Forum Replies Created
July 27, 2020 3:55 pm at 3:55 pm in reply to: Does Anyone (Basically) Know (Like) How to Talk (Whatever)? #1887159
This is not at all about language changing. This is about poor communication. Not every concept you’ve heard of applies you every scenario.
I am fascinated that he didn’t want to miss a part of the speech, and so he made this Tzaddik — who owes him nothing — come and find him in his seat!
TLIK, the term is used by Chazal even for keeping a couple apart temporarily. It’s not a misuse. The reason you don’t find the term, or actually the concept, mentioned in the Gemara had to do with society and the way marriage and relationship worked.September 18, 2019 9:11 pm at 9:11 pm in reply to: Eida Charedis Against Participating in Knesses Elections #1787978
Ha ha. This leap from the Maharam Shiq to his point is pretty typical for that Sefer.
He was a Talmid Chacham, and he probably meant it seriously, but it’s hard to read the Sefer seriously.
The contrast to mankind makes his intention clear. My question is assuming he meant ‘a man’, and I think it’s the other way around.June 5, 2019 7:11 am at 7:11 am in reply to: Bedbugs – advice and information request from desperate family #1738296
As a first step get bedbug-proof mattress covers. Also, you can prepare a spray of alcohol to kill on contact of you happen to see some.
They hide well. Exterminators look for signs of them rather than coming across the actual critters. The telltale signs are the bite patterns and spots on the mattress.
If you are in an apartment building they are likely coming from another apartment, and you cannot fix it alone. Otherwise, contact an exterminator. You might have to move out for s few days while they spray some poisons.
If you catch it early enough, you might only have to treat one room.
There goes my ביעותא בכותחא!December 13, 2018 8:47 pm at 8:47 pm in reply to: If you could go back in time for one day what would you do?!?! #1644641
Would go to yesterday and take a nap.
AviK, according to William Bernard Ziff, the British are the ones who fabricate the claim that the Jews are trying to take over Har Habayis, on order to rile up the Arabs.
It’s a biased book, but that’s his story.
Square Root of 2, why do you say that the pint is not to be embarrassed? What about those being punished? The point is that the reward should be a deserved reward and not a Matnas Chinam, which is not well received due to the Nahama Dichisufa concept.
As for my point of Bechira, you have to truly envision such a universe before tossing the explanation. If the fact is that there is no concept of a Cheit (whether preordained or selective universe) then there is no active Bechira. (Yes, I know your point of view, which is why I worded it that way.)
Additionally, there is the point that this world is meant to remain murky and not final. By rooting out the evil Hashem would effectively be fixing the world, not us. I mentioned this in the above post as well.
This is anything but a religious war. Whoever claims this is a religious war just popped that out of his hat, after realizing that those in the fight are of a different religion. Did you ever see any side trying to convince the other, by word or the sward, to convert and join?
And, Akuperma is correct. This is a fabricated fight fomented by the Brits in order to be needed and thus be able to stay in what was never meant to belong to them. Mandate means that they are acting as the hand of the League of Nations.
There were plenty of Arab leaders who were on good terms with the Jews and the Zionists. It was the Brits who incited, and allowed, the Chevron massacre.
They are now stuck in hatred that was passed down by selfish rulers. Indeed religion is used, now as always, to justify and invigorate the hatred. Religion is a powerful tool but it is hardly the cause. People fight for any ideology, including Democracy.
When then-President Bush spoke of invading Iraq, it wasn’t enough to mention our issues with Saddam. In order to Americans to agree, or justify, an attack on a sovereign country we were told that we will be bringing ‘democracy’ to the people of Iraq. Well, think about how the Crusaders or Muslim raiders justified their invasions with the spread of their ideology which they too subscribed to, with even more fervor.
But the motivation is usually less glamorous, and more simple.
Laskern, that Tiferes Yisroel, although it is quoted in other Sefarim, probably because of the great Mussar value, is highly suspect and seems to contradict famous Medrashim about Moshe Rabbeinu as well as what we know about Chachmas Hapartzuf or natural ‘sixth-sense’ recognition.
- This story emerges in the nineteenth century without a hint in earlier Sefarim/Midrashim.
- The Shita Mikubetzes in Nedarim has such a story, but about some anonymous Chacham.
- Being that Moshe Rabbeinu was Nolad Mahul and that the house filled with light, it is quite odd to say that his face was that of an evil person.
- When a person works on himself, he changes and so does the look on the face.
If Hashem would not create those people whom He knows will turn out bad, then we would have a world in which there is no active Bechira.
