Forum Replies Created
January 15, 2013 2:31 am at 2:31 am in reply to: Encouraging a Food Manafacturer to Change Hechsheirim #1170787
To take the example someone gave, if someone were to encourage Mott’s applesauce to switch from Triangle-K to OU, would he be guilty of hasagas gvul (against Triangle-K) or some other halachic issur?
And does it make a difference if a consumer (who doesn’t rely on Triangle-K) suggested this to Mott’s or if it was suggested directly by the OU?
The Chazon Ish married his wife knowing she couldn’t have children.
Learning full time requires other Jews to pay for your living expenses.
Being a soldier also requires other Jews to pay for your living expenses.
Learning full time is providing full time protection to other Jews.
I don’t want to take chances against R’ Moshe and R’ Elyashiv Zt’l.
Even if we are to assume that is a faithful understanding of their position, one isn’t “taking chances” if they are following another shitta. Much as you aren’t taking a chance of chillul Shabbos when you set your air conditioner to go on during Shabbos, not in accordance with Rav Moshe’s psak but following others.
Who’s to say they won’t listen to them when she’s away?
How is it any different than if I loan you my CD (which I may do) and you take it home and listen to it?
You are neglecting to mention the opinion of the poskim that there’s geneivah of “intellectual property”.
That isn’t a universal view.
How might a 2014 model make it easier to get from Point A to Point B than a 2013 model?
Get Bill Gates to fly Economy first, then start worrying about a gvir deciding to fund the rabbonim for whatever the gvir wants to pay for rabbonim’s benefit.
When a certain percent of the non-religious Israelis are forced to learn Torah full-time in Yeshiva in order to protect Klal Yisroel, we will entertain the notion of forcing that same percentage of those in Yeshiva to become full-time soldiers in the Army.
Absolutely not. We cannot use so-called “conversions” as a magic wand to declare non-Jews to be Jewish, as it would have no halachic effect and their status remains as Gentiles.
Yes, the kovod yidden give to our rabbonim knows no limits.
Besides, I never saw you post complaints about all the CEO’s flying — actually owning — private jets. Why is your quarrel only against rabbonim?
You’re not being asked to donate. If they decide to do this (which I highly doubt — that was an unsourced sensationalist article that likely has little bearing to the truth) it will be paid for gvirim who volunteer to cover the cost specifically for this purpose. Don’t you defend rich folks rights to purchase mansions and Lexuses? So why are you so against a rich guy buying this for his Rov?
Ugh, what’s so important about new features that you have to think into this so deeply? It gets you from Point A to Point B, and shoin, it does its job as a car. Why the vanity?
An hour of Torah study, for sure.
Not even a difficult question.
The MAIN purpose of a marriage is to carry out the halachic obligation of having children by being fruitful and multiplying. So if there ever was any shidduch issue that ought to be investigated prior to going through with a shidduch, THIS is the most fundamental issue to be investigated.
A very small percentage of Israelis between the ages of 18 and 24 are in Yeshiva. The small percentage of Israelis of such age in Yeshiva are already doing more than their fair share. We need to INCREASE the number of Jews in Yeshiva. We ought to draft, say, 20% of 18 – 24 year old chilonim into Yeshivas. Currently only Frum Jews are doing their national duty to protect our people by learning Torah. It is high time that the chilonim start to do their fair share. It is time at least a small percentage of chilonim, say 20%, are drafted into Limid Torah to protect Klal Yisroel.
There is a cherem against breaking an engagement. See Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 50:6) and (Y.D. 236:6) and the Taz. See also the Maharsham (volume 4).January 14, 2013 5:27 am at 5:27 am in reply to: Encouraging a Food Manafacturer to Change Hechsheirim #1170783
I understand it would be a boon to the manafacturer. It would also be a boon to the consumers who are more careful in only using the more reliable hechsherim, allowing them to eat the food once it has the more reliable hechsher whereas they preciously couldn’t consume the food when it was under the less reliable hechsher.
The only loser is the loss of business to the less reliable hechsher. Thus it brings up the shaila whether causing them to lose that food company as a client, by recommending or suggesting to the food managacturer to utilize a different hechsher organization (that is more reliable and will increase sales for the food company), is an issur of hasagas gvul or some other issur.
