Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 2,921 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What would you say? – Hilchos Brochos #1335418

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Yekke2:

    “שינוי מקום or hesech hada’as” makes a difference for the same reason that a beracha acharona makes a difference – they are halachic mechanisms via which the person shows that he is “returning” the food to Hashem. I don’t think they particularly have to utilize the dinim of kinyanim because I think the whole concept is more metaphorical (or perhaps metaphysical) than actually a literal kinyan from God and then back.

    (I’m sort of deliberately ignoring the “why?” and framing it as a “what?” in classic Brisker fashion. So you can’t really ask why a given act represents “returning”, but you can ask what the gedarim are.)

    in reply to: What would you say? – Hilchos Brochos #1334993

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    We can approach this question from a different angle:

    Why does one make a beracha in the first place? According to the Gemara (Berachos 35a) it is סברא הוא אסור לו לאדם שיהנה מן העולם הזה בלא ברכה. This is further elaborated upon there, and it is explained that eating without a beracha is in some sense akin to stealing from God.

    If this is the case, why should one ever have to make a new beracha? As soon as he made a beracha on an item one time, the item has moved from the geder of לה’ הארץ ומלואה to the geder of והארץ נתן לבני אדם!

    על כרחך, a beracha acharona (as well as certain other forms of hefseik/heseich hada’as) somehow returns an item to the status of לה’ הארץ ומלואה. It is as if the beracha rishona allows you usage of the item and by making a beracha acharona you are “returning” it to God.

    If that is the case, then if you made a beracha acharona (“returned” the food to God) but had in mind to continue eating rice (did not include it in the “returning”) then the rice is still “yours” – והארץ נתן לבני אדם.

    There would thus be no reason to make a new beracha because the whole concept of a beracha is to appropriate something from God’s domain and make it yours, which would be completely superfluous if the thing is already yours (due to a prior beracha).

    in reply to: NeutiquamErro's favorite thread with an obscure title #1325353

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Do these two questions answer each other? The Trace may not be on wandless magic; the trace is on the magical signature from when a spell is produced from a wand. (And Dobby deliberately ‘forges’ a magical signature onto his spell to incriminate Harry; Dobby’s other uses of magic therefore go unnoticed) The Lumos was Harry’s desperation forcing a use of wandless magic; it wasn’t a regular spell.

    The incident with Aunt Marge would seem to refute this theory.

    in reply to: Minhag for a Chosson to move to wife’s city #1324191

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=22016&st=&pgnum=214&hilite=

    Bottom left of the page, #1881. Though it’s not quite your question because it’s not specifically about the wife’s city.

    in reply to: How did Rabbi Akiva die? #1276975

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Since nobody has yet provided the answer to the question, here it is:

    There is another story of Rabbi Akiva’s death in Rabbinic Literature. It appears in the Midrash Mishlei in Parsha 9.

    מעשה בר’ עקיבה שהיה חבוש בבית האסורים [ור’ יהושע הגרסי תלמידו היה משמשו ערב יו”ט נפטר ממנו והלך לביתו בא אליהו ועמד על פתח ביתו א”ל שלום עליך רבי א”ל שלום עליך רבי ומורי א”ל כלום אתה צריך א”ל כהן אני ובאתי להגיד לך שר”ע מת בבית האסורים מיד הלכו שניהם לבית האסורים ומצאו פתח שער בית האסורים פתוח ושר בית הסוהר היה ישן וכל העם שהיו בבית האסורים היו ישנים והשכיבו את ר”ע על המטה ויצאו מיד נטפל אליהו זכור לטוב וטלו על כתפיו וכשראה ר’ יהושע הגרסי כך אמר לאליהו רבי הלא אמרת לי אני אליהו כהן וכהן אסור לטמא במת א”ל דייך ר’ יהושע בני חס ושלום שאין טומאה בצדיקים ואף לא בתלמידיהם והיו מוליכין אותו כל הלילה עד שהגיעו לטרפילון של קסרין כיון שהגיעו לשם עלו שלש מעלות וירדו ירידות ונפתח המערה לפניהם וראו שם כסא וספסל ושלחן ומנורה והשכיבו את ר”ע על המטה ויצאו וכיון שיצאו נסתמה המערה ודלקה הנר על המנורה, וכשראה אליהו כך פתח ואמר אשריכם צדיקים ואשריכם עמלי תורה ואשריכם יראי אלהים שגנוז וטמור לכם ומשומר לכם מקום בגן עדן לעתיד לבוא אשריך ר”ע שנמצא לך מלון ערב בשעת מיתתך לכך נאמר אף ערכה שלחנה] 613

