Forum Replies Created
manitou, “Galus yavan was the period before, when the Greek ruled over us in Eretz Yisrael.”
That is not true. The vast majority of the time when the Greeks ruled over us in EY was not golus. Between the first churban and Chanukah there was never a time when we had sovereignty, and yet we were not in golus. Therefore sovereignty or the lack thereof <i>can’t</i> define golus.
AviK, in Bayit Sheni we received <i>none</i> of the Land, but nor did we agree to give any of it up. And yes, the KG said it was better to have nothing but keep our claim on everything, than to get something at the price of giving up the rest. Soon Moshiach will come and we’ll get the whole thing, but how can he do that if we’ve sold it?
The whole rationale of the zionists who accepted the partition plan was that Moshiach is never coming, so our claim on the whole Land is worthless and meaningless, and by giving it up in return for some of the Land we’d be exchanging nothing for something.
“And having conceded these are modern innovations, you still have neglected to answer the question of specifically which Gedolim approve of these innovations. ”
It’s an irrelevant question. If there’s nothing wrong with it then no endorsements are needed.
Joseph, “merry” is your editorializing, not a fact. And yes, I absolutely endorse singing on Yom Kippur, because it’s not an innovation. Everyone does it, including your community. And some of the common Yom Kippur tunes are actually merry. Nor do I have any problem with singing on Tisha B’av, with or without music, so long as the tunes are appropriate to the day. Merry is not appropriate.
There’s nothing wrong with innovation, so long as it’s in the spirit of the occasion. Musical instruments, dancing, whatever, just because it’s new doesn’t make it wrong. The question is only what kind of music, and I do not accept your assertion that the music is “frolicking”, “disco-like”, “wild”, etc. If there is indeed a shul where the atmosphere at selichos — with or without instruments — is such that you could mistake it for a wedding, let alone a nightclub, then I condemn that particular instance. That would not justify extending the condemnation to all musical selichos, the vast majority of which, I’m sure, do maintain a slichos-dige atmosphere during selichos. Before and after is a different story.
But those who are upset with the whole idea of simcha at such a time have forgotten וגילו ברעדה. There must certainly be רעדה, and without it it’s not a slichos, but one must not forget the גילו either.
AviK there is NO machlokes that the dead know what is happening in the cemetery. The only machlokes is whether they know what is happening elsewhere.
Joseph, the reason the kneisia gedola opposed the partition plan was absolutely NOT that it’s assur to establish a state. The reason was that we have no right to agree to give away any part of the Land, even if in return we receive the rest of it. Better to have nothing and remain the rightful owners of everything than to accept that some parts are not ours. Moshiach will soon come and restore us to the whole land anyway, so the gain from a compromise is only short term. Only someone who doesn’t believe in Moshiach will say better to have something than nothing.
manitou, ” The rambam says שחזרה מלכות לישראל יתר ממאתים שנה”
Yes, what about it? How does this support your claim? Yes, after Chanukah there was a brief period of Jewish sovereignty, but so what? That isn’t and can’t be why Golus Yovon ended then, because there was no Jewish sovereignty before Golus Yovon, and yet the Golus only started when Antiochus 4 captured the Beis Hamidosh.
apushatayid, “frolicking” is a pejorative characterization that Joseph put on these selichos, in order to tilt the field towards his position that they are inappropriate. Not having witnessed them myself, but knowing that there are <iem>many such selichos, and that they’ve been going on for decades, by all sorts of Jews, not just Carlebachers, I do not accept that characterization.
Of course disco-style music is inappropriate for selichos, if indeed there is any time when it is appropriate. Nor is wedding-style music appropriate to the occasion. But solemn or inspiring music, especially of the type already traditional for centuries and accepted by <i>every</i> community including Joseph’s own, does not become inappropriate simply by adding instruments. The only instrument I’ve ever heard of as being forbidden is the organ, and that’s only since Reform adopted it.
Joseph asks “Will Yom Kippur davening be next, with some “Orthodox” synagogues turning Yom Hakodesh davening into a day of daylong acapella singing, with a choir and all?”