I also seem to recall that they do their Kidushin in a way that is halachicly valid but their gittin they do halachicly invalid, thus resulting in possible mamzer status as daniela pointed out. And since they’ve been doing as such for nearly a thousand years, there is no way to verify one of them isn’t a mamzer.
DY: Why would they not be Jewish? Or why should they be any different than the Jewish status of Reform Jews (who do not descend from reform converts.)
These are the left-wing stuff that is mostly only discussed by those into religious politics. Normal people don’t know (or need to know) much about them.
You will notice a large stylistic difference between pre-WWII English translations and those translated post-WWII. Artscroll, in particular, has introduced a level of clarity that set a new standard in translated works.
One needn’t and shouldnt get on their knee regardless of how (or if) he proposes.
Genuflection (or genuflexion), bending at least one knee to the ground, a gesture of deep respect for a superior. Lay people or clergy of lesser rank genuflect to a prelate and kiss his episcopal ring, as a sign of acceptance of the bishop’s apostolic authority as representing Christ in the local church.
Genuflecting before the bishop of the diocese to which one belongs was treated as obligatory in editions of the Caeremoniale Episcoporum earlier than that of 1985.
In the same period, the clergy genuflected when passing before the bishop of the diocese when he presides at a liturgical ceremony. But the officiating priest, as also all prelates, canons, etc., were dispensed, and substituted a bow of the head and shoulders for the genuflection.
Genuflection to the Blessed Sacrament, especially when arriving or leaving its presence, is a practice in the Anglican Communion, the Latin Rite Catholic Church, and the Lutheran Church.
1) The store pays the delivery boy an hourly wage for his services. You’re saying it isn’t enough does not create an obligation on any other party than the merchant.
2) The consumer has no contractual or other relationship with the delivery boy. His financial and business relationship is only to the merchant.
The reason telling a person directly may be muttar is because it is l’toeles. Posting it on the Internet, on the other hand, and it certainly will be seen by people who it isn’t toeles to let know. Thus the issur of L”H remains.
Similar, in a way, by shidduchim where you are allowed to tell someone information l’toeles ONLY if you know he will not spread the information. Otherwise you cannot tell him, even if it is legitimately l’toeles for him, if he will then tell others who it isn’t relevant to.January 11, 2013 5:37 pm at 5:37 pm in reply to: Having kids while having a history of genetic disorder #924784
“Heter to have kids”? You need no such thing. You have a *chiyuv* to have kids.
Who is aleph? What lines are Labor and Likud on? And are the Israeli paper election ballots listed in order of the alph-beis assignments?
nfgo: Tipping is *not* an “obligation”.
Since when do therapists get invited to or come to family simchas? (Assuming the relationship is only as a therapist.) Unless you mean she was invited to do an evaluation on your son at the wedding. In which case why on earth would you think you need to invite the therapists spouse?
Tell me when. (And its relevance.)
I hereby retract my first comments above supporting CIO. I was mistaking the situation of a toddler crying his way into his parents bedroom, rather than the actual situation of the OP with an infant. With an infant CIO is not a correct approach. But a toddler trying to cry his way into his parents (ie locked) bedroom or bed should be let to cry it out until he understands he cannot go into his parents bedroom or bed.
Moshiach must arrive within less than 250 years from now. There is hardly going to be more than a few more doros before Moshiach, anyways. And I doubt the Mechaber will be known as something other than what he’s been known as for the past 500 years — an Achron.
But you have to be consistent about letting him CIO. If you sometimes give in to him, you are teaching him crying works. If you consistently let him cio, he”ll eventually understand and realize crying doesnt work.
Let him cry it out. I think it should work.
Why don’t YOU buy some smoke detectors for the dorm. They’re pretty darn cheap.January 10, 2013 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm in reply to: Insanity!! Netura Karta Sicko Forces His Boys Into Frum Girls School in Antwerp #928861
MP suggested beating him on a personal initiative. You’re okay with that? What if he kills his attacker in self -defense or has the cops lock up the attacker for a few years?
Person #3 is an idiot. (And Person #2 is good.)
You do not need to be a lamed vov’nik to reach this level of chesed.
You’re accusing the gedolim and others who engaged in this “extreme of chesed” of znus?
Sam2: I gave three cases.
What if the ponim chodesh is Rav Chaim Kanievsky shlit”a, who the choson and kallah never met before. Is that me’akev?