Instead, He set up this zone for all His creation to bring out their potential virtue. And the good will shine out from within the murky atmosphere. This way we are choosing Hashem.
As for the Nahama Dikisufa, I don’t see any contradiction there. What you do get is deserved and well received and what you don’t get, for lack of accomplishment, is embarrassing.
ChabadShlucha says: Well op is true. Baba basra perek beis if my memory doesn’t fail me says Ribbono shel Olam borosa tzaddikim borosa reshaim.
However, that quote is Iyov’s mistaken statement. He was actually trying to say that there should not be punishment. And the answer to him is that although there is a Yetzer Hara there is a Torah to combat it with.
Rashi actually explains that even Iyov never meant that Hashem created the person to be evil but rather that Barassa Reshaim refers to the fact that Hashem created an evil inclination. The Tanya Darshens Iyov’s words but you go further to give him credence as well.
Slonimer, this might be one of those times when knowledge is superior to guessing. When the season for suntanning is over, there is NOBODY suntanning. I’ve gone many times on Chol Hamoed to Manhattan Beach, to dip toes, play in the sand, fly a kite among other stuff.
Rebbe sent a Mezuza to Anteninus for a protection.
Oh, it’s Aggada, so it’s meant to be disregarded.September 4, 2018 10:08 am at 10:08 am in reply to: Why are Children from divorced homes treated as second class citizens? #1586127
Lashon Hara is not necessarily about revealing per se. It is the kind of talk that causes harm, or fights.
I know for a fact that someone who gets blasted by alias is affected as well. This is especially true if someone invested his personality, opinions and feelings into his online persona. Many here have virtual friends, acquaintances and think-alikes. Someone who attacks my personality is attacking me.
So, hurting and insulting someone online is Onaas Devarim, and therefore, causing others to do so in Lashon Hara.
Laskern, the Maharal didn’t really take out Machn8sei Rachamim either. He gave a few reasons to explain it. And, he isn’t decided about the concept of directly asking them to intercede.
Wait. So taking a picture of a Gadol is Avoda Zara, but an immigrant may worship this Avoda Zara?May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1519032
10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you can’t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a de’ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.
Absolutely. This is called argument of authority. When he couldn’t challenge her account of a direct contact he switched to saying how dare you disagree with a professor. He tried to make fun and referred to her ‘Google research’ after she had explained that she spoke directly to them. (Why didn’t he do that, BTW.)
IF anyone wants to know how well western anthropologists understand their subject matter, just read up on how they describe us.May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1519029
Another basic raya is the actual case of shviras makal, since it is talking about an Avoda Zara that the derech is with kishkush makal, and even so if one brakes a makal it is Avoda Zara and he is chayav misah even if the galach isn’t maskim. Vsu lo midi.
Well, I have a ‘midi’. That is only true because the makal is already part of it’s Derech. In this case, if according to the priests the hair is not part of any Avoda then even breaking it and placing it in the idols hand would not make it Takroves. This is how the Rosh and Tur explain the Gemara.May 10, 2018 1:37 pm at 1:37 pm in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1519028
Ubquitin, I’m pretty sure it would be, even according to the Matirim. Our case is more subtle since it might not be a form of worship per se but only a rite, if the two can be separated.
Now, the example rabbis Friedman and Paskez gave about the Korban Pesach is not really a good example. They said that although we have a reason for the Korban Pesach — to remember how Hashem spared us — it’s not up to us to commemorate that in another form instead and it is a Korban like any other. From this they wanted to show that even if there is a rationale about ego and humility they still only go about it in a very specific way which tells us that it’s a rite and not merely a means of humility.
However, although the point has merit, the example from a Korban Pesach is not a good one. The Korban Pesach is a Korban simply because it is actually a sacrifice. It is a Korban eve if I brought it for no reason at all.
Just to clarify the thing with breaking the stick: The Halachah is that placing an offer in front of an idol will only be considered Takroves Avoda Zara if it fulfills one of two requirements. Either it has to be an item which we would bring inside the Azara to be Makriv, or it has to be the breaking of an item which is recognized by that specific religion.
Rabbi Friedman, on the show, said that this breaking is Takroves even if it wasn’t done with any purpose. This sounds ridiculous. But rather, although it is not a prescribed ritual to break that item, if one does break that item in servitude and it is an item that is used in some way to worship, then it becomes Assur as a Takroves.May 10, 2018 7:25 am at 7:25 am in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518833
As to the intention of the practitioners, it seems like there is more than one story. Westerners who have spent time there say that they only do it as a means to cleanse themselves and to help them get rid of their ego and pride.