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=44204&st=&pgnum=57

    in reply to: silly songs you learnt as a kid #1082437

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Part three:

    do you worship the big dipper

    do you wear crocks on Yom Kipper

    are you one of those who think the IDF is Jack the Ripper

    are you following the masses

    wearing thick round plastic glasses

    is it bittul zman to memorize the list of noble gases

    are you dressed like a clown

    because you come from out of town

    where you can’t stop worrying how you’ll afford a wedding gown

    would you recognize an A minor

    if it was played at a diner

    and who has a better voice Benny Friedman or Simcha Leiner

    would you walk into Ramallah

    if you heard a cry of “Allah”

    is it assur or is it mutar to bake a schlissel challah

    do you accrue big summer bills

    by going up to the Catskills

    while your husband’s in the city trying his homemaking skills

    would you say chas vechalila

    if you were offered gelila

    just because you were the youngest person present for tefilla

    are there sports that you would play

    if your rabbi said it’s okay

    do you think a kosher movie is a stira meenay ubay

    do you want to pull a trigger

    every time you see your shvigger

    even though there’s a chance it will only make the problem bigger

    do you think it’s all the same

    if someone has an English name

    or is it something that is goyish and should be a mark of shame

    have you learned through hameiniach

    do you believe in mashiach

    and is it polite to ask if you’re a masis umediach

    in reply to: Male Tznius #1082452

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant
    in reply to: silly songs you learnt as a kid #1082436

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Thank you cozimjewish. Here is part two:

    do you like Miami’s Revach

    do you prefer Shwekey’s Shevach

    and the most important question do you go away for Pesach

    on Purim are you rated

    as beyond intoxicated

    while you vomit all over a girl you previously dated

    do you think there is a niche

    for the famous KosherSwitch

    or was it just a scam designed to make somebody get quite rich

    is it only during adar

    when your sense of humor’s hotter

    that you spend so many hours darshening on Harry Potter

    what about tznius today

    does it require a “mayday”

    or is it just a little problem that is soon to fade away

    secular education

    and college matriculation

    are they something positive or just a Torah deviation

    Is the greatest of all wrongs

    to listen to nonjewish songs

    and does it make a difference if it’s just a bunch of singalongs

    would you still respect your mom

    even if she ate chalav stam

    does your tefillin order follow Rashi or Rabbeinu Tam

    do you stand on your raglayim

    for your kiddush club lechayim

    but immediately sit for “Avinu Shebashamyim” (the prayer, not God)

    do you think there is a hiddur

    in davening from a siddur

    except if it’s on a smartphone in which case you get quite bitter

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077505

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    PAA: Rav Moshe says in Igros Moshe YD 3:86 that girls are not permitted to learn Torah Shebalpeh, including not Mishnayis or Gemorah, except they may learn Pirkei Avos. The VaYoel Moshe Maimer Lashon HaKodesh 33 (p. 436) says girls can’t even learn Rashi since it is Torah Shebalpeh. These are a couple of examples of contemporary sources. Rav Moshe apparently held Rashi on Chumash is still categorized as the simple pshat on Torah Shebksav.

    I am well aware that many contemporary poskim are against women’s Gemara. I never claimed otherwise. What I have claimed is that there is Rabbinic support for it, and that the earlier sources that were against it might have reevaluated in contemporary times. Obviously R’ Moshe and the Satmar Rav didn’t feel that way. But no one ever claimed they did. There is a machlokes. My purpose in quoting various sources is to dispel the impression that those in favor of women’s Gemara are just deviant Jews with nothing to rely on. (As an aside, R’ Moshe is discussing a case where the faculty wanted to teach girls. That does not necessarily have the same status as girls deciding to learn themselves. I’m not claiming that R’ Moshe would necessarily be mechalek, but you can see the sources I quoted earlier for such a chiluk.)

    P.S. I believe there’s a concerted effort to post your comments hours after they’ve been submitted/timestamped so that it can be easily missed under the hope that’ll occur and you will get the last word.

    I don’t believe I have any control over how long it takes the moderators to approve my posts. I would be more than happy if they went up sooner. If you are suggesting that there is a moderators conspiracy to make sure I get the last word, you can take that up with them.

    They tend to be long, and although I only speak for myself, I do not usually have time to read through it, although I do usually get to it eventually. -100

    in reply to: silly songs you learnt as a kid #1082434

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “Are You a Good Jew”

    TTTO Do Your Ears Hang Low

    (I don’t really know how the end of the tune goes so the following stanzas are each just the first part of the tune and then the next stanza starts over again. For instance, in Moderator 42’s song it would correspond to “Is your beard five foot three? Does it itch you like a flea? Can you tie it to a dock? Can you tie it to a tree?” and then the next stanza would begin from the beginning of the tune. It might take you a few tries to figure out how to make the spacings and emphases fit the tune, but I assure you they all fit.)

