David S.

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218036
    David S.
    Member

    if clever in not the smart clever, but the devious clever, surely not!

    in reply to: It’s Witless W’s Fault! #642972
    David S.
    Member

    a communist yid vs. a republican goy, lets measure this out

    1) I am a yid, so obviously I am biased towards moish

    2) I am extremely anti-commie, and I am leaving the US because the stupid US public voted a communist as president…

    3) America is a goyishe state, why’d a frum yid wanna govern it?!

    4) I am a Republican

    5) moish what are you? a republican, a , etc?

    in reply to: Dangers of Fireworks and Explosives #1062423
    David S.
    Member

    moish you didn’t need to say that part in the end, I already understood it from the post ;>|), but it seems a bit self-contradictory, considering your previous post lol

    in reply to: David S. vs. squeak Corrsepondence Chess #641296
    David S.
    Member

    Nc3

    Three Knights Opening

    in reply to: It’s Witless W’s Fault! #642965
    David S.
    Member

    moish01, when I posted, I took it for granted you were joking about being a commie, I was right in my assumption right? are you a Republican?

    in reply to: It’s Witless W’s Fault! #642964
    David S.
    Member

    I would… maybe, you vs. obama, surely you, but otherwise, depends who you were running against, for example if I was running too 😀

    in reply to: Hilchos Purim #943574
    David S.
    Member

    I think moish01 is right, but still I will look that up

    in reply to: David S. vs. squeak Corrsepondence Chess #641294
    David S.
    Member

    i mean Nf3

    in reply to: David S. vs. squeak Corrsepondence Chess #641293
    David S.
    Member

    Nf4

    in reply to: Dangers of Fireworks and Explosives #1062418
    David S.
    Member

    still people don’t lauch firecrackers every day do they moish? if you multiply the firework casualties by 363, it will surely be more casualties than driving, that happens every day!

    in reply to: David S. vs. squeak Corrsepondence Chess #641291
    David S.
    Member

    so then, I’ll be wihte, I stink at black, my 1st move is 1. e4

    in reply to: Hilchos Purim #943571
    David S.
    Member

    myshadow, I’ll look the matter up, and I’ll give an answer before Taanis Ester

    in reply to: It’s Witless W’s Fault! #642960
    David S.
    Member

    moish01, I didn’t know you were a communist! sorry to offend your feelings 😀

    in reply to: Dangers of Fireworks and Explosives #1062414
    David S.
    Member

    flatbush27 read this, copied from the URL: http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/factsheets/fworks.htm

    How big is the problem?

    In 2006, eleven people died and an estimated 9,200 were treated in emergency departments for fireworks-related injuries in the United States.1

    An estimated 5% of fireworks-related injuries treated in emergency departments required hospitalization.1

    Who is most at risk for fireworks-related injuries?

    More than two-thirds of all fireworks-related injuries in 2006 occurred between June 16 and July 16. During that time period:

    one out of every three people injured were children under 15 years of age;

    about three times as many males were injured as females; and

    young people under twenty sustained nearly half (47%) of all injuries from fireworks.1

    People actively participating in fireworks-related activities are more frequently and severely injured than bystanders.2

    What kinds of injuries occur?

    Between June 16 and July 16, 2006:

    The body parts most often injured were hands (2,300 injuries), eyes (1,500 injuries), and the head, face, and ear (1,400 injuries).1

    More than half of the injuries were burns. Burns were the most common injury to all body parts except the eyes and head areas, where contusions, lacerations and foreign bodies in the eye occurred more frequently.1

    Fireworks can be associated with blindness, third degree burns, and permanent scarring.2

    Fireworks can also cause life-threatening residential and motor vehicle fires.1

    What types of fireworks are associated with most injuries?