Where do you daven that it is not already so, and hasn’t been so for centuries? In what community is communal singing on Yom Kippur <i>not</i> traditional? I don’t think I want anything to do with such moroh-shchora-dike people. A capella singing is completely appropriate on Yom Kippur, and bigger shuls have had choirs for centuries, and I’ve never heard of anyone objecting to it. And if not for the kedusha of the day there would certainly be instruments as well, in every community, and then we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
AviK, their Rebbe is not on the bookshelves, he is in Uman, just as the Ovos and Imohos are in Chevron, and Rochel is in Beis Lechem. A person’s nefesh remains with the body and is aware when people visit and talk to him.
The Zohar says that when the world needs rain we take a sefer torah to the cemetery to alert the people who lie there, and then they will go to Chevron to alert those who lie there, and together they will go up to the higher worlds and alert their neshomos Above, who will intercede with Hashem and ask for rain.
manitou, Golus Yovon was not about loss of sovereignty, because we never had sovereignty before it. The second beis hamikdosh was built under Persian sovereignty, which lasted until Alexander took it from them, and then we were under Macedonian and Seleucid sovereignty long *before* Antiochus the 4th and his gezeros. Golus Yovon only starts then.
So it is not about sovereignty but about a beis hamidkosh. Golus Yovon was the period when the BHMK was turned into a temple of avoda zara, and ended when it was liberated and returned to regular service, even though the war continued for several more years.
Joseph, that is the normal derech of eating it, and it’s funny to see people eating it with utensils.
“Milhouse, please specify which kehilos followed this script 50 years ago and 100 years ago. ”
The one I know for sure was doing this, not just 100 but 150 years ago, is Lubavitch. In Lubavitch the saying is that one should come to selichos וואקלדיקערהייט. But I don’t believe it was only them. Probably most chassidim were doing the same.
And of course the music during selichos should be appropriate to the occasion; solemn and serious tunes, not jolly rolicking ones. But I don’t accept your assumption that these events are using inappropriate tunes. If there is one place that is doing so, criticize them for *that*, not for using music at all. Don’t include in your criticism those who do use appropriate tunes.
The bottom line is that *every* community has music during selichos. I can’t believe yours doesn’t. It’s just that traditionally this music has been voice only, and now some people are adding instruments. I can’t see what could be wrong with that, so long as the tunes stay appropriate and they don’t use an organ, which was assered when the Reformers copied it from the Lutherans.
Joseph, nearly every shul I’ve seen skips among the kinnos, and then has droshos and shiurim. All the big tisha b’av programs are in place of the bulk of kinnos, not in addition to them. People simply don’t have the patience nowadays to say the whole thing.September 6, 2018 8:14 am at 8:14 am in reply to: Halachic question regarding bal tashchis and tza’ar baalei chayim #1588091
Gadolhadorah, neutering animals is an issur de’oraisa, just like eating pork. That it’s painless is irrelevant, and so is that it serves the interests of both the animals and the human population.
Imposing harm on an animal for no purpose other than some sick psychic satisfaction to a person is not “obviously” assur a priori; that is precisely what the Torah comes to forbid with עזוב תעזוב. Without that pasuk it would not be assur.
That doesn’t mean we would do it; a normal person doesn’t *want* to do such things. Even permitted cruelty, such as pulling a feather from a live bird just because you couldn’t be bothered getting up and finding or buying one from a dead bird, is something no normal person would do. But it would be a personal preference, not a halacha.
AviK, red strings מאן דכר שמייהו? Red strings are definitely not a mitzvah, and there is no reason to suppose they give any protection, except that people have been saying so for at least 1500 years. A superstition doesn’t become true just by surviving for a long time. But mezuzah is a mitzvah, and every source from the chumash through the shulchon oruch says it protects.
NevilleChamberlain, name one genuine shita that holds bor al gabei bor is possul. There aren’t any. Any rabbi who “paskens” not to use such a mikveh is either an am hooretz or operating on sin’as chinom.
