Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
While some find mystical significance in the “minus 4%,” having it represent the kappara gained in trying to drink it, I think it represents “Sekila, Sereifah, Hereg, VaChenek,” all of which one can easily become chayav for as a result of getting drunk.
I wonder…………………
mw13 said: “After all, as has been pointed out the purpose of R’ Hirsch and R’ Soloveitchik mixing secular culture with the Torah was only to ensure the survival of Torah-true Judaisim; but today’s flourishing Charedi, Yeshivish and Chasidish communities prove beyond a doubt that these compromises are not necessary for Yidishkeit’s survival. So what purpose do they serve?”
Rav Shimon Schwab zt”l rejects any interpretation of “Torah im derech eretz” as being a temporary emergency ruling to prevent assimilation (See “These and Those”). It is clear from reading Rav Hirsch’s seforim that his hashkafa was not intended to be a compromise or the like, but that he actually held it to be the ideal Torah outlook on life. Dr. Mordechai Breuer, in Hama’ayan 5736, quotes Rav Hirsch: “Torah im derech eretz is not merely a last resort to rescue the sinking ship of German Jewry!” Rav Yechiel Ya’akov Weinberg zt”l similarly holds that Rav Hirsch never intended “Torah im derech eretz” as a hora’as sha’ah. (See S’ridei Eish, cheilek 4, siman 366-367)
Mommy613 said: “I need some guidance here.”
Mommy613, the proper way to look for guidance is not to check the Coffeeroom to see what we “shmo”s have to say. Try the Chinuch Roundtable in the Yated. Rabbi Yaakov Bender is a chinuch expert! But be forewarned; he doesn’t like jeans.
Good idea, Sam2.
Jothar, I read the part about octogenarians. (I am embarrassed to say that I had to look up the word.) I couldn’t find anything the Rav said indicating that he was wrong about Modern Orthodoxy. In fact, he doesn’t even us the words “Modern Orthodoxy.” I’ll post that section here:
There is no doubt that there is a movement, whether people are conscious of it or not, an inner desire, an inner drive, to come closer to the Ribono Shel Olam. It expresses itself in a variety of ways. Of course, if we had the proper people, properly prepared, who knew how to talk to these people, they would accomplish miracles. And a lot has been accomplished.
What has been accomplished is that Orthodoxy now is not a problem in America. When the New York Times has a question about what is our approach to abortion, other topics, where they used to go straight to Stephen WIse or Abba Hillel Silver, who used to give them the basics and goodbye, today they go to Orthodox rabbis. The New York Times is the most vain, most non-religious paper, completely secular, but they know there is an Orthodoxy, that we do exist. The goyim know about us. This is number one.
Number two, when you walk in – I remember when I came to the United States, and for years later, walking into a Conservative synagogue meant to be confronted by youth, and walking into an Orthodox shul meant to meet octogenarians. (For those Coffeeroom members who are as stupid as I am, that means people in their eighties.) Now the opposite is true.
AR: (AR is Rabbi Aaron Rakeffet.) Was it really that way, rebbe, when you came here? The Conservatives really had the youth?
I felt the Conservatives were about to win the battle. I made a mistake. I thought that what we had been doing was just futile, an exercise in futility. But it isn’t. Conservatives have lost – they cannot organize an academic colloquium. They simply couldn’t organize a colloquium in Columbia. We have youths. They couldn’t, they simply have no youths.
It depends how long he’s taking. If he has the chutzpah to take longer than two minutes to finish hallel, and you’re upset at that, then there are serious problems. If he’s taking twenty minutes, and you have to go to work (on Chol Shel Moed, which you’re not supposed to do anyway), then daven at a different minyan. And don’t throw esrogim at him, you might break the pitom.
Jothar: I just scanned the index and looked at every page of Thinking Aloud, and I couldn’t find the quote from the Rav about Modern Orthodoxy and that he was wrong. If anyone else can find it, that would be nice.
MODS correct me. It’s “renowned,” not “renown.”
2scents: The Rambam says the Moshiach will be a king. (Hilchos Melech HaMoshiach.)
“so which gedoilim were matir the internet????”
Rav Hershel Schachter maintains that if the following three precautions are taken, it is permissible to use the internet:
1. Areivim, or some other form of buddy system, in which a list of every website you connect to will be sent to a predesignated friend or rebbi.