    Between June 16 and July 16, 2006:

    Firecrackers were associated with the greatest number of estimated injuries at 1,300. There were 1,000 injuries associated with sparklers and 800 associated with rockets.1

    Sparklers accounted for one-third of the injuries to children less than 5 years of age.1

    in reply to: It’s Witless W’s Fault! #642951
    David S.
    Member

    obama is a communist sammyjoe do you want what happened in Soviet Union in US? Thats why I’m making aliyah in a couple of months.

    in reply to: Dangers of Fireworks and Explosives #1062411
    David S.
    Member

    pikuach nefesh for children, they should preserve their bodies, endangering themselves is against that

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218032
    David S.
    Member

    I personally think a learned girl, but not so learned that she can be a chavrusa

    in reply to: Collecting On Purim in a Limousine #1010556
    David S.
    Member

    I personally think bochurim shouldn’t be too extravagant when collecting, for this could lead to a lack of anivus, for example going in a limousine, unless of course your costume is a chaffeur 😀

    in reply to: Dangers of Fireworks and Explosives #1062407
    David S.
    Member

    for pikuach nefesh reasons people should not use these firecrackers, they are dangerous.

    firecrackers and other explosives are prohibited d’oyraysa.

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218028
    David S.
    Member

    The Maharatz Chayos also says on Mesechta Sotah 21a, that a woman can listen (aka to shiurim, predigested information), but not learn (aka from the sefer). So acquiring knowledge from shiurim and from information given by others, in a predigested form, is OK, but, however, learning straight from the sefer is unadvised.

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218027
    David S.
    Member

    kiruvwife that is right, but I heard there are some poskim who say that hearing shiurim is not same as learning or being taught, and so listening to predigested information is muttar. ( I can’t quote any poskim right now, but i’ll look into the matter. If anyone could help me in finding sources to support my assumption, that help would be appreciated)

    Thanks, David

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218026
    David S.
    Member

    thanks for the compliment noitallmr :D, but now I am a bit embarassed I made you feel like an am haaretz 😀

    Thanks, David

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218019
    David S.
    Member

    Thank you very much for the compliment Joseph, and also, I directed the post at you in the beginning of the essay because I thought you were of the opinion that it is an issur to teach one’s daughter Torah shebaal peh, please forgive me if I was wrong in my assumption or was rude in my wording.

    YW Editor, I am sorry for reposting, but I had to add onto my previous post a major detail that clarified my post, and so I copied and pasted it again.

    Thanks, David

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1218015
    David S.
    Member

    Joseph, the Aruch HaShulchan says before quoting the Gemara, that “Even though they recieve a reward: (quote from Sotah 20a, followed by Sotah 21b, which is the phrase about “one who teaches his daughter Torah (shebaal peh) it is as if he is teaching her matters of transgression,) connotating that it is surely unadvised for one to teach his daughter Gemara, but if one’s daughter learns Gemara, she still gets a reward. The Aruch HaShulchan says that “Because their minds are ??, and they find in the Torah meaningless matters, because their minds are inadequate (for Torah study, even though they get a reward). But like most poskim, the Aruch HaShulchan rules that one’s daughter can learn Torah Shebichsav. In the Tur it says the opposite of what the Shulchan Oruch says, that Torah shebaal peh is not tiflus, and Torah shebichsav is. The Birkei Yosef notes that it is most probably a printer’s error.

    I looked in the Shach and the Taz, and they both say that one’s daughter should not learn Torah shebaal peh, the Taz in the beginning noting the same observation of the Birkei Yosef, the printer’s error in the Tur, and that the Tur intended to say the same thing as the Shulchan Oruch, of course intending to say as well, like the Birkei Yosef, that he is with the Shulchan Oruch in this case. The Taz also notes that Lechatchila one’s daughter can learn Torah shebichsav, because the king would read Sefer Devorim to every Jew,, including women and children, and not only the men. The Shach on ???:? says nothing but an explanation of “One who is commanded and does is greater than one who is not commanded and does,” thus also deciding like the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur.

    The Birkei Yosef notes that in the Machloikes with R’ Eliezer and Ben Azzai in Sotah 21b that if one is obligated to teach his daughter Torah shebaal peh, that we pasken like R’ Eliezer, and so for anyone who says that Ben Azzai says te opposite, we pasken like R’ Eliezer due to the opinions of R’ Yehoshua and R’ Elazar ben Azariah, if I understood the Birkei Yosef correctly.