    do you learn Gemara

    do you say a sevara

    do you skip through all the complicated agadita

    is it Iyun that you pound

    or is your goal to cover ground

    what is your derech halimud is it valid is it sound

    is it halacha lemaisa

    or lomdus like the shev shmaitsa

    or perhaps it’s the Slabodka style of Mussar that strikes ya

    do you hold like the Rambam

    or the Tashbetz’s responsum

    about whether taking money is permitted or a problem

    do you follow a mesorah

    do you listen to Daas Torah

    do you ordain female rabbis based on Biblical Devorah

    how ’bout Talmud for women

    or an all female mezuman

    can a lady be the chazzanit in a partnership minyan

    are your haskafos krum

    even though you seem quite frum

    remember it’s a bigger disqualification than a mum

    do you consider it baseless

    to reinstitute Techeiles

    or perhaps it is because for your Tzitzis you want to pay less

    what are your standards of kashrus

    do you pedestalize yashrus

    how much money do you spend do you live a life of pashtus

    is it your greatest ambition

    for your kids to gain admission

    to a school a school that doesn’t take all your life savings for tuition

    what’s your stance on metzitza

    or a transparent mechitza

    would you be open to yibum or do you stick to chalitza

    what about the shidduch crisis

    does it scare you more than ISIS

    when you tell the shadchan no is the look on her face priceless

    does your husband put his feet up

    when you ask him to help cleanup

    are you regretting not insisting on a halachik prenup

    how big is your kezayis

    do you go on Har Habayis

    do you spend nine hours davening a day are you pious

    where do you place your reliance

    in Chazal or modern science

    if they contradict each other which of them gets your compliance

    do you create mitzva towers

    by doing your chessed hours

    do you say lesheim yichud before your erev shabbos showers

    did you go to BJJ

    because of what people would say

    when they see it emphasized on your shidduch resume

    if Brooklyn is your home

    do you say Shabbat Shalom

    or do you refuse to acknowledge the sanctity of the yom

    divine omniscience and bechira

    how do you resolve the stira

    and I need to know if you rely on the heter mechira

    would you go to a casino

    did you boycott Borsalino

    what’s your Jewish perspective on the paradoxes of Zeno

    are you a Zionist

    or Yeshivish with a twist

    Hallel on Yom Ha’atzmaut I think you get the gist

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077502

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    What does have relevance to this thread, btw, and what makes the other things irrelevant – and how did you get to judge relevance to the thread and decide all the things you’ve posted are relevant? You seem to keep repeating that line when things are cited that don’t fit the line of thought that you’re pursuing.

    The only thing that I said was irrelevant in this thread was the quote from R’ Wolbe. I don’t claim to be the Supreme Arbiter of relevance. But if the topic under discussion is whether women can/can’t/should/shouldn’t learn Gemara, then other things are irrelevant. I don’t necessarily mind if someone wants to have a discussion other than the one at hand; I am simply noting that it is a different discussion.

    Rav Volbe was simply addressing the mistaken concerns some wives expressed that their husband wasn’t far more knowledgeable than themselves on Torah matters. I think this point has been beaten to death here already. Rav Volbe made a point, v’zeh hu. His point wouldn’t have been cited and recorded in the kuntres if it weren’t relevant then and relevant now to the intended audience.

    I never said his point wasn’t relevant. I said that it’s not relevant to this particular discussion. My other point was that R’ Wolbe didn’t say any chiddush. If the woman had confronted her husband directly, he could have told her that in yeshiva they don’t learn the same things as in seminary, so she might know more than him about something that she learned and he didn’t. That’s not a chiddush, it’s not controversial, and it has nothing to do with women learning Gemara.

    We’ll have to agree to disagree on the other points. I think we’re (both of us) at the stage of repetition with them.

    What aspect of what I said do you disagree with?

    As far as the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah, I thought they are at least as relevant to the discussion as the items you’ve cited such from MiPninei HaRav, R. Rakeffet, the Riaz, etc. And to that I was wondering your input to what I brought from them.

    The relevance of the quotes that I brought is that they demonstrate that there is Rabbinic support to rely on for women to learn Gemara. Bringing sources that are against women learning Gemara just means that there are sources against it. No one ever suggested otherwise. Additionally, the primary argument advanced by those in favor of women’s Gemara is that the metzius is not the same as it was in the past. Thus, sources against women’s Gemara from the past, do not necessarily prove anything about the present. (Again, this is not to say that there aren’t modern day sources against it as well; it is to say that one can claim that the earlier sources would agree that nowadays it’s different.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077500

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Sam2:

    You are essentially saying what I said earlier:

    If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread.

    I don’t see what the chiddush is. If a woman with a BA in psychology would complain to me that she married a guy who has a PhD in Mathematics, thinking he was such an Academic Scholar, but now she is disappointed that she knows more psychology than him, I would tell her that a PhD in Mathematics doesn’t cover Psychology; no need to worry, he is still more of a scholar than you. I wouldn’t need to refer her to R’ Wolbe to address her issue. Now, I’m not faulting R’ Wolbe for saying what he said – he is absolutely correct. I’m just pointing out that there was no need to seek out someone of his caliber to address a pretty simple issue, and additionally it has no relevance to this thread.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077499

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    The part about Canaan was very relevant to the context. You were trying to demonstrate that even R’ Soloveitchik held that we should stay away from the world as much as possible. But what he actually said was that in Canaan it is advantageous to stay away from the world, and as long as we are in Canaan, so much the better. But now we are not in Canaan anymore. So the quote doesn’t really prove anything. It would be almost akin to castigating someone for engaging in ????? ????? ????? ?????? by telling him that the Gemara says ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ???? ??????.

