mdd

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 1,759 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Bahamas Vacation advice #1162832

    mdd
    Member

    Adocs, yeas – it is enough.

    in reply to: An Israeli tries to understand life in America #1163809

    mdd
    Member

    Moderator, this is a troll job which is going to bring out lashon horah, motzei shem ra, speaking ill of Klal Yisroel. Please, act now.

    in reply to: Condemnation of Jerusalem Parade #1164266

    mdd
    Member

    Joseph, +1!. Sam2, one thing is privately supporting people’s struggle, but to go to such a parade even for your reason — chaliliah ve’chas ve’sholom! How low have we stooped!

    in reply to: Bus stop ads but ads in our comunity #1158460

    mdd
    Member

    Charlie, the Mabul happened not because of bribes. I know it does not fit with your world view, but it does not really matter.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158438

    mdd
    Member

    Sam2, and i was not talking about single women.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158435

    mdd
    Member

    Sam2, no, it is you who is wrong. It is obviously worse if it meant to attract men, but on the other hand it makes the bad effect on the men regardless of women’s kavonah. Don’t give me your YU-style wiggling around. There is such a thing as noval be’rshus ha’Torah and so on. And here it very well maybe bli reshus ha’Torah. It is not a sha’alah of the 13 middos. It is trying to learn what the Novi wanted us to do, what is the right thing to do.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158424

    mdd
    Member

    Sam2, I don’t think you and Joseph disagree much. He just meant that it is their responsibility because “yesh be’yadam limchos”. Besides, the Rambam does talk about a husband stirring his wife on the right path in these areas.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158420

    mdd
    Member

    Sam2,I did not say it is assur. As you may know there are Poskim who hold that women are not allowed to wear red clothing. Gemora in Shabbos (based on Psukim in Yishaya) castigates married women from the times of the Bais Rishon for beautifying themselves excessively (and it was done for purposes of attracting men). It is easy to infer from there (and from stam common sense) that it is wrong for a married woman to appear in public wearing tons of make-up and so on (even if we judge her favorably and presume that she does not do it to attract men). Certain things (especially in this area) may not be explicitly assur, but it is proper or a good thing to refrain from them.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158412

    mdd
    Member

    Shopping613, bright nail polish is objectively attracting. Nose rings is a subjective chumrah.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158406

    mdd
    Member

    RebYidd, and if she wears red nail polish, it is going to be a significantly bigger extent.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158405

    mdd
    Member

    Sam2, what you say is ridiculous. What I said is the bottom line principle behind these Halachos. We are not talking here about gzeras ha’kosuvs without a non-Kabbalistic reason. Plus, it is not a Halochah — rather a proper thing to do.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158100

    mdd
    Member

    Charlie, polygamy is not a mitsvah. Plus, btw, the Sefardim and the Yemenities still hold of it.

    in reply to: Nail Polish #1158402

    mdd
    Member

    Shoppin613, if you were a man, you would have understood. And the point is not to draw the men’s attention.

    in reply to: Arguing with Rishonim and Achronim #1158353

    mdd
    Member

    It also matters who is trying to argue with an Achron – an average 15-year old or an accomplished Talmid Chocham?

    in reply to: Arguing with Rishonim and Achronim #1158344

    mdd
    Member

    Many say it has not. Chazon Ish, Chacham Ovadya, Reb Aharon, Reb Moshe all argued on the Achronim. And so did Rav Eliyashev.

    in reply to: Arguing with Rishonim and Achronim #1158342

    mdd
    Member

    Joseph, most hold it has not ended.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158075

    mdd
    Member

    Avi K, Not every body who preceded the S. A. is a Rishon!

    It is a mitsva chiyuvis, not kiyumis. Otherewise I have said enough for anybody willing to hear. Enough of your MO ma’ases with pulling out da’as yohids to push you modernishe shittos!

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158073

    mdd
    Member

    1. Avi K, Abarbanel is not a Rishon (heard in a shiyur). Even if he were, he is not of the same standing as Rambam and Ramban. And yes — a Jewish king cannot just do what he wants. He could be tried by the Sanhedrin, and my need their confirmation to start his reign.