There is, however, some mythological ideas that surround the practice as well. They have a legend about a deity that got hair from another co-deity and that it promised something to all who ‘donate’ their hair.
The Osrim point to this legend as proof that it is being donated to the deity. The retort to this is that the hair never goes inside to the deity and it used to be discarded, and only recently had they begun selling it.
I haven’t heard a satisfactory response to the fact that this legend does exist, other than just saying that it’s not the main reason or real reason. Although he had a Hindu priest on the show, he didn’t ask him about this legend and its prominence. On the other hand, the Osrim say that the idea of cleansing and humility doesn’t take away from the Avoda aspect; it’s an added reason. We have such examples in Judaism as well.
Another point to be Mattir is, even assuming the idea is religious, it still isn’t a gift to the deity the way the present candy etc. to it, they do it in a separate area from their idol, and it is part of the preparation of visiting the idol.
The Osrim point out that to be considered Takroves Avoda Zara it doesn’t have to be in the presence of the idol. Additionally, Takroves doesn’t have to mean that it is presented to it and placed there. Just breaking the item for it is already a Takroves.
So, this leaves room for a discussion of whether or not any religious rite (of an idol-worshipping religion) that includes breaking is a Takroves or only when it is done as a means to give it up for the idol.
The issue of the multiple motivations for tansuring has to be cleared up. So far, it hasn’t been cleared up, other than discrediting the other side and pulling rank.
But, what I noticed while listening to the Hindu priest, was that he was describing the ego removing idea in religious terms. It sounded more like the hair ‘represents’ ego concepts and the head is the seat of cosmological reality… Westerners don’t get this talk and hear words about ego and humans and translate it to western social ideas.
That’s enough for now.May 10, 2018 7:21 am at 7:21 am in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518824
The arguments about the amounts are a bit confusing. It seems like nobody can follow the actual trail, for some reason. The Matirim mention the fact that the type of quality coming from these sites should be very expensive and it doesn’t match the prices of the hair we get. Also, experts on the matter quote a small amount of hair being produced by this center.
Osrim say that the inports/exports aren’t traceable since they can be redundant. Global numbers for exports can include what was sold and resold. Also, that there are many places that do the tansurs and the experts’ number are about one of them. Additionaly, one Rav says that the experts is openly biased on the matter and is therefore trying to keep the sales going.May 9, 2018 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518814
Moderator: please edit my earlier post and add
- tag before my list and
after. That should set the page straight.May 9, 2018 8:16 pm at 8:16 pm in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518785
T2t, and anyone else who would rather read a summary than go through what I did, I’ll try to capture it.
There are three disputed points.
- whether most of our hair comes from Indian tansurs (hair cutting as a preparation to visiting their deity)
- whether the practice of tansuring is a religious rite or merely a means of self perfection (and what about if the religious leaders understand one while practitioners understand it another way)
- whether their intention constitutes Avoda Zara and/or Takroves
The Matirim say that only a small portion of world exports of hair is from the tansurs, and that it is not a religious expression but rather an expression of ridding oneself of his ego.
The Osrim say that a significant amount of hair is from the tansurs and that the hair is given up for the sake of a deity. Additionally, they say, that doing so constitutes Takrovess Avoda Zara.
As people here are saying, you don’t really if, and to what extent, this is true. But there is something to say about being your own person, and how this makes you behave more maturely.
The hierarchy of the question is not a big deal. He’s not trying to refute Chazal or the Nefesh Hachayim. He’s merely asking how the two can equate.
The problem is that the question takes a concept and runs with it way too far. To imply that there is no law of nature is wrong. It is likewise wrong to say that this is constantly a new world and all the items in it are replaced each instant. The idea, as expressed earlier, is merely that there is no external existence. The world depends and is made of a constant command to exist.
Rashi explains that one who recites Hallel every day is Mislotzes. He is looking fun of the lack of Nisim. This is similar to the Maharal’s explanation of the fact that there are things around that are contrary to Kvod Shamayim, and only the fact that there are rules of nature can explain this.