    The Rambam says on the matter: ????? ????? ???? ?:?? A woman who learns Torah, she has a reward, but not as big as a man’s, due to the fact that she was not commanded to. The one who is not commanded and does, his reward is not as big as the one who is commanded and does. Even though she gets a reward, our Chachamim commanded that one should not teach her. So we can see that the Rambam is of the opinion that it is an issur to not teach one’s daughter Torah shebaal peh, as consistent with his idea, that is stricter than other posikm’s, that lechatchila one should not even teach one’s daughter Torah shebichsav, but bedieved it is not like teaching tiflus.

    The Shulchan Oruch HaRav quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin, that a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, because it says to your sons, not to your daughters, in ????? ?:?. Later he quotes the Rambam in what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. It seems like a contradiction, but in reality the unobligation is for Torah shebichsav, and the quote from the Rambam is for Torah shebaal peh. So, basically the Sulchan Oruch HaRav says that Lechatchila one can teach Torah shebichsav, but holds by the strict opinion of the Rambam that it is an issur to teach Torah shebaal peh. however, still the Shulchan Oruch HaRav says women need to learn Hilchos Nidah, Tvilah, and other things that apply for women.

    The Bach says the lechatchila teaching a woman Torah shebichsav is OK, because if she dosen’t know Torah, how would she know how to fulfill all the mitzvos? Also, the Bach says that a woman can learn by hearing, but can not teach by stating, asserting. Hearing is merely at the time of its command (she can hear a command or public reading, but not learn on her own, like the public reading of Sefer Devorim. But a woman should still learn the things that women need to learn, and so she should say Birchos HaTorah every day.

    The Rema says that a woman should learn the things applying to a woman, and she is not obligated to teach her son Torah (presumably both shebichsav and shebaal peh). But if she does help her son or husband so they can dwell in Torah part of their reward is given to them. This last sentence of the Rema can either refer to a Yissachar- Zevulun relationship, one works, and other learns, benefit divided, or when she helps: for example answering a question or learning together. The Rema also says not OBLIGATED. Not obligated, means you don’t have to do it, but you can. A woman will still get reward for learning even though she is not commanded, as R’ Chanina says: “The one who is commanded and does his reward is greater than the one who is not commanded and does.”

    The Beis Yosef says on the Tur: With reference to this it is taught: If her merits suspend her (from dying from frinking the waters) (Sotah 20a). It is said in the Gemara (Sotah 21a) If you say, the merits of Torah, she is not commanded and does! The explanation of Rashi on this is that she is not commanded and does, and so her reward is less than one who is not commanded and does. And what is written (to support this)? One who does something without being commanded, his reward is not like the one who is commanded and does. (This all implies that even if a woman learns Torah she gets a merit, but not big enough to save from death, as the Gemara says: “A merit can save for 1, 2, or 3 years.”

    Last of all, what is the context of R’ Eliezer’s machloikes with Ben Azzai? Ben Azzai says: One is obligated to teach his daughter Torah: in regard to what? In regard to her merits from the learning saving her from immediately dying from Mei Sotah, suspending her death for 1, 2, or 3 years. R’ Eliezer only says it is folly, in regard to it is worthless. It will not save her. According to Rashi’s interpretation of promiscuity, it advocates promiscuity, for she can do any immoral acts and not die for a couple more years.

    *This is all according to my understanding of the text.

    My entire post is intended to prove that women are unadvised to learn Torah Shebaal peh, but it is not a strict issur.

    in reply to: Cholov Akum #772690
    David S.
    Member

    gavra_at_work, thanks for telling me, but I already heard about them, but I decided not to use them. Hashem gave me lactose intolerance because I was over eating milk and dairy products, and I decided to live with what Hashem gave me and not try to be able to indulge again through Lactaid pills. Thanks though.

    Thanks, David

    in reply to: New And Returning Members! #855348
    David S.
    Member

    Hi everyone I’m new here… by the way, it IS the new person thread right?

    in reply to: Chess Match – squeak vs SJSinNYC #1187070
    David S.
    Member

    I used to really be into chess too, but I forgot a lot since then 😀 squeak do you wanna play me too?

    in reply to: Shulchan Oruch, Torah with Meforshim #951089
    David S.
    Member

    sorry for not being clear, I meant this thread when I said this.

