Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
DY: R’ Moshe has 2 Chiddushim. He extends the concept of “Kiruv L’Arayos” to just talking (which he quotes from some earlier sources but is not so Pashut) and claims that all talking within the context of a friendship with the opposite gender is Derech Chibah.
Agav, I have no idea what the Heter for dating for marriage is. If talking can be Derech Chibah then certainly talking to a date after a few weeks (or K”V a fiance) is Derech Chibah. So either everyone is Over this Issur Chamur, or we assume that when the goal is marriage someday then we assume there is a different Toeles in these conversations and therefore they are not inherently a violation of Kiruv. So what’s the difference whether that Toeles is 6 months away or 3 years away?
DY: R’ Moshe says his assumption there, black on white. He thinks having a friend who is a girl is always inherently Derech Chibah because why else would you be friends with the girl instead of with boys. Depending on the community, that logic doesn’t always apply.
And, in many cases in these communities, couples from 9th and 10th grade end up getting married. They just aren’t ready for a few years yet.
DY: Every community is different. Every community has different types of interactions between different people. And yes, the Yetzer Hara is different depending on your lifestyle (e.g. the guy who went to public school has different Taavos than the Chassid who has never seen a woman before, just because of what they’re used to so things affect them differently). What this couple did is not abnormal in the Syrian (and Persian, honestly) communities and many do so while being entirely Shomer Mitzvos.
We can be Dan on that T’shuvah of R’ Moshe all day, but at the end it boils down to a psychological assumption that he makes (he says so explicitly). That assumption is probably not true in the communities under discussion here.
Rema: When ubiquitin said “can” he didn’t mean “Muttar”, he meant that it often happens.
And please, learn something before you call anything Darkei Ha’Emori. It needs some superstition involved to be Darkei HaEmori. There’s no superstition in watching athletic competition. Chukas Akum we can talk about. Certainly no Darchei Emori.
Ypsi: Actually, I think there’s a Gemara that says an Amora ate Pareve by Melava Malka.
DY: I have long been leery of those stats of OTD rates for several reasons, but it’s probably Mistaber if it’s true for the reason ZD said.
Rema: Without question that is Assur and a possible additional Issur of Lo Sa’asun Kein.
DQB: Are you sure? I thought the Aruch Hashulchan thinks that Shkia is the cut-off no matter what.
Lior: Shabbos 15b, give or take.
Lior: Yes, the M”B says to say the Parshas HaMan everyday in order to recognize that all Parnassah is from Hashem.
Lior: Many hold it’s Muttar to Daven Mincha after Shkiya, most notably the Rama.
Who says you’re allowed to touch the outside?
He’s alive and I’ll show him to you?
LF: It is possible to accomplish Hikon without getting a hat and jacket.
Lior: No. Post facto we can determine that in .01% or less of cases that not vaccinating would have been the right move. But unless we have something like a genetic test that shows a predisposition to a certain side effect popping up (and they’re working on inventing those), there is never a case where I can a priori know that not vaccinating is the right option or even close to a legitimate option.
the plumber: Your cause and effect are reversed. Yeshiva guys wear those clothes because that was what was considered respectable when those “old guys” were growing up. It’s nothing about what they’re “supposed to” wear.
I directed it at both of you.
ca: The “offending’ line was in reference to what yekke said.
I was literally about to post what OURTorah did.
Assuming climate change exists, that’s not how it works in the slightest.
I thought all of the Chumras by Starbucks were only because of how they wash the Keilim.
LF: Frankly, I find this thread despicable. You took the built-in assumption that some people care about Bein Adam L’Chaveiro more than Bein Adam L’Makom (and, let’s face it, we all know who “some people” are here) and therefore wanted to prove a point about their gut reactions. You wanted to show that there are disingenuous people who don’t care about Hashem and care about “being nice” more and that for some reason is a P’gam in their Yiddishkeit. It is uncalled-for and unnecessary.