    Chacham Ovadia Yosef said a week after Rav Cohen’s remarks that he was only referring to the seruga leadership like Bennett and R. Druckman (who were promoting forcibly drafting the Bnei Torah), not to the seruga klal. Regarding Rav Kaplan, he said his hyperbolic remarks about the government ministers trying to draft the Bnei Torah were said in humor.

    That’s precisely my point. R’ Cohen and R’ Kaplan explicitly stated inflammatory remarks which were later clarified. You have no problem that they weren’t careful when speaking, that they didn’t think that someone might actually assume that they meant what they said and be insulted. Yet you fault R’ Lamm for not being careful to not say something which people might be able to misconstrue as insulting if they completely distort his words.

    Regarding the sefarim you quoted, I’m not sure what you are trying to prove, so I will hold off until you explain what you are bringing them for.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077495

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Moderators: I apologize for the length of the post, but it is probably only a tenth of the length of Joseph’s post in the Modern Orthodoxy thread.

    (Disclaimer: Please do not impute any negativity into my tone. The nature of the written word is such that in a debate the tone may seem strident even when it is not. I am not trying to be mean or sarcastic or disrespectful to anyone, including Joseph, R’ Wolbe, R’ Cohen, and R’ Kaplan; I am just making a few points.)

    1) Here is a contrast:

    Joseph said:

    [but]

    R’ Soloveitchik said:

    The bolded parts are the parts you left out (except for “of” which was simply that you wrote “for” instead which was probably an honest mistake). As you can see, and it is even more clear from the rest of the context which would take too long to type up, R’ Soloveitchik was contrasting life in Canaan with life outside of Canaan, and applying it to contemporary times. Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the quote that you emphasized appears between dashes, as an explanation of Canaan. What R’ Soloveitchik was saying was that IN CANAAN we could be separate and as long as we can remain in the era of being in Canaan, where it is feasible to remain separate, so much the better. But once we are forced out of that era, which R’ Soloveitchik applies to us in modern times, it is no longer feasible to remain separate.

    2) I truly do not understand how you are interpreting R’ Lamm’s speech. First of all, when he mentioned the “real world” he had not yet even brought up YU or other yeshivos. He was simply making a point based on the Gemara, explaining what he thinks is the proper approach to life. When he brings up YU, he says that it is an enclave as opposed to a cave, but that the “cave experience” is necessary to a certain extent and that’s why they advocate taking off time to study Torah uninhibited in Israel. The only point where he brings in other yeshivos is when he says:

    Our commitment to and celebration of Torah lishmah is no less than that of any other advanced yeshiva; but unlike others, our confrontation with modernity is more nuanced, more subtle, and more balanced. We neither accept it uncritically nor reject it unthinkingly. We believe, as the Rav taught us, that Torah can be lived and implemented in every time and circumstance, and that includes modernity and post-modernity. We stand firmly in the world of Halakha, but we shall not turn our backs on the world of Madda – of culture and science. We shall ever heed the Voice that bids us “leave the cave!” That dialectic between the Cave and the World is the source of our glory – as well as of our dilemmas, our tensions, and our perplexing inconsistencies. Our commitment is to Torah, to this community of Modern/Centrist Orthodox Jews, and to this ideology. And it is a commitment, not a compromise or concession.

    There is nothing remotely insulting there. All he says is that YU’s mission statement is to engage the world and that he understands this to be what the Gemara is advocating. The “cave” is clearly not derogatory; it is just not the ideal in R’ Lamm’s view. This is obvious from the fact that he says that YU believes in utilizing the cave for a certain amount of time, and moreover, as I pointed out already, you may as well accuse him of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai if you understand the cave to be derogatory – better yet, you should accuse the Gemara of insulting R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. I really think that the only way to impute nefarious intentions into this speech is if that is your goal from the outset.

    3) I’m not sure why you are bringing in the media. You can watch the video yourself and see what he said. I transcribed the beginning of it:

    ???? ?? ?? ?? ?? ?-? ????? ??’ ?????. ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????. ????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???. ?? ????. ??? ???? ???? ???? ?-?-?: ??? ???? ?????

    (There was an unclear, one-word-sentence between “?????” and “??”, and perhaps I was off by a letter here and there, but nothing that affected the thrust of the paragraph.)

    As you can see, he clearly stated that God’s throne will not be complete while Amalek still exists. He then directly equated kippa seruga with Amalek and said that God’s throne will not be complete until there are no longer kippot serugot. I’m not sure how you expect people to interpret that. Keep in mind what you said about R’ Lamm:

    He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.

    Now apply it to R’ Cohen. Whereas by R’ Lamm, you go out of your way to read malice into his words based on context and juxtaposition (which I anyway showed to be flawed), by R’ Cohen where he explicitly said the derogatory comments outright, you have no problem. Now if you think that it’s okay because R’ Cohen’s position was correct and R’ Lamm’s was incorrect, I am fine with that. But then you can’t complain when the other side, thinking they are correct, engage in the same behavior (which they in fact didn’t).

    Also, you didn’t even respond to the case of R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks.

