Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Coffee,
There are many that uphold that a Mumar does not need Chalitzan as we say he is not considered אחיו. The ones that argue, i recall, say that we are חושש שמע הרהור בתשובה. Thus, one who is a מחטיא and has an agenda to uproot yehadus might be in a diff status.
Yosef,
Thanks! and here is a link that will surely go though : )
“But I remember a story regarding Herzl and one gadol said ym”s and the other one said you don’t say it for a yid”
And on the other hand, I know some who did say YMS on Hertzel, so it is no comparison when speaking of two diff Gadolim each had a diff cutoff line, who and what they would use that term.
Unlike other Zionists, Hertzel did not even care about Israel he was fine with Uganda..
Rav Baruch Ber of Kamitetz refrained from even mentioning him by his name.
Eli,
While you should ask your Rabbi. However, where do you find minyan on Shabbos is more important than mid week?1,
Takes-2 a meschichist isn’t a ra’ayah”
Why are you bringing up Meshichists? Chabad has sent shluchim there way before Meshichist movement came about.
Also, in the rebbes mind its an inyan of saving neshomos, that would have been eternal lost.
No doubt it overides minyan, no less than all yiden who liven in ‘Kefarim’ all year long and only came in for Rosh hashanah, megilah etc. becuase of Parnasah..
Las,
Correct a Mitzvah is enough for Techumn, same reason you can use it for a Chasunah etc.
And that is exactly my point regarding the Maharil forbidding an Eruv for Minyan – that its basically only a “hidur” in Mitzvah of Tefilah not a complete mitzvah, at least shitah of the Mahril, the M”A disagrees though .
And I think the Tosfos R”P in Eruvin also paskens like the Maharil.
Las, and all;
Here is a fascinating responsum from haPosek HaGadol Rav Henkin ZT”L in his sefer פירושי לב איברא.
I remembered someone proving from Eruv Techuman…http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=3217&st=&pgnum=158&hilite=
Takes2,
Without going into details – As per the Gemorah in Pesachim 46a and in Shu”A you only need to go back a “MIL” which is 2000 Amos, figure out the time it takes to walk 2000 amos. Hence, that is the time you are required to invest as per halacha to participate davening with a minyan.
Making a stop is much more time that.
However, in any case, there is surely an inyan and one should try even on the cost of money if one can afford it. It is no diff than spending more on a esrog or buying a fancy leichter for shabbos etc.
Las,
See Magen Avrohom there that the Maharil does not exactly permit it. And there other Rishonim in Eruvin that clearly forbid it.
My point is the very fact that there are shitos that do not allow an Eruv Techuman for the sake of minyan, indicates that iy is not exactly a chiyuv, and one may travel without a minyan
.
However, there is of course the issue that even if it’s permitted you still losing out on all great inyanim that minyan tefilah has to offer, that your prayers are answered even without total kavanah etc..whereas beychidot you need total kavanah etc..1,
I will elaborate, Eruv Techuman can only be made in terms of performing a mitzvah, like קבלת פני רבו on YT.Now, there are Rishonim that specifically state that you are NOT permitted to make an Eruv Techuman in order to daven with minyan, hence we see clear thar there is grey area here.
Las,
“I think the argument between Yaakov Avinu and the brothers is,”You meant to post it on the other thread 🙂
1,
It is not exactly a chiyuv gamur, as I pointed out the key to the question is the answer to the above.
“Are you permitted to create an Eruv Techuman in order to go daven with Minyan on Shabbos?
Laskern,
Lets rephrase the question:Are you permitted to create an Eruv Techuman in order to go daven with Minyan on Shabbos?
“Where is that Meiri? ”
Sanhedrin 57“I don’t think that the above Chezkuni upholds that.”
From what you quoted, I don’t know why it contradicts the above? The issue is NOT if court should enforce the law or not, the point in concern is if the courts are obligated to carry out the punishments of death or not. Or, there a mitzvah as long as there is some form of enforcement.