2. A good filter.
3. The computer must be in a location where people can/will walk in at any time and see what you’re doing.
I remember reading an article on this. I don’t remember who said it, but there are some legitimate poskim who permit taking off the yarmulka for work.
(I don’t know if such a heter would apply nowadays, but that’s a question for your LOR.)
Chacham: You’re right. That’s because I’m not sure how to transliterate the shva na.
Again: You are all making the same mistake. “Tznius” is not an adjective; it’s a noun!!
Proper use:
“She doesn’t care about tznius.”
Improper use:
“She is not tznius.”
“Tzenius” means “modesty.” It doesn’t mean “modest.”
“Could you clarify the difference between Dati Leumi and Modern Orthodox? For example, you mention that he forbids women from wearing pants. Is this in contrast to Rabbi Shachter, who is modern orthodox?”
Most Modern Orthodox Jews are Dati Leumi, but not all Dati Leumi are Modern Orthodox. Religious Zionists can range anywhere from very Modern to very Chareidi.
Rav Schachter doesn’t permit women to wear pants. He says that if Beis Din were around nowadays, the would give a woman who wears pants malkus.
“Question, can a lady be too tznius?”
English Translation:
“Question, can a lady be too modesty?”
Correction:
“Question, can a lady be too tzenu’a?”
🙂
ItcheSrulik: Which rosh yeshiva was it?
Very good. You were mechaven to Rav Eliashiv shlit”a, Rav Yaakov Hillel shlit”a, Rav Hershel Schachter shlit”a, Rav Ovadiah Yossef shlit”a………….
In order to be considered tefillah b’tzibbur, there must be ten mispalelim, or possibly six. If people aren’t saying the words clearly, then they’re not saying the words. (I can say “Bruchtanoy mogavrom” whenever I want, and I won’t be over on beracha levatala. And I can certainly say “lumlumlumlumlumlumlum.”) If they’re not saying the words, then they are not mispalelim. Therefore, it’s not really a tzibbur, so they can’t do devarim shebikedusha. But it’s not so bad, because they’re not saying kaddish anyway. (Skal Skashermaba. Amen……….Heishmerbalmaya)
You mentioned that Rav Soloveitchik’s wife didn’t cover her hair. RABBAIM said that she had a medical condition which prevented her from doing so. What I do know is that Rav Soloveitchik held that women are obligated to cover their hair.
The Rav Thinking Aloud, page 113:
DH: What is the heter for a married woman in her house not to cover her hair when there are outsiders present?
RYBS: She has to cover her hair.
DH: Someone was asking about a woman wearing a kisui rosh in the house.
RYBS: We pasken you should.
DH: Someone showed me a gemara in Kesubos that b’toch chatzeira it should be mutar, since otherwise there is no way any woman could remain tachas ba’alah (72b). Offhand it occurred to me that if it was lo shechichei inshei – just for going around the house when no one’s around, and someone just may drop in – then it would be mutar. But if you have people coming over b’kevius, then why would it be any different than going aroung in the street? Is there a special din in the bayis that there’s no din of covering your head anymore?
DH: Is this kisui ervah like most kisui ervah?
RYBS: Of course.
DH: What should I do for myself, for my wife?
RYBS: You will find out.
Did anyone read the letter that appeared in the Yated Ne’eman a few weeks ago about the YU roshei yeshiva and YCT?
It’s not funny; it’s very sad.
I read it. It’s a great article! It’s very well written, very informative, and very balanced.
It’s definitely worth reading.
twisted: Probably not.
YehudahTzvi said: “In effect, you are placing a stumbling block in front of all of us in regard to tefillah if, in fact, it is the most accurate way to daven. Others ahve posted about the proper way to bow during oseh shalom and other correct ways of doing things. If we are not davening the most accurate nusach then I would hope you would enlighten us or at least let us know the Gadol Ha-Dor to whom you refer.”
The most accurate way for you to daven is the mesorah that you recieved from your father or rebbi. If it said in the Gemara, Shulchan Aruch, Rema, Shach, Taz, Magen Avraham, Aruch Hashulchan, Chacham Tzvi, and Mishna Berura that it’s assur to say a certain word in tefillah, but you were taught to say it, then I would advise you not to. However, there are always different opinions.