    4) If that’s what R’ Wolbe meant then there was no need to take him away from his learning to say it. You could quote Patur Aval Assur as saying the same thing. In effect what the quote means is that if one person spends years and years learning Torah for the entire day and someone else spends a couple of years learning Torah for part of the day, the first person will generally know more Torah. A davar pashut and completely irrelevant to this thread.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077493

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    1) I am not talking about a failure to quote five pages. I am talking about using an ellipsis to cut out half of a sentence which provides context to what R’ Soloveitchik was saying. I only read the first couple of paragraphs of your post – I stopped reading once I saw how long it was and that in just the first couple of paragraphs there were misquotes. Look at the quote that you obviously felt was the most important one (seeing as you bolded it) and then look back at the original and see the part of the sentence that you left out.

    My point in mentioning R’ Soloveitchik’s other writings and his talmidim’s views was that they are clues to keep in mind when reading this speech. You took one source as if it was the first and last word on R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview. Any of his talmidim (actually there may be one or two who will deny this) can tell you that R’ Soloveitchik’s worldview was very complicated, probably more so than any other rabbinic leader. Now, R’ Soloveitchik may have contradicted himself at times. If there is indeed a contradiction, I would like to know by what means you determined that this is the authoritative source. On the other hand, it is eminently possible that there is no contradiction, and the quote has to be taken in context.

    2) I suspect that you might have misunderstood the speech. All he said was that the “benei torah” (he didn’t use that term either) believe in isolating themselves from the world and the secular culture while YU believes in engaging with the world and culture. He compared it to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai in the cave and out of the cave. I’m not sure what would be insulting about that, especially since you cited R’ Soloveitchik as agreeing that one should avoid the secular culture as much as possible. Moreover, if it was insulting then by extension the Gemara must have been insulting to R’ Shimon Bar Yochai. The connotation (and perhaps even the denotation) of “cavemen” is a primitive, backwards, almost subhuman culture. This is not at all what R’ Lamm said; in fact in that very speech he advocated for the “cave experience” albeit to a lesser extent than in “benei torah” circles. I honestly don’t see how someone can read the speech and interpret it in an insulting manner, unless the reader feels that disagreement is insulting. Now, I will admit that I was not present when the speech was given, and as such it is possible that R’ Lamm used tone/hand gestures/facial expressions which put an entirely different meaning into his words, or it is possible that the published version is inaccurate; however, I doubt that you were there either. If you want to make such an argument the burden of proof is certainly on you.

    3) I am not referring to R’ Elchanan nor to R’ Shteinman. I did specifically not mention any names but if you press me for details I will oblige. (Obviously, the moderators can feel free to edit this part if they deem it inappropriate.) I am referring to R’ Shalom Cohen’s remarks about ????? ?????? and Amalek, and the subsequent apology/clarification. And perhaps I am also referring to R’ Nissan Kaplan’s remarks and subsequent retraction/clarification. Note: I am not castigating either of them for what they said or what they clarified; I am simply wondering if you would say the same thing that you said about R’ Lamm’s comments.

    4) The quote from R’ Wolbe is far from straightforward. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned more Torah and knows more Torah than the boy and he says she still does not come up to his ankles, then you will have to clarify how that makes any sense. If he was discussing a situation where the girl learned less Torah and knows less Torah then the boy then the statement is meaningless. If he was saying that the girl might know Hilchos Shabbos better than the boy but the boy knows Bava Kamma better than the girl since girls learn Hilchos Shabbos while boys learn Bava Kamma, then it’s very pashut and R’ Wolbe isn’t adding anything and it has no relevance to this thread. If he was saying that it’s impossible for a girl to learn more Torah and know more Torah than a yeshiva guy, then again you would have to explain how it makes sense, particularly considering the Sefer Hachinuch (152) who says:

    ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??????

    And the Minchas Chinuch (78) who says:

    ?”? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???”? ??? ????? ????? ?”? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?”? ?????? ?”? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???’ ?? ????’ ??”?

    which clearly indicate that it is possible for a woman to exceed a man in Torah knowledge.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077487

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    1) In the thread that you linked about Modern Orthodoxy, in which you claim to have cited R’ Soloveitchik as support for your contentions, you took R’ Soloveitchik’s words out of context, making it seem as if he was making a certain point. For anyone who read that thread, I urge you to read R’ Soloveitchik’s address(es) in the original. I’ll give you a hint: all the ellipses in Joseph’s post do not appear in the original. Now, Joseph, I can’t necessarily blame you for the miscontextualization, since the frumteens moderator is the one who put in the ellipses, but at least you should know for next time to be wary of quoting someone who heavily uses ellipses. Furthermore, it should be clear that what you “cite” from R’ Soloveitchik should not be the sole informer of his position, based on the simple fact that in his other writings he expresses a different position, and the vast majority of his talmidim do not agree with the way you portrayed his position. If you are interested, a good place to start would be “Revisionism and the Rav” which will point you to a few sources in R’ Soloveitchik’s writings.

