Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Mod, true, nobody here knows for sure who knew what when, but don’t we need to be dan l’kaf z’chus and not accuse anybody (particularly talmidei chachomim) of wrongdoing based on speculation?
This question goes to gavra (“Can you prove this?”) and others as well.
When accusing someone of wrongdoing, the burden is on the accuser, and even if proven, might still be assur because of LH.
Agreed, that wasn’t my point. And I think based on the situation and the impact of such a statement it is fair to ask for a source without any intent of being accusatory. Perhaps the source is wanted so that people hoping it isn’t true can know so for certain.
I think a statement like that can potentially bring more animosity to those r”l accusing the gedolim and a source could stop naysayers in their tracks. We need to be dan lkaf zchus that not all questions are for the wrong intent.
Please explain the irony, and how you are considering residential and commercial properties to be exactly the same.
On the other hand, in terms of my case, I don’t want to go into all the details, because it’s too hard to explain, but basically, I felt like for me it was similar to the lady taking care of her sick child.
It’s probably too hard to explain because it’s not really comparable…
The example of “ones” given in SS”K is a lady taking care of her sick son. That does not sound like a “complete ones” to me,
Why not? She did the right thing to take care of her sick child instead of lighting candles.
You did not do the right thing when you mismanaged your time and arrived too late to light, or overslept (unless you were literally too I’ll).
(I’m speaking from a halachic perspective, not trying to give mussar.)
DY: Do you mean that she had to light an extra because she was coerced into “forgetting”?
Ones means it was beyond the person’s control, or not their fault.
It didn’t occur to me that I have to light extra from now on (it wasn’t “shogeg”), but now I am wondering if I do.
That’s not even close to being in prison (Mishnah Berurah’s case) or being busy with a sick child (SS”K’s case), so I would say yes, you should add.
There are other factors, though, (such as that there was light where you ate), so definitely ask a shailah.
DY: What if she dreamt that she was lighting?
Not an oines.
That reminds me of the yeshiva bochur who misses Shacharis. The mashgiach asked him what happened.
He replied:
“I got into a huge fight with the yetzer hora, who wanted me to sleep late, but I kept fighting him and fighting him. Finally, I won, and was about to get up, but was so exhausted from fighting, that I fell asleep again.”
Regarding the question I asked in a previous post – does anyone know of any other cases (besides the 5 possibilities I came up with) where someone could forgot to light but didn’t forget it was Shabbos- I hope no one felt put on the spot by that question.
See my post above yours.
I just reread your post – your assumption that it’s not “ones” is that it’s preventable. I don’t think that’s true. But I would be interested in hearing why you think that is the case.
The Mishnah Berurah’s case of oines is where she was in prison. Anything short of complete oines, the minhag/din is to add.
Sleeping through is not an oines. She should have set an alarm or some type of shomer.
If you want some more cases spelled out, see R’ Ribiat’s sefer on 39 Melachos.
I wonder if anyone goes by this l’maaseh.
Gamanit’s grandmother.
I know a lady whose rav told her to light extra for when she missed for a pure oines.
(he doesn’t answer the question here, but gives the source where it is answered.)
Here, the Rema quotes Rishonim that adding doesn’t detract from a corresponding number.
Has anyone out there ever heard of anyone forgetting to light candles (not “ones” but forgetting)?
It’s not that hard to imagine in the hectic rush to get ready for Shabbos, a harried woman could lose track of time.
It could also more easily happen when she is not in her usual routine, such as away at a simchah.
A case where sge arrived home (or whatever her destination) too late to light because of negligence would also fit the category of “forgetting”.
(so it would seem that someone who couldn’t light because she was asleep would not have to light extra – but she should ask a sheilah to be sure).
I assume that is your own addition, not from the SS”K, because it is incorrect. Sleeping through candle lighting, unless she was very ill, is preventable and therefore negligence, and is in the same category as forgetting.
For some people, it’s V’zos Hab’rachah.
For others, it’s Sh’lach.
Rav Yisroel Neuman, not Friedman.
Applying shtikah k’hodo’oh here makes even less sense than your other comments.
LU, 0%. I’ve tried to get a lot of people to pay.
DY, what is your success rate?
So far, I haven’t gotten anyone to pay. Maybe I should raise my rates.
I only charge $5,000. You can reach me through the mods.
Also, it may not be the wallet of a yid.
To this, Simcha would respond that it may be.
The point here is that not every remote possibility has the halachic status of a safek.
No
Hisnagdus and anti-zionism aren’t simply not joining a movement.
The type of change that would be a different type of change would be a hashkafic change.
That should include hisnagdus and anti-zionism.
Is he a gadol yet? Did he make it to the Yated?
how you define which change is “the type that takes place on a regular basis” and which is “a new movement” new depends on if you support that change.
This
I haven’t researched it, but unlike Heilman, I won’t therefore make something up.
If you ever want misinformation on anything relating to the frum world, see what Sam Heilman has to say.
I could be wrong, but I don’t think that is the only reason for the minhag.
It’s not.
Another reason brought is based on the gemara which says that someone who is careful in this mitzvah will have sons and sons-in-law who are talmidei chachomim, so when a child is born, a candle is added as a z’chus.
