gavra_at_work

Seriously, ignoring the person may be the best way to go, if you will otherwise speak what the real reason is (you can lie for Shalom, and this may be such a case. Ask your LOR).

Otherwise a simple “I’m sorry” will do.

The Horse’s Mouth

AKA The Joe:

If the mother is the breadwinner, she runs the home. Then she gets to do what she wants, not the husband.

Gavra, that is very wrong. Are you saying that the Gemara, that quoted the Megillas Taanis, didn’t get it!? It takes something to argue with a Gemara.

Of course not. The Pach Hashemen was the Nes that showed that the Shechina was back in the Beis Hamikdash, and that is the reason why we celebrate the Chanukas Hamisbayach (as MT & the Bavli state). Had it been only for the War, or the Chanuka, we would not have celebrated.

It is possible, though, that the Bavli did not have a full copy of the Megillah. The Beis Yosef seemingly did not when he asked his “famous question” regarding the 8 days. I am aware of the OZ, and assume the BY did not have one either? (at the very least, the BY’s Kasha is Shver, since it is Offen a MT).

mdd: If stam they were serious about protesting Tznius, they should have done so in Tel Aviv, against those who really are not Tznius L’halacha (not chumra). The protests are about Power, not Tznius (which is only an excuse).

HaKatan:

I have our point of disagreement:

You believe that someone’s husband dancing with a pole in private for his wife will make the wife think of an exotic dancer.

I believe it will make her think of her husband.

I agree if it make him/her think of the worker then it should not be done.

You agree(?) that if it doesn’t, then it is Kadosh.

Shalom Al Yisroel!

P.S. The Steipler in his Iggeres for Chassanim basicly says that those simanim in SA are not applicable in this day and age. I’m not disagreeing with the point of “Kos Acher”, though.

Fight in the CR!

I’m taking bets. 50 CR points or one cup o’ joe that they both fall down flat out exhausted.

Any Takers?

HaKatan:

Let’s not say and call it even?

Let’s say the wife wants to be sensual for her husband? Then using sensual props, even if they are used by non Jews, or even if the husband or wife knows about them via non Jewish methods, is Kadosh V’Tahor. This is by very definition, as it increases Kurva between husband & wife.

So in your example, if the wife wore the perfume to attract her husband, that is an act of Kedusha. Whether the perfume is used by Zonos or not, whether the perfume is attracting because Zonos use it or not, is irrelevant. (of course, this should not be done in public, as we agree). Now if it makes him think of someone/thing external to the marriage (such as a specific Zonah or Perutza) that is a different issue, and I would agree with you (as that is not enhancing Kurva).

Of course, ask your LOR, and YMMV. Gur need not apply.

“It is also my personal opinion that dancing with poles or similar should not be done in public”

Nor dancing with Chechs, Slavs, Brits, or Danes.

😉

Like this 🙂 (not sure the shaychus, but I like it).

aries2756: I agree (and said so as well before).

Note though, there is a shitta that holds we should be willing to sacrifice the weak to the benefit of the strong, so that they may come out stronger.

There is a very specific point of argument here:

Rav Dessler was well known to have said that the correct mehalech is to push everyone hard, so that the best may come out of some. If others suffer (and go OTD), so be it. This mehalech would insist on elite schools, where only the best attend, and only “good” families are allowed in.

The other school of thought is that every Yiddishe neshoma is precious, and it is not worth losing any for the betterment of a few.

Those who want “elite” schools are of the first mehalech (your child may affect my child, even if it will cause your child to go OTD)(at least until they have a child who breaks the mold!). Others (such as Rav Birnbaum from above, Rabbi Bender of Yeshiva Darchei Torah (who deserves special mention for his work with special children), etc.) are of the second mehalech, and try to educate every Yiddishe neshoma.

You will never agree on this one. Both sides just have no clue where the other is coming from.

hello99:

Hadri Bi (I’m Modeh).

Thank you for teaching me something new today.

Hello99:

You said 2 days ago:

Regarding a lack of Mehadrin; the Meiri, Shiltei Giborim and Magen Avraham all write that it is only necessary for adult children to light and not minors. There is no need to indicate the total number of people in the house to fulfill Mehadrin, only those obligated. The Mikraei Kodesh quoted above suggests that the same exemption should apply to girls and women.

And yesterday:

so there is no indication it requires girls either. I quoted this previously from the Meiri, Shiltei Giborim and Magen Avraham and Mikraei Kodesh.