    2) The whole “cavemen” thing is a complete misquote. R’ Lamm did not equate benei Torah with cavemen, nor did he even use the word “cavemen”. I would quote what he actually said except that the relevant part is about five pages long. However, the address has been published in several places; you can find it on googlebooks in “Seventy Faces: Articles of Faith, Volume 1” if you so desire to see what he actually said. Again, I don’t fault you for the misquote since you are just quoting others who have propagated the misquote; however, I would reiterate that you should be more careful when you quote people who have an obvious agenda (e.g. frumteens moderator). As we have seen recently, you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Kook via misquoting R’ Kook; you have attempted to deligitimize Modern Orthodoxy via misquoting R’ Soloveitchik; and you have attempted to delegitimize R’ Lamm via misquoting R’ Lamm.

    3) You wrote:

    Regardless of any apologetics, the way Dr. Rabbi Lamm used the term cavemen in conjunction with Bnei Torah was malevolent despite a sophisticated explanation of how he “really” meant it all innocuously. He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.

    Aside from the fact that (as I pointed out in #2) there wasn’t anything to explain away, I wonder if you would say the same thing about people who may have referred to other people as “Amalek” and after causing a whole stir, explained what they meant.

    4) Getting back on topic, you are going to have to provide an explanation for the quote from R’ Wolbe.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077440

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    It is interesting how your position on the veracity of stories has changed so much in just a few weeks. You will recall that not long ago you tried to bring a certain story (two stories or perhaps two versions of the same story) as evidence and I brought approximately nine kashyas on the story. Not only that, you did not provide any source where I (or anyone reading the coffee room) could read/hear the story. You felt that such a story was good enough evidence; to quote you:

    public verbal comments from Roshei Yeshivos counts as sources

    Additionally, you placed the burden on me to research the veracity of the story.

    Yet when it comes to this thread, we have a story, which you have not come up with a single kashya on. Not only that, I provided you with two sources where you can hear the story. Moreover, the source of the story was intimately familiar with the people in the story, and provided someone (who was perhaps ) even closer to the story (R’ Aharon) who could corroborate it. (Though the second shiur I quoted was given the day R’ Aharon died, the first one was given in 2012 when R’ Aharon was very much alive and capable of confirming/denying the story.) This is hardly an instance of someone repeating a fifth hand story. And then again, this time the burden is on me (the quoter) unlike last time when the burden was on me (the doubter).

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077436

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant
    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077434

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    Some of the journals are on Hebrewbooks. But seeing them won’t prove anything because R’ Rakeffet didn’t mention her name or which issue(s) she wrote in. The fact that you and I don’t know these facts is not a reason to doubt the story. A reason to doubt the story would be for instance that the journal was first initiated after the Lichtensteins came to America. Or that Telz never had a journal. Or something of the sort. If you have any kashyas on the story, by all means post them. But as of now you haven’t asked any kashyas. All you have done is suspect R’ Rakeffet of lying (or perhaps of being lied to, since it is unclear to me if R’ Rakeffet has seen the journal) because you don’t know the details.

    in reply to: Daas Torah #1076840

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Beis Habechira Yoma 66b:

    ??? ???????? ????? ???? ??????? ????????? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ???

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077432

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    The difference is that with Rashi’s daughters, the first mention of it is hundreds of years after it happened. R’ Rakeffet, on the other hand, knew R’ Aharon’s mother personally, as he mentions in the shiur (though I did not quote that part), and additionally he says that you can confirm the details with R’ Aharon. That would be very much going out on a limb for someone who is making up a story.

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077429

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Why?

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077426

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    R’ Aharon Rakeffet (discussing R’ Aharon Lichtenstein’s mother):

    “His mother, zichronah livracha, was a genius, who used to write chiddushei Torah under a boy’s name, publishing it in the Telz Torah journal. Ask R’ Aharon, he’ll tell you the details.” (From a shiur titled “The Viewpoint of Rav Aharon Lichtenstein”)

    “R’ Aharon’s mother was a genius, genius. She, her father was a mankal, one of the administrators of Telz Yeshiva IN TELZ – THE REAL TELZ. Telz Yeshiva published chiddushei Torah, articles, insights. His mother published in the Telz Yeshiva Torah journal with a pseudonym of a man, because Telz, as open-minded as it was, Eli, could not publish, could you imagine Lakewood today putting out – and Telz was not Lakewood, don’t misunderstand me, Telz at that time, not talking about Telz today – but could you imagine Lakewood today putting out a choveret of chiddushei Torah, and there you have a woman? Wow. [or perhaps “ahhh” – PAA] Under a pseudonym.” (From a shiur titled “The Royal Wedding!”)

