Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY: I’m assuming the Mishnah is telling us which Tzlamim are Ne’evad, as opposed to those that were just there to look nice (e.g. Aphrodite). The Braisa is telling us that there were certain things that the early Tannaim thought weren’t Ne’evad (either because they actually weren’t or because the Tannaim didn’t view the service of all of these “lesser” gods as actual Avodah Zarah) and then the “Hosifu Aleihem” discovered/decided that these were also Avodah Zarahs.
DY: He made a mistake. He admitted such to me years later when I explained the Gemara to him.
And that line in the Gemara is irrelevant. That’s discussing Shitas R’ Meir. The Chachamim aren’t Choshesh for the Miut and therefore holds that only those that are Vadai Ne’evad are Assur.
DY: That’s what the Gemara says? I thought the Mishnah was telling us which ones we can/have to assume were worshiped.
DY: And that’s why I say I’m conflicted. I mean, it could be it’s all irrelevant. Because there were no other idols at the entrances to major cities holding balls, which is kind of the point.
The problem is, I find it inconceivable to assign a general symbolism to holding a ball because, well, it’s kinda foolish. We find a random statue and we know what the symbolism behind it is? How do we know this? If we know this because we know what the Ovdei Avodah Zarah mean/believe in, then there’s no reason that we nowadays don’t know the same things. And if we know this because that’s just a general assumption we’re making, then what makes it right? Hilchos Avodah Zarah aren’t Talui in theoretical rules or Klalim. It’s a simple question: is/was this worshiped or not? So it seems foolish for us to give Klalim when such Klalim are irrelevant. If there’s a figure holding a ball that isn’t worshiped (I remember my Rebbe who once, based on your assumptions, thought that our high school basketball trophies were Avodah Zarah because it holds a ball), then it’s not Avodah Zarah. Now, maybe because of Atlas Chazal decided to be Choshesh for all ball-holding statues. But again, the Gemara tells us that it’s because this was what we can assume was worshiped. Why are we assuming something was worshiped unless, you know, it was actually worshiped?
I do not see any real or meaningful difference between the Agudah and OU statements. Both seemed to say the same thing. We don’t believe this is right, we can’t impose on others, and we want to make sure this won’t directly stop our religious beliefs.
ca: It can say that discrimination is illegal and that refusing to marry someone for only these reasons is unlawful discrimination. See, for example, the case in Oregon where a bakery (flower shop?) lost a $100K+ lawsuit for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Could someone link (or cut-and-paste) the Agudah statement?
mik5: Any time between 30 days and forever.
DY: Let me lay out my thought process, and you tell me where you disagree.
GIVENS:
1) The Mishnah is referring to actual Avodah Zarah that was worshiped.
Assumptions:
1) The Gemara says it was found at the entrance to every large city, therefore they were common idols.
2) There are common idols that were found at the entrance to major cities that are very similar to what the Mishnah says, as the historical record shows.
2a) We have excellent records of what the Greeks/Romans worshiped and where they kept their idols, so we know what their major gods were and what the idols looked like, including actual remains of actual Shekatzim.
3) The Lashon in the Gemara is too perfect to not be referring to Atlas (look at an idol of Atlas and the Lashon of the Gemara, SheRodeh Es Atzmo…)
4) It is illogical for the Mishnah to be referring to idols that were not as common as idols that were, you know, actually there.
So where do you think I went wrong?
ca: Religious groups don’t have a right to violate the law. e.g. you can’t claim religious exemptions in order to practice polygamy, etc.
edited
DY: I do not think it’s considered “twisting” the Gemara to actually, you know, figure out what the Gemara is talking about. If you never look in a kitchen, you won’t understand Yoreh Deah. If you don’t know what the inside of an animal looks like, you can’t learn Triefos. And if you don’t know what they worshiped, how can you understand Maseches Avodah Zarah?
DY: Other way around. The plain meaning of Chazal is clearly Atlas. The Gemara tells us that you can assume these idols were worshipped (at least once a year) because they were common idols and they were found at the entrance to major cities (in the Greco-Roman empire). So either the Mishnah is referring to something random (some idols we’ve never heard of) or to the idols that we know were worshipped and were found on major highways and at the entrances to cities? I’m much, much more inclined to say that the Pashtus is the latter, even if that’s not how the simple meaning of the words sound. (And the Baraisa that adds several things can all also be attached to major Greek gods.)
