Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
the Dead Eyes” that freaked out the OP’s sister were just unfocused eyes. Generally, when you are speaking to someone your eyes are focused on that persons face. Occasionally, when you might get momentarily distracted, you might loose let your eyes go to infinity focus so it looks like a dead stare. My wife gets on me for this once in a while.
Those of you who opine that the din is that a married woman’s hair may not be seen are wrong. the ikkar din is that a married woman’s hair must be covered. A woman’s hair is so obviously not an ervah that it doesn’t require hesber The hair covering is a siman that the woman is married. A married woman who goes about with her hair uncovered is a prutza because she is, in effect, masquerading as an unmarried, and therefore available, woman.
“I am with the parent who would not want the daughter to go out with a guy with such a minhag.”
That’s okay. I wouldn’t want to go out with her daughter either. But, frankly, I can’t imagine a date so bad that one would feel the need to blot out the memory of it, unless the date involved the police, thousands of dollars in damages, a wrecked car, Mexican drug runners, etc.
Having said that, however, there isn’t anything wrong with taking an occasional nightcap and you don’t even need an excuse for it.
Yehudayona, If Johnson hadn’t stolen Texas for Kennedy, Nixon WOULD have won. The 1960 election was crooked as a redneck smile.
One message could be, “learn how to change a tire”.
Charliehall, you are absolutely correct. Es iz, doch, a rayyah that current fashion should be the criterion for the din.
The issue is not Hotzah on Shabbos. When wristwatches were introduced in the late 19th century, they were intended for women. Men carried pocket watches which were obviously an issue on Shabbos. After WW1, when the utility of having a watch strapped to one’s wrist where it was instantly available rather than having to fish it out of a pocket, it became an article of men’s wear as well. Many Rabonim in Europe, including, apparently, R’ Kanievsky felt that a wristwatch was still an article of women’s adornment and , as such, was assur als lo yilbosh.
I think the following maaseh is relevent:
“The Orthodox professor Dr. Avraham S. Avraham mentions in his sefer Nishmas Avrohom the opinion of R. Sherira Gaon and Rabbi Avrohom, the son of Rambam, that the remedies that are mentioned in the gemara applied only in Talmudic times, and that nowadays, people should follow the medical advice of their present physicians.
R. Shlomo Zalman Auerbach wrote a letter with critical notes to Professor Avraham in which he stated that the aforementioned opinions are a minority view, but that according to halacha, if current medical wisdom runs counter to Talmudic remedies, one should use Talmudic medicines.
When Rabbi Yosef Yitzhak Lerner was in the process of publishing his work Shemiras Haguf Vehanefesh, he asked the Rosh Yeshiva for the sources on which he had based his opinion…. The Rosh Yeshiva replied that at the moment he was not able to recall the source…
(He later wrote a letter to R. Lerner citing the laws of the Shulchan Aruch that use Tamudic medicine as basis to permitting desecration of Shabbos for certain, presumably life-threatening disease)
R. Lerner wanted to publish this letter but someone advised him against it…”it is disrespectful to publicize a letter in which the Rosh Yeshiva admits that the does not recall something”…
As it turned out within only a few months R. Lerner received a letter from a Talmudic scholar indicating that the Rivash (447) explicitly disagrees with Rab Sherira Gaon and R. Avroham ben Harambam. A short time later another scholar remarked that Rashbo in Mishmeres Habayis 4:1 also disagrees with the two Rishonim.”
Reb Shlomo Zalman by Y. M. Stern, tr. A.Y Finkel, CIS Pulishers, 1996
Not a babysitter but if I were a teenage girl I would certainly ask that if you and your husband are coming home at different times, please try to avoid leaving me in a awkward yichud situation. Ishah ba’ir is not a p’tur.
Relativity does not have to be explained logically, it can be proved experimentally and has been. “Proving,” or disproving for that matter, the existence of G-d by logical argument is simply an intellectual exercise, not proof by scientific standards. We believe in G-d because of the testimony of eye witnesses. Vaya’ar Ysroel es hayad…vaya’aminu baHaShem…
Relativity does not have to be explained logically, it can be proved experimentally and has been. “Proving,” or disproving for that matter, the existence of G-d by logical argument is simply an intellectual exercise, not proof by scientific standards. We believe in G-d because of the testimony of eye witnesses. Vaya’ar Ysroel es hayad…vaya’aminu baHaShem…
I don’t think that this haftorah needs any hesber at all. The message is quite clear and poignant. If a visiting Rav came your shul for, say, shalosh seudos and delivered the haftorah as a shmues in the vernacular, you wouldn’t have any trouble getting the point. Sometimes we obfuscate the obvious by trying to explain it. Frankly, I have always thought that the Rashi afn ort identifying the atzamos yeveishos as the Bnai Ephraim who tried to leave Mitzraim on their own and got killed out for their presumption, actually detracted from the message of the nevuah.
Milk needs supervision for Pesach. When I was a kid we did not eat melchigs on Pesach.