Let me give you some examples. The rav who made the shinuyim in the nusach held that you’re not supposed to say any Tehillim before saying Baruch She’amar. Therefore, I don’t say Mizmor Shir. He held you’re not supposed to say “Baruch hu uvaruch shemo.” He had many reasons for that. One reason was because it’s a hefsek. Some acharonim agree with that. Some disagree. But he had his own opinions, and Klal Yisroel is not bound to his shitos.
My point is, don’t worry about it. Do what your father does, unless it’s clearly against halacha.
shlishi: Yes.
YehudaTzvi: No one is telling you to daven the nusach that I do. “Because” should be enough to let you know that I have a good reason. It should also be enough to tell you that I don’t want you to know what that reason is.
ny100k said: “Coming to a Yeshiva World forum for halachic advice on such an important issue is really sad.”
This is one of those questions that anyone can answer. It’s like asking, “Are you allowed to eat a chicken-and-cheese sandwich?” (Assuming you’re not starving to death)
YehudaTzvi: Because.
As I stated before, I didn’t make it up. It was instituted by one of the gedolei hador who, in his expertise in all areas of Torah, decided which is the most accurate way to daven.
Chein: It is no more of a “mishmash” than Nusach HaGra.
Chein: Yes, there is.
Obviously not.
Chein: No.
Twisted, when you say “V’l’yerushalayim,” what do you say first? “U’vneh osah,” or “V’chisei David?”
The “minhag” to bounce three times after the Amidah has no mekor, and it probably started because people finished the Amidah just before the tzibbur said “Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh.” This probably gave the appearance that you’re supposed to bop three times at the end of Amidah.
Someone with a Jewish mother and a non-Jewish father is fully Jewish. Someone with a non-Jewish mother and a Jewish father is fully non-Jewish. There’s no such thing as a half-Jew.
yic said: “i m smoking and i wane know if all anti smokers are watching not to be onder the sun brcause the sun is making skin cancer hashem yrachim or not driving a car cause hundreds and thousand of people are dying yearly from car accident and about bais din shel malah nobody know’s what is going on their”
The distinction between smoking and driving a car is obvious. The percentage of smokers who die early because of smoking, or smoking-related diseases, is roughly 50%. The amount of drivers who die in car crashes each year is less than one in 6,097. The percentage of human beings who walk in the sun, who die of skin cancer, is not that high either.
I daven a unique nusach which is similar to Nusach haGra in some ways, Nusach Sefard in some ways, and Edot haMizrach in some ways. It also has some unique differences which no other nusach has. I’m not going to explain, because it’s much too complicated. All I’m going to say is, I didn’t make it up.
Chacham said: “why is a magen david avoda zara mamish.”
Because it’s the symbol of Zionism, which is avodah zarah mamash.
(Don’t argue with me. I myself don’t agree with what I just wrote.)
It’s good for the “Baba” industry.
An addict doesn’t think ahead, and when he is about to, he forces himself not to think about it. This is true regarding every aveirah. An alcohol addict will drink to the death. A gambling addict can put himself in a situation in which he has to sell his house, or the gang will kidnap his kids. A drug addict knows what will happen, but he does it anyway, because his ta’avah is so strong, that he forces himself, either consciously, or subconsciously, not to think about the consequences.
That’s pretty funny.
The OU will not tell you about the reliability, or lack thereof, of another kashrus agency. I already tried it with Triangle-K. I’ve always wondered what’s wrong with it, but nobody seems to know.
I actually do feel kind of stupid, but I suppose that’s a healthy feeling, once in a while. :->
yid.period: Thanks for enlightening me.
skiaddict said: “in lots of places eg the thing you put into a newborns crib it has a hamsa so it must be in the sifrei kabbala(although i have never learnt it obviously)but im sure it must be from kabbala- it is such a jewish symbol!”
No, it’s not in the sifrei kabbalah. It’s not in any seforim. It was incorporated into Jewish CULTURE from Islam. It originally stems from the “Hand of Venus,” which is a Greek avodah zarah. The Muslims adopted it as the “Hand of Fatima,” who was Mohammed’s daughter. The Christians refer to it as the “Hand of Mary.” I assume we all know who that was. The Jews who wear it call it “Yad shel Miriam.” Go figure.