Forum Replies Created
If were nitpicking, it’s Hamaniach not Hameniach (??? under the ?).
Which reminds me, the “ah” sound is pronounced Patach not Pasach (??? ??? in the ?).
Re Yontif, it’s like the English word “comfortable”, which is more commonly pronounced confortable or confterble.
A soft pretzel is one of many examples of this question. It boils down to this:
There are 3 characteristics that cause a dough to be considered pas haba bikisnin, whose bracha is mezonos: crunchy (e.g. crackers), sweet (e.g. cake), or filled. If a dough does not have any of these characteristics, it is usually hamotzi. However, many poskim contend that even if the dough is not crunchy, sweet, or filled, it will still not be considered hamotzi if it doesn’t have turisa d’nahama i.e. the “form” of bread. Generally this means that if it is not used as a bread in that country, it may be considered mezonos even without those characteristics.
Some examples of questionable items that may fall into this category are pizza, tortillas (wraps), hot pretzels, bagels, etc… (Not all of the above have the same din. But they all are considered by SOME to not have the form of bread.)
In short, this is a question for your LOR. Mine (who is in the USA) holds that pizza is vadai hamotzi, as are bagels. He said that wraps are “very problematic” because it isn’t clear if they are considered bread in the US. (I believe that if one were living in Mexico, where tortillas are a standard form of bread, they would be vadai hamotzi.) And I believe that my posek holds that hot pretzels are mezonos.
Incidentally, R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach Zatzal held that bagels are mezonos (in Eretz Yisrael) as they are (were?) not used as bread. (And yes, he knew what an “American” bagel was – the person who asked him the shaila told me he made that very clear.)
Basically, it is a very complex question and should be addressed to your competent halachic authority.
Isn’t it eating olives without adding olive oil to them?
I forget 🙂
Whole olives are ??? ?????. Olive oil is ??? ??????. Putting olive oil into olives is trying to break even.
Just out of curiosity, what does any of this have to do with the size of the Earth?
He who knoweth not the shape of the Earth likewise knoweth not the difference between “shape” and “size”
Perhaps you didn’t read the OP’s original post clearly, but s/he clearly said that the government’s website said that the item in question was not subject to tax.
A number of years ago, there was a group of chassidim of a certain rebbe. The rebbe was known for his many sichos on bein adam lchaveiro. There were many anecdotes of this particular Rebbe performing all sorts of “mofsim”, helping people in all sorts of situations.
The rebbe became so popular among his chassidim that some began to suggest that he is mashiach. At first they were labeled as extremists, but after a while their message began to resonate with more and more people. Eventually, there were reports that the rebbe himself claimed to be mashiach.
The debate continued, with many frum yidden being suspicious of this chassidus, and especially of this group who became known as the “mishichists”. The mishichists began to become more and more radical. When the rebbe eventually left the world of the living, many thought that the radicals would quiet down. But the opposite happened. The mishichists continued to claim that the rebbe was mashiach, even though he was dead.
This situation was very disturbing to many frum yidden, with many asking how this outspoken fringe group can represent yiddishkeit if their hashkafos were so warped. Others argued that the group were shomer torah umitzvos, and did all sorts of chesed, so they should be respected despite their different hashkafos. The debate raged on…
Eventually, a man named Paul started preaching to the mishichists and explained to them that they no longer needed to be shomer torah umitzvos, as long as they continued to believe.
That this story already happened 2000 years ago is scary enough. That there are people doing similar things now and at the same time trying to “kasher” the last time is much much scarier…
Regarding Ee efshar v’lo kam’chaven:
I would venture a guess that the rabbanim consulted on this matter actually advised the IDF to compel everyone to attend in order to create the situation of ee efshar, which is in effect making the issue less problematic. How’s that for a conspiracy theory?
Zahavasdad makes a good point. Flowers – guns are not banned either, even if I don’t give them to my kids. What about a chain saw…would you give one to your kids? According to your logic we should thus ban chain saws.
There is obviously quite a large range between banning an admittedly dangerous tool (a description that can apply to the internet, guns, or chain saws) and giving your kids (or yourself) free reign to do what you want with it. It has to be treated with the proper care and respect, not be banned.
Most of the gedolim in America came to this realization in the last few years. Those in Eretz Yisrael are generally at the same place as the American gedolim were about 15 years ago, when even the American gedolim favored banning, for the most part. Things happen more slowly in EY, but mark my words, the day will arrive when the Internet will be an absolute necessity, first in the US and a decade or two later in EY. And this isn’t many decades away either. The American gedolim currently are working with the underlying truth that if we don’t work to protect ourselves from it, we will be in a much worse situation. I predict the gedolim in EY will do the same within the next 10-15 years, and possibly much sooner.