The one shita that opponents claim passels such a mikveh is the Divrei Chaim, which is ironic since they ignore him on every other topic, while Chabad regards him as a serious posek; but their characterization of his position is an outright lie. Bor al gabei bor is kosher and mehudar according to his shita just as it is according to every other shita.
Joseph, just because you remember something doesn’t mean everyone else does. Your community prepared for selichos with a mussar drosho. Other communities prepared by sitting together at a melave malka, singing, bonding, being inspired to serve Hashem with simcha, and then at midnight turning to Him to beg forgiveness. Then after selichos, dancing and singing with joy, confident that He will respond.
During the selichos themselves the joy is of a different sort, וגילו ברעדה, but singing has always been traditional, in every community. What else is chazonus? On Yom Kippur itself, who does not sing אשמנו and ועל כולם?
So the only innovation, if it is one, is the use of instruments, since it’s a weekday. And what is wrong with that? The issur is only on organs, not guitars or violins or drums.
1. Regarding “Kever David”, it’s certainly a holy place, since so many thousands of Jews, over the course of many centuries, have sanctified it with their tehillim and tefillos and tears, but it is *not* David’s kever. It is *possible* that it’s over, or in the immediate vicinity of, an entrance to the tomb of the later kings of Beis Dovid, which was built somewhere in the western suburbs of Yerusholayim after the original royal tomb in Ir Dovid filled up. But it might be nothing but a place of Torah and Tefilah, with no graves at all.
2. Those who go to Uman for Rosh Hashono do so because Reb Nachman specifically asked his chassidim to do so, and promised that he would go to bat Above for anyone who comes. Therefore they cannot substitute some other place, whether in Eretz Yisroel or anywhere else. They are going to their rebbe, and he is not in some other place. It’s not for Rabbi Berger, whoever he is, to say that the same benefit can be had by going to “Kever Dovid”. Maybe it can and maybe it can’t, but there is no way he could know .September 5, 2018 10:06 am at 10:06 am in reply to: Halachic question regarding bal tashchis and tza’ar baalei chayim #1587391
As others have pointed out the issur of neutering animals (or people) is unrelated to the issur of tzaar baalei chayim. It’s a completely separate issur.
As for declawing cats, who told you it’s ossur? I have never heard of such a halacha, and don’t believe it’s valid.
AviK, suppose I have a mezuzah up on my door, and I know what it says and am constantly thinking of it, but there’s one little problem: it’s possul. One letter is missing, or there’s an extra letter, or a letter is malformed, or has split, etc. Leshitoshcho, why does it no longer protect me? Why, when we have problems, do we check our mezuzos and tefillin, to see whether an unknown psul might be responsible? After all, you claim it’s not the mezuzah, or even the mitzvah, which protects, but only the kavanah, and my kavanah can’t be affected by a psul of which I’m not even aware.
This proves that it’s not the kavana but the mezuza itself (or the mitzva of putting it up) that protects. If the mezuza is possul then no mitzva has been done, despite the greatest kavonos, and therefore the promised protection doesn’t come. And of course whatever protection comes from the physical mezuza cannot come from a posul one.
Oh, and your view of Acher’s mistake is also made up. Acher’s mistake was to insist that “lemaan yirbu” is an absolute guarantee of long life in *this world*, so that even a single instance of it not working is proof that it’s false. The answer to his dilemma is that in this world there are no foolproof guarantees, protection does not mean absolute immunity, and that there is another world where all the Torah’s promises will be fulfilled, if they were not in this one.
AviK, I know exactly what darchei ha’emori is, and what R Elazar B”r Tzadok said about it, and I accuse you of making up your claim that he regarded the belief that a mezuzah protects to be darchei ha’emori. Your entire position that it’s the kavana that protects is made up, and it is motivated by your refusal to accept that mitzvos actually achieve something in this world, or that physical objects can have inherent kedusha, which is essentially Protestantism.
No, Laskern, the nusach, which the overwhelming majority of mekubalim and of klal yisroel endorse, is to address the malachim and the middos directly. Those who opposed these nuschaos were a small minority and their opinion is rejected.