(By the way, after our earlier discussion on this, I had an idea. I showed a major Posek a picture of a statue of Zeus (without telling him this was Zeus) and asked if it was Avodah Zarah. He said no, because the bird depicted with him was at his feet, not in his hand. Now, again, I don’t know how comfortable I am saying that when the Mishnah uses the word “BeYado” it’s Lav Davka, becaue Zeus is almost always depicted with a bird, though the bird is rarely actually in his hand. I do know, however, that a statue of Zeus is without question Avodah Zarah and that I have a very hard time believing that a reading of the Gemara that tells you Zeus isn’t Avodah Zarah is correct.)
mik5: The idea that long hair can be Chotzetz Bifnei Tefilin is a minority opinion and a very diffeicult one to understand, as evidenced by a Nazir.
Why are you assuming that a game is Assue if the score is normally kept by writing?
The OU released a very nice letter on this, I think. I think it represents the Frum position well.
DY: I never said Chazal got something wrong in the Mishnah. I said Pshat in the Mishnah might (I said might, I said I was very conflicted by it) not be like Rashi.
DY: Lol. You don’t even know if/that I went to college. You make a strong assumption here. And no, I have never twisted anything based on not liking what is said. I’ll try to find it, but I’d be willing to wager that the Rambam somewhere cites this starts thing from Aristotle, at the very least implicitly. I’ll have to read through the Moreh and the astronomy Teshuvah again, to be sure.
And I think you’re conflating willingness (albeit extremely reluctantly) to dismiss Rishonim and Achronim if they make it clear they’re basing themselves off incorrect information with “twisting the Torah”. Find me a place where I change what Chumash or Chazal say based on secular knowledge. You can’t. Because it’s not something I do. Rishonim, probably. Chazal? Never.
DY: I never said that we should understand the Torah in light of secular sources. Sort of. I mean, there are times where secular sources can shed light on the Torah. Especially in this case, where the Rambam himself tells us that that he quotes Aristotle on these issues. (Or the Gemara in Avodah Zarah, which I assume you’re also referring to, which again explicitly tells us it’s referring to what was standard worship in those days. Hence, sources from those times on what was worshipped can add insight to the Gemara.)
DY: That’s not a Hashkafa. Also, see my explanation. I don’t know what’s so wrong with what I said.
mik5: That doesn’t make sense. The hand-washing thing from places that are normally covered are not directly because they’re normally-covered. It’s because the parts that are normally covered are those that are sweatier because they’re where two different parts of skin meet (Zevachim 18bish).
Feivel: There is no need for the snark. The Rambam himself says that he quotes Aristotle. This part of the nature of the stars is a basis of Aristotelean metaphysics. It’s not a stretch to think he’s quoting Aristotle here. It’s the simplest explanation for this concept.
Now, the Rambam did not quote those things from Aristotle that he knew went against his tradition. The Rambam was certainly not an atheist, after all. However, he did think that Aristotle got most things right, include almost all of his theories on physics and metaphysics. So when the Rambam quotes an idea that is a direct Aristotelean idea, why not assume it comes from Aristotle? Yes, he thought it doesn’t go against the Torah, and that matters a lot. But it doesn’t mean that Aristotle isn’t the Makor (of course, Aristotle being the Makor in no way makes it wrong, either). And it also explains why the concept wasn’t quoted by other Rishonim. The Rishonim, in very large part, kinda just ignore the ideas in the Rambam that came from Artistotle.
Yesodei HaTorah ch 3 or so. Pashtus is he’s directly quoting Aristotle and that’s why this concept isn’t quoted by almost all other Rishonim.
DY: Oh, please elaborate on my erroneous Hashkafos. I’ve been waiting for years to hear this 🙂
Wolf: There are many Achronim (especially more Lomdish ones) who read the Rishonim like that. That the Ikkar of Tosefes Shabbos is just for Issur Melacha, not anything else.
mik5: It’s a Machlokes HaPoskim. There are Tzdadim both ways. And the Shmiras Shabbos does not always agree with R’ Shlomo Zalman, though the disagreements are very rare.