Las,
“Yaakov Avinu held like the Samuel Hanovi that this is a שכיח הזיקא”True, that will ‘exempt’ you from the Mitzvah, but you are still “permitted” to go ahead and endanger yourself to be mekayom the mitzvah. (Note – Not to confuse with the machloket if you are permitted to Yehrog on any mitzvah other than the three.. as this is not absolute death) Therefore, Yaakov can not hold it against them.
las,
Asides that although it is a question, but you can not hold that against Shimon and Levi to that extent, as after all they did follow the simple halcacha that was required so the mitzvah should protect them. We do find many hold that you are permitted to put yourself in danger to be mekayom a mitzvah, (as beg. of Pesachim by Shmuel and bedikah).
In any case, the point is that the Meiri seems to uphold that punishing by death sentencing is not an absolute Chiyov on B”D or anyone else. The mitzvah of ‘establishing courts’ are to enforce it in any way they seem fit, including death penalties.
Las, then again you can’t compare the mitzvah of milah to minyan
Asides it not even a deO’raysa, according to many shitos, you can not make an Eruv Techuman on order to go daven with a a minyan.Also, as per halacha there is shiur how far you need to travel ro go to a minyan. I would assume, there are no halachos about not traveling at all.
Las, I agree there is a Mitzvah to est a court and enforce, I am only pointing out regarding Death Penalty on all these…Despite saying ‘Chiyuv Misah’, it can be Beyudie Shomayim or that B”D has a “right” to punish by death.
I think there is a Meiri in Sanhadrin who explains, that was the Taynos Yaakov had to Shimon and Levi, that although Shechem had a Chiyuv Misah, they did NOT have to do it. They could have been lenient and punished them diff ways. (Otherwise, why was Yaakov upset as per Rambam, that it was a definite Chiyuv to enforce it by death…)
akup,
“If you sentenced to death (and executed) everyone guilty of theft, murder, perversion of justice and that which we can’t speak about — the world would be empty”
That is not an absolute Tayne. For perhaps its the other way around – if you would have implemented those consequences there would be MUCH less crime. Proof is in the countries who have very strict laws and enforcement, they have no crime at all. like in Singapore…
“Gain, for violating any of the seven mitzvos, the penalty is death”
And based on who’s psak?
It is far from simple.Ah, Joseph. Joseph if you would only spend a fraction of the time you are here on learning… perhaps you would have understood the very shailah.
Hint – See חלקת יואב תניינא סימן י”ד, Meshech Chachmah Ki Tezai ובערת הרע מישראל…
las,
“Deserving” does not = a Chiyuv on B”D or court, it might be as “permitted” if they see fit etc.
How do you define “implement”?
Joseph:
Where does it say “courts” are bind by implementing “death” as punishment.
Perhaps” Chiyuv Misah” refers to ‘Beyedei Shomayim”, whereas, courts can implement any punishment they see fit accordingly.Joseph,
Are you speaking as a non-Satmar? Hmm I always thought you were Satmar.
Jo,
And why in the world is there an “if”? And how do you define “better”?“they have at least convinced themselves of it”
The fact that there are some who do is not the discussion here. The OP asked why is it diff, and the answer waw given. Asides that you are incorrect, there are many Talmidim who came to the Rav or Rav Berel and they completely changed their derech halimud, and they were mekabel as rav haMuvhak. However, the fact that many don’t shouldn’t be any diff of what it say. אחת מאלף יצא…
Toi,
agreed, but somehow the Talmidim in Jerusalem were Talmidim that we would call “Briskers”, I don’t think that was the case in Brisk as much as in Yerushalayim. Many just came to hear a shiur, like Rav Leib Malin etc..
BH,
“Reb Berel were the roshie yeshiva”
While you are somehow correct about Brisker Rav in Brisk, but in Jerusalem he had what we call “Talmidim” that is more than just passing thru a Yeshiva, those are truly talmidim in all aspects of life, not ONLY how to deliver a shiur, they were molded by Brisker Rav how to think and learn in all aspects of yehadus, halcha, and learning.
