Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Oh, I realized afterwards that you were probably joking (I only realized that once I figured out what Candy Crush is). If so, please disregard the previous comment.
What is Candy Crush?
I am surprised that your Rav said that it’s wasting. It seems to me that there is a very real “toeles” involved here. I wouldn’t think that it’s wasting if there is a purpose. And preventing you from wasting time is a very real purpose.
Maybe this should be looked into further.
Mik5: ““Those rabbis who allowed smoking (e.g., Rav Moshe has a teshuva about this) did so because in their days, it was not yet known just how dangerous smoking was, and if they would have known, they would have assured it as well.”
Lilmod uLelamaid: “I would be very wary of making definitive statements regarding what Gedolei HaDor “would have said” in a given situation. I would at the very least qualify the statement by adding the word “perhaps”.”
ZD: “People seem to quote Rav Elchanon Wasserman, for what he said in 1939 and would assume he would say the same thing in 1945”
One thing has nothing to do with the other. Assuming that someone would have said the same thing that they did say is very different than assuming that they would have said something that they didn’t say.
In general, the halacha is that you only make a bracha achrona if you eat a k’zayis.
However, there is an opinion that you make a bracha achrona whenever you eat a complete fruit even if it’s less than a k’zayis. But it’s a macholokes and there is no clear psak. Therefore, it’s a safeik.
Since it’s a safeik, the rule is “safeik brachos l’hakel” so if you did this, I think you are not supposed to make a bracha achrona.
But I think the halacha is that you are supposed to try to avoid the safeik in the first place. In general, we are supposed to avoid safeiks if possible.
In this case, this can be done in one of two ways:
1. Eat more cherry tomatoes.
2. Eat or drink something else requiring a borei nefashos.
If I have a chance, I will try to look up and bring the sources.
Since my replies are awaiting moderation, I am not sure if I already made the following point, but in any case, I am sure that I did not make it as strongly as I should have, and it seems to me that this may be the crux of the issue:
You wrote in your second to last post: “but now that I know it to be true”
The point is: You do NOT know it to be true. In fact, you know that it is false. According to halacha, we are not allowed to believe any L”H that we hear (EVEN if it was said l’toeles, which was apparently not the case here).
Halacha is reality. There IS no reality outside of halacha. If the halacha says you can’t believe it, that means it is NOT true. You have no more reason to think it happened than you did before someone told you it did. So it is just a random story that you made up.
“[I instinctively think that I would be mechuyav to save myself from danger, yet in my own case I am not convinced, although I cannot pinpoint the difference.]”
There’s a very big difference – there is no danger here! The only reason you are making the assumption that in that case, it would be mutar is because it’s to save your life, so you know that it must be permitted. That is not the case here.
There is also a second difference. Even in a situation in which your life is in danger, you are only allowed to protect yourself. You are not allowed to harm the person. By embarrasing the askan, you are harming him.
A third difference is that you are only allowed to be “choshesh”, but not to be “mekabel”. By protecting yourself, you are only being “choshesh”. In your situation, you weren’t just “choshesh”; you were “mekabel”.
“Do I say that על פי תורה, this knowledge is forbidden, and for all intents and purposes, I do not know this”
It seems pretty clear to me that the answer is yes. You are not allowed to be mekabel the loshon hora (or to have heard it in the first place), so as far as you are concerned the information is completely false and meaningless.
Therefore, you did not witness the degradation of a Talmid Chacham (and neither did anyone else, if they were in the same situation as you).
Rebshidduch, I think if you are honest with yourself, you do know.
You wrote that she is disappointed. Why is she disappointed?
Regarding a husband taking on his wife’s minhagim, my impression is (as Ubiquitin pointed out) that it is not so clear-cut that the husband is not ALLOWED to take on his wife’s minhagim if HE wants to.
However, I am not sure about this, and in case, a sheilah should certainly be asked, as ZD recommended.
I think ZD’s answer is the most accurate.