    Let’s start out with Hanhogos Adam Baboker: Shulchan Oruch siman Alef, any comments or shailos on that?

    in reply to: A Humorous Item #1172486
    David S.
    Member

    oh, better luck next time I get an extra feature for Mozilla Firefox 😀 thanks anonymiss

    in reply to: A Humorous Item #1172483
    David S.
    Member

    this is one of the the cool new smilies i got on my computer q6ibounce.gif just testing to see if it works

    in reply to: Cholov Akum #772681
    David S.
    Member

    thanks everyone for the greetings, and, Joseph, yes, I am Ashkenazi, how did you know? 😀

    in reply to: Bread Dipped In Vinegar #638993
    David S.
    Member

    the term is usde in Mishna Shabbos 14:4. the context is that if one feels pain in his teeth on Shabbos he can’t fill his mouth with vinegar, as long as he dosen’t spit it out, because if he spits, it is for medicinal purposes. But he CAN dip bread in vinegar, and if he is healed, he is healed, and he isn’t ????. the prohibition stated here only applies when it is a small pain, but when it is an a big pain, in the words of the Taz on Orach Chayim 328:32: A big pain throughout his body, it is permitted to rinse and spit with vinegar.

    in reply to: Cholov Akum #772676
    David S.
    Member

    I dont have alot of input on this. I’m lactose intolerant. 😀

    in reply to: Tips For Better Davening #656434
    David S.
    Member

    This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for bringing this up. What I do is:Whenever you get off track during davening, concentrate on the letters and words in the siddur and their meaning, just focus in on them. that always works for me.

    Thanks, David

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1217944
    David S.
    Member

    whoops I messed up in my previous post the Prisha says right afterwards the opposite of what I said. Sorry for the misinformation

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1217943
    David S.
    Member

    The Prisha says that if a woman teaches to herself anything we see she has ‘gone out’ of the category in which most women are put in, and thus they can be taught Torah, due to the fact that it is now assured that their knowledge won’t be folly.

    in reply to: Is a Boy Looking to Date a Girl or a Chavrusah? #1217940
    David S.
    Member

    Joseph, the Aruch HaShulchan says before quoting the Gemara, that “Even though they recieve a reward: (quote from Sotah 20a, followed by Sotah 21b, which is the phrase about “one who teaches his daughter Torah (shebaal peh) it is as if he is teaching her matters of transgression,) connotating that it is surely unadvised for one to teach his daughter Gemara, but if one’s daughter learns Gemara, she still gets a reward. The Aruch HaShulchan says that “Because their minds are ??, and they find in the Torah meaningless matters, because their minds are inadequate (for Torah study, even though they get a reward). But like most poskim, the Aruch HaShulchan rules that one’s daughter can learn Torah Shebichsav. In the Tur it says the opposite of what the Shulchan Oruch says, that Torah shebaal peh is not tiflus, and Torah shebichsav is. The Birkei Yosef notes that it is most probably a printer’s error.

    I looked in the Shach and the Taz, and they both say that one’s daughter should not learn Torah shebaal peh, the Taz in the beginning noting the same observation of the Birkei Yosef, the printer’s error in the Tur, and that the Tur intended to say the same thing as the Shulchan Oruch, of course intending to say as well, like the Birkei Yosef, that he is with the Shulchan Oruch in this case. The Taz also notes that Lechatchila one’s daughter can learn Torah shebichsav, because the king would read Sefer Devorim to every Jew,, including women and children, and not only the men. The Shach on ???:? says nothing but an explanation of “One who is commanded and does is greater than one who is not commanded and does,” thus also deciding like the Shulchan Aruch and the Tur.

    The Birkei Yosef notes that in the Machloikes with R’ Eliezer and Ben Azzai in Sotah 21b that if one is obligated to teach his daughter Torah shebaal peh, that we pasken like R’ Eliezer, and so for anyone who says that Ben Azzai says te opposite, we pasken like R’ Eliezer due to the opinions of R’ Yehoshua and R’ Elazar ben Azariah, if I understood the Birkei Yosef correctly.