Mainly, as the Brisker rav would repeat in the name of Rav Chaim (who told it to Rav Baruch Ber): Vos NIT Tzu Zugen”/ what NOT to say”!
Rav Berel had a full fledged Yeshiva when he passed away, in fact, many (or most) of today’s older Rosh Yeshivos of America learnt by him..
CT,
“We might even be able to say gedolim achieved what they did despite the Yeshiva system not because of it.”How many can you count. I think the list finishes there. As all Gedolim past hundred years plus have learned in a Yeshiva, may it be Volozhin, Mir, Solobodka/Chevron, etc and later Brisk..
I think many of the great Rosh Yeshivos in America have learnt in Brisk.
Brisk does have something unique; they study Kodeshim, and its Gemora’s without any Rishonim and barely any Achronim. You basically learn how to study yourself from scratch. i.e. starting from the pesukim Toras Kohanim Gemorah Rambam with the full hekef..
Yes, they are made by Reformists just google it and it even comes with fake Tchelus . Even the mitzvah of Tzizit they need to somehow destroy…
“Whats the chilul hashem of some goiyeshe/secular contest being held in EY? ”
I don’t think that is the issue, it is the Chillul shabbos involved. It usually is a Shabbos event.
“It is not right to use “Loshon Harah” as an excuse ”
“People do have a right to decide if they dont want to use niggunim from someone who committed averios even the goyim disapprove of.”The typical excuse of EVERY L”H that has been spoken for the past 2000 years….
*wondering*
Is everyone here SO makpid on every composed song where and who it is written by…Kluger,
100% Agree! Take any typical song composed today, they are MUCH worse than ANY Carlebach song.
It seems like this very thread is more of loshon hora and מוציא שם רע bashing…There is no doubtthat the songs came from a good place, he “might” have had flaws and committed…et.
But as a general person, he had a deep neshamah and generally good intentions. His Ahavas Hashem and Yisrael was obvious on a very high level.From what I heard, he was very makpid not to listen to any non-Jewish songs, thus his creativity and singing should not be tainted by any impure sources. Hence, unlike many other composers, wherein their songs are just a Hit and run, his songs will always be part of Klal Yisrael and sung by all at all times to connect to Hashem.
All the rest are just simply Lashon Horo etc.. and a waste of time.
“Using Air Conditioners Is Assur”
I guess the heat got to you!
I hereby permit you (for various reasons) to immediately use the closest A/C available.
“There is a well known Movie Producer who was R’L jewish who was accused of doing similar Averios”
How are you comparing the two?
There is one thing about one being a Ba’al Avero” and another thing one committing/accused of certain averos. They are two separate concepts.How to look upon it is, what is the person as a whole? What are his feelings toward mitzvos and hashem.
Where is the passion and the feeling of his nigunim coming from?
What are his basic thoughts/intentions upon composing them?Beni,
“Nowadays our penuyos are all niddos and therefore the issur yichud is d’oraysa, just like an eshes ish.”My point was it is certainly LESS than Eshes Ish – See Tosfot סנהדרין לז א
“התורה העידה עלינו סוגה בשושנים”Tosfos clearly sates that it is less….
“Unmarried boys and girls should be particularly machmir”
You seem to be contradicting the following passages of the Talmud:
(ייחוד דאורייתא דאשת איש, ואתא דוד וגזר אפילו אייחוד דפנויה, ואתו תלמידי בית שמאי ובית הלל גזור אפילו אייחוד דעובדת כוכבים. (עבודה זרה לו ב
אמר רב יהודה אמר רב באותה שעה גזרו על היחוד ועל הפנויה, יחוד דאורייתא הוא, דאמר רבי יוחנן משום רבי שמעון בן יהוצדק רמז לייחוד מן התורה מניין, שנאמר כי יסיתך אחיך בן אמך… אלא אימא גזרו על יחוד דפנויה.
