☕ DaasYochid ☕

@Naysberg – you completely miss the point.

Well then, what was your point, if not that if you don’t like what your rabbinic leadership tells you, you’ll just find different leadership?

Hello99,

Is it possible to be oiver on gezel without a maaseh kinyan?

Certainly, I think you would agree that no kinyan, including the ones you mentioned, is taking place when copying a CD.

Hello99,

Although I am against copying, as I’ve stated here in numerous threads, I’ve never understood how there can be actual ownership and therefore actual gezel (with the exception of leasing agrements. You wrote to derszoger that he needs to provide a sevara why there would not be gezel on IP; I think that as none of the classic kinyonim are applicable to IP (and as you just wrote, neither are hilchos yerushah), a sevara needs to be provided to defend the idea of gezel of IP.

One posek I know of used to be mattir copying, because he could not fathom how there could be gezel on IP (he also rejected the t’nai on CD’s, although I don’t know what he held on leasing agreements), but he stopped being mattir when he clarified with R’ Dovid Feinstein that R’ Moshe indeed assered.

Again, I’m not challenging the psak, as it seems to be the opinion of the gedolei haposkim, I’m just trying to understand it.

Based on what I understand, the answers are no & no & no. Can anyone tell me of any filter that will support the above? Nope, you can’t, because it doesn’t exist. End of story.

So I guess you’ll be finding yourself another means for parnassah. Good luck.

Oiye! If only Rav Moshe were here today, yiddish and all. Problem is, most of the speakers are relatively new to the Gadol position and we need a caliber or yesteryear’s Gadol to get us through this.

That’s not an excuse. “Yiftach b’doro k’Shmuel b’doro”.

Was R’ Schachter asked his opinion? What about R’ Aharon Lichtenstein?

Did they said a differing opinion?

Really? Which poskim would those be?

R’ Shmuel Halevi Wosner, for one. R’ Chaim Kanievsky also released a written psak to the same effect.

@DaasYochid try telling your boss/investors that you want someone looking at your history and see how far that gets you. (especially if you work for a data aggregation company)

Have your boss check your history.

Maran Rav Kanievsky Releases Letter Regarding Internet Ahead Of CitiField Asifa

Which reminds me of this:

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/article.php?p=126740

(see comment #1)

Mincha is scheduled for 6:30pm, program at 7. They recommend arriving in the parking lot at 5:30 to allow for passing through security and finding your seat. I’m guessing it will take less time than that, but they haven’t done this before (most attendees to Citi Field events are more familiar with the stadium than those expected at the asifa), so they’re just making sure. I think I’ll daven Mincha earlier, and aim to be there at 6. If I’m right that it won’t take an hour, I’ll be happy to answer Amen and Y’hei Shmei Rabba a number of times with tens of thousands of Yidden.

So Zdad, based on your qualifications you will be going tomorrow. No one is forcing you to go…

Actually, he is going “mah nafshach” – either because he’s happy about not being forced to go, or, well, because he’s being forced to go.

It should be a celebration of the Siyum Hashas.

🙂

It works for me.

Unfortunately, the website for the kosher haircut poster is down. Someone is working on it, but meanwhile, the poster can be obtained here:

http://freepdfhosting.com/3ade97db11.pdf

Moderator, kindly allow the link. Thanks.

Toi: They are minhagei shtus.

Careful; some of the minhagim, whose reasons no longer apply, are still binding on those who have the mesorah. For example, some don’t eat fish, because the fish used to be preserved in chometzdik alcohol. Although this is no longer the case, I know a family in which several members asked a shailah about this, each from a different rov, and all were told to keep the minhag.

The key phrase, which the B’er Moshe points out was a mistake in the metzius, is:

??? ??? ???????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ????

This is one reason why I thought R’ Chaim Ozer meant molid; I didn’t think the one with whom he is disagreeing thought that the fire itself existed (the main reason for my understanding is that he also says molid, not molid aish.)

I need more time to read the Bais Vaad for a more solidly grounded opinion.

I think he means plain molid, in which case, the heter is precluded.

LeiderLeider, for which din, grape juice bottles or candy dishes?

Yitayningwut,

Are you maskim that R’ Chaim Ozer assers?

You still do not comprehend Ein Mevatlin. Even in a case where it is Assur b’DiEved it is merely a Knas and NOT a continuation of the original Issur.

I guess my post was indeed incoherent (to you) because I didn’t say that it’s a continuation, rather a knas so that one doesn’t gain from his issur. The knas, though, is that the bittul is ineffective for him.