(Please don’t get me wrong…I am not saying that the gedolim in EY don’t “get it yet” C”V. I just mean that in EY they are not yet at that stage where it is as widespread a necessity. And there are a number of gedolim in EY who already are beginning to work to find a solution for the internet, as opposed to banning it, though they may choose to be less vocal than those who favor banning it altogether.)December 18, 2011 10:09 pm at 10:09 pm in reply to: kashrus horror stories (2 help us realize the severity) #836516
PBA: ???? ????????. Your post wasn’t approved yet when I started writing mine – I only saw it after I posted.December 18, 2011 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm in reply to: kashrus horror stories (2 help us realize the severity) #836512
There was once a kosher establishment cooking a pot of 60 hot dogs. Suddenly, a non kosher hot dog fell into the pot, and the mashgiach just served them all!!
Come on, people. Anecdotal evidence does NOT equal halachic problem. There is a certain halachic degree of certainty which is necessary to be halachicly confident in a food’s kashrus status. That is ALL that is needed. Period. For all of these stories, there are many thousands in which everything went fine. If according to halacha the chance of problems arising is too remote to be ???? for, there is no problem. Until you know the intricate halachos of when we are and are not ????, such stories are simply fear-mongering and appealing to people’s emotions. The Liberals would be proud.
[Clarification: Yes, I do know the difference between bitul and other areas of halacha. I was just trying to make a point.]
I have seen advertisements for caterers who list “Brita” (read Bris + feminine suffix) as one of the “simchos” they can provide. Pathetic. (not to mention the obvious physiological and grammatical absurdity – Bris is already a feminine noun)
To expound on Sam2’s correct explanation, each tekufa occurs 365 days and 6 hours after the same one last year. In the year of a civil leap year (such as 2008), Tekufas Tishrei is on October 7th at 3:00 am.
The next year (2009) it is on October 7th at 9:00 am.
The next year (2010) it is on October 7th at 3:00 pm.
The year before the next leap year (2011) it is on October 7th at 9:00 pm.
If next year (2012) would have 365 days, it would be October 8th at 3:00 am, but since it is a leap year, it goes back to October 7th at 3:00 am, just like 4 years previously.
Therefore, 60 days from the tekufa is always December 4th, at either 3:00 am, 9:00 am, 3:00 pm, or 9:00 pm, respectively. But since the Jewish day starts in the evening, December 4th at 9:00 pm is considered the following day, December 5th. So in the year before a leap year, we (i.e. those of us whose exile is in ??? ????, as opposed to those whose exile is being lived in ??? ?????) start saying ??? ?? ???? on December 5th.
(We are using civil dates for convenience, because both the tekufa and the Gregorian calendar are solar based. This has nothing to do with the fact that the legal day starts at 12:00 midnight.)
To take the calculation further, this only works for dates between 1900 and 2099. But since the gregorian calendar skips a leap year in 3 out of every 400 years, that means that in the 1800’s they would start on December 3rd or 4th, and after 2100 it will (theoretically) be either December 5th or 6th.
cantoresq – was this in Israel by any chance? What you describe has been the Israeli yeshiva bochur’s style there for at least 5 years, maybe more.
One more couple nobody mentioned:
?????? ?? ??? and ????
There may be more but that’s all I remember at the moment
Mine is pronounced – chrcheal bchrchisker
Don’t you mean chrcheal bchrchiskechrch?
Another one (and a bump for the last one):
How many couples in Tanach can you list in which both husband’s and wife’s names start with the same letter?
(There are at least 5.)
bekitzur – the pasuk I have in mind has 6 words consecutively beginning with aleph.
Nobody answered my last one: where in Tanach do we find 6 words in a row starting with the letter Alef?
On the ball – Eilat, mentioned as a stop in the midbar.October 19, 2011 12:57 pm at 12:57 pm in reply to: Is eating in succah on Shabbos Breishis considered Bal Tosef? #977926
I believe that if it is a nice day it would be fine, but if it’s overly cold, or to sleep, would be problematic, because it seems that you are there because of the mitzva. This is why we pasken to eat but not sleep in the sukka on Shmini Atzeres (in chutz laaretz), because eating is not obviously abnormal but sleeping is.
This reasoning is further extended to explain why many Chasidim do not eat in the Sukka on Shmini Atzeres, or eat only during the day, contrary to the psak of the Gemara. The explanation given is that while in ??? it was warm enough to eat in the Sukka and not arouse suspicion, in Eastern Europe it was frigid and thus being done obviously for the mitzva, which would be problematic because of ?? ?????.