    The Rambam says on the matter: ????? ????? ???? ?:?? A woman who learns Torah, she has a reward, but not as big as a man’s, due to the fact that she was not commanded to. The one who is not commanded and does, his reward is not as big as the one who is commanded and does. Even though she gets a reward, our Chachamim commanded that one should not teach her. So we can see that the Rambam is of the opinion that it is an issur to not teach one’s daughter Torah shebaal peh, as consistent with his idea, that is stricter than other posikm’s, that lechatchila one should not even teach one’s daughter Torah shebichsav, but bedieved it is not like teaching tiflus.

    The Shulchan Oruch HaRav quotes the Gemara in Kiddushin, that a woman is not obligated to learn Torah, because it says to your sons, not to your daughters, in ????? ?:?. Later he quotes the Rambam in what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. It seems like a contradiction, but in reality the unobligation is for Torah shebichsav, and the quote from the Rambam is for Torah shebaal peh. So, basically the Sulchan Oruch HaRav says that Lechatchila one can teach Torah shebichsav, but holds by the strict opinion of the Rambam that it is an issur to teach Torah shebaal peh. however, still the Shulchan Oruch HaRav says women need to learn Hilchos Nidah, Tvilah, and other things that apply for women.

    The Bach says the lechatchila teaching a woman Torah shebichsav is OK, because if she dosen’t know Torah, how would she know how to fulfill all the mitzvos? Also, the Bach says that a woman can learn by hearing, but can not teach by stating, asserting. Hearing is merely at the time of its command (she can hear a command or public reading, but not learn on her own, like the public reading of Sefer Devorim. But a woman should still learn the things that women need to learn, and so she should say Birchos HaTorah every day.

    The Rema says that a woman should learn the things applying to a woman, and she is not obligated to teach her son Torah (presumably both shebichsav and shebaal peh). But if she does help her son or husband so they can dwell in Torah part of their reward is given to them. This last sentence of the Rema can either refer to a Yissachar- Zevulun relationship, one works, and other learns, benefit divided, or when she helps: for example answering a question or learning together. The Rema also says not OBLIGATED. Not obligated, means you don’t have to do it, but you can. A woman will still get reward for learning even though she is not commanded, as R’ Chanina says: “The one who is commanded and does his reward is greater than the one who is not commanded and does.”

    The Beis Yosef says on the Tur: With reference to this it is taught: If her merits suspend her (from dying from frinking the waters) (Sotah 20a). It is said in the Gemara (Sotah 21a) If you say, the merits of Torah, she is not commanded and does! The explanation of Rashi on this is that she is not commanded and does, and so her reward is less than one who is not commanded and does. And what is written (to support this)? One who does something without being commanded, his reward is not like the one who is commanded and does. (This all implies that even if a woman learns Torah she gets a merit, but not big enough to save from death, as the Gemara says: “A merit can save for 1, 2, or 3 years.”

    Last of all, what is the context of R’ Eliezer’s machloikes with Ben Azzai? Ben Azzai says: One is obligated to teach his daughter Torah: in regard to what? In regard to her merits from the learning saving her from immediately dying from Mei Sotah, suspending her death for 1, 2, or 3 years. R’ Eliezer only says it is folly, in regard to it is worthless. It will not save her. According to Rashi’s interpretation of promiscuity, it advocates promiscuity, for she can do any immoral acts and not die for a couple more years.

    *This is all according to my understanding of the text.

    in reply to: Screen Names #1175470
    David S.
    Member

    well, my username is a bit obvious….

    in reply to: Smoking #633077
    David S.
    Member

    I think smoking is a real problem, and saying gedolim in previous generations did it is no excuse whatsoever, because people didn’t know back then that smoking was bad, it was just a habit! Yeshiva bachurim now are well-informed enough to know that smoking is bad and harmful to the body that HaShem gave you, and He wants one to take care of it!

    Thanks, David

    David S.
    Member

    Sorry I didnt see this topic before, I’ll do Avodah Zarah, Berachos, and Beitzah

    Thanks, David

Viewing 40 posts - 101 through 140 (of 140 total)