Most of the others seem to be assuming that the answer is either a clear-cut yes or no, and I am not sure that either is accurate.
I didn’t notice anyone asking politely here. I also don’t recall having ever noticed it before.
Even if they did, I’m not sure that makes “onaas devarim” mutar.
bmyer- mik5 is referring to people who do eat processed foods year-round but not on Pesach. So it seems that there are hashgachos that they do rely on year-round but not on Pesach. Which hashgachos those are is not relevant to the discussion, and OU was apparently just brought in as an example.
(and let’s try to be careful that this discussion doesn’t c”v end up leading to motzi shem ra about specific hashgachos!)
“Those rabbis who allowed smoking (e.g., Rav Moshe has a teshuva about this) did so because in their days, it was not yet known just how dangerous smoking was, and if they would have known, they would have assured it as well.”
I would be very wary of making definitive statements regarding what Gedolei HaDor “would have said” in a given situation. I would at the very least qualify the statement by adding the word “perhaps”.
That’s not not how the concept is applied in halacha. If there is a machlokes between contemporary Poskim regarding whether or not something is assur d’oraisa or mutar, one is allowed to be someich on those Poskim who allow it. Those poskim hold that there is no safeik – they hold that it is 100% allowed- so I can be someich on them.
An example of a Safeik D’oraisa l’chumra is as follows: Reuven is unsure if he bentched or not. Bentching is D’Oraisa for a man, so he has to bentch again. The safeik does not revolve around a machlokes haPoskim; it revolves around the “metzius”.
You are correct in that there are people who are exceeding careful in halachic matters and are never someich on the more lenient Poskim whenever there are more machmir opinions in case the more machmir Poskim are really right, but that is considered “being machmir” and is not required halachically, and may not even be the proper approach for all people in all situations. And certainly, one can not judge someone else for not choosing to be machmir.
btw, I’m still super-impressed that you are self-aware and introspective enough to realize that the question exists. Most people would have assumed that they were a first-hand witness and wouldn’t even have realized that they only viewed things the way they did because they were mekabel l”h.
That is one of the biggest dangers of l”h. I myself have been a victim of that. Someone had been mekabel motzi shem ra about me, and then interpreted something I said in light of the motzi shem ra he had been mekabel about me and didn’t even realize it. (I didn’t know about the motzi shem ra until afterwards and by then I was unable to get him to understand that he had misunderstood me because he had been mekabel MSR about me).
It’s really hard. I’ve had to do that a few times in my life, and I found it really hard, and it took me a while to figure out how to do it. But I was really glad once I managed to.
If you DO believe but shouldn’t, is that enough to be a firsthand witness?
No, I wouldn’t think so.
I think you (and I) had originally thought the issue (or one of the issues) was whether or not you’re allowed to be mekabel something even if it’s not l’toeles at the time but it becomes l’toeles later on. But I realized afterwards that you’re never allowed to be “mekabel” even if it’s l’toeles, so it seems like it would be a problem in any case.
Another problem is that it only became a toeles AFTER (and as a result of) you were mekabel. So you can’t say you were allowed to be mekabel for the sake of toeles.
Does that make sense to you?
“Lilmod, I am not insulted by that. I was insulted when he started saying that no girls want guys who are working.”
He didn’t say that.
RY- really not comparable.
MW- you could really be making him/her feel bad. The fact that you don’t appreciate his/her sense of humor does not call for that.
There have already been enough posters who left the CR after being hurt by others.
So then, as I asked above, “Why do you think she is doing this?”
I see Meno has a post awaiting moderation. I can guess what his post might be about.
“Lilmod, what do you consider modern?”
We weren’t talking about what I think; we were talking about what you think. You said that you are not modern. If you don’t consider yourself modern, then you can’t be insulted by the fact that YeshivaStudent doesn’t want to go out with modern girls.
