Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I stated the abuse charges were never raised before this hearing and couldn’t possibly be true.
That’s a blatant lie. You’ve been telling us for months about the charges.
obtain a beis din's preliminary ruling without actually going to a beis din
Just listen to the beis din.
I know it doesn’t matter what I believe. Still would Hashem rather that so many Jews commit suicide chas v’shalom, go otd, or live in misery?
No, he wants them to overcome their temptations and live productive lives.
I don’t believe that Hashem would do that.
It’s a clear pasuk in the Torah.
I don’t want to be part of a congregation that forces someone with a same sex attraction to be abstinent or marry someone of the opposite sex
Hashem is the one forcing them.
He created the fruits and vegetables to be eaten as long as there are no tolaim. It is not the fruit or vegetables that is assur but the tolaim.
All true, and most types of fruits and vegetables are either able to be cleaned or are clean in some parts of the world.
Even if not, though, it’s not a kashya.
He didn’t create pig or lobster for our consumption either. Do you have the same question about those?
Look at the link I posted. The Pri Chodosh and Pri Toar list fruits and other produce which had tolaim.
In modern times, infestation has increased as certain effective pesticides have been banned.
The issue has been around for centuries. Infestation constantly changes.
???? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????????
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=24532&st=&pgnum=330&hilite=
You shouldn’t be dressing in a non-tznius manner in public regardless of whether there are or aren’t rabbis or rebbetzins there.
LB, goral (????) is a lottery.
Aniseed
Inkling
ZD, okay, but that has nothing to do with this discussion.
GAW, who says he’s talking about how she dresses? If anything, in the beginning of the teshuvah, he seems so distraught that some women weren’t covering their arms, that he doesn’t want to discuss it further.
ZD, I didn’t mean losing the document, I meant losing the right to collect the money as stated in it.
And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong).
I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.
It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.
Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.
I assume there would be a difference between a shul opened and owned by the rav (i.e. shtieble style), and one where the shul board hires the rav and pays him a salary?
If it is owned by the rav, it’s not even a discussion. The discussion in the poskim is about a hired rav.
It seems the halachah as generally practiced is to give precedence to the son as long as he is worthy.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=51975&st=&pgnum=414&hilite=
Furthermore, I think that by r’iyah he does not mean incidental (he specifically says that there is makkos only when there is kavanah) but rather where there is intent for r’iyah but not for hanaah. In contrast, histaklus of mokomos megulim is only assur if there is intent lhonos.
I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).
The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t mention shok b’isha erva, because, as the Bais Yosef explains (Orech Chaim 75), that is only an example of a makom mechusa that I might have thought was not considered a makom mechusa (the Bais Yosef cites the very Rashba you cited).
There is no indication that ???? ?????? fluctuates according to the generation/locale. See ?????, for example, who gives the face and hands as the counter example, rather than saying that it excludes a time or place where it is normal for it to be exposed.
Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.
I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.
You can bring a horse to the water, but can’t make him drink.
He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.
As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.
I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.
I haven’t, but I’ll go with the ???? ???.
I don’t see where you are talking about
?.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=153&hilite=
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14243&st=&pgnum=154&hilite=
2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).
Used by whom?
He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.
The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.
See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).
See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=32296&st=&pgnum=35&hilite=
???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.
Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.
The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.
Except for the Aruch Hashulchan, who is mechadeish that Krias Sh’mah can be considered more lenient b’sha’as had’chak.
As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.
Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnenfeld (and others, but I saw his teshuvah) assered mixed seating. It is far from being exclusively a chassidishe thing.
Knees and above (i.e. shorts) according to the Mishna Berura is universal but the Shulchan Aruch doesn’t hold that way
You’re got it backwards, I believe. The M”B is meikil for under the knees, many Rishonim held even below the knees is ervah.
K-cup: ??? ???? ???? is a phrase found in Chazal :????? ?”?.
???? is mentioned in :?????? ??.
Why do seven letter plural words have “s” as the third letter?
Unless you copy/pasted and forgot to take that line out.
Bounced
Just the corruption of Yiddishkeit which is promulgated in the name of Chabad, not legitimate Chabad.
And that is why you really need to pick new rabbis.
Mazel tov!
The mishnah following the one I linked to earlier is here:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=19&daf=34b&format=pdf
This one mentions pruzbul.
Yapping
Golfing
in the paragraph after Aleinu, we say “l’sakein (l’takein) olam b’malchus Shakai…” which means “to fix the world with the Kingdom of Hashem
We are asking Hashem to do the fixing, by destroying avodah zarah so that everyone recognizes only Hashem.
Somehow, I don’t think Avi Weiss means that.
I guess that I should stop learning about Torah from rabbis then.
Pick better ones.
That we had to get to that point shows the sorry state of things 🙁 I didn’t know this was sued against (or for) in secular court.
I could be wrong, but I think he was including complaints to zoning boards in arkaos.
R’ Feivel did not speak in the capacity of a rabbi. He spoke as a concerned private citizen who lives near the planned mall, as do many others.
Regarding the actual construction and its affect on quality of life, traffic, congestion etc., he said that he had no opinion.
His opinion was a religious one. He said that the question of building the mall vs the objections of the residents was one for Bes Din, not city hall.
Agreed.
I’m sure he was dragged into this because he lives there, but it seems to me that he was objecting to use of arkaos.
Actually we do. We do it just because the Torah says so.
+1
Finding out that Rav Cohen lives nearby, it makes more sense that he is involved (as a Ba’al Dovor, not a Dayan).
How does his living nearby impact his statement that it belongs in beis din?
See, your trying to say you were really an oines is best saved for your posek. According to the facts you presented, it was simply poor time management, and you would be like a shocheiach.
You said earlier that you don’t get insulted by halachah discussion. I guess that changed?
The bottom line is that we don’t do it just because. And when we go deeper in its significance, it speaks to the sensitivity of the Torah to living beings.
Stop reading your own ideas into the Torah with no basis other than your desire to.
we have a chiyuv to judge the lady favorably and assume that neither the Roshei Yeshivas or R’ Aaron Kotler agreed to this development
Why are you assuming that it is wrong to build this development?
I dont think you can take someone to Beis Din against their will.
No defendant ever wants to be taken to beis din, but if sent a hazmanah, has to go.
Sure, my question is why does Rabbi Cohen have jurisdiction in Lakewood
He didn’t say he does; in fact, he said that he does not have a beis din. He simply said that the matter belongs in beis din.
I’m not taking sides as to whether a mall could or should be built or not.
Rav Feivel Cohen is on record as saying that a beis din should decide.
I’m just saying that all sorts of assumptions, with negative connotations, are being made with no evidence.