(סנהדרין כא א )“They also said they have known about this for years. Where has everyone else been?”
Interesting, it seems like it has only gained publicity due to OK managing to finally implement a Mechirah (which according to everyone is better than none).
All these years it has been no shaileh Asur l’kulah Almah. The non-religious owner refused to sell his Chametz.
ALERT – Conflicting Reports Regarding Kosher Status Of Beer In Tri-State Area After Pesach
Ls,
“המחדש בכל יום תמיד מעשה בראשית”
You can say whatever pshat you wish, I don’t know why it contradicts the above Rambam and Mahral on why a תנאי was needed etc. See Talmud Chagigah (12b) and in any case, whatever the “מחדש” is, it is within the parameters of how everything was at the time of creation. i.e. Sheshes Yomai Breshis with no changes…Joseph
“Is the current Brisker Rov referred to as Der Rov, in the same way Reb Velvel is?”The Brisker Rav was/is called ‘De Ruv’ by all Brisker Talmidim as he was actually A RAV i.e גאב”ד in the city of Brisk.
Hence I don’t understand what “current” Rov you are referring to?I just noticed my posts are not in order.
The Marahal quote was to be posted after my second (approved) post.
Halevi,
My main point with the Marahal quote was to quote the Rambam and to prove that the Marhal agrees to his point as far as the question goes.
I will re-post it:
“This idea, that the creation is re-created at every instant is not found in Chazal or Rishonim.”
I would go a step further; the very concept of the OP and what is relevant to the question posed, sort of goes AGAINST the ideology of the Rambam.
See Rambam in שמונה פרקים and פ”ה מ”ו אבות how he explains the mishnah of עשרה דברים נבראו בין השמשות and the Midrash of תנאי התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא עם מעשה בראשית על הים שיקרע ועל האש שלא ישרוף חנניא מישאל וכו’ that everything EVEN nissim were all determined at the time of creation, being that naturally there are NO changes in the very nature of creation. And that is the very reason why there had to be a תנאי at the very creation of ‘nature’ על הים שיקרע ועל האש שלא ישרוף.
Although, the Mahral in Derech HaChaim (Avos 5:6) argues strongly against the Rambam’s belief on this matter, he does not go to the complete other side, and say that in essence ‘everything’ is in a constant change etc. And if you carefully read the Mahral’s understanding on the above matter, you will see that the question on Chazaka is not relevant at all.
And in any case, is certainly NOT a tenet in Emuna.”
Ubiq,
“the question is on THOSE sources, how can they say that when clearly the Gemara based on pesukim (veyatzah hakohei min habayis…) says there is a concept of chzaka”
Well said!!
Halevi, Square, Avrah, et al.
“This idea, that the creation is re-created at every instant is not found in Chazal or Rishonim.”
I would go a step further; the very concept of the OP and what is relevant to the question posed, sort of goes AGAINST the ideology of the Rambam.
See Rambam in שמונה פרקים and פ”ה מ”ו אבות how he explains the mishnah of עשרה דברים נבראו בין השמשות and the Midrash of תנאי התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא עם מעשה בראשית על הים שיקרע ועל האש שלא ישרוף חנניא מישאל וכו’ that everything EVEN nissim were all determined at the time of creation, being that naturally there are NO changes in the very nature of creation. And that is the very reason why there had to be a תנאי at the very creation of ‘nature’ על הים שיקרע ועל האש שלא ישרוף.
Although, the Mahral in Derech HaChaim (Avos 5:6) argues strongly against the Rambam’s belief on this matter, he does not go to the complete other side, and say that in essence ‘everything’ is in a constant change etc. And if you carefully read the Mahral’s understanding on the above matter, you will see that the question on Chazaka is not relevant at all.
And in any case, is certainly NOT a tenet in Emuna.