AviK, the Zohar is the piece that is printed in Maaneh Loshon. And Klal yisroel has accepted the authority of the Zohar and of Kabbalas haAriZal. Any psak that was made in ignorance of the kabala is automatically outdated, since if the posek had known the kabala he would have ruled differently.
When you claim that Rebbi didn’t really mean the mezuza would protect Arteban, you are just making things up. There is not even the slightest hint that he “really” meant for him to keep the 7 mitzvos. He said “You sent me something that I must protect, but I sent you something that will protect you”. There are not two ways of understanding that.
HaLeivi, Rebbi sent the mezuza to Arteban, not Antoninus.
Slonimer, it is NOT TRUE that “most non-Lubavitch shittos hold makes the mikva not kosher”. In fact there are no such shittos. Bor al gabei bor is the most mehudar mikveh design possible, and the claim that it is possul according to *one* shita, the Divrei Chaim, (not “most” shittos) is a brazen lie that certain people once circulated for political reasons. Anyone who bothers to look up the Divrei Chaim inside sees immediately that it’s a lie.
In any case it’s irrelevant to the Baal Hatanya, because in his day there were no rainwater mikvaos at all, and therefore no question about where the best place to put the bor would be. Rainwater mikvaos only started to be built in Europe in the 19th century, which is why there was so much discussion among the poskim of the time about the ideal design for one.
mentch, the Kitsur says what he says, but he contradicts an explicit Zohar.
A vi K, it is not darchei ho’emori, it is Judaism, and denying it is Protestantism. The Torah itself says mezuza protects, and says not a word about having to know what’s in it. The gemara says that even a non-Jew is protected by a mezuza, and that “road warriors”, who rarely slept under their own roofs, would carry a mezuza with them and put it up in their hotel room each night, and this would protect them even though they were not fulfilling the mitzva.
The psak of the overwhelming majority of klal yisroel and of gedolei hamekubalim is that we *do* say machnisei rachamim, and we directly address the thirteen midos and ask them to intercede for us, and it is *not* a problem.
The Zohar says explicitly that we *should* ask the dead to intercede for us, and that it is *not* doresh el hameisim, because “meisim” refers to resha’im, even when they are alive, and not to tsadikim even if they happen to be dead.
Ysiegel, the Baal Hatanya’s innovation in mikvaos had nothing whatsoever to do with Shabbos. His two big innovations, of which he was justly proud, were the use of sharp but fragile knives for shechita, and a contraption to enable WOMEN to tovel in warm water.
There were no rainwater mikvaos in his day; therefore there was no such thing as a heated mikveh, and certainly not on Shabbos.
also, you have completely missed the point about the filter. If the filter is on the mikveh is unfit for use. Therefore using it on Shabbos would be a problem.
The paradox is not real; it’s an artifact of the fact that the English word “love” has two distinct meanings, and the paradox is actually a play on words, using the word in one sense in the first half and the other in the second half. In Yiddish the question doesn’t make sense, because there are two separate words for these two senses. The kind of love one has for people is called ליב-האבן; the kind one has for food that one likes to eat is האלט-האבן. In Yiddish one does not say איך האב פיש ליב, but rather איך האב פיש האלט.
No, Avi K, it makes no difference whether he internalizes what is written, or even whether he *knows* what is written. There is no mention of such a requirement in the chumash, the gemara, the shulchon oruch, or anywhere else. The mitzvah itself protects, and mitzvos don’t need intent. A day-old baby is protected because it lives in a home with kosher mezuzos on those doors that need one. And there’s evidence in the gemara that even when the mitzvah is not being fulfilled, merely having a mezuzah with one offers some protection, regardless of ones intent or knowledge.
Avi K, despite what you may see in the Rambam, and certainly despite what you may see in the Moreh, it is clear that the mitzvah of mezuzah itself protects, regardless of what thoughts it does or doesn’t inspire. Having kosher mezuzos on every door that needs one protects the owner both when he is home and when he is out. This is clear in the Torah, the gemara, and the shuchan aruch. Further, it’s apparent from the gemara that a mezuzah can protect even someone who is not commanded to keep it, and that there is even a reason for travelers to carry one with them.August 22, 2018 2:03 pm at 2:03 pm in reply to: Halachic question regarding bal tashchis and tza’ar baalei chayim #1578778
Tzaar baalei chayim means torturing an animal for no reason but sadism. That’s why it’s forbidden; it promotes a bad middah, and one who enjoys being cruel to animals will end up being cruel to people.