I’m not sure why you should be insulted anyhow – Haven’t you mentioned not wanting to go out with modern boys? There’s nothing wrong with that.
Maybe we can make a shidduch here…
“However, we have learned that one may not act on hearsay, which would mean that one cannot possibly offer reproof unless he personally witnessed the transgression. Consequently, it would be one’s responsibility to find an effective means of reproving himself, or to ask the rav to either personally investigate the situation or tactfully discuss the matter with that individual without making accusations. (Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A Day by Rav Shimon Finkelman & Rav Yitzchak Berkowitz, Day 53)”.
It seems to me that according to this, perhaps you would only have been allowed to “discuss the matter with that individual without making accusations.” Even though you witnessed the action, it was not a bad action without the information that you were not permitted to accept. So it would seem that you were not really a first-hand witness.
I am not clear on what exactly you did – I am not sure if you spoke to him privately or embarrassed him publicly. It seems to me that embarrassing him publicly could possibly have been a problem. And even speaking to him privately might have been a problem if it took the form of an accusation.
Again, I don’t know what the halacha is; I am just pointing out the possible arguments for saying that it was a problem. I would like to hear what you think.
k, thanks, I’ll have to read the rest. I still think that’s different than quoting a written source.
Amongst other things, it would be much more difficult (if not impossible) for someone to find out that you “bent the truth”. Quoting a written source would be a really bad idea, imho.
Please note: The minhag in EY (for both Ashkenazim and Sephardim) and for Sephardim everywhere is to say מוריד הטל whenever we don’t say משיב הרוח.
This is not generally the minhag for Ashkenazim in chu”l. But I think it’s possible that they may be allowed to if they want to, so imho, it’s kidai to ask a sheilah to find out if you are allowed to, for the above reasons, especially if you find that you often forget.
Helpful Hint:
If you say מוריד הטל during the summer months, it helps a lot to prevent forgetting.
If definitely helps during the winter:
1. If you start saying מוריד הטל, you are likely to remember to say משיב הרוח.
2. Even if you forget, you don’t have to repeat.In the summer, it is also a bit helpful, although less so. When I accidentally say משיב הרוח, I remember right away that I am supposed to be saying מוריד הטל, so even though I still have to go back, at least I don’t have to go that far back. And it is really unlikely that I’d forget the second time.
“Still, I find it difficult to believe that women will be doing the Avoidah.”
So do I.
bmyer – +1. I had tried posting something similar but it got deleted.
Yekke – thanks so much for the source.
I read the beginning and he’s talking about a halacha that the person will (only) accept if he gives a source. That’s very different than what I thought you were talking about.
Also, he doesn’t say to give a (incorrect) source per se’; he says to say it in the name of an “אדם גדול”. When you said to give an incorrect source, I thought you meant a written source from earlier generations. Being תולה something on an “אדם גדול” does not sound like the same thing to me.
I would read the rest, but I find it hard to read sources online, and I have to check if I’m allowed to print it out on chol hamoed.
Is there anything later on that’s relevant to this discussion?
Rebshidduch – I think you misuderstood what Yeshivastudent wrote. He did not offend you (or anyone) at all. He said that marrying a “very modern girl” would be settling for him. You are not modern, so he wasn’t talking about you.
I’m confused. I thought you like a different guy and you’re not dating this guy; you’re just friends with him.
“That is not fair to me.”
Why do you think she is doing this? Do you think it’s because she doesn’t care about you and therefore doesn’t want you to marry someone you like?
It doesn’t sound like a problem to me. If you want, when you call her again, you can start off by saying something like this:
“Hi, it’s Rebshidduch. I spoke to you a few weeks ago about the possibility of arranging a meeting and I sent you my resume, but I didn’t have an opportunity to call back to schedule a meeting until now. But I would like to do so now if you are available.”
I mish; can I have some?
The way the “Last Post” is listed, it makes it look like c”v, posters have posted when it’s Y”T for them. That is because the time listed for the last poster does not necessarily match the name of the last poster.