However, we do need to understand and explain properly the Nefesh haChaim and the other ones how this works with the explanation of the Rambam and the Mahral etc. but as far as the Chazaka issue goes it is very consistent with the core belief of the Rambam and others.
I will quote the words of the Mahral and Rambam on the next post
Here are the words of the Maharal:
והרמב”ם ז”ל ביאר במשנה זאת דבר שלא כונו אליו חכמים, שרצה לומר כי דעת חכמים שלא יתחדש הרצון בכל עת, אבל דעתם כי שם השם יתברך בטבע הדברים מששת ימי בראשית כשיגיע השעה שהיה רוצה הש”י לעשות הנס שיהיה הנס נעשה ואין כאן חדוש רצון, ואמר שכך גם כן דעתם במה שאמרו במדרש אמר רבי יוחנן תנאי התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא עם מעשה בראשית על הים שיקרע ועל האש שלא ישרוף חנניא מישאל וכו’.
וכתב הרמב”ם ז”ל בספרו שדעת חכמים בזה, כי קשה עליהם עד מאוד שישתנה טבע אחר מעשה בראשית או שיתחדש רצון אחד שהונח כך, ולכך הם אומרים שהקב”ה שם בטבע מתחלת הבריאה שיתחדש הנס באותה שעה שהיה ועשה הנס ולא היה כאן שנוי רצון כלל, כך הוא מפרש דברי חכמים.
ובודאי לא עלה על דעת חכמים לא במשנה זאת ולא בדברי המדרש שהש”י שם בבריאה בששת ימי בראשית שיהיה הנס מתחדש בזמנו מפני שהיה זה שנוי רצון, כי הדברים האלו אין להם שורש ויסוד כלל. כי איך נפרש המשנה הזאת שהרי אמרה עשרה דברים נבראו בין השמשות כי למה לא היו נעשים אלו נסים כמו שאר הנסים ששם בטבעם בעת הבראם שיהיה נעשה הנס בזמנו, וכאשר ברא ביום הב’ המים שם בהם הטבע שיהיו נקרעים כשיבאו ישראל לים וכך שאר הנסים, וכך היה ראוי שיהיה נעשה ביום שברא הארץ שיהיה לה פה כשיהיה קרח חולק על הכהונה, וכן שאר דברים שנזכרו כאן שנבראו בע”ש בין השמשות.
וכן דברי המדרש אין לפרש כך כלל שלכך התנה הקדוש ברוך הוא עם הים שיקרע, מפני שקשה על חכמינו ז”ל שנוי הטבע או שנוי הרצון, דבר זה אינו כי אם כך שהיה קשה עליהם שנוי רצון לא היו אומרים כך בנסים בלבד, אבל היה אומר כך אף בלא נסים כאשר פעל השי”ת דבר מה שכך סדר הקב”ה מבראשית כדי שלא יהיה כאן שנוי רק שכך היה רוצה הש”י לעשות מששת ימי בראשית, ויהיה בטל לפי זה מה שכתב (שמות ל”ב) וינחם ה’ על הרעה אשר דבר לעשות לעמו שהש”י נשתנה רצונו.ואם בשביל שקשה עליהם התחדשות הטבע ובדבר זה יש להודות שהוקשה להם דבר זה, אבל אם רצה לומר בשביל שהש”י אין ביכלתו לשנות הטבע וכמו שהאמינו אנשי מאמיני קדמות בודאי לא היה כך דעת חכמים, כי אם נאמר שהוקשה בעיני חכמים שנוי הטבע אם כן מהו התירוץ על זה שהש”י שם בטבע מששת ימי בראשית שיהיה השנוי, ומה בכך סוף סוף איך אפשר שיהיה הש”י פועל הנס בין שהיה פועל בעת הבריאה בששת ימי בראשית שנוי הטבע או אחר כך.