And what am I, DY?
ABS: What, you’ve never said, “Rashi says”?
#1 is an Arizal, I believe. And yes, the Lubavitcher Rebbe was very much a Posek. He may not have been R’ Moshe, but he Paskened thousands of Shailos weekly, if not daily. He was a Gaon BaTorah, just read his Seforim.
Joseph: See Tzitz Eliezer 18:3 (maybe 18:2, somewhere around there) and who he quotes. Not everyone holds “L’hachayos” means saving lives.
newbee: The Gemara doesn’t say it’s because of Talmud Torah. It says it’s about Chiyuv in Mitzvos.
Joseph: It is not at all clear that that’s actually referring to physically saving lives. It’s a big Machlokes Achronim.
DY: False. I would not call this Chukas Akum if it was a Chassidish thing.
mik5: Presumably someone made sure the dishes tasted normal/good. Why is every Bachur in a Yeshivah obligated/allowed to taste the food?
mik5: The Gemara says clearly that no one sees the Malach HaMaves.
DY: No because this is only D’rabannan so PRDLN”L on a D’rabannan will be okay according to everyone, no?
DY: No. No Licha Lei only comes into play if it’s a Psik Reisha. This is going to be Muttar as a Psik Reisha D’lo Nicha Lei. If it’s not a Psik Reisha there’s no question that it’s Muttar.
DY: In this world of thousands of Yeshivos, there are many money-based Hashkafos. Or power-based.
Aino Miskaven V’lo Nicha Lei
DY: I think that when people put these pictures up, it’s just to share the Simcha. I don’t think there’s anything nefarious going on.
Dvash: You do know that it’s a Christian Pshat that it was an apple, right?
Mammele: No offense, but if people are ogling women online they’re not doing it by looking at wedding pictures.
DY: While I’ll agree with that, why are they in any untznius picture in the first place? If it’s not okay to be photographed, it’s not okay to be seen.
mazal77: I cannot use a photograph of you for financial gain without your permission. I can take it, though.
This gets to a much deeper issue, though. That being, what are the Halachic rights to privacy in the public sphere? And is a wedding a public sphere? I don’t have answers to these off the top of my head. Lich’ora, there is no right to privacy in public. That being said, Lashon Hara is always an issue. Of course, it’s hard to see what Lashon Hara there is in someone getting married. And if it’s considered not normal to not want people to know you got married (I said if, I have no idea if it is), I don’t think someone has a right to claim they feel uncomfortable by it. I don’t know what is considered normal by posting a wedding picture either.
I do not think it’s true that people have the right to their own pictures. A picture of yourself isn’t you. I have the right to take a picture of what I see. If what I see is you, I can take a picture.
Joseph: Have you ever read that book? If half of the stories in it are good it does not mean good things for the Rebbe or for Yiddiskeit in general. I don’t believe a word in that book. It’s not a good source to quote.
Mammele: If it’s not Tznius, it’s not Tznius. We don’t have non-Jews sing or dance or parade around undressed for us. Nor do we have them do such things for women. If this is a non-Tznius activity, then why are we allowed to let a non-Jew do it for us?
R’ Wolf: I agree. I’m not one to argue on AriZals, but in Nigleh such things are not Nitan L’Hei’Amer.
Wait, so if it’s not Tznius for women to drive why are we allowed to utilize non-Jewish women drivers?
A jew who cares: I hope you agree that not every Shul or community Rav has a right to Pasken on life-and-death or Klal Yisrael policy issues.
MDG: I made that same argument in my deleted comment. The problem is that that logic only holds up when the Psak is valid.
a jew who cares: I trust my community Rov. And I also trust him to know that he’s not the Posek HaDor and doesn’t have a right to Pasken certain things.
KCR: There are two Nuschaos of Hataras Nedarim. One says Afilu, one says Chutz. Depending on which year your Artscroll Siddur is, it could have either one.
MDG: Ah, and what about the Belz women who believe in their religion but feel the driving ban is patriarchal oppression? (I know secondhand of two individuals.)