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077425

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    MiPninei HaRav p. 167-168:

    ??? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??”? ??????? ?????? (???? ????) ?? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ???????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??. ??? ???? ??? ?????”? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? “??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ??????” ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????. ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ????, ????? ???, ?? ????? ??????? ???????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ?? ?”? ????? ?????? ??????? ????. ????? ???? ?”???? ???? ????” ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? (????? ????? ????) “????? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????”. [???? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ??????? ????’ ?????? ???? ???”? ??’ ?”?-?”?. ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?’ ??’ ?”?-?”?.] ?

    in reply to: Can women talk about Gemara? #1077424

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Rabbi Reuven Ziegler, Tradition Fall 2010, “Understand the Years of Each Generation”: A Eulogy for Mori ve-Rabbi ha-Rav Yehuda Amital Zt”l p.81:

    In 1995, I was present when R. Amital told a gathering of the kollel that he did not feel women needed to study Talmud; his grandmother and mother had been very pious Jews without it. A year or two later, he addressed a women’s learning program with the words, “You know, I used to think that Talmud study for women was unnecessary, but now I think it is absolutely essential!”

    in reply to: SHMAH MINA TLAS #1076246

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Pesachim 105b-106a:

    ???? ????’ ???? ?”? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ??”? ??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ???? ?????’ ??”? ???? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?’ ?????? ?? ??? ??? ??”? ?”? ??? ?????? ???? ?????

    in reply to: PAA's not-always-in-context Coffee Room Report Card Comments #1156742

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    “We have a special committee for your posts.”

    (Moderator)

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/petirah-of-rabbi-aharon-lichtenstien#post-568765

    in reply to: Petirah of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein #1133042

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    As I pointed out, I have no evidence that the story is true. All I’m saying is that the story is eminently believable and the kashya of R’ Kahn doesn’t affect that. In fact as I alluded to, and as Popa elaborated on, R’ Kahn’s point makes the story MORE believable. Again, that doesn’t make it true. My point is that if R’ Lichtenstein said it never happened than we don’t need to try to poke holes in the story – it didn’t happen. If he didn’t say it didn’t happen then it might have actually happened, being that the “holes” are not holes. And regardless of whether it happened or not, I still think the suggestion about R’ Aharon Kotler is a bad pshat.

    P.S. Probably because the moderators have to take extra long with my posts, going over them with a fine-toothed comb to see if there is any hidden controversiality/heresy/insult.

    We have a special committee for your posts.

    in reply to: Petirah of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein #1133034

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Joseph:

    Why does the fact that they were previously acquainted affect the story? In fact, when I first read the story I assumed that R’ Gustman knew who R’ Aharon was. And the theory about R” Aharon Kotler seems like grasping at straws. First of all who was the milkman? Second of all, there is no particular reason why a story about R’ Aharon Kotler talking about a milkman who knew Shas would somehow evolve into R’ Aharon Lichtenstein volunteering as a milkman, and even more so with the whole rest of the story.

    Now I’m not saying the story is true; in fact, there are people who claim that R’ Lichtenstein himself denied it. But the specific points raised by R’ Kahn do not seem particularly compelling.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076213

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    The Gemara in Yoma 69b implies that when they subdued the yetzer hara for arayos it affected the animals as well. I also recall that I had a raya from somewhere in Bava Kama that animals have a yetzer hara, though I can’t remember it off the top of my head. Hopefully I’ll check through my files and find it.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076210

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Definitely look it up; I did not quote it in its entirety. And he says several different things. It’s on Bereishis 3:1. There are three pieces on it.

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=40007&st=&pgnum=14

    (bottom of left column)

    in reply to: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk) #1090377

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    I’m not sure how I can respond to you. You are, after all, asserting the existence of something beyond human comprehension which pretty much makes it undiscussable. What you are essentially saying is that it is because it is and you just have to accept it even though it can’t be explained.

    Which is fine.

    So would you agree with this summary:

    Patur Aval Assur: There is a conundrum etc. etc.

    Avram in MD: There is an answer.

    (This is not at all meant facetiously so please don’t take it that way. In fact I commend you for actually putting thought into, and composing lengthy responses.)

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076208

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    coffee:

    Still not clear. The other Midrash which you refer to is the Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer Perek 12, which in fact the Seforno references after saying his pshat. His pshat is clearly different from the Pirkei’s pshat.

    Here is the Seforno’s pshat:

    ??? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ? ????? ??????? ??????? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???’ ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?? ???? ??????

    Here is the Pirkei:

    ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ??’ ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ????

    The Seforno seems to be saying that the Torah referred to the Yetzer Hara by using the term “???” whereas the Pirkei seems to be saying that the Yetzer Hara possessed the ???.

    By the way, this thread is not entirely serious, because one can simply say that the Seforno, et al weren’t working with the Midrash in Bereishis Rabba.

    Haleivi:

    I’m not sure how you are addressing what I said.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076202

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Little Froggie:

    The protagonist in the story wasn’t saying that the Yetzer Hara has a Yetzer Hara for some things but not for others. He was saying that the Yetzer Hara can wake up on time because he has no Yetzer Hara. I am merely proving that the Yetzer Hara does have a Yetzer Hara as evidenced from the fact that he desired Chava.

    in reply to: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk) #1090375

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Avram:

    It seems we have now circled back to the beginning. We are reverting back to the fact that there is some natural desire to do things. I agreed that that may be; my contention, though, is that it doesn’t make it more lofty.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076199

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I guess just restate your point and specifically note how you are addressing my proof.

    in reply to: NeutiquamErro's favorite thread with an obscure title #1147669

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    In “the best played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many years” Harry is a bishop. Yet he effects the checkmate via moving “three spaces to the left” which is not something in the repertoire of a bishop.

