Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Daniell: Elisha Ben Avuya, not R’ Elazar. And the Gemara gives several reasons why he went off. And it’s not clear that “Zimra Yevanis” means just Stam non-Jewish music. It presumably means Kefirah-dik music.
Avi K: That story is false. R’ Ovadiah knew what she looked like and still listened. He obviously considered it Muttar anyway.
Syag: Let me give you a Mashal. The Titanic is sinking. Those on board have determined that the men have a responsibility to protect the woman and children and therefore those should get on the available life rafts. That decision may or may not be K’negged the Halachah. But assuming it is, is that decision evil?
Joseph: You mean the actual Halachah?
Syag: I’m sorry that I disappoint you, but I note that you didn’t answer my question. What makes it evil?
Zev7: But what if the Litvaks hold that there isn’t real substance in the Chassidish Mehalach? There are many Christians who feel very close to God, but we don’t teach Christianity as a viable alternative. If they hold there are inherent major flaws in Chassidus, why on earth would they teach it?
Joseph: It might be wrong, but it’s not inherently evil. No one is arguing to kill older people to save younger ones. Just that if they have to choose who to save, choose the younger one. That might also be wrong (or it might not), but it’s tough to call it evil. How else would you decide?
Syag: I’m confused. What’s wrong with that statement? I know why we, as Frum Jews, don’t care about that fact. But the fact is true and if you don’t have the basic Halachic principles that we do, why is it immoral to remove the person in the permanent vegetative state to make room for someone who can get better?
DY: I agree with the concept that anti-God movements are bad. I disagree with his application ascribing medical practices to these anti-God beliefs.
akuperma: It doesn’t. It’s still Assur.
DY: I certainly don’t think I was disrespectful. Maybe ubiquitin was but I don’t think so either. When you make a strong statement, expect a strong response.
Well there’s a Cherem on it. And a Bittul Bein Adam L’Chaveiro towards the first wife.
Let me just point out the debate tactic that newbee just took.
Step 1: Make an assertion.
Step 2: Expand on that assertion and refuse to discuss claims made against said assertion.
Step 3: Continue to bait people by throwing insults then acting defensive and *still* never discussing claims.
Step 4: Call opponents fascists and use their passion to prove the point that they are wrong (somehow).
Step 5: /drops mic
DY: Not valueless. You have two things of infinite value. How do you choose? It’s not evil to say choose the utilitarian one when there is literally no other way to decide.
DY: If there’s anyone on this thread being Over on Onaas Devarim, it’s the one calling people gluttonous.
DY and newbee: No. “Halachic” and “Mesorah” dinners are common terms in certain communities. They mean dinners in which Halachos relevant to foods are discussed. Foods for these need to be more exotic because everyone knows relevant Halachos to everyday food. You guys (newbee much more than DY) are willfully misinterpreting the phrase and using that misinterpretation to claim that people are going counter to Halachic values while claiming to endorse them.
LF: Meh. Who told you it was Muttar for anyone to ever sing? 😛
feivel: You do know that most of this country still believes in God, right? And that there are a heck of a lot of Christian hospitals out there. Non-Jews are not obligated to know Halachah. If they view intravenous nourishment as medicine and not food, why is that evil? We might hold it’s wrong, but what makes it evil?
newbee: 2) this dinner was named a halachic dinner- which implies it is a dinner related to Torah values.
No, it implies it’s related to Halachah. Most (maybe all) of the foods on the menu have some sort of Sugya related to them. Maybe that’s why it’s called a Halachic dinner.
DY: You’re being absurd. If your Rav was part of a minority who hold something is Assur, how would you react if I told you that you shouldn’t listen to your Rav because you know he’s outvoted? You’re doing the same thing.
I think the switch is an Issur D’Oraisa, personally. But you can’t tell me that there aren’t any Poskim who are Mattir it. There are, including several prominent Sephardi ones. So if her Rav holds like the Mekilim, who are you to tell her to ignore them?