But if it’s done for a reason, even a very slight one, it’s permitted. For instance, although nobody could be so cruel as to pull a feather from a living bird to use as a pen, al pi din it’s permitted, because you’re not doing it to hurt the bird, you just want the pen and the bird’s pain is collateral damage.
ZionGate, all your examples are of travel for a purpose, not for mere amusement. Such travel may be initiated even on Erev Shabbos, knowing that pikuach nefesh will require chilul shabbos along the way. Kol shekein it may be initiated even in the knowledge that there will be no minyan. The question we’re discussing here is whether one may go where there is no minyan for no good reason, but merely for amusement.August 16, 2018 7:48 am at 7:48 am in reply to: If a pig was genetically modified to chew its cud, would it be kosher? #1574914
zehavasdad, it is not debatable, and those who don’t eat bison for this reason are amhoratzim and are denying the Torah.
There is no question that if you are in a place where there is no minyan, and the closest minyan is more than 18 minutes out of your way, you are permitted to daven without one. The question posed here is whether it is permitted lechatchila to put oneself in such a situation, by going to such a place for no compelling reason but as mere amusement, טיול בעלמא.
I will pose a better question: is it permitted lechatchila, for טיול בעלמא, to put oneself in a situation where pikuach nefesh will require one to break shabbos? If this is permitted then kol shekein it is permitted to go somewhere where there is no minyan.
Well, we have an answer to this question: If it is for טיול בעלמא then it is not permitted in the second half of the week, when one ought already to be thinking about Shabbos, but it is permitted in the first half of the week. If it’s for a more important purpose then it’s allowed even on Erev Shabbos. (Sh”A OC 248:3)
When is one supposed to be planning for the next tefillah? For shachris from the first light, for mincha from mincha ketana, and for maariv from sunset. In each case, once one has davened one need not plan for the next tefillah until its time comes. So it would seem to me that it is permitted to go on such a journey, even for טיול בעלמא, so long as one does not leave at a time when one has a chiyuv tefillah pending right then.August 9, 2018 8:13 am at 8:13 am in reply to: If a pig was genetically modified to chew its cud, would it be kosher? #1571325
Yes, such a pig would be a different species from the treife pig, and it would be kosher. (Every twenty years or so, somebody “discovers” the babirusa pig, which has an stomach similar to that of ruminants, and jumps to the conclusion that it is actually a ruminant pig, and therefore kosher. This causes a huge burst of discussion until someone bursts the bubble by pointing out that it doesn’t actually ruminate, and is therefore treif after all. Twenty years later someone else makes the same discovery and the cycle repeats.)August 9, 2018 8:13 am at 8:13 am in reply to: If a pig was genetically modified to chew its cud, would it be kosher? #1571324
akuperma, a mesorah is required only for birds. There is no such requirement for mammals, and nobody has the right to invent one.
“He is busy living off the public piggy bank”
How is he doing that, exactly? He gets nothing from the public piggy bank except rent-free accommodation in a house that’s less luxurious than his own home, where he’d much rather live if it were up to him. He even donates his salary. So please explain how he’s living off anyone but himself.July 16, 2018 6:39 am at 6:39 am in reply to: When was Av 1st? And how to read your Jewish calendar) #1558374
He’s just getting his cue from Andrew Cuomo who thinks he can sue the Supreme Court if it overturns Roe v Wade
RBS, potatoes didn’t come to eastern Europe until the mid-18th century.
No, it is not an oxymoron. אשתו כגופו.
It’s not tzedokoh, it’s recouping a portion of our taxes. We don’t make the rules, but whatever they are at any given time we’re good at playing them to our advantage; we always have been, since Yaacov and Lovon, and there is no reason to be ashamed at it. The current rules are designed to encourage poverty, so on paper we’re “poor”; let them change the rules and we’ll change the way we organize our affairs.