    2. It is an accepted rule in the world of Achronim that one can not argue with a Rishon unless one has a different Rishon to back him up. And your statements are outrageous: according to you an Achron is allowed to argue with Rishonim, but a learnt person nowdays can not say that an opinion of a recent or a very recent Achron is shvere.

    3. When Ribono shel olam gave the mitsva to appoint a king, he realized that some of them might be bad, won’t you argee, Avi K?

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158069

    mdd
    Member

    Avi K, on which Rishonim the Rabbis you mentioned relied to say their opinion? They can’t argue with the Rishonim.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158068

    mdd
    Member

    The Netziv does not really disagree — he just allows a postponement. Other Rabbis on your your list have a Gemorah against them — it is very hard to justify their opinion. Rambam is big enough. Rabbeinu Bechaya and Ramban talk in the same vein. That’s the generally accepted shitah. It is outrageous to present the chiddushim that you brought down as the opinion of the Torah.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158066

    mdd
    Member

    Akuperma, it does not seem — it is openly stated so. A new king generally needs to be confirmed by the Sanhedrin (look in the Rambam).

    Avi K, I quoted the Gemorah to you. You can’t just interpret it away. It says what it says.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158063

    mdd
    Member

    Avi K, you can’t argue with a befeirushe Gemorah. Again, the ta’anah in times of Shmuel was the form and the intention of the request, not the request itself — look in the meforshim.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158060

    mdd
    Member

    AviK, if it is a disagreement between Rambam and Abarbanel, we will always go with the former. I did not see the Abarbanel inside, but if he indeed says what you say he does, it is very,very shvere as it contradicts open Chazals. We have a mitsva to appoint a king “whose fear will be upon you”, violating whose orders is a capital offence. Shmuel was unhappy with how the people asked for it and for what reasons, but there is a mitsva to appoint a Jewish king — “the Jewish people were given 3 commandments when they entered Eretz Yisroel: to appoint a king…”.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158058

    mdd
    Member

    AviK, only direct male descendants qualify.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158057

    mdd
    Member

    Georgdie, it is supposed to be quite close to an absolute one. Look in the Rambam, Laws of Kings.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158056

    mdd
    Member

    AviK, Netziv is a chiddush. Pashtus it is not like that. Again, it is a befeirushe Gemorah and a Rambam and so on.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158049

    mdd
    Member

    Ii is an openly stated mitsvah in the Torah for us to have a monarchy (albeit a somewhat limited one). See the gemorah Sanhedrin, Rambam, Hilchos melochim. And Ha’SHem chose Dovid and his descendants. Stop bringing far-off da’as yehids.

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151833

    mdd
    Member

    DY, but at the same time trying to provide for their physical security.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152388

    mdd
    Member

    RebYidd23, excellent!!!

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152384

    mdd
    Member

    CH, and you are wrong about Trotsky and the Bolsheviks — you’ve got to learn some Russian history.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152383

    mdd
    Member

    Charliehall, also Christianity is not forbidden for the Goyim according to Ramoh.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152382

    mdd
    Member

    Charliehall, you are wrong. If the polytheism were forbidden in the US, and someone wanted to make a law to permit it, you would be obligated to vote against it. Just the way things are, you can not do anything about it. So nobody is cherry picking the “gay” marriage except for you, liberals, — in order to defend it.

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151831

    mdd
    Member

    DY , you are arguing with the Gemoros.

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151830

    mdd
    Member

    DY, wrong analogy! Missionaries’ “saving” is shmad itself. The Zionists were working for the physical saving.

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151826

    mdd
    Member

    DY, there is a Gemorah which praises Achav’s conduct in his last battle which saved the moment at the time. Do you think he meant to save Klal Yisroel (of your and Satmar definition)?

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151824

    mdd
    Member

    DY, they wanted to save the Jews, the Hebrews.