In my experience, those whose Emunah is based on stupidities are generally steadfast and refuse to accept reality when it conflicts with what they think they believe.
LF: Yeah, and those who go too far in celebrating their world series victories go to jail. Being enthusiastic does not permit being rude or inconsiderate. If you’re keeping the neighbors awake, Yatzah Scharcha B’hefsedcha.
Everyone should just say back “remove the wood beam from your brain” (extrapolation of a Gemara).
Mods: Who deleted my post? I was quoting a Gemara.
Please make it clearer. IT comes across as needlessly insulting.
Joseph: No one “made it up”. If you’re reading the Mishnah Kipshuto and don’t have any context that’s what you’d imagine. If you know the context, though, it’s obvious.
DY: Do you have any idea the amount of information we do have? It’s a ton. And the Lashon of the Gemara is just too perfect for it not to mean Atlas. There are times where we don’t have historical evidence like or against a Mishnah. This really isn’t one of them.
PBA: I agree the Mishnah says it exists. Just not a person with a ball in his hand like most explain.
HaLeiVi: The Christians in France did a good job of wiping out any minor vestiges of those Avodah Zarahs (the Romans had a very tough time in Gaul) so Rashi didn’t really see much of their Tzlamim.
DY: No. I’m assuming that we have a lot of evidence and the total lack thereof shows that even if it existed, it was incredibly minor. We know what they worshipped. There are books and records. We know their gods. We know how they were depicted. None were depicted holding a ball, not even Athena (who sometimes holds an orb in later literature). Why would the Mishnah be talking about a minor-at-best-but-not-accepted-by-anyone idol when Atlas is the common and obvious way to fit?
DY: It is nonexistent. The Greco-Roman Avodah Zarahs are pretty well-preserved. We know what we’re seeing. As far as I could find (and I researched this when I learned this Gemara) there is no idol of something holding a ball. At all. So either Chazal were making up a concept of an idol that didn’t exist (because why would we assume that any ball represents the world unless, you know, we know the case of a ball that actually does represent the world) or they were talking about an actual idol.
Joseph: That’s nice. Again, if you say like the Rishonim Chazal don’t make any sense. Ruach HaKodesh does not mean infallible.
DY: All of the Kashrus organizations, even Heimish ones, give a Hechsher. That’s why it was half tongue-in-cheek.
akuperma: Real veal (and at a meal this fancy it will be real veal) is made from specially-fattened calf that have only ever been fed Tarfus, which is Assur to eat according to the Rama.
PBA: A fish that picked up scales floating in the water is not Kosher. The Poskim talk about how to distinguish.
DY: This has always been an issue that troubled me. I know what the Meforshim (all quoting Rashi, really) say. However, they never saw such a statue.
It seems inconceivable (and honestly, a bit insulting) to me to have the Tannaim talking about a theoretical yet nonexistent statue when there was a statue that meets the Gemara’s Lashon perfectly that would have been in just about every city. Almost all of Maseches Avodah Zarah is in context of what the Goyim did. Why on earth would they not be referring to Zeus (who is almost always depicted with a staff and a bird) and Atlas? It seems foolish to make the Mishnah talking about the theoretical when the practical is obvious and right there. Rashi was unaware of what their idols looked like. We are aware and it fits the Gemara perfectly.
HaLeiVi: It was a Machlokes among the philosopher’s. Round earth began to spread after Aristotle “Paskened” that way. But most before him held it was like a disc in the ocean.
akuperma: Wrong. That’s not what veal is. And according to the Rama there is no way for veal to be Kosher.
DY: Many major Poskim, including R’ Schachter (who will end up being the Posek for this community), hold that we can rely on the Teimani Mesorah.
nisht: Swordfish has absolutely nothing to do with this, nor the concept. There is no one who holds you need a Mesorah on fish. Just find a scale and eat. Swordfish is a discussion because of the nature of their scales, nothing else.
