Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PBA: I was curious about this today so I’ve been reading up on it. I can’t find a single bit of Apikorsus that Lieberman published.
Wolf: That was Logician’s point and it is a serious problem in many, many places.
Write or wrong: If it comes to the point (if it’s not there already) where you need to choose between your son and your community, I think it should be obvious which one you have to choose.
Ders: Do you have an actual reason to say that or you’ll just call anyone with any connecttion to JTS “Conservative” without actually looking at them? From what I saw on Wikipedia and a quick Google search, he was pretty Frum. And I find it hard to believe that everyone would use his Tosefta Kipshuta if he was actually Conservative.
Yitay: Read some of the stuff Avi Weiss and Dov Linzer have published and/or said recently. It’s very hard to call them Orthodox.
Knacke: It’s not an insult to Rashi to point out that according to some Poskim the Issur extends past just what the basic reasoning should apply it to.
Rebdoniel: I don’t know anything about Saul Lieberman so I can’t say anything, but everyone (not YCT) holds that YCT is not an Orthodox Yeshivah. Which, I think, is the point of this thread.
I haven’t either.
Avhaben: You missed the point of my post. I didn’t say that Israel would start following Halachah (Hal’vai). But that the government can say that they know that Halachah doesn’t mandate not fighting in the army.
Mod 20: Is that from the super powers thread? The ability to overrule the mods? Because I’d definitely love that one.
Health: You misunderstood my use of the word “Lishmah” here. I don’t mean that they can’t have Kavanah for the Mitzvah Lishmah. I mean that the Halachah is that making the Tzitzis requires making them L’sheim Mitzvas Tzitzis. Because of that Drashah, women are incapable (no matter what their Kavanos are) of creating this Lishmah and therefore they cannot, by definition, tie Kosher Tzitzis.
Avhaben: You make a good point, but the Israeli government could say back that they know Halachah as well and that the “conscientious objector” status is just made up as a form of protest against the government, because they know that Judaism believes in fighting a war when necessary.
Goq2: Are we related? We have the same last name!
PBA: Your comment in the other thread was entirely inappropriate and uncalled-for. That being said, I’m just as crazy as you are (impressive, right?).
HaLeiVi: Very recent. I once heard someone (not a rabid anti-Zionist either) claim that there is no such source pre-Zionism. It’s quite curious, actually.
A made-up word?
Write or wrong: Someone made a comment to me the other day. He told me how in certain places, OTD kids become a parody of what they are taught that OTD kids do. He told me he once had someone ask him, “How can you eat Chalav Stam but not do drugs?” By making every little point into a major sticking point, you reinforce the notion that just like a member of your community wouldn’t wear a colored shirt, so too they wouldn’t break Shabbos. Maybe you need him to realize that it’s possible to be a good, Frum, Halachah-observant Jew without meeting every stricture of your community. He clearly doesn’t want to be part of that community-at least, not right now. But maybe he will find a place where he is comfortable, and maybe that will involve wearing a colored shirt and keeping Shabbos. But when you make everything an equally major point, then Shabbos and Kashrus are much more likely to go out the window along with the white shirt than the white shirt staying together with Shabbos and Kashrus, etc.
Knacke: Some Poskim use that S’vara to be Mattir Begged Ish/Ishah in certain situations, but it’s clear that there’s much more to the Issur than just attempting to “get upto mischief”. For starters, things like plucking out white hairs or looking in a mirror wouldn’t be Begged Ishah if that was the case.
Apushata: I think she’s said before that she’s a girl.
NOMTW: I always thought that was an issue of Begged Ish from the first time I saw it. Every major Rov that I’ve mentioned the issue to has disagreed with me though. I still don’t understand why it isn’t Begged Ish though.
Ders: I’m waiting. Please quote me doing one of the two things you accused me of.
Health: I said that it shows they’re incapable of creating a Lishmah for making Tzitzis. That’s what the Drasha adds.
Apushatayid: Sure. Chareid El D’var Hashem.
Avhaben: Are you saying that Judaism is a pacifist religion? Because that’s just not true.
Zees: That is one of the sources for the Poskim who call it Beged Ish. Other Poskim disagree.
Ders: Your use of the Rambam to justify learning in Kollel is comical on its face. You should learn what the Rambam says about Kollel first.
Health: With all due respect, I think you’re making a nonexistent Chiluk between Tzitzis and other Mitzvos. I explained what that Hafka’ah meant earlier. There is no difference between Tzitzis and other Mitzvos Asei Shehazman G’rama by women.
Loyal Jew: Of course. Everyone should learn for a good period of time. But guys who are ready to get married should know where they’re holding in life. If they don’t, they’re probably not ready to get married either.
Logician: Honestly, that scene had one of the most powerful influences on me and remains an inspiration. The Avodah Zarah aspect aside, the call to “remember who you are” always stayed with me.
Logician: You don’t know who you are?
Loyal Jew: Ah, you got the Mareh Makom. Good. Most people don’t get what I mean when I reference that. It is a problem. Everyone has to recognize their own abilities. The boy who should be learning nonstop but instead does other things (even if they’re M’leches Shamayim) falls under the exact same category. Both are equally bad. That still is a far, far cry from what your post said. People have different Tafkids. As long as someone recognizes their purpose and fulfills it to the utmost, they are perfect in Hashem’s eyes. So why should they be looked down upon by you (and every girl who you would raise)?
