Forum Replies Created
October 31, 2011 4:26 pm at 4:26 pm in reply to: Older Guys = Rip-off Rant (re: NASI "Game Changer") #822832
gavra: That seems to be a change in tune from your previous comment of “Abuse, perhaps. Being used as nothing but a receptacle, maybe. Single? Nothing wrong with being single.” That sounded, to my ears at least, that being single isn’t any worse than being married – even aside from the abuse issue. Did I misunderstand? Cause the gemorah apushatayid cited would seem to disagree.
The rabbonim aren’t going to go for this type of stuff. There is enough hanky panky as it is.
On the CR Main Page, under “FRESHNESS” click the number of minutes (or hours or days), and it will open the last post of that thread.
How about “Moderator”? Or “Key Master”?
Well stated on all points made on this thread. Yasher Koach.
nosyparker: It is Hagaon HaRav Dovid that said what you reference, that the teshuva was a personal heter for an exceptional case. Rav Dovid Halpern shlita wrote about the question to Rav Dovid on this and that was Rav Dovid’s response. HaRav Matisyahu Soloman shlita also wrote a letter saying he met Rav Dovid Feinstein and Rav Dovid agreed to publicize Rav Halpern’s above letter. Rav Avraham Pam also stated that it is clear that Rav Moshe did not give a collective heter to leave some hair uncovered. Rav Nissim Karelitz also writes that Rav Moshe was only allowing it in a specific special case.
The Chasam Sofer and the Chazon Ish have issued a psak forbidding any hair from showing.
kingdavid: So when I quietly learn from a sefer or listen to a Torah Tape, there is no mitzvah?
He’s wrong about us being expected to keep all mitzvos according to halacha??
Which shittas say that if you lack kavana for something it didn’t count?
I appreciate the R”Y’s answer. Thanks for sharing.
It may indicate other health issues.October 27, 2011 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm in reply to: Do Online Halachic Discussions Cause Some to be Nichshal in Aveiros? #868043
What was the wording of the question, 80?
me2: V’Ahavta Es HaGer doesn’t preclude correct criticism.October 27, 2011 8:40 pm at 8:40 pm in reply to: Do Online Halachic Discussions Cause Some to be Nichshal in Aveiros? #868032
Mod-80: You prefer Jothar’s second alternative but say it’ll never happen. Jothar’s first alternative seems even less likely to happen.October 27, 2011 8:23 pm at 8:23 pm in reply to: Do Online Halachic Discussions Cause Some to be Nichshal in Aveiros? #868029
So, Jothar, which of the two alternatives you present do you believe is the case?October 27, 2011 7:47 pm at 7:47 pm in reply to: Do Online Halachic Discussions Cause Some to be Nichshal in Aveiros? #868026
An invalid kula may give a reader ideas he never thought of before, that he would then have in his head and may come to unfortunately utilize later. As Mod-80 pointed out on the Kiddush Hashem thread.
5th of Kislev 5768
Therefore we are warning that this activity is against the Torah. It has never been acceptable to proselytize non?Jews. Furthermore as we mentioned it actually encourages intermarriage.
Those who heed our cautions will benefit and receive blessings.
Horav Meir Brandsorfer Horav Moshe Sternbuch
Horav Naftoli Frenkal Horav Avrohom Yitzchok Ulman
Horav Yakov Mendel Yorovitch Horav Yehoushua Rosenberg
A statement signed by HaRav Moshe Sternbuch shlita
Re: Kiruv for someone with a Jewish father and a non?Jewish mother
My view is that it is absolutely forbidden to try to proselytize a non?Jew even if he mistakenly views himself as Jewish. One obvious reason is that such an approach actually encourages intermarriage. If people with only a Jewish father are encouraged to participate in Jewish educational events it will convey the message that in some sense they are actually Jewish. That is because it is commonly accepted that only Jews are allowed to participate in these events. Thus this innovation crosses the red lines that have always been accepted by Torah true Jews. Typically the intermarried couple does not realize that they are constantly transgressing prohibitions which carry the punishment of kares
Another basis of concern is that I see this as a violation of following non?Jewish practices (chukas akum). These rabbis are showing mercy to the Jewish father by a de-facto acknowledgment of the non?Jewish concept of patrilineal descent. According to the unanimously held Torah view – any person with a non?Jewish mother is completely non?Jewish. Also the gratuitous granting of Jewish status and benefits to this non?Jewish child violates the Torah prohibition of Lo Techanem.
