Forum Replies Created
Adocs, yeas – it is enough.
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.
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!
Charlie, the Mabul happened not because of bribes. I know it does not fit with your world view, but it does not really matter.
Sam2, and i was not talking about single women.
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.
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.
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.
Shopping613, bright nail polish is objectively attracting. Nose rings is a subjective chumrah.
RebYidd, and if she wears red nail polish, it is going to be a significantly bigger extent.
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.
Charlie, polygamy is not a mitsvah. Plus, btw, the Sefardim and the Yemenities still hold of it.
Shoppin613, if you were a man, you would have understood. And the point is not to draw the men’s attention.
It also matters who is trying to argue with an Achron – an average 15-year old or an accomplished Talmid Chocham?
Many say it has not. Chazon Ish, Chacham Ovadya, Reb Aharon, Reb Moshe all argued on the Achronim. And so did Rav Eliyashev.
Joseph, most hold it has not ended.
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!
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?
Avi K, on which Rishonim the Rabbis you mentioned relied to say their opinion? They can’t argue with the Rishonim.
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.
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.
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.
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…”.
AviK, only direct male descendants qualify.
Georgdie, it is supposed to be quite close to an absolute one. Look in the Rambam, Laws of Kings.
AviK, Netziv is a chiddush. Pashtus it is not like that. Again, it is a befeirushe Gemorah and a Rambam and so on.
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.May 16, 2016 2:57 am at 2:57 am in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151833
DY, but at the same time trying to provide for their physical security.
CH, and you are wrong about Trotsky and the Bolsheviks — you’ve got to learn some Russian history.
Charliehall, also Christianity is not forbidden for the Goyim according to Ramoh.
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.May 15, 2016 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151831
DY , you are arguing with the Gemoros.May 15, 2016 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151830
DY, wrong analogy! Missionaries’ “saving” is shmad itself. The Zionists were working for the physical saving.May 15, 2016 1:44 pm at 1:44 pm in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151826
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)?May 15, 2016 1:39 pm at 1:39 pm in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151824
DY, they wanted to save the Jews, the Hebrews.May 15, 2016 6:09 am at 6:09 am in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151822
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.
CTLAWYER, but OUR OBLIGATION IN HALOCHAH OBLIGATES US TO SUPPORT OR OPPOSE certain things.
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.
Joseph, you are wrong again. Trump is a bigger evil.
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.
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.
Syag, heteirim are not bad if they are valid.
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.
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
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.
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?
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”?
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.
Joseph, yichus is definitely a valid consideration. But “no Geirim need apply” is wrong, especially, when it is for mean-spirited reasons.