Where in the Torah do you have 5 words in a row all starting with an Aleph?
There is actually another place where there are 6 words in a row, all starting with an Aleph. Anyone?
Los Angeles is definitely the first.
The following is my guess at the others:
My personal experience would point to meat, not honey, as the bees’ primary attraction. It makes sense too – how could they possibly know you have honey?
When I took the PSAT it was when it was still out of 1600, but when I took the SAT it was the first year that it was out of 2400.
Middlepath: Did you have a very long gap between the two? Because the PSAT switched to 2400 a number of years before the SAT. I personally took the PSAT twice, in 10th grade and 11th grade, both out of 2400. Then in 12th grade, I took the SAT and it was still out of 1600 – it switched a few years later.
PBA: unfortunately, the title in the address bar gives it away…
I have been laining on ???? ???? for the last number of years. Just this morning, there was nobody in shul to lain so I did it. I found that by going slowly I was able to stay on tune (I slipped once but fixed myself right away). This is especially in contrast to ???? ???? where it is customarily lained super-quick.
Health – Just saw your post now. I didn’t mean that overdosing on acetominophen is more dangerous than overdosing on narcotics. All I meant is that in these combination pills, it takes a smaller number of pills to get a dangerous dose of acetominophen than it does to overdose on the narcotic. So for all intents and purposes, these particular pills are more dangerous because of the Tylenol added. In fact, one reason the Tylenol is there in the first place is to discourage overrdosing on the narcotic, because one gets a dangerous dose of Tylenol before getting a chance to get high on the narcotic.
2qwerty- There is no question regarding the provider, as they obviously provide the service with the knowledge that routers will be used to enable multiple computers to connect. The OP’s question was regarding the subscriber.
sam – I think that it is common knowledge, and many people just don’t care. Those that don’t know and do care are a ?????? ??????? and I wouldn’t be ????. Ask your LOR for a final ???.
Assuming that the wifi connection is not password protected, I believe it is ???? that it isn’t ?????, even if it does cause them a loss (i.e. slower speed). Putting on a password is so simple and basic, and not doing so is tantamount to ????.
Cofeefan – Vicodin and Tylenol with Codeine are NOT the same thing. Vicodin is Tylenol mixed with Hydrocodone, which is a codeine derivative but is 6 times stronger when taken orally than codeine is. The trade name Vicodin actually was coined from the Roman numeral VI (6) + codeine to indicate its 6-fold superior strength.
And now to anecdotal evidence: when I got mine out I used Vicodin and it did a very good job.
And an interesting piece of trivia: overdosing on either Tylenol w/ Codeine or Vicodin is more dangerous because of the Tylenol than the other ingredient (both of which are narcotics).
lolface – You admit you don’t have the scholarship, but insist that because you saw a teshuva it “DEFINITELY IS” halacha? How exactly do you define halacha? AFAIC, halacha is defined by the Gemara and coded in Shulchan Aruch and other classic halacha seforim. It may be a “detestable habit” but that doesn’t make it a halachic issue.
givingtago- M’dioraysa there are 5 spots that are problematic, and all others would be fine. Even in those 5 spots, the issue is only shaving (as opposed to uprooting) in a manner that destroys (as opposed to a scissors) i.e. a razor (????? ??? ?? ?????). Because we are unsure of the exact location, we refrain from shaving (with a razor) our entire beard (including moustache and neck). There is absolutely no Halachic problem with trimming (i.e. shortening the hair, not at skin level) any part of the beard, and certainly not the moustache. The only halachic problem arises when trimming close to the skin, with a razor. The dispute among the poskim is simply in regard to which modern devices are considered a Halachic razor.
When you talk about people “who wouldn’t touch their beards” i.e. not even to shorten with a scissors, that is not a Halachic issue, but one based on Minhag and Kabballah. There is thus a lot more leeway for allowing trimming of the moustache for various practical reasons.
Many Israeli Chareidim use shavers also. R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach ZT”L actually permitted certain shavers that even R’ Moshe ZT”L did not.
Someone I know very well showed me a particular shaver he bought. I told him that according to what I understand from my Rov (who is a renowned posek), it may be problematic. When this person showed it to the same Rov, he said that indeed according to R’ Moshe it would be problematic, but according to R’ Shlomo Zalman it would be fine!
Is describing someone as “pretty” a subjective description? in other words, if it is, no one could tell me so-and-so is pretty, since only I can determine if i consider someone to be pretty.