Avi K, not true. Even according to those opinions (and who says we pasken like them?) that the tevilah is good bediavad, there must still be kabolas ol mitzvos in front of a beis din.
Nobody has yet cited anything offensive from the article (which is not linked). It is not at all offensive to report on the (official) poverty level, and the same report about black people would not elicit even one word of protest. Everyone takes it for granted that poverty is common among black people, and nobody objects to anyone pointing this out.
Nor is “insular” at all offensive. On the contrary, to us it’s a point of honor. We are <i>proudly</i> insular, הן עם לבדד ישכון , and it’s one of our greatest and most cherished traits. Why should we be offended when others acknowledge it? I think those who object are secretly sorry for it and wish they were more assimilated with the nations.
I know someone who had her first child a month after her supposed due date. That was a very tense month.
Little, the Mabit’s views are interesting but not historical. It is a historical fact that there was no such thing as a fixed nusach until the times of the geonim, and that in their days there were several *very different* nuschaos, of which only one survived, that of Rav Amram Gaon. All Jewish communities today use Rav Amram’s nusach, (with only slight variations), but 1200 years ago this was not yet the case, so how can we suppose that 3500 years ago it was?
Both the Tanach and the gemoroh explicitly endorse giving tzedokoh in the hope of a reward. Calling it “avoda zara” is outright apikorsus.
If it seems to you like a theological problem then the problem is with your religion, which is clearly not the religion of the Torah, so you need to examine your own hashkofos and abandon those that contradict the Torah. Specifically, the hashkofoh that has a problem with segulos is Protestantism. It is a European creation that infected Xianity, and through the Haskolah it reached into Yiddishkeit too, particularly in Litta.
Edited to fix tags – use strong and /strong
Joseph, I have never seen a reliable source saying that the expiration date was after 1000 years. The only two opinions I’m aware of are that it expired in 5000 and continues to this day merely as a minhag, or that there was no expiration date. But my point is that this machlokes can only exist because NOBODY KNOWS, because the original text does not exist, and did not exist even in the Rishonim’s day. So the claim that the original text gives a reason to do with conforming to Xian practice CANNOT be true.
Chazal bring down in relation to the obligation of “ushmartem es nafshosechem” that we are not only required to care for ourselves in terms of what and how much we heat, but to “spread the word” about risky lifestyle practices that jeopardize our fundamental well being.
Really? Where do they say that? I’ve never seen it anywhere.
“What were the “original” tefillos? The way the avos davened?”
The Avos had no nusach, they just prayed from the heart. That’s how it was until the beginning of the 2nd Bayis. Anshei Knesses Hagedolah laid out a basic framework for how a tefillah should be structured. They prescribed 18 berachos, specifying how they should begin and end, and what their general topic should be. But it was still up to the individual shliach tzibur to improvise within that structure. Not everyone could do it, so you went to shul and listened to the shliach tzibur’s prayers and fulfilled your obligation. Chazal said “do not make your prayer fixed”. Only after the gemara’s time, in the time of the ge’onim, did prayer-leaders start writing fixed siddurim. And once that happened everyone who could afford a siddur could daven for himself.
There were several siddurim of the geonic period, but <i>all</i> of our modern nuschaos are based on Siddur Rav Amram Gaon. We don’t know what this originally looked like, because there are many manuscripts claiming to be this siddur, that all differ from each other in details, but the basic outline is the same.
“See the Cherem which says so specifically”
You cannot possibly be telling the truth, because the original text of the cherem does not exist. Nobody for centuries has known exactly what it said, which is why there’s the machlokes rishonim over whether it expired in the year 5000. The Shulchon Oruch says it did, but many others say no, there was never any such expiration date. (I’ve even heard a modern amhorzatzus that it expired recently and the Israeli Rabbanut renewed it, as if it would have the authority to do such a thing.)
Yes, that is minhag Eretz Yisroel, since for many decades the only ones davening Nusach Ashkenaz in EY were the Prushim.