    Also, you would think that considering the chess game was supposed to be an obstacle to prevent one from getting the most valuable object in existence, it would be a little better than to fall for a simple ploy like the one Ron engaged in.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076197

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    I thought you’re supposed to be elaborating since I’m saying that your post wasn’t clear.

    in reply to: Theological Conundrum (read at your own risk) #1090372

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    DaasYochid:

    The Torah doesn’t call it “good” and “bad”; the Torah calls it “???” and “??”.

    Zev:

    Don’t use the word “care” if you don’t like it. Imagine that you are trying to convince someone to serve Hashem in this most lofty fashion. What would be your convincing argument?

    Avram:

    If I understand you correctly, you are essentially saying that Hashem obviously does things without the goal being benefit and since we are ???? Hashem, we can also do things for the same non-benefit reason Hashem does things for, even if we don’t know what it is. My response to that is that it might be true that there are reasons that transcend benefit, but you haven’t given a reason why someone should do something for such a reason.

    Zev:

    But why should someone pursue dveykus if not because it is a commandment?

    in reply to: PAA's not-always-in-context Coffee Room Report Card Comments #1156740

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    What does “hehhhhhhhh……” mean? I need to know if I should count it as a quote.

    in reply to: Disproving the Famous Story #1076194

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    coffee addict:

    Something isn’t clear.

    in reply to: Chronicle Moderations #1215485

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Apparently it was so bad that they won’t even let me say which thread it was.

    in reply to: Chronicle Moderations #1215482

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Again.

    in reply to: PAA's not-always-in-context Coffee Room Report Card Comments #1156738

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    cozimjewish:

    To be fair, it wasn’t ENTIRELY in Hebrew.

    in reply to: PAA's not-always-in-context Coffee Room Report Card Comments #1156736

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    cozimjewish and Joseph:

    Tosafos in Beitza 6a writes:

    ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??”? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??”? ???? ??? ?????

    The Igros Moshe which I quoted earlier (though I did mistakenly cite it as 4:100 instead of 2:100 (but the link is still accurate)) elaborates on this point, ???? ??.


    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    cozimjewish:

    See the first paragraph of Igros Moshe Orach Chaim 4:100:

    http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14675&st=&pgnum=292

    in reply to: This is Not Related to the Theological Conundrum #1074490

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Today I randomly picked up a Meromei Sadeh and found that the Netziv has a nice pshat that answers my original questions #2 and #4, as well as avoids Tosafos’s stirah:

    ????? ??? ???? ????”? ????’ ?????? ????? ???? ?? ??”? ???? ???’ ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???’ ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????

    ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??”? ???? ???? ???’ ?????? ?? ???? ??”? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??’ ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ?????

    ???? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????


    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 260:6:

    ?? ????? ?”? ????? ?”? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??”? ????? ?? ??”? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ???? ?’ ???? ???????? ????? ????

    ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??????

    ???? ?’ ??? ???? ????? ??? ???????? ????? ????

    ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ?????? ??”? ???? ?? ???? ???”? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??????? ??????? ???? ????? ???? ?’ ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????”? ????? ?????”? ?????

    ????? ??????”? ?? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ??”?

    ???? ????? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????

    (emphasis added)

    in reply to: Do MO believe in non-strawman daas Torah? #1155851

    Patur Aval Assur
    Participant

    ubiquitin:

    What I’m saying is that there are different levels. Some people only care what the rabbi has to say if he is simply telling them the halacha. Others care what the rabbi has to say on other things as well. The thing is that in many cases, including the prenup example, there are two separate aspects – the metzius (how does a prenup actually affect the relationship between husband and wife) and the hashkafic response to the metzius (if it does have a negative affect, how do we weigh it against the aguna issue). Here is where the different levels of mevatel da’as come into play. What if I’m sure the rabbi is wrong on the metzius? What if I’m not sure he’s wrong but not sure he’s right? For some people that will make a difference for whether they will be mevatel da’as or not. Then again it also depends on the other factors of the case. For instance, if the husband and wife both couldn’t care less about prenups, they might be mevatel da’as even if they think the rabbi is absolutely incorrect on the metzius, the hashkafa, or both. But they won’t necessarily admit that the rabbi is correct. If, on the other hand, there is a lot at stake, they may refuse to follow the rabbi altogether if they think he is wrong, and even perhaps if they are unsure he is wrong. The point is that the only thing that can really be quantified are the two extremes – the rabbi is always right or the rabbi’s opinion is completely irrelevant. There is so much in between, which depends on so many variables, and indeed, I think this is what writersoul was alluding to. For many people there is probably not a neat, all-encompassing formula for when to follow and when not to follow or for when to admit that the rabbi is right and when not to admit. It is done on a case-by-case basis.

    My other point that I was trying to get at with popa earlier, is that for many people the same is true in pure halacha. There can be instances where a practitioner strongly believes that the rabbi doesn’t understand the metzius, or perhaps doesn’t know (some of) the halachic sources. He would then be in the same predicament as by the hashkafic question.

    I don’t know if this answers your question; feel free to re-express if need be.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 2,921 total)


Trending