I fail to see the logic in this extrapolation. I agree that “pretty” is subjective, and not everyone agrees on what constitutes pretty. But to say “only I can determine” if someone is pretty, and therefore “no one could tell me so-and-so is pretty” is faulty reasoning. Everybody can determine if someone is pretty, and thus anyone could tell you that someone is pretty. Therefore, it would make sense to say that a particular person is someone whom most people consider pretty. Obviously that isn’t a guarantee that the person with whom you are speaking will agree, but it is safe to say that someone who is considered pretty by many can be described as such.
BoR – I believe that the discrepancy may be attributable to the different methods of translation. I am assuming (and please correct me if I am wrong) that all the editions that you have been using agree as to the original Hebrew proverb, and it is just the English in which there is a difference. If that is correct, the “original” proverb of Solomon is simply that Hebrew proverb.
Now, when translating to English, there are editions (and editors) which prefer literal translation over contextual accuracy, and others whose preference would be the reverse. Artscroll, which is an Orthodox company, almost always will choose contextual accuracy, and will base said accuracy on the opinion or opinions of the classic rabbinic commentaries of Tanach. The editors at Artscroll freely admit that the translation doesn’t, and cannot possibly, encompass ALL of the rabbinic opinions, and their reasoning that determines which one they use is often not apparant. (I believe that ItcheSrulik isn’t entirely correct in stating that they translate “almost exclusively according to Rashi”; they very often use others.)
Whether the other (non-Artscroll) translation of this particular proverb is based on a different commentary or simply on a literal translation (which then may be rejected by all opinions) is beyond the realm of my limited scholarship, but suffice it to say that there are countless ways to understand almost every verse in Tanach, and it is very often futile to attempt to determine the “true” meaning – indeed, the authors of the books of Tanach, with their Divine inspiration and superior intellect, may have had many intentions in mind when choosing a particular phrase.
Middlepath – My pleasure. You are of course correct that Dav-ber is not normal, but it is a fascinating (IMO) chiddush about which many are not aware.
Blockhead – I completely agree with you that it does not belong anywhere near the palate. The problem is that most of European non-chasidish Jewry pronounced it that way long before the modern Israelis. So, although wrong, it is very difficult to change. It bothers me more when Americans who grew up using the American R for ? suddenly need to become more “Yeshivish” and start talking like a Brisker.
Incidentally, I believe that the American R is closest to a sibilant (correctly described above as made from air passing through the front teeth) than either a velar fricative (Israeli/European) or an Alveolar ? (Sefardi/Chasidish). The former is from the wrong part of the mouth entirely. The latter is not created by blowing air through anything.
By the way, what Derech Hamelech referred to as the Alveolar Trill is not how most Sefardim pronounce it. If I am not mistaken, most Sefardim and Chasidim (and Israelis who pronounce ? that way) pronounce it as an Alveolar Tap, which is a shorter sound, with the tongue just tapping the area right behind the top front teeth. The trill is a longer, rolling sound. In Spanish (for example) the letter “r” is pronounced as an Alveolar Tap, but the consonant “rr” is a different sound, and pronounced as an Alveolar Trill. Thus the Spanish word “pero” means “but”, while the word “perro” is pronounced differently and means “dog”.
And Blockhead – The ? is NOT a dental. The Dentals are ????? (which actually sounds like the word Dentals!) ? is part of the group called Sibilants, which also includes ????
Derech Hamelech – I believe the modern Israeli ? (as pronounced by many, but by no means all, Israelis) is a velar fricative, specifically the voiced velar fricative, as opposed to the unvoiced velar fricative, which would be from the same part of the mouth, namely the letter ?.
The uvular (only 1 L) fricative includes the Sefardi and Arabic version of ? when unvoiced. You can try to attempt that voiced, and you will get a voiced uvular fricative, but that isn’t an Israeli ?.
MiddlePath – Blockhead is right about Dagesh Kal, which can only be found in ??? ??? letters, although if by chance a Dagesh Chazak lands in one of those letters, the pronunciation of the letter would be a “strong” version of the “Dagesh” pronunciation. However, according to some ?????? the “Doubling” of the Dagesh Chazak should be pronounced with the first as an “un-???-ed” letter and only the second would be “???-ed”. For example, the word ??? (meaning speak, like in the beginning of the third ???? of ???) would, according to this opinion, be pronounced Dav-Ber. In practice I have never seen this done.
It is Duri, as can be easily confirmed using Google.
(I will leave out the link this time.)