So, sorry but the Shulchan Aruch does not say that girls must light to fulfill Mehadrin MIN HaMehadrin either.

OK, which one is it? Just the Mikraei Kodesh (which one!), or the Magen Avraham? I looked the the sif in SA and the Magen Avraham is silent on the matter. (I also saw the Pischei Olam quoting the Shilte Giborim explicitly that Men and Women both need to light).

I’ll admit that it is not “offen” in SA, as one could interpet “Benei Baiso” as males only (even though that is not the Pashtus, vs. those who are Mechuyav to light, which is more Mistaver). The MB certainly holds that girls light.

If you can find me the Magen Avraham that says women don’t have to light, and reads it into the SA, I will be Chozer. In the meantime, from what I see, both the SA & MB hold the women have to light for Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin.

I’m also going to ask for specific Marr’e Mekomos so I can look up these for myself.

The Chasam Sofer was probably providing a teshuva to a shaila presented to him asking if females should light on Chanuka.

Someone didn’t read the Chasam Sofer. Read it and get back to me.

passfan: Of course not. None the less, it still has to be justified in Halacha. The Chasam Sofer sees the need to justify it, not me.

Perhaps it was a bad choice of words. Replace “questionable” with “incomprehensible, at first glance”. Questionable infers that the Minhag is not valid, vs. not having any reasoning behind it.

hello99: Doesn’t change the Shulchan Aruch that says that girls should light for Mehadrin Min Hamehadrin (Minors would be Chinuch only, not a cheleck of the mitzva of the home). I’m not saying there is not a valid minhag for girls not to light, but “new custom”? Do you consider the SA “new”?

BTW, have you ever seen that Chasam Sofer inside? Interesting S’vara, no?

Sam2: Thanks for asking.

OneOfMany: I would think that we are talking about older (dating) girls, who feel bad that they are not part of “Ishto K’Gufo”. That would certainly trump any reason to light.

As to the lighting at the z’man, even below bar mitzvah boys should light then even if the baal habayis is not home yet (yes, we asked our LOR).

I hear. However, no one else is Yotze by that lighting, so that wasn’t my point. It is a good point none the less.

BS”D

Girls do not have to light.

Boys do not have to light.

The mitzva is ONE candle.

The house (husband OR wife) should light, and is Yotze the other via Ishto K’Gufo (for example, the wife should light if the husband will be home late). If a high school girl will be the only one home at the Z’man, she should really be the one who lights, and is Yotze everyone else who lives in the house, including her parents.

Mehadrin Min HaMihadrin is that (Al Pi the Rema) each member of the home lights (including girls). There is a valid minhag that all women of the home do not light (including girls over Bas Mitzva), but that is not like the Rema or the Mishna Berura (C”V that I am saying it is an issue, just the facts).

Furthermore, (from what I understand, but ask your LOR) one should have in mind NOT to be Yotze with the head of the household if they will light at a later time, so that they will have not already been yotze & be making a brocha Livatala.

Ask your LOR, & YMMV.

P.S. There is (IMHO) absolutly no reason for a Ben (or Bas) Bayis to be Mistatef B’Priti (give a coin).

PPS: Sam2, I believe it is a minhag Chassidus.

ZeesKite: It is in Medrash Rabba.

Exploring your roots.

Mr. HaLeiVi:

C”V I’m asking for a Nisayon! I just am not looking for Hashem to take away my Bechira. If seeing a Nes will not do so, then it is not a proof.

The second paragraph: Proof of an event (let’s call it a theorem) requires some prior assumptions (let’s call them axioms). I am questioning the Axioms (or saying to prove the axioms before proving the event).

As an example, there is a theorem that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. This assumes the Parallel postulate (simply that there can not be more than one Parallel line through a point).

Now, if we challenge that assumption (the Parallel postulate), the theorem is no longer true. Then we can imagine (or prove) a system (non Euclidian Geometry) in which the shortest distance is not a straight line.

If you have a chance to strengthen your Emuna with stories of Gedolim and Nissim, or with proofs, how can you turn it down!?

Simple. I was not put here to be a Malach. The One who put me here wanted me to be a person, with nisyonos. If Emunah was so obvious, there would be no nisayon.

As far as the OP, I don’t see any need to prove. First prove that you are a person (and not a figment of someone’s imagination) and then we can discuss Maamad Har Sinai 🙂