ואם יוכל הש”י לשנות הטבע ולשום בטבע המים שיהיו נקרעים והאש לא ישרוף, אם כן גם כן יכול לעשות זה הקב”ה בשעת הנס ולמה יעשה זה בששת ימי בראשית דוקא. כי אין לומר כי עתה שהושם דבר זה בכחם בששת ימי בראשית נעשה הדבר בטבע, כי איך יהיה זה דבר טבעי שלא ישרוף האש ואי אפשר לומר רק שהוא שלא בטבע ואם כן אף שלא בששת ימי בראשית יכול לחדש זה:
אבל אם דעתו שלכך הושם בטבע הדברים שנבראו בששת ימי בראשית שישתנו, לא מפני שאין יכולתו של הקב”ה לעשות כרצונו, אבל דעתו הוא מפני שהש”י השלים העולם ואין חדש תחת השמש שיהיה הש”י עושה בריאה חדשה בעולם, כי דבר זה אין ראוי שיהיה זה נחשב חורבן העולם עם קיומו, וכאלו היו שני הפכים ביחד כי עם קיום העולם יהיה נמצא חורבנו, ואין ספק כי אם לא שם הש”י בכח העולם לקבל שנוי כמו זה היה כאן חורבן העולם ודבר זה לא יתכן לומר כלל, ולפיכך אמרו תנאי התנה הקב”ה עם מעשה בראשית כי לא עם אלו שזכר בלבד התנה, דהיינו מפני שידע הש”י כי בסוף יהיו צריכים ישראל לזה הנס שאין הדבר כך, רק שהתנה עם העולם הטבעי שלפעמים כשירצה הש”י יהיה נוהג שלא על פי הטבע.
והתנאי הזה כי העולם הטבעי הזה קשור עם עולם הנבדל, ומפני שקשור עולם הזה עם עולם הנבדל ולא נעשה מחיצה ביניהם, ומעתה לא נחשב כאן חורבן לעולם הטבעי. כי לכך נקשר העולם הזה עם עולם הנבדל, כי בעת הצורך מתדבק עולם הזה הטבעי בעולם הנבדל ונעשה הנס, ולא הניח העולם הזה לגמרי ביד הטבע, שאז היה כאן שנוי העולם כשיהיה הנס והש”י יסד ארץ על מכונה בל תמוט לעולם ועד, ולפיכך אמר תנאי וכו’. כלומר שלא מסר העולם אל הטבע לגמרי רק היה מקשר העולם הטבעי בעולם הנבדל שיהיה כח עליו לשנותו ואין כאן שנוי בריאה, כאלו היה הנס גם כן מענין העולם הזה שברא הש”י בששת ימי בראשית וכך הם פי’ דברי חכמים.
אבל שיהיה קשה עליהם שנוי הטבע, מצד שאין ביכלתו ח”ו לשנות, דבר זה אינו כלל, רק שהקב”ה אין מחריב סדר עולמו, והתנה הקב”ה עם העולם כלומר שלא מסר אותו אל הטבע לגמרי, רק בעת שירצה הקדוש ברוך הוא יחדש נפלאות כרצונו ובזה אין כאן חורבן לעולם אשר בראו הקב”ה. או שיהיה קשה עליהם שנוי הרצון שיתחדש הש”י מרצון אל רצון כמו שאמר, דבר זה אינו:
As you can see he states that ”
רק שהקב”ה אין מחריב סדר עולמו, והתנה הקב”ה עם העולם
כלומר שלא מסר אותו אל הטבע לגמרי, רק בעת שירצה הקדוש ברוך הוא יחדש נפלאות כרצונו ובזה אין כאן חורבן לעולם אשר בראו הקב”ה.This is exactly like others have explained here that the world we live in is based on Nature and so naturally/halachakly Chazaka tells us that all are in the same status-quo until proven otherwise.
KY,
“As to the speed of the ambulances”
All those “speed” stats I think is unnecessary, as one of the main factors seem to be that the Hatzolo’s range is much closer than any EMT stationed within the neighborhood. There are numerous members spread out within the Jewish community, hence chance is you will have a member seconds away from the call.