Moreover, you are actually wrong. The rule by Bein Adam L’Makom is if there is no source to Assur, it’s not Assur. Hence, the gut reaction should be to ask someone who knows. On the other hand, there is a pretty famous Gemara (Shabbos 32a, quite possibly the most famous Gemara) that says that the gut reaction to Bein Adam L’Chaveiro should be to err on the side of not doing it.
yekke2 and ca: Nothing to do with offending people. It’s an important rule in Psak brought down from the Rishonim Shelo L’hotzi La’az. It is Assur to introduce Chumras in the area of Yuchsin. So we don’t present Shittos that go against the Psak outside of the context of learning the Sugyos. The internet is a context where they should never be brought up.
yekke: Klal Gadol. We don’t add Chumras that retroactively cause Mamzerus/non-Jewishness. And we certainly don’t bring them up in a public forum.
yekke: Wrong. It’s very clear. The fact that we can find Rishonim that held that the child needs Geirus does not change the fact that we Pasken, with no doubt about it whatsoever, that the mother being Jewish makes you Jewish. The other Shittos are not even ever used as a Snif L’hakel L’hatir Augnos. There is no controversy. There was a Machlokes Rishonim which has been clearly Paskened. End of discussion.
apushatayid: The Achiezer is clearly correct. He was just misinformed of the Metziyus, as everyone points out.
Here’s my problem. The time it takes to find and erase women from the pictures is much more a lack of Tznius than leaving tiny pictures of modestly-dressed women in.
I am going to say something very strong against all of those attacking with flatbusher: I don’t care how obvious you think the answer is, you NEVER attack someone for asking a Shailah or trying to learn. That is how one prevents actual learning of Torah. If you have a source, answer simply with a source. If you don’t, then maybe it’s not as cut-and-dried as you think. Everything in life is/can be a Shailah. Some just have obvious answers. So if you think this is an obvious answer, explain why. Attacking someone for asking a question is an anti-Torah attitude. Don’t do it. Ever.
Flatbusher: The simple answer to your basic question (why is there an assumption that men are obsessed with Arayos) is that there is a high enough chance that they are. Yes, not all men are immediately Over Issurim when they see a woman in any state of undress. But a significant enough number are. And keep in mind, “Over Issurim” here doesn’t mean have Bi’os Assuros (the notion that “men can’t control themselves” is a Christian idea that we don’t really believe in); it means Hirhurei Aveirah. And, generally, we don’t trust people to claim that they don’t have Hirhurei Aveirah in a situation that is liable to lead to it. Not because we think someone would be lying about it, but because they are probably lying to themselves about it. Moreover, even if it 100% doesn’t bother you, but it could very easily lead to a situation where someone else has the impression it’s okay. And there is no way to guarantee that every such person who gets that impression won’t be perfect in such a situation.
frumknotyeshivish: Come on. It’s pretty obvious what Darka Achrina is. It means another situation of more or less equal ease.
DY: “can I say no and then violate the entire ???? ?”??”
Is it bad if I think that the Rama says that the answer to this question is yes?
Bava Basra 57b.
I don’t know that it’s necessarily “Assur”. I do know that, unless there’s no other choice, you’re called a Rasha for doing it. Maybe if the only gym in town that you can afford is mixed then it would be Muttar (if one was perfectly sure they could avoid looking at the women there). But it’s certainly not a good idea.
Lior: That’s not quite Pshat in Ark’sa Dim’sana. Also, it has to either be L’ha’avir Al Das or Sha’as Hashmad.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with extremism. It’s only when it leads to violence that it’s a problem.
ca: Why aren’t they Kosher Eidim?
MDG: Meh. In these Inyanim (and certainly these that underwent much self-censorship) I see no reason to ask a Kashya on the Gemara from history. The point of it is far more important than the historical accuracy.
rob: It’s a B’feirush Rama in regards to Karaites. They are all assumed to be Jewish. Therefore, they can accomplish Kiddushin. However, their Gittin aren’t Kosher. So any “divorce” leads to Mamzerus.
R’ Ovadia discusses the reliability of the Radbaz with the 500-year-gap and the reasons for and against. See his T’shuvah.