The more pertinent Maharal is this (from Gevuros):
וזה שאמרו ז”ל (שבת קי”ח) האומר הלל בכל יום כאלו מחרף ומגדף. פירוש כי ההלל תקנו על הנסים ועל הנפלאות שהשם יתברך עושה בעולמו, ומי שאמר הלל בכל יום, כלומר שהוא יתברך עושה נסים בכל יום מחרף ומגדף, שהרי אומר כאלו העולם אינו נוהג על הסדר והכל שלא כטבע ושלא כסדר הראוי לפי מנהגו של עולם, ואין זה חכמה וסדר אל הנבראים שנבראו בשמו ואין ספק שזהו חרוף. אלא אם שנוי הטבע והנס הוא בזמן מן הזמנים ואין זה תמידי, דודאי אם הוא בזמן אחד אין זה יציאה מן מנהגו של עולם, אבל אם אומר ההלל בכל יום הרי לא היה לעולם סדר מסודר ואין לנמצאות קיום. ואם בפירוש הלל לקמן יתבאר פירוש אחר שניהם נכונים ואמתיים.
And later, in the Pirush on Hallel (Ch. 61):
ובפרק כל כתבי (שבת קי”ח ע”א) אמרינן האומר הלל בכל יום כאלו מחרף ומגדף כלפי מעלה, והטעם שראוי שיהיה העולם נוהג כמנהגו ובשביל שהעולם נוהג כמנהגו מדותיו יתברך אמת, ואם לא היה זה שהעולם נוהג על מנהגו של עולם אם כן מדותיו יתברך אינם אמתים ח”ו כי הרשעים ועובדי ע”ז בטובה ואלו הצדיקים בצרה, אבל ענין הזה מפני שהעולם נוהג כמנהגו ולפיכך אין הקדוש ברוך הוא מאבד הע”ז מן העולם, וכך אמרינן במסכת עבודה זרה (נ”ד ע”ב) והגומר הלל בכל יום נראה שהוא אומר שבכל עת הקדוש ברוך הוא מנהיג עולמו בדרך נס, ואם כן למה הצדיקים בצרה והרשעים בטובה ואינו מאבד הע”ז מן העולם ואם כן ח”ו אין ביכלתו וזהו חרוף וגדוף. וזהו שאמרו בירושלמי שלכך הוא מחרף ומגדף מפני שאמר פה להם ולא ידברו וגו’ ואם כן למה אינו מבטלם כאלו ח”ו אינו יכול, אבל האומר הלל בזמנה אומר שהעולם נוהג כמנהגו רק בזמנים מיוחדים ולדבר מיוחד לא לכל דבר משנה הטבע רק העולם כמנהגו נוהג והקדוש ברוך הוא מחדש נסים בזמן מן הזמנים וזהו שבח לו
I wish I knew which Yerushalmi he’s referring to.
Besides for the ‘anger at Hashem’ and loss of belief due to the lack of open and speedy divine help, I’ve come to realize another cause for those who turned away from the path of their parents.
During the war, nobody was actively practicing Judaism. They couldn’t. After the war, many people found themselves technically not Orthodox. It was a decision to become again a practicing Jew.
One more point. There were those who became convinced that the world is indeed Hefker. But those who were ‘angry at Hashem’ could have been brought back with the right care. They didn’t lose their belief due to logical questions but rather it was their only way to release anger.
But not the Maharal’s.
This idea, that the creation is re-created at every instant is not found in Chazal or Rishonim. It first shows up in the above referenced Nefesh Hachayim. It is sort-of self understood within the framework of Kabbalah or Rambam ideology. If existence itself is lent from Hashem then it is a constant act of perpetuation of existence. This is applied to the Pasuk, בדבר ה’ שמים נעשו, that the substance the world is made from is D’var Hashem.
This is a fine idea, but not essential to Judaism or the Torah. It is also, seemingly, an idea that was taken a bit too far. In fact, denying the function of Sheshes Yamim might truly be undermining the Torah. As we know, keeping Shabbos is like keeping the whole Torah.
So, while pondering the lofty concept of how the whole existence hangs on, and is made up of, D’var Hashem, let’s not lose sight of the basic idea of ‘creation’. Rules of nature were crafted and the world was formed back in Sheshes Yemei Bereishis. Existence was lent and is continuously breathed from then on.
So if said alongside regular Psukei D’Zimra it would be fine then?
“הקורא הלל בכל יום וכו the reason is that he only recognizes the great miracles and doesn’t realize that כל הנשמה תהלל י-ה, as the Midrash says, על כל נשימה ונשימה תהלל י-ה, we are suppose to praise Hashem for every breath take.
That’s not the reason and who told you that he only recognizes the great miracles? The one who only recites it by the actual ‘great miracles’ really means it always whole the one reciting it every day only recognizes the great ones!? That’s upside down.