These rabbis also try to justify their innovation by claiming that it is a solution to the massive problem resulting from the intermarriage of Russian Jews. They assert that one should encourage the conversion of the child of a non?Jewish mother because the Russian Jews intermarried because of the unfortunate circumstances under the Communists. Therefore they are to be regarded as innocent children who grew up in captivity (tinok shenishba). They feel it is appropriate to show special mercy on these unfortunate people. I agree that they should be shown special sensitivity and leniencies. However this is only when they have at least distanced themselves from their intermarried parents or have already indicated an interest in genuine conversion. However if the parents insist on continuing their intermarriage, there is no halachic basis to be sorry for them. The child in that case is a non?Jew and will remain as such.
This is a letter signed about 3 years ago by eight gedolim in Eretz Yisroel:
Let me know so I can call and check the veracity. Awaiting.
So what’s the bottom line? 9 sleepers and one Sha”tz is a kosher minyan?
And if it is less than 9 answering, is it still considered to be a minyan?
That “story” is a bubbe maisa.
I cannot believe Health just told BPT he belongs to Christianity.
Correction: The name of the section in the sanctuary where he sat is called “South Nave” (not Stalls North – which is a nearby section) and it was right behind the church choir. It was right in front of the General Congregation and across from Prince Charles’ guests. And it most certainly is right in the sanctuary of the Collegiate Church of St Peter at Westminster.
The famous story is of a boy and girl playing and him putting a ring on her and saying harei at. Whatever the veracity of the story is, from what I remember the conclusion being that he had to give a safek gitten in case the marriage was effective. It would seem she would then be precluded from marrying a Kohen in the future.
He was sitting next to the Bishops heading Britain’s Catholic and Orthodox Christian churches. It appears to be right in the sanctuary on the videos.
Edit: Just checked the “seating plan”. He was seated in the “Stalls North” of the sanctuary together with representatives of other religions and the friends of William and Kate.
If you marry her, will you show her this thread?
There’s no machlokes between gedolei yisroel here. The Chief Rabbi isn’t one of the gedolim.
pba: Men can’t walk behind women, per Shulchan Aruch. So the men wouldn’t be able to walk in the back behind the women.
Besides, I don’t see any reason why it would it be any harder (or easier) to challenge by reversing it that way.
Sam2: Those that were mekabel the geder upon themselves.
Sam2: For the wide swath of communities who were mekabel the geder of separate seating.
Jothar: How does that square with the aforementioned Igros Moshe and Teshuvos HaRosh?
If a Minhag has developed as a Siyag Ve-Geder to correct some michshol, and that Siyag Ve-Geder was effected by a Chacham and then it was ratified by being popularly adopted as the Minhag (i.e. the Minhag did not evolve from a Machlokes in Halacha but from some weakness in Mitvah performance) then a new Chacham may not nullify that Minhag (see Teshuvos HaRosh 55:10 and Igros Moshe OH V.3, siman 64 and Igros Moshe YD V.1, siman 13).
So once a stringent minhag is established (based on a geder — i.e. separate seating at weddings) it can never be revoked, based upon the above?
Avraham Avinu and Rambam were just an illustration of the larger point. The same principle applies between two contemporary rabbonim.
From the sefer “Awake My Glory”, by Hagoen HaRav Avigdor Miller zt’l:
1095. There cannot be two kings. The marriage relationship is two-fold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition, the home is disordered. “Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache. 2) The second, but equally essential foundation: a man must always demonstrate respect for his wife. This is “the way of Jewish men that… honor and support their wives in truth” as stated in the Jewish marriage contract. “He honors her more than his own body” – Yevamos 62B, Bava Metzia 59A. He is the captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected. She cannot be made a doormat, she need not beg for money, she deserves some assistance in the house chores, and the husband sides with her against his kin. He must express frequent appreciation and give words of encouragement, and he should remember his wife from time to time with gifts, big or little. Husband and wife should always say “Please” and “Thank You” and never forget to be always polite to each other.
The traditional gender roles in Jewish families is that the husband makes the decisions for the family.
If learning in Kollel is against the Chazals about Melachah and Derech Eretz, then so is being a Rebbi or a Rav. See the Rama YD 246:6. He brings your Chazals and says that therefore nobody can be a paid Rebbi or a Rav either, since he relies on the congregation. But then he brings dissenting opinions, and rules that the custom is that Torah scholars do benefit from their learning, by support from the community.
Then he brings other opinions that the community should support its Torah scholars even to the point of affluence.
The Rama then says it is a Midas Chasidus – praiseworthy – for someone who can become a Gadol B’Torah and make an independent living, but continues that not everyone is capable of this. It is clear that he is saying that if you have a choice between becoming a Godol B’Torah or making a living, becoming a Godol B’Torah comes first.
As an aside, the Halachah is that you are nowadays allowed to live off Tzedakah to learn (see the Ramah and Shach in Hilchos Talmud Torah.)