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151822

    mdd
    Member

    DY, for your information, the early secular Zionists did mean to save Klal Yisroel, but not because it is a mitzvah — just as their own idea.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152372

    mdd
    Member

    CTLAWYER, but OUR OBLIGATION IN HALOCHAH OBLIGATES US TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE certain things.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152371

    mdd
    Member

    CTLAWYER, I apologize for not reading every word of your posts. I almost always do — just this time I really had to go. However, from what i did see it did appear that you are supportive or, at least, have a positive attitude towards their “rights” and their “marriages”. And that is wrong.

    And see Avi K, point 2 — an excellent answer.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152366

    mdd
    Member

    Joseph, you are wrong again. Trump is a bigger evil.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152365

    mdd
    Member

    CTlawyer, what you say is outrageous. Supporting “civil unions” is advancing the aveirah cause. Forget about all the “siscriminations” — there is such a thing as the Torah!Btw, many people would have never gotten into this aveirah if it hadn’t been made mefursam and “normal”. We have an obligation to prevent the Goyim from violating the 7 mitzvos.

    in reply to: The Future of the State of Israel? #1151470

    mdd
    Member

    Avi K, all Jews alive at the time will be keeping the Torah either by themselves or Moshiach (and his army and police) will force them.

    in reply to: The Torah v. Morals #1152009

    mdd
    Member

    Syag, heteirim are not bad if they are valid.

    in reply to: The Torah v. Morals #1152007

    mdd
    Member

    Mod. and others, I meant something along Syag’s lines. When interpreting divrei Chazal and putting them together there can be different interpretations and/or how far and in which way you take things. Reb Yisroel Salanter said that someone who has bad middos is a gangster, and someone with bad middos who has the Torah is a gangster with a gun! What he meant was (in my understanding) that if someone who has bad middos will interpet things in a wrong way which either hurt people (where the Torah did not mean to) or allow things which should not be muttar etc.

    Btw, dear Yekke2, the problem you pointed out exists not only by the left-leaning people, it exists also by the right-leaning ones – just, obviously, in other areas or in other ways.

    in reply to: The Torah v. Morals #1152003

    mdd
    Member

    Yekke2, yes, but sometimes moral judgement could and should help interpret properly divrei Torah and Chazal. More on this later.

    Or maybe not, depending on your point

    in reply to: Shidduchim for Jews of color #1151105

    mdd
    Member

    And, yes, I know, if it is mandated by Halochah, then the side-effects of making people feel bad and divisiveness must be set aside, of course. I am talking about a situation where no such halochah exist.

    in reply to: Shidduchim for Jews of color #1151103

    mdd
    Member

    Joseph, you are right that the commandment applies once they converted. Where did i indicate otherwise?

    I would tell her to wait first for the Rashi’s grandson.

    Also, what is it that you don’t understand? There is a difference between yichus being a consideration and “Geirim need not apply”(Chas ve’sholom).

    Also, buddy, I am waiting for your reply as to whether you would marry Rus or Rabi Akiva’s daughter?

    Also, what is it that you don’t understand about newbee’s comment? You don’t understand that these hakpodos create a division in Klal Yisroel? It is self-evident, and it is a befeirushe Gemorah on the second to last omud in Ta’anis?

    in reply to: Shidduchim for Jews of color #1151086

    mdd
    Member

    Newbee, because that would be an aveirah and an injustice of tremendous proportions! If someone says he has a frum reason to be machmir, it is one thing, but to make such a takonah for reasons of ethnic solidarity flies in the face of everything the Torah says about not oppressing the Geirim and loving them. How about making a takonah to bite your neighbour when the Torah says:”Love your neighbor as yourself”?

    in reply to: Shidduchim for Jews of color #1151083

    mdd
    Member

    Mamele, it was not a question of “weak” families, but of them not having Jewish status at all if the woman’s conversion was invalid.

    in reply to: Shidduchim for Jews of color #1151082

    mdd
    Member

    Joseph, yichus is definitely a valid consideration. But “no Geirim need apply” is wrong, especially, when it is for mean-spirited reasons.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 1,759 total)


Trending