The time is listed for the last post whether or not it was moderated yet, but for the name it lists the name of the last moderated post (or in some cases, the second to last or third to last moderated post).
I understand that the time does not match the poster, but in theory there can be viewers who don’t. It also just bothers me that it looks that way.
Of course, it’s possible that all these posters just made aliya Erev Pesach, or that are in EY for Pesach and hold like the B’aal HaTanya that anyone in EY for YT keeps one day, or they come for all of the Shalosh Regalim and hold by the Poskim who hold that you keep one day in that case.
But if they also posted when it was YT in EY on Erev YT, that wouldn’t work.
!אמן
It just doesn’t jive with other things I’ve heard although I don’t have a source, and I can’t make one up because that would definitely be hypocritical 🙂
I don’t get that. It doesn’t make sense to me. I would love to see the source. Thanks!
Yekke – when it’s done the way you did it, I agree (at least for the most part – I was a bit concerned that there may have been an avak LH issue with the way you did it, but I’m not sure).
In your case, you were talking about trying to understand other people. That is different from presenting a hashkafa that is different from one’s own. We are supposed to be open-minded to other people, but not necessarily to other hashkafas.
You also made sure to do it in a way that was serious and not sarcastic/joking. When people do it in a sarcastic/joking way, it makes it obvious that they disagree with the position they are presenting and that defeats the purpose.
It is possible that that is what the OP meant all along but I’m not sure that is how everyone understood it.
If that is what the OP meant (or even if it’s not), I definitely agree that it’s a great idea and I hope more people follow!
I also think it would be great if (the same) people could try to present both points of views. That is more of a challenge and avoids LH issues.
Shkoyach!
So can you clarify what exactly you mean when you say that you were supposed to meet her 2 months ago and never showed up?
Thank you.
DY – yeah, but now people need a reminder to stop saying “mashiv haruach” so it’s time to start bumping these threads again.
I saw the last post was listed as being from Lightbrite from one day ago, and I got excited that she was back. I was so sad when I saw that wasn’t the case. 🙁
Yekke – cool! Thanks for sharing. I never heard of that before.
“Lilmod, I have asked others (to be specific goyim) and they said that they think I should tell him but I personally do not feel comfortable. So that is why I was asking other people (to be specific Jews).”
Rebshidduch, I am very reluctant to give you any more advice since you just seem to get offended when I do.
In any event, I think you are capable of figuring out the answer yourself.
You wrote that you do not feel comfortable telling him, and you want to ask other people (specific Jews) what they think. You are Jewish; how about asking yourself what you think?
“I don’t think that would be a deciding factor in determining if YOUR actions were halachically correct.”
“No. But it may be a deciding factor whether I need to ask him mechilah.”
Possibly, but not necessarily.
For one thing, if you acted incorrectedly, I would think that you might still be requird to ask him mechila.Second of all, you would certainly still need to do teshuva.
Third of all, I’m not sure that he fact that he asked mechila proves that he was wrong. Sometimes people ask mechila even when they are not wrong.
Fourth of all, you don’t have first-hand knowledge that he apologized (or at least that was my impression), so perhaps you are not allowed to be “mekabel” the fact that he apologized especially if you see that as proof that he really was guilty. If it’s proof that he’s guilty, then perhaps it was loshon hora in which case you would not be able to be mekabel, even if it fulfilled the toeles requirements.
Please note: I trust it is clear to you that I am not writing any of this to make you feel bad. It is quite possible that there was no issue of LH here and what you did was in fact a very big Mitzvah. I am just raising the possible issues involved.
In any case, you certainly don’t need to feel bad. Your intentions were certainly very admirable, and you did something that sounds like it was very difficult for you just because you were considered about kavod HaTorah, and it is very admirable that you are analyzing your actions to this extent, especially since most people probably wouldn’t even have thought of the fact that there could have been a problem of kabbalas LH involved.