoteh, then so be it.
I think saying Chaza’l were wrong about science is simplistic and wrong. The Gemara in a couple of places suggests “Sod Hashem li’yreov” as the source of Chazal’s statements regarding science. I hope you don’t think the scientists know more than Hashem.
But I don’t think it’s apikorsus. I try not to throw around the term lightly. But saying that their values are primitive, outdated and stolen from the goyim, and that Pirkei Avos is “a primer”, I wil say it the way it is. It’s apkrsus (or kefirah, take your pick of terminology).
Not acknowledging that chazal were geniuses that lived within particular times and locations is utter ignorance.
Did anyone say they weren’t geniuses? Did anyone say they lived in all eras and locations? I call straw man. What you mean to say is that their Torah was influenced by the values of their particular tines and locations. That is utter apikorsus.
And irrespective of good or bad, they simply don’t govern modern life today anymore
Sorry, I’m keeping my Pirkei Avos.
many commenters think its bad for women to be learning Torah.
Really? I don’t think it’s bad for them to earn Torah (they do, after all, say the birchas haTorah, according to Ashkenazic minhag), I think it’s bad for them to consider it the same as a man’s learning, or any sort of “obligation” (beyond knowing halachah).
I think it’s wrong for them to define their roles in life through talmud Torah (as a man does), and to feel discriminated against by Hashem or Chaza’l for not being granted the same status as men.
But learning itself? Who would deny that it’s a kiyum mitzvah? Can you link to those comments? I’d like to see them. I’ll call them out for apikorsus.
I specifically capitalized that these areas are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from objective Daas Moshe and Torah mi Sinai.
And popa specifically said that that distinction (at least regarding values) is apikorsus. You should learn to read
GAW, it’s hard to say. Don’t forget, I’m trying to justify a T”T, not express my own viewpoint (as I think my rebbeim would say, IOW, mesorah).
I think my best guess would be to say that it’s like asking what would R’ Akiva would hold if he were R’ Meir, regarding “chosh’shin l’miut’a” (or any two members of Chaza’l, on any issue in Sha’s). You can’t. HKB”H wanted R’ Akiva to be R’ Akiva, and R’ Meir to be R’ Meir, including their life experiences. If you hold that their opinions were influenced by their experiences (even without personal negius), it’s the same as the influence that each one’s t’chunas hanefesh had on their opinions. They each used their own t’chunas hanefesh, and, according to the T’T, life experience, to influence their opinions which were based on knowledge and absorption of kol haTorah kulah, with a heavy dose of siyata dishmaya (or ruach hakodesh, if you will).
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/are-women-reallyjewish
I had embedded that link in my post, in the words, Popa already picked #1.
GAW, I think we need to define “bias”. Inequality is a given. The question is whether inequality is based on pure logic, or personal bias (negius). I think you’re defining bias as an opinion based on personal experience. I trust R’ Meir’s finely tuned Torah mind to incorporate his experience into his value system to come to a Torah true worldview. It’s not based on negius; he would have come to the same conclusion had he observed it in someone else. Call it a “bias ne’eman”. This is how I think the T’T might explain himself.
YCT are accusing Chaza’l of considering women unequal not because of an actual Torah truth, but because they were men, and did so to inflate their egos. Even taking out that last part about egos, it would cast light on Chaza’l in such a way that we couldn’t trust them for anything. Not only is this bizui T’C, it’s kefirah.
There are two teshuvos which discuss hair coloring: Y’D 1, 82, and Y’D 2, 62. The latter is about looking in the mirror, from which R’ Bick asked a kasha on R’ Moshe’s earlier teshuvah.
In neither did I notice that he explicitly mentions the idea of the changing styles affecting the halachah. If I’m correct that it was already common for men to dye their hair (the second one was written in 5720), then the fact that he assers (when done for cosmetic purposes) would indicate that it remains assur because it’s inherently feminine. It’s not such a stretch to say that there might be things which are inherently masculine, and trousers would likely fit the bill.
Either way, ayin shom for an interesting pshat as to why looking in a mirror is considered beged isha.
It does seem somewhat disturbing that we would be held hostage like that by the actions of outsiders.
There’s a lot of precedent for that. On can argue that the whole issur of “chukas hagoyim” is being held “hostage” by the actions of outsiders.
The Chasam Sofer made takanos to separate us from reform, e.g. not having a chupah in a Bais Haknesses (I think that was the C’S).
I would argue that Chabad’s messianism has taken others’ yearning for Moshiach hostage, and modern day zionism has taken non-zionists’ love for E.Y. hostage, and I’m sure we can find other examples.
He’s probably referring to the three kidnapped girls.
Now you ask? The gedolim in E.Y. have always been against secular studies, and the gedolim in chu”l tolerant (at least) of it, and it was never a machlokes.
One glaring difference is that Lipman wants it forced on the Chareidim, while Ner Yisroel has no problem with those, such as Lakewood talmidim, who don’t go to college.
But even besides that, there’s a long history of formal secular education being shunned in E.Y., especially in Yerushalayim, going back to the days of R’ Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld. We really need to do research on those early days to understand the mindset. It really has to do with political realities affecting halachah, which is a possibility the OP ignores.
I know R’ Moshe has a yeshivah where he assers taking supplements to restore black hair. Presumably, it was already common for men to dye hair (as is certainly true today). I’ll bl’n take a look.
Nothing new!
The mods are more on top of it than before, and it seems that he’s not posting as often.
Okay, why don’t you think that’s normative halachah? The S’A seems to say it by white hairs, why can’t trousers be in the same category?
I think that saying that Chazal made Dinim based on the value system of their times and that those value systems have changed isn’t K’firah.
They’re not saying that. They’re saying that Chaza’l agreed with that value system, but were wrong. Just look at rationalfrummie’s post. He’s comparing it to what he thinks are objective scientific mistakes (ch’v) made by Chaza’l.
Sam, if the only issue were kavod hatzibbur, I understand that it might change based in the standards of the tzibbur. (I think that’s just a rationalization, though).
My issue is with saying that Chazal’s inherent value system is wrong. That’s kefirah.
I’m still not sure what you want from that Rashb”a…
You mean to tell me that a troll like me can be a rabbi
What’s it worth anyhow if you’re not on the RCA?
DY,
Do you know where this Avnei Nezer is?
No. If I get a chance, I’ll try to find it.
But it’s Shver when major Poskim start working around a pretty clear and B’feirush Shulchan Aruch.
I think I was being very reasonable in my explanation that their psak fits very well.
Also, I don’t know what the Ch’S meant, but this wouldn’t seem to be a m’litzah as much as a ziyuf, if you were correct.
Rationalfrummie, this is not the place to address Chaza”l “vs.” science issues, but even some who feel Chaza”l’s statements aren’t scientifically accurate wouldn’r question Chazal’s value system. If you do that, you might as well be a Karaite.
From a Cross-Currents article about the RCA resolution, written by Rabbi Adlerstein:
Sam, there are people who wear boxer shorts because of that Gemara. The limud z’chus for those who don’t is that being used to it from childhood, it doesn’t have the effect described in the Gemara. But, as ROB alluded to, our trousers are not assered by the Gemara.