” Its a different style of Judaism than what I was raised on and I dislike it. It feels fake.”
True and again true. So why look on the bad side?
There are many true role models you can learn from.Lets keep it simple, the non-frum world out there is by far NOT better.
Whatever you are looking for – you will CERTAINLY not find by going elsewhere.
Truth and Emes Yidishkeit is NOT defined by ones dress-code etc, you need to work on it.‘The Chasam Sofer held that a person who does not follow shamita should not be עולה”
I think he brings it as a minhag of Rav Noson Adler, he is stating against the minhag of chasidim (at the time) that didn’t allow anyone wearing wool to be olah. He says what about Chadash (something chassidim weren’t makpid) etc.
In any case i don’t think it has with tefilin as many rishonim hold you should not wear any Chol Hamoed, whereas he is talking about someone who did make a prusbal.http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=794&st=&pgnum=18
YW 100 –
For that very reason some say, rather take Matzoh (Especially Erev Pesach) with a good Hechsher than doing it yourself , unless you are proficient in the Halacha…i.e. Hilchos Pesach.
iac,
As I stated there are diff categories of Minhagim and each has a diff status, and is rather really complex . Some indeed do expire once the reason is not relevant and some not – some will depend how it was implemented and how (and who) it was accepted. Some will depend if it is Halachik based or it is a סייג…
In any case, the OP was in regard to Gebrokts..
Las – See Meshech Chachmah (Parshas Bo) another reason why we really keep two days:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=54978&st=&pgnum=116
ובזה יצא לנו טעם נפלא על הא דקאמר הגמרא הזהרו במנהג אבותיכם גזירה דילמא אתי לקלקולא דא”כ קשה גם בח”ל גם בא”י יהי’ להם דין אחד דגם בא”י שייך האי טעמא, וצ”ל משום דכבר נהגו והוה כמו דלא בטל הטעם ואכמ”ל דצריך ב”ד גדול בחכמה ומנין להתירו וכ”ז אינו נראה שיהיה לעיקר הטעם אבל מקובלים אנחנו מרבנו הגר”א דאם כי חז”ל פירשו טעמם בכ”ז עוד השאירו טמונים בסתר לבבם טעמים לאלפים גדולים ורמים אבל לא גלו זה לאוזן המון בני ישראל ככה אומר אשר לדברנו יש טעם נפלא דלפי מה שכתב רמב”ם בפהמ”ש בריש סנהדרין דיהיה ב”ד בארץ ישראל טרם ביאת משיח וקיבוץ גליות עיי”ש דבריו הנעימים וכן מפורש בירושלמי מע”ש פרק כרם רבעי זאת אומרת שבנין בהמ”ק יהיה קודם מלכות בית דוד, א”כ אם יהיה ב”ד בארץ ישראל יהיו מוכרחים לקדש עפ”י הראיה ואם לא תתראה הלבנה ביום שלשים אעפ”י שע”פ חשבון יהיה ראוי לקבוע בו, בכ”ז יהיה מעובר ואז יהיו צריכים לעשות בגולה שני ימים ולכן גזרו גם עכשיו דוגמה שעשה ריב”ז לאסור יום הנף גזירה שמא יבנה בהמ”ק וזה טעם נכון לעשות בזמן הזה שני יו”ט של גליות ובזה יסתם פי המתפרצים בעוה”ר ודו”ק בכ”ז היטב.
All comparing YT Sheini to the minhag of Gerokts is A”H.
How can you can compare something that was implemented by Bes Din and accepted by all Klal Yisrael ופשט הדבר בכל ישראל (see רמב”ם הלכות ממרים ב) nothing can override that status of a Minhag. Gebrokts is just a Chumrah that some accepted AS A CHUMRAH – not as a Halcha.
I’m not implying to say it is muttar if your minhag is to be makpid, however, Hetoros Nedarim via a Rav certainly can help. (e.g you are by in-laws that do etc) in any case, the comparison is off.