This assumes that having the Gedolim tell people from whom to vote is not a new “movement”. Gantz Shayach it is, as ubiquitin said earlier.
Depends, as does everything else in this discussion, on whether you hold its right. So we continue to go in circles.
I just remembered when I first started to really realize that the Chilonim use the term “chareidi” to refer to anyone who is fully frum. It was when I watched a youtube video where a chiloni guy was explaining to some (not-Jewish) foreign workers the differences between chiloni, dati and chareidi. He used dati to refer to people who are not completely Frum. That is the general usage of the term in the Chiloni world. They generally use the term Chareidi to refer to people who are fully Frum.
Well, I guess we’ve discovered the source of your error.
There are plenty of people in Eretz Yisroel who fully keep halachah but are not considered by anyone to be “chareidi”.
Are we talking about secular zionism or religious zionism? If secular, I think all here would agree.
If religious, then it would be the same old debate. The RZ would say that the gedolim in past generations would react the same as they did to the opportunity to populate and build Eretz Yisroel, which wasn’t possible in the past.
The word for “frum” is Dati.
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
That wasn’t what you agreed on. What you agreed on was:
Did you change your mind from earlier in this thread? I thought you had said something very different earlier, but I may be mistaken.
“That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.”
I never discussed it before, and I have been one of the main participants in this discussion!
Essentially the same thing, except that you’re right, I should have written “by mostly the same people”.
Unless you’re Joseph. 😉
That there’s nothing in this thread that hasn’t already been discussed, by the same people, ad nauseum.
Meno and Joseph caught it a while ago too.
Amazing hasgachah pratis, no?
Rav Aharon Kotler zt’l, in Mishnas Rabi Aharon (Vol. 3, Hesped on the Brisker Rav) states that the essence of Modern Orthodoxy is the same as the Reform and Conservative. That is, change Judaism into something that more people will be willing to accept.
You post that at least once a year.
So far, the only chiddush in this thread is that ZD and I agreed to something.
Are they right? 😉
Yeah, what were they thinking when they named you The Date Map?
You’re welcome.
BTW, I think this discussion is just another rehashing of the many MO/DL vs. chareidi threads.
There’s no question that all streams are different than Jews were in the past, the difference between each of today’s streams is how they have adapted to today’s reality.
Everyone thinks that they have adapted in the manner that our gedolim from the past (going back to Chazal and even earlier) would have wanted, and therefore “default” Judaism, and the others are “movements”.
Been there, done that; this is just a semantically different take on an old topic.
after the State of Israel happened, people stopped opposing it since its existence must have been from Hashem.
Should we now support the latest UN resolution? Now that it happened, it must be from Hashem, so we should support it! You can say that about anything bad tbat happens.
Maybe it is part of the Baal Shem Tov’s teachings to be happy and serve Hashem with joy
There are other followers of the Baal Shem Tov who aren’t Zionistic.
Historically, Chabad was antizionist, but have shifted towards zionism as they’ve become more and more modern.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/rambam.aspx?sefer=1&hilchos=1&perek=2&halocha=3&hilite=
????? ?????, ?, ?
?? ?? ???? ???”? ?????? ???? ????? ?????. ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ??????? ???????. ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???. ??? ??????? ???????? ????. ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ???? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???????. ???????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???
Lol
Ben, I’ve heard someone propose that the physical eggs are not halachically considered from the louse, based on how they are formed (I don’t recall how).
ZD. I believe we have discussed this before. I don’t think that is what the Rambam is saying.
I don’t think you can argue that Chazal had a different definition for ??? ???? without running afoul of the next question in the Gemara:
It limits the possible definitions, but it still doesn’t need to mean spontaneous generation.
I agree fully.
Interesting, because we seem to be saying two different things.
I’m saying we do know how they affect the din – it’s only muttar if and because they are ???? ??? ????. We may not know which physical characteristic is considered ???? ??? ????.
We also know how 12 months affects the din, just that the Chazon Ish explains that the specific treifos the Torah considers treifos are the ones which during the time Chazal codified it caused the animal to die within 12 months.
I thought that was the accepted definition of ???? ??? ????. Do you have a different definition? I am not claiming any level of expertise on this topic.
Accepted by whom, and why? I assume it was defined that way based on the scientific beliefs, but who says Chazal meant that? They meant it doesn’t fit the halachic definition of parah v’ravah, not the scientific definition of reproduction. Sort of how a pri isn’t always a fruit.
I don’t know what this means. If a cow gets a disease that would have killed it within 12 months, but we give it Penicillin and it lives, is it now a treifah?
Assuming in the times of Chazal there was no known cure (and the illness fit one of the categories listed in the Mishna and B’raisa), it would be a treifah.
Gavra, you are defining ???? ??? ???? as spontaneous generation, but that’s likely an incorrect definition. Had we defined it that way and decided to accept the disproof, we would have assered killing kinim. See P”Y.
Also, the treifos issue is not similar. Nobody is claiming that Chazal were wrong, but that the classification of treifos, and therefore the halachah, is determined by what the metzius was at the time of Chazal, and doesn’t change when the metzius changes. IOW, the definition of a treifa is a condition which in Chazal’s times would not allow an animal to live for 12 months.