Ders: That’s the second time here you’ve implied something very not nice about supposed Halachic positions of mine. I asked you last time to provide an example and you ignored it. So please, can you give an example of a “really Shvach MO position that goes way out of the mainstream” of mine? Maybe you misunderstood something I said. Or can you provide an example of me reinterpreting (implying misinterpreting) Halachos so that they’re nicer to women, which is what you accused me of in the other thread?
Loyal Jew: Chagigah 5b
I’m surprised no one here has claimed 100% yet.
Derz: The Olam accepted certain P’sakim in those regards. Are you honestly saying that that is what they were Somech on here? Isn’t it possible that people were Over what they felt was a “minor Issur” here and that, at best, we have some weak Limudei Z’chus?
Health: I don’t understand your point in #1. All woman are equally Mufka from all Mitzvos Asei Shehazman G’rama. And in #3 it’s fair to say that we don’t Pasken by Shittos that we don’t Pasken by. If we don’t Pasken by it then there is no separate Chiyuv to be Choshesh for it. A Machlokes only creates a Safek if the Rov or Posek being asked can’t prove which way to Pasken. If he can, then we have a P’sak and there’s no reason for him or his followers not to hold like it.
Three friends who know each other and decide to back up each other’s posts are trolling just as hard as one person masquerading as three. There’s no difference.
Apushata: I don’t know. Rav Schachter might let them assume he’s wrong for dairy Hechsherim. He definitely wouldn’t eat them himself though.
Patri: What does that have to do with this discussion?
Computer: You missed her point, apparently.
PBA: Eh. Even we hold (maybe) that anyone can go up to the Duchan if they want. I feel like that’s a Gemara somewhere.
PBA: B’shulei Hamichtav:
We know that a Kinyan Kaspo can eat T’rumah. However, Kinyan Kaspo is clearly an outdated concept as no one can morally claim an ability to own slaves nowadays. However, we cannot take away the right from those who were once able to eat T’rumah. Therefore, anyone who was ever a slave to a Kohen can eat T’rumah even after he or she has been freed. And since a person must feed his kids, they pass the ability to eat T’rumah to their descendants. Also, since slavery is a deplorable act which the Torah could never actually endorse, we must state that anyone who was ever a slave is retroactively freed. Thus, if anyone can prove that an ancestor of theirs (by patrilineal descent for a man and matrilineal descent for a woman) was once owned by a Kohen, he or she may eat T’rumah as well.
Mermaid: Nope. Habo’el Aramis Kana’in Pog’in Bo. That’s it. Not an Eishes Ish or any other Arayos.
Health: I think you’re making an unfair judgment about someone you’ve never met, but it is probably a true judgment to make of most women who would wear Tzitzis out.
#1: I don’t think so. B’nei Yisrael V’lo B’nos Yisrael doesn’t create an Issur. It’s explaining who the Chiyuv is on. And since women aren’t Mechuyav in Tzitzis, they are not capable in creating a Lishmah for making the Tzitzis. That doesn’t mean they aren’t M’kayim a Mitzvah K’einah Metuvah V’osah if they do it though.
#2: You’re right. According to the Mishnah B’rurah, nowadays when everyone (especially women) are much more Makpid on hygiene there is no reason to be Mocheh a woman who wears Tefillin L’Sheim Mitzvah (according to my M’halach that I got from my Rebbe’im, however, there still would be).
#3: A Machlokes Haposkim doesn’t inherently create a Safek. It could just be that her Rov Paskens like those who hold that it’s not Begged Ish.
Shmoel: Did the SH”A Pasken like the Rambam? I thought he didn’t say anything on this issue. R’ Schachter quoted that R’ Soloveitchik had a list of Rishonim who argues on the Rambam in this. (The irony is that R’ Soloveitchik often Paskened like the Rambam when he was a Da’as Yochid and R’ Moshe disagreed with him on it; in this case the positions are reversed.)
Shmoel: Yitay has a major Posek behind him. There is definitely no Issur of Begged Ishah by a ring (and a wedding ring in particular) since many men wear them nowadays. And Yosef Hatzadik and Mordechai would disagree with your claim that Jewish men never wore . Also, see M”B 161:19 where it’s almost B’feirush that men wear rings.
Zees and Oomis: No, murder B’meizid gets Misas Beis Din. There is a Machlokes Tannaim whether the Go’el Hadam killing the Rotzeach is a R’shus or a Chiyuv.
Akuperma: You are wrong on three counts.
1. Giluy Arayos can happen anytime, though any Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor case is incredibly rare nowadays. In face, nowadays Giluy Arayos cases are probably the most common cases of Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor, though I won’t explain why.
2. A”Z is always Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor, whether in public or in private. There is no distinction. The way you said it makes it sounds like there is potential room for the Halachah to be different in private. There isn’t.
3. Performing an abortion would not be Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor according to almost all of the major Poskim aside from R’ Moshe.
I seriously considered it. This could be much, much worse or it could be better. It depends on how the promise and the intentions were worded.
MZ: I think I read that Hilula D’Rashbi really only became a popular thing a few hundred years ago.
Apushta: R’ Schachter uses a similar S’vara to say that married men should wear wedding rings in the workplace (but only in the workplace). Because then most (or at least more than otherwise) of the women there will leave you alone.
Thank you HaLeiVi. To be precise, you are not allowed to kill someone else to avoid violating one of the “Big 3” yourself.