I am neither a Rov (or Rav) nor named Sholom (which would be how I would spell it if it were my name).
My intention was the ????
??? ???? ?????? ?’ ??? ???? ????
I was a bit mistaken in my last post: ?? ???? was not another son (of ?????) but a son of Achaz, ??? ??????. The ???? is right after the ??? in which ??? ??? ?? ?? ?? ?????? is mentioned.
OTB – ?? ???? is another son, according to the ??? that ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? refers to Hashem and only the last two words are his name. According to those who consider the entire phrase his name, his name in English would be quite a bit longer.
As an aside, I actually know someone whose name is ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????. He is known as ???? but called to the ???? with his full 8 names. His father obviously understood the ???? like the second ??? above.
I believe this question is based on a fundamental error. For example the sentence “You are the best teacher, who teaches most clearly, and whose lessons are always organized.” is written in the second person, even though the the verb “teaches” is clearly in the third person (you teach, he teaches), and even though “whose lessons” is also a third person phrase (not “your lessons”).
Similarly when we say “You are the most powerful…Who resucitates the dead… and Who keeps His promise…Who is like You…?” (translated somewhat freely) the sentance is in the second person even though it contains phrases like “Who keeps His promise” instead of “Who keep Your promise”. (Yes, I know that ?????? is not exactly translated as promise.)
In the first ???? also: “Blessed are You…Who brings a redeemer to their descendants for His Name’s sake.” Once you add that word “Who” the phrase following grammatically is correct using third-person terms.
OTB, when you will eat bread immediately afterwards, according to the opinion that you should not be mafsik with Asher Yatzar between the bracha Al Netilas Yadayim and eating.
The idea of having two (one “official”, one decorative) may cause issues of ??? ???? ?????? ???? i.e. it opens the possibility of double-claiming. One suggestion is to make the decorative one Posul e.g. having only 1 ?? sign it.
I am no ????? in the modern sense of the word (people to whom I like to refer as neo-Zionists). I am a Chareidi just like you. I just don’t like when people blindly feel a need to be “anti” to the point of sounding ludicrous.
Do I celebrate Yom Yerushalayim? No.
Do I think that it is proper to celebrate it? Not as a ??? ???.
Do I have a problem with people who celebrate it? Not any more than anyone who wants to celebrate a secular holiday. Unless of course they violate halacha (as it is generally understood by ??? ??????), such as saying ??? with a ????.
Do I think that what happened in 1967 was good for ??? ????? and a ??? from Hashem for which we have to thank Him? Absolutely!
You mentioned that we are still in ????. Of course you are right…I hate when ?????? refer to ??? ???? as ????, as if to say that Israel is not. You mentioned the disgrace that ???? still have unfettered access to ?? ????. That is true. But what does that have to do with thanking Hashem for other ????? he did?
As far as davening at the Kosel before 1948, that is true. They also had a ??? ????? before it was destroyed. What’s your point? When Hashem rebuilds the ??? ????? (may it be ????? ??????) will you wave it off, saying “no big deal, Hashem, we used to have one too” ??!! The fact is that after 1948 we were not able to, and if not for the ????? of 1967, we would not be able to daven there. Thank You Hashem for what happened in 1967!
And regard to the ??? of ??? ????? ???????? and rebuilding ?????? ???????, both are ???? in ????? ??????? and therefore only apply to areas which were within the wall of ??????? at the time of ??? ???. The vast majority of that is within the current Old City, and even the part that isn’t was for the most part inaccessible to yidden before 1967. (The only ???? in which areas of ??????? outside the walls of ??? ??? still have the same status as ??????? proper is Purim, which is ???? in being ???? ????? and not being “inside” it.)
Do you actually get multiple thousands of hits from unique IP addresses in the Coffee Room each day?
Shlishi, the reasoning in the teshuva actually implies that they would both be permitted, which is how I originally phrased my post. But I rephrased it when I realized that the Teshuva was written specifically in the case I mentioned. No implication was intended for the other case, nor can one be inferred from the teshuva.
So what are you celebrating exactly?
- Being able to daven at the Kosel
- Being able to live in Yerushalayim (a zchus so important that a husband may divorce his wife without a ????? if she doesn’t want to accompany him there)
- Being able to rebuild ?????? ???????, which, according to the ????, is a prerequisite for ???? to come
(to name a few)
You don’t have to be a Zionist, but sometimes the knee-jerk antagonism can make a person look somewhat foolish. Just because we are in Golus doesn’t mean nothing good can happen. Just because a “terrible disgrace” that has happened for thousands of years continues doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t celebrate the good.