I’ll rephrase the rest of my (incoherent) post, and break it into numbers to make it possible to at least respond to the parts which you do comprehend.

1) I concede that, if we were to assume that the amount of milk would render it batul, it would be muttar to eat the muffins, because even if it would be assur to be m’vatel it, there would be no knas since it’s a shogeg.

2) This does not allow the OU to certify it, however, if we assume that certification amounts to bittul l’chatchila.

3) I do not concede that it’s batel at all, however, since the milk is avidi l’taama. See Shach 98:28 that a recognizable taste is never batel, even in 60 (Taz argues, but I believe the halacha follows Shach). It should therefore be assur even b’dieved.

4b) Rav Schacter obviously feels that if ein m’vatlin would apply here, the kula we find by ma’mid would not apply here. He writes,

?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????. Although I disagree with (or at least don’t comprehend) his other points, you characterization of my opinion as “a misconception” would have to apply to his as well.

5) I also pointed out that since most issurim d’rabbanan regarding bb”c do not apply to the issur hana’ah, the fact that if one mixed in a small amount of milk with meat it would remain muttat in hana’ah does not indicate that there is a kula regarding bittul of a davar muttar.

6) A side point, not from my previous post:

Badei Hashulchan, in Biurim pg. 350 asks on the Chocmas Adam, why it’s muttar to taste bread into which some milk was kneaded; we find no such kula for any other issur, even d’rabbanan, and if the bread has the milk taste, it’s a davar assur (as I mentioned earlier, The CH”A doesn’t seem to apply ein m’vatlin to milchig bread).

My suggested answer: if one kneads a small amount of milk into dough and bakes bread with the intention to taste it immediately and see if the taste is detectable, it’s considered a davar muat, which is muttar. Even if the taste is detected and the remainder of the bread must be discarded, the small amount tasted was murrar.

What do you (and anyone reading this) think?

DY: Are you saying that Rav Belsky was only matir immedIate family to borrow an original CD?? I believe you can loan your CD (to listen to) to anyone, just as you can loan anyone your Sefer or watch.

No, I suppose that anyone could borrow.

So DaasYochid your saying that its mutar to copy something you already own?

Barring specific, valid limitations in the sale (e.g.) leasing agreements, yes.

How far does that extend? Can only your immediate family use it?How about friends?

I suppose they could borrow the original to use. Rav Belsky was mattir for immediate family members living in the same home.

What about if ts for a music video?

Probably not.

can you post it to a site where everyone will be able to copy it?

No.

Hello99,

A few quick points:

I think we need to distinguish between the issur l’chatchilah of ein m’vatlin issur, and the issur b’dieved (you’re correct that I misused the term “not batel”, because for some it’s muttar, but the effect on the mevatel and the mi shenisbatel bishvilo is that it’s treated as not batel).

Concerning b’dieved, Rav Schachter clearly writes that according to the shittah of the Tzemach Tzedek, it would be assur – “?????? ?? ??? ?? ????, ???? ??? ?????? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??????”.

Anyhow, if we assume that it is batel, I think based on 99:5, we can safely conclude that at worst, that the OU is mistaken, anyone relying on it (including Thomas) would not be more than a shogeg , so we should limit our discussion to the perspective of the certifying agency. I believe that the OU holds that putting a hechsher on a product makes any ingredient be considered mevatel l’chatchilah (although I don’t think Thomas is Jewish owned).

Clearly, according to the Tzemach Tzedek, it’s assur l’chatchilah, so we cannot throw out the normal rules of the issur of “ein loshin”. In other words, I don’t understand what you wrote, “Since it is a completely separate Sugya from the original Din, it has its own set of Halachos and it cannot be presumed that the rules of the full-fledged Issur apply.”, since we are indeed discussing l’chatchila, which is not a separate sugya.

Concerning the Rashb”a, aside from applying it l’chatchila (even if not b’dieved), the Pri Megadim (M”Z) on ma’mid writes that avidi l’tama is worse than ma’mid.

As far as your final point, I still don’t think you need to feel obligated to be moch based on a “significant” view, if it’s not absolutely halacha p’sukah. You probably should have written in that original post that it’a an added point. I do agree, though, that the ingredients might be outright tarfus and that most processed foods need a hechsher.

*For illustrative purposes, if the mod will allow:

http://www.cookingforengineers.com/hello/259/958/640/DSC_1112_crop.1.jpg

🙂