The Maharal actually explains it’s because he considers everything a miracle and doesn’t recognize the order that Hashem created.
שבת קי”ח ע”ב
הקורא הלל בכל יום הרי זה מחרף ומגדףMarch 23, 2018 6:40 am at 6:40 am in reply to: Where it says that there is a jiyub to put on Tfillin every day? #1497304
In Shvuos 25b it is clear that there is a Chiyuv every day. The Gemara states clearly that you cannot swear that you won’t put on Tefillin that day.
Karkafta Delo Manach Tefillin is a separate issue. It is about that Tosafos says it refers to one who never put on.
Tosafos in Shabbos 131 seems to imply that any Mitzva which is constant is bound to each day.
Whoa. Chachmei Yisroel! He’s only as good as his sources. He did a great service with this compilation but he is not a witness. The Chida complained about why he gave this much credence to Shalsheles Hakabalah, which is a collection of stories from any source.
What does he say about Merlin?
Rand0m3x, I’m quite aware of both your points but they aren’t relevant to the multitude discussions of this thread.
Gaon, when was there ever a discussion between the parties about Tzimtzum. And, when do Chassidim discuss it among themselves to make it the central point. Also, why would a specific idea of how to work out a certain Sugya cause a movement?
laskern, if there’s any one central Nekudas Machlokes between Chassidim and their opponents it is whether or Chassidim are a deviant group.
Aosak, Joseph added, “despite having grown up in a Cholov Yisroel only home” precisely because of this point.
As to wondering who made this up, I’m with you on that one. So, I can declare, just like you, that it’s weird and funny. That’s where I get off.
What in the world does your medium of Gorel have to do with the Hetter!? Are you claiming that you just got Nevua because you opened a Tanach? If Gorel is Muttar they are all Muttar. If not, none of them are. If the idea is that you Daven to Hashem to send you an inspired guidance through the Torah which includes all knowledge, that is all very nice but it pertains to the discussion of whether it works or not. These beautiful ideas don’t change the prohibition of following a Gorel.
If you ordained your Gorel with wonderful ideas it becomes holy, all of a sudden? Perhaps using a Chumash is actually way worse since you are being Mishtamesh Betagga. It’s hard to see why that would be better than reciting a Pasuk onto a wound.
Perhaps you can answer that you aren’t really relying on where it opens but will only take a hint, a Siman. Nice Hetter, but this can apply to other mediums as well. We find in the end of Medrash Eicha where Rav Hoshia tells Rebbi to view an event in a certain light because of what they where Darshening that day.
Tosafos explains that Eliezer and Yonason where allowed to use the Nichush since they did it along with a Svara.
Notice – all these were done with the highest level of Torah or sort of NeVuah. The words of G-D i.e. Torah or Neviim Kesuvim. I never heard one opening even a Gemorah.
“Goralos” if you are referring to Goral Ha’Gra that is done with a Chumash as well…
So you just made up a classification in order to have a Taana on people. You also ignored part of the list.
Well, I meant the Goral Hagra along with the the whole Sefer Goralos from Reb Chaim Vittal.
Neville, not at all. The point is that it is not a fair comparison. For Halacha we never followed any supernatural advice. But for other matters we’ve had Neviim, Urim Vetumim, Chalomos, Psok Li Psukecha, Goralos (not sure how some Goralos are better than others, but they’ve been around), signs from Shamayim (by those who got them), ‘Muskal Rishon’.
In general, the Sugyos of supernatural are very involved, as the Rashba points out, and unfortunately are almost always dealt with wide-brush, universal attitude one way or the other.
So R’ Moshe can do what a Navi and the Urim Vetumin can’t?
I actually have a hard time believing anyone is truly insulted. Rather, they are “offended” for other people’s sake. How dare you joke about eating if fat people exist!!? From the tiny sampling of posters on this thread, it seems that actual overweight people aren’t offended.
I didn’t even find this video gluttonous. It didn’t delve into how tasty steak is or how luscious and juicy some other food is. I get turned off when I hear inspirational speakers extolling the virtues of food and this was not in that category. But here too, if I weren’t actually repulsed by such talk, but still pontificate against it, I probably wouldn’t discern between them, and I’d attack this as well.
Why would you bypass a filter? Are you desperate to get something?
If you don’t want to browse throw out the browser? If you’re afraid that your shadow will re-download a browser throw out the store app. If your shadow might get hold of that too, he might also secretly buy a non-kosher smartphone.
Amaleq as a nation is gone since the days of Shaul Hamelech. Haman was an individual in Persia.