The Halchah as expressed by the Rambam which states that anyone who so chooses may learn in Kollel. See also YD Laws of Talmud Torah 246:21 and Shach ad loc. Also, Shulchan Aruch Hilchos Toalmud Torah, in the Shach ad loc, says that nowadays learning all day is the ideal, and that if someone has the ability to do it, he should. The Shach adds that regarding learning all day in general, nowadays we cannot reach our potential in learning the way the Rambam etc. did, since we are not on that level. Therefore, we should learn all day if we can.
You are allowing your hashkafic opinions to redefine the meaning of it. I don’t know if you are conscious of this or it’s more subtle to you. But your positions are very off from standard Litvish hashkafos, including but not limited to your choice of mora d’asra. Your posturing them in historic terms notwithstanding.
yitay: You’re understanding of a Litvak (both as you defined it here and on previous occasions) is way off base.
pba: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/goyish-brands-that-are-kosher (what’s left of it, anyways.)September 21, 2011 6:06 pm at 6:06 pm in reply to: Do Married Women Help Out Doing the Yard Work and Car? #1074683
Good wives help with car and yard and good husbands help with the laundry and dishes.
Instead of closing threads, I think it is wiser to delete all offending posts including a off-topic or inappropriate sub-discussion that develops. Delete all those posts (which will usually effectively end the bad posts), and let the thread live.
it’s sexist because it’s gender specific.
I find many faults with pictures, including being offensive, lack of tznius, degrading, not in accordance with yiddishkeit and mores of marriage. And shidduch resume pictures should not be done. But sexist? gender specific? Not quite. Life is correctly gender specific in many areas.
Sorry rshalom, but when Rav Moshe has a written psak strongly objecting to something, and he repeats himself in strong language three times in three separate psaks making himself very clear, there is no credence for someone to come claiming he has a private psak from him directly contradicting his written psak. (Especially considering the reasoning allegedly given is that he verbally said it is supposedly okay “if” there is no derech chiba, when in the written psak in EH I #56 he writes it *IS* derech chiba and he writes that you cannot claim there isn’t.)
Isn’t Bermuda a place of pritzus?
ItcheSrulik: The part of your analysis I take strong exception to is the WEP point (3). if theres a password, including wep, it means the guy wants to keep you out. Additionally, even wep is not broken into without special tools. It’s only “easy” if someone a) is a techie and knows what he’s doing and b) went to get the tools to do it.
rshalom: Rav Neiman shlit”a is 100% correct. There is no so-called “apparent discrepancy” c”v with Rav Moshe (as you put it) whatsoever. Rav Moshe never ever said its okay to shake a woman’s hand. Never. To no one. Rav Moshe has 3 psaks in Igros Moshe yelling assur assur assur in strong language. Three teshuvos, to make it exceptionally clear because he apparently realized some folks (as we see here) will come crying he allegedly said otherwise.
Igros Moshe EH I #56 page 144;
Igros Moshe OC I 113 page 177;
Igros Moshe EH IV 32.9 page 76.
It is forbidden to make small talk about matters unrelated to business. Men and women working together should not discuss politics, current events, recent tragedies or gossip, even if they do not do so regularly. Discussing these matters on a daily basis, is a violation of halachos that border on giluy arayos, which requires one to sacrifice his life rather than transgress. (p. 9)
When conversing with female employees or co-workers, one must be careful not to us the word “we,” so that the man and woman are not referred to as one unit. For example, one should not say, “We must talk with the editor,” or “We must purchase that software program.” Rather, he should say, “The editor must be consulted,” or “Please purchase that program.” (pp. 10-11)
It is a custom amongst yirei shomayim not to call a woman other than one’s wife or immediate family member by her first name, thus keeping a respectful distance between the two parties. Referring to a woman by her first name brings inappropriate familiarity into the relationship. Similarly, a woman should refrain from addressing a man other than her husband or immediate family member by his first name. (p. 20)
A Helpful Suggestion:
It is appropriate for male and female employees [to] refrain from all conversation when they meet anywhere outside of the office. This includes not discussing even job-related matters when meeting in the hallway or elevator at work.
“It cannot be stressed enough that the term prutzim also refers to people who are otherwise shomrei Torah u’mitzvos, but are not careful in matters relating to kraivah l’arayos. They may be regularly exposed to immodesty through the media, or may often be in the presence of immoral individuals through their everyday social interactions….(p.39) meaning that they are exposed to immodesty through television, movies, in publications and the like. An individual involved in such activities is labeled a parutz. This is not limited to visual images; someone who is exposed to any form of indecent activity, such as chat rooms on the Internet, is considered a parutz. Such forms of recreation are a breach of morality.” (p. 34)September 15, 2011 9:55 pm at 9:55 pm in reply to: Something I noticed a lot of people do because they probably dont know this #1033318
hello: Why the change? You were much more genteel as PM. 🙂
Your 10th is 2 and half k”h. Any new additions?
squeak: What clued you in?
(Chofetz Chaim in chapter 6).