L’ma’aseh, we only need a Mesorah on birds, not animals, because all Kosher animals will cross-breed which trumps the lack of a Mesorah. They have yet to find an animal with the Simanim that can’t cross-breed and create viable offspring with another Kosher animal as far as I know. (Also, far more Rishonim hold you need a Mesorah by birds than animals.)
Turkeys are a fascinating Shailah and historical case. If they’re Muttar, it’s not because they’re related to chickens. It’s because the Simanim are identical. (Though if one reads the Gemara and the Rambam they should be Assur for everyone; even Sefardim agree you need a Mesorah on new-world birds.)
ca: Some wonder about that, actually. I don’t think anyone doesn’t say it but it’s discussed by the DL Poskim.
I’m confused: If it’s Kosher how is there veal there?
(tongue-half-in-cheek warning)
DY: Sure. Because they are similar to representations of a common idol-i.e. Atlas.
We’re playing tennis?
Rebbe Yid: This is a troll thread. My first statement was clearly a joke.
The Mishnah is clearly referring to Atlas, who is always holding a ball. But the ball he is holding is the Aristotelean “Heavenly sphere” the makes up the entirety of the cosmos, not just the planet Earth. That is what is referred to in the Mishnah and the first statement in the Yerushalmi. The second statement, about Alexander, is referring to Earth, with the Yam as a plate holding this planet.
Yeah. Pashtus in Tosfos is that he doesn’t mean a sphere. He means a raised bump surrounded by an infinite ocean.
DY: lol. I meant the next Olam K’kadur. And I forgot the V’es so it’s the next three words. Still, my point stands.
Rebbe Yid: That is an excellent way to quote half a sentence from a Yerushalmi and make it imply the exact opposite of its Pashut Pshat. Please, tell me, what are the next two words?
It depends. If the purpose is to waste time, yes. If it’s to be able to get a job and support yourself someday, no.
akuperma: False. It was a Machlokes among the Greek/Roman philosophers and the Catholic Church Paskened like the Man D’amar that it was flat. General consensus of the Hamon Am during the dark ages was a flat world. (Or, more accurately, a slightly raised bubble of land rising out of either infinite ocean or nothingness at the edge of the ocean. In fact, there are some who read a Yerushalmi like that Deah.) Pashtus is there are some Rishonim who thought like this general consensus. Don’t insult their intelligence by trying to tell us that “everyone knew it was round”.
Matan: Only if you’re on the equator.
PBA: What do you mean? It’s Kefirah to say the world is round.
If you live in Panama you do.
Joseph: Also, that’s not true. The Mezonos money is never actually forced to be paid unless he is ruled a Mesarev.
R’ Wolbe’s comments are in a context that there was at one point a major potential rift in many marriages that the girls felt that even though the boys spent all day learning in Yeshivah that the girls knew more because they knew Halachos Pesukos while the boys learned Lomdus. R’ Wolbe wasn’t making a statement in Metzius. He was telling girls not to think their husbands are Amaratzim even though it sometimes feels like they know more than their husbands.
Joseph: As I said years ago, that’s an absurd argument. If I find a group of Reshaim who get up and start being Mattir Issurim in the name of being “Yeshivish”, that doesn’t mean that Yeshivish people all accept these Issurim. Yes I’m making a “no true Scotsman” argument, but it’s a true one. You will not find any major (or minor) Frum “MO” Rabbi who allows this.
Can we stop this dumb line that “MO” is self-identifying while “Chareidi” isn’t? Look through the T’shuvos of R’ Shternbuch, the Minchas Yitzchak, the Tzitz Eliezer, R’ Ovadia, and R’ Elyashiv. The word “Chareidi” shows up a lot.
Yeah, the one in Pesachim is it.
Joseph: Why? There have been genius women in history capable of publishing Chiddushei Torah, certainly on the level of Yeshivah Bochurim. Why can’t that story be true?