What if the ponim chodesh is a family friend of the Kallah, but the Chosson never met him before?
Does the ponim chodesh have to be male?
The issue of whether she converted Orthodox or non-Orthodox is the critical determination. Was she Orthodox affiliated at the time of her conversion? Is she around to ask? Was she a fully observant Orthodox religious Jew immediately after her conversion? What prompted her to convert?
(The father is irrelevant.)
Why should a Disney parade with Kol Isha NOT be assur. Of course it would be assur.
Do you disbelieve everything you hear? Both you and I, who do not know each other, independently heard this same story. Do you suppose someone spread a bubbe maaisa and its been going around for 40 years? No. This is a well known and accepted gedolim story.
computer: It is true.
I’ve encountered someone with the serial killer gene. He was very predisposed to murder. Another person I know was predisposed to adultery. But, B”H, both of them controlled their predispositions and did not murder or commit adultery.
Did the fellow you knew who was predisposed to homosexuality control his taaiva?
The Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generraiton of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah lmoshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.January 9, 2013 4:14 pm at 4:14 pm in reply to: Shidduchim… waiting for the person you have in mind?? #918260
This is way too vague to answer.
It also sounds possibly very problematic that they have each other in mind before they (or one of them) are ready for marriage.
The Gemara will often attempt to disprove the statement of an Amora from a Mishnah, Beraisa, or Tosefta. If no other Tana is known to share the opinion of the Amora, the Gemara will either explain the statement of either the Tana or Amora in such a way that they are not contradictory, or it will conclude that the opinion of the Amora has been disproved.
One of the rules upon which Talmudic discussion is based is that the words of the amora’im must always be in agreement with the teachings of the tanna’im. Thus, one of the most common questions found in the Gemara is “meisivei” – which brings a tanna’itic source like a Mishnah, baraisa or tosefta that seems to contradict the words of the amora. In his defense, the amora will have to explain how the statement of the tanna can be understood as being in agreement with his own, or else show that there is another tanna with whom the amora agrees. If the amora cannot reconcile his statement with the teaching of the tanna’im, the Gemara will conclude “teyuvta” – the statement is disproved.
The Mechaber in Kesef Mishna, Hilchos Mamrim 2:1 writes: Amorim can’t dispute Tannaim, and later generations can’t dispute Amorim because the Amorim accepted the authority of the Tannaim, and the later generations accepted the authority of the Tannaim. The Chazon Ish says that such acceptance is an acknowledgement that the earlier generations are more correct since they are wiser and closer to Sinai. (Chazon Ish, Letters 2:24) And the Maharal (Beer Hagolah 6) says that the Amoraim recognized their inferior state in relationship to the Tannaim and therefore didn’t argue with them.
In Choshen Mishpat, siman 25, there is a lengthy discussion concerning to’eh bid’var mishna. While the general thrust of the halacha concerns dayanim and situations where their piskey din can be overturned, it does shed light on our issue as well, since the assumption about a d’var mishna is that it is something than we (at whatever generation the reader find himself) may not argue against.
Mishna and gemara are accepted by all to be d’var mishna – meaning explicit piskey din in these texts ( dinim hamefurashim ). The Mechaber adds divrey haposkim. The Nos’ey Keylim have differing views as to what constitutes “haposkim”. The Mechaber, for obvious reasons, did not include himself; however, later authorities do include him. For B’ney Ashkenaz, the Rama is included. Later authorities add the Shach and S’ma.
What we see from all of this, and the nos’ey keylim as well, is that there are many areas where we do not accept disagreement, and if someone does disagree, that position is rejected.
However, we also see, that in areas where there is no clear consensus, one has latitude to disagree.
One last point: There is a discussion in the Rama about an unresolved machlokes and how to decide. Rama says that one may not choose to follow the “katan” against the “gadol”, rather follow the one who is “gadol b’chochma u-b’minyan”, with minyan defined as the one who has the most followers ( see S’ma 18 ).
And of course do not forget what Rav Zera says in the name of Rava bar Zimona in Shabbos 112b.
WIY is correct. And that Gemorah is relevant to this discussion. Because it shows us that Jews can have even a specific color shoelace that is what Jews wear.
There is nothing rediculous about the degree of specificity. The Gemorah in Sanhedrin says that if Jews wear a specific color shoelace (!!) we should not deviate from it.
Now that is specificity.