Dash: That’s an excellent question. Obviously there were Halachic Tzdadim both ways. I don’t know whether that was an actual determining factor, but it is something that all the Poskim mention when they give the Psak that they’re not Jewish.
rob: The 500 intervening years is a long time. Also, that’s one Shittah in the Tannaim. We don’t hold that way. We hold that Safek Mamzerim can (and do) exist.
HaLeiVi: Right. That was the “or”. They didn’t die, so they don’t get mentioned here.
Dash: Your quote “And regarding the Mamzer issue there is a Chazakah that a Mamzer whose status is unknown will not pollute the gene pool so there is a limit on how far back research is required.” was a Chiddush that I had that I thought was against the Rama. R’ Schachter said it’s not a Kasha on the Rama. These people’s status are all known-they’re Safek Mamzerim.
nisht: It’s in Yabia Omer, Chelek 6 or 7, I think.
Presumably these are (potentially not-nice) nicknames, not actual names, so the famous ones might be in here. Or this could be assuming the famous “nonexistent” Rashi about those three.
Wow. So much to say here.
DY: As far as I know, R’ Soloveitchik gave no such Heter. R’ Schachter says he used to refer to a Rabbi who took a job in a Conservative Shul as a Mumar L’teiavon. Also, back in the day there would have been an actual Kaballas Ol Mitzvos by some. Not all, not many, but some.
Lior: The basic tenets of most of the Conservative movement were K’firah. There were people in JTS, however, who were clearly Frum, believing people. Most notably, for example, R’ Shaul Lieberman. He was undoubtedly Kosher and any Geirus under his auspices would be fine. The same is true of several of his Talmidim, who came through JTS totally Frum. They were rare, certainly, and by now are possibly nonexistent, but they did exist.
About Ethiopians: It is a massive Machlokes HaPoskim whether they are Jewish or need Geirus. In the end of the day, everyone seems to hold like R’ Ovadia that we treat them as full-fledged non-Jews until they convert. This isn’t because we don’t believe their history; rather, it’s because if we treated them as Jews (or even Safek Jews), the standard Psak would have to be that we would treat them all as Safek Mamzerim.
Aleph is certainly Jewish. Bet either needs a Geirus L’chumra or a real Geirus, depending on who the Conservative Rabbi was (it did exist that there were Frum Conservative people; now there might be none left but a few of the Rabbis from back in the day were).
Lior: Do you have any idea how easy it is to get an indictment? Something like .001% of cases brought before Grand Juries aren’t indicted. Basically, the only cases of non-indictments are when cops are accused of crimes.
Health: No. If they set up a system they are allowed to use whatever they want. That’s their Dinim. If we want to punish them for not having Dinim, it has to be a Kosher Jewish Beis Din, which means Smichah and a Kosher Eid.
I definitely had a post where I pointed out that LF was ZK.
Health: Kodem Matan Torah you didn’t need Smichah. So Shimon and Levi could themselves function as the Eidim and Dayanim that the city knew and allowed Shchem to get away with it.
You still need a Dayan, though, and to be Kasher for Dayanus you need Smichah. You still need a Kosher Eid (meaning a Jew, not a Goy). It’s a Misas Beis Din. There is just a more lenient requirement here for what constitutes a Beis Din and what constitutes testimony.
Constantinople.
Health: So you need Eidus and a Dayan (with Smichah). It’s still Misas Beis Din, just a lower definition of Beis Din.
But if you insist on a source that killing people is Assur, it says in Chumash “Lo Sirtzach” or, depending on how you Lein, “Lo Tirtzach”.
Health: You’re the one claiming there’s a Chiyuv to kill someone. I’m saying there’s an Issur. In normal circumstances, killing is an Issur. Hence, the burden of proof that it’s not Assur right now is one you.
owl: R’ Schachter and R’ Rosensweig quote it often. I could find links to it on YUTorah. But they say it wherever they discuss Kedushas Yisrael. I don’t know if it’s in print from The Rav.
DY: You’re right. I had forgotten. He was the source brought against the article on Kikar. But there was an article about which Chassidish groups in Meah Shearim (I think) close the Mikvaos and when, and it mentioned that some were closed all 4 nights so as not to upset nearby people with the different Minhagim.