Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I wanted to know what he meant by pushing off Monday.
A major reason not to wear Tefilin on Chol Hamoed is the Zohar.
HaLeiVi: What do you mean?
There are different Minhagim. The prevalent custom is to respect others’ Minhagim, meaning to attend another person’s wedding who has a different Minhag than you (but not to shave for it).
See Igros Moshe OC 1:167 (I think, maybe 157)
rebyidd: That’s good for most breeds, but it’s hard to claim that a pit bull or a mostly-wolf husky (huskie?) is a domestic dog. In fact, the experts say that these breeds aren’t domesticable.
DY: Nah. Even Satmar holds that it’s next Tuesday.
LF: I’ve always wondered what the break of dawn looks like in Alaska.
In Eretz Yisrael it’s next Tuesday. In America, everyone holds it’s next Tuesday except for R’ Schachter who holds it’s next Monday.
HaLeiVi: According to the M”B petting is a problem. Many are Meikel though, especially for dogowners (that was the P’sak in my community growing up; I couldn’t touch my friends’ dogs but they could touch their own).
renters: No. Everything is in context. If they met with him to plead for mercy on behalf of Iranian Jews it wouldn’t upset people. It’s them going to him to tell the world, “See, we hate Israel just like this Holocaust-denying anti-Semite” that gives people major pause.
DY: It’s okay. Apparently LF can’t count either so it’s a perfect match.
I.M. Shluffin: There’s a Chochmas Adam who thinks there’s an Issur of Chukas Akum to own 2 dogs (he says that having 1 can be good though as it helps teach you to be responsible).
Also, the Gemara is quite clear that it’s Assur to own a vicious dog because it’s Damim B’veisecha.
renters (Joseph): I’m not saying these are direct causes. Or that no bad things would happen to Jews without them. But yes, a world with an atmosphere more sympathetic to anti-Semites and terrorists is one that is more dangerous for a Jew to live in. (And yes, the average American thinks Kansas City was an awful thing; but if fewer people thought it was proper then there would be fewer attacks like that.)
mw13: Giving legitimacy to haters of Jews by letting them say, “see, even your own members think you’re evil” helps bolster anti-Semites’ claims and attitudes, which leads to more people having the confidence and willingness to do things like Kansas City.
Also, it gives more ammo to people who hate the State of Israel, which can lead to more public opinion against Israel which makes it easier for the UN to pass resolutions against Israel. Which, whether you think the State is a good thing or a horrible evil, does endanger Jewish lives.
yekke2: THIS IS ME YELLING AT YOU!!!!!!!!
mw13: To answer your question without getting too political, there are two basic differences.
The first is that people meeting with people like Ahmedinejad and supporting the worst of anti-Semites is, without exaggeration, endangering Jewish lives.
The second (and much more important) is that no one would ever view the unaffiliated or completely secular Jew as legitimate. No one thinks that they are doing something acceptable in Judaism. It is precisely because the Niturei Karta are Makpid on things like Shabbos, Kashrus, and more that there is this danger. People feel the need to separate themselves from the close but illegitimate neighbors. If you talk to them about things other than Zionism and supporting Anti-Semites, the Niturei Karta would be indistinguishable from this Chareidi author. Therefore, the Chareidi feels the need to show, in no uncertain terms, that this person’s path in Judaism is entirely illegitimate. (It is very, very similar to the YU/Centrist community’s reaction to Open Orthodoxy, which is also much stronger than their attitudes towards other not-Frum people.)
hanz: What’s wrong with saying Or HaChaim without adding HaKadosh?
Frankly, the fact that we assume that talking in Shul caused Tach V’tat should do a ton more than any of these stories about cancer.
LF: I’m not familiar with the ad in question, so I can’t comment directly. I’m not going to make judgment calls on other people’s sensitivities, but if it was up to me I would guess that a girl in a short-sleeve short or shorts in a tiny 4 square-inch ad isn’t going to ruin anyone’s Ruchnius and could bring people to Yiddishkeit.
The reason even Frum Kiruv places are willing to show not-Tznius girls is because they want to give accurate representations of what their programs are. First of all, it’s more honest. And secondly, they don’t want people who wear short sleeves or whatever to feel uncomfortable going on the program.
That being said, people should be smart about ads. Most people using this site are quite Frum and would probably be more sensitive to such things than the average Birthright person. So YWN is probably not the place for such an ad, because the ratio of people who are offended to those who would be interested is probably very, very high. So while I could hear the claim that the ad in general is worth it, putting it on YWN probably isn’t.
I edited Little Froggie’s post, but he described the ad as worse than short sleeves. -100
Bimchilas K’vodo to R’ Wosner, who is far above any criticism I can ever give, statements like this (especially specific statements) end up hurting people who it affects. There are ways to encourage not talking during Davening without making promises like this. Because, unless R’ Wosner is saying that he had a Nevua guaranteeing this (which I would believe if he claimed), how can he say this with absolute certainty?
LF: Do you have any idea how many people who have zero connection to Yiddishkeit learn something and come closer to being Frum because of Birthright?
Meh. Who really cares? It’s annoying, sure. But it doesn’t invalidate the Kriah. As long as the Oleh hears it’s fine.
DY: Disagree. Well, sort of. Actually, I’m not sure. But I would guess that the original “what Hashem intended” doesn’t include us living too far away to know what day Yom Tov is.
DY: If the only connection is emotional, then there will be more harm done at this point in any attempted forced break than in letting it go on. It will end on its own in 4 months anyway when she goes to seminary. Obsession with a guy is certainly not a good thing for any high school girl, but in that situation the lesser of all evils is usually to just let things end naturally. If there is any concern that more than just talking may occur, that’s when you need to step in.
DY: I disagree with your assertion that there is a Mesorah on horseradish. An Esrog was a Peirush Hamekubal MiSinai. If the Mesorah on horseradish goes back to Chazal, then that would be enough. But it doesn’t. It goes back to 17th-century Lithuania/Russia (maybe a century or two earlier).
And R’ Schachter doesn’t say that the issue is a meta-Halachic concern. That’s his exact point. There’s an issue that people think is meta-Halachic (Apikorsus) but is actually an important Halachic consideration. Acting like alternative branches of Judaism is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor. So, once the Conservatives have done something, so long as there is a Shemetz of a Halachic issue with it it becomes Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.
Is she doing anything more wrong than just talking? If it’s just talking and a bit of an emotional connection, the best thing IMO is to leave it be. They’ll stop talking when she’s in seminary, there will be some emotional pain, and that will be that. If there’s more going on than just talking, then you need to get involved before anything happens that can affect them both for life.
Mine’s still going.
DY: In response to your first point, you are working within a system in which your conclusion fuels your proof. Yes, being right is most important when it comes to following the Torah. But if you can’t prove that your way of following the Torah is correct (or, as is the case here, that someone else’s is wrong), how do you know that the other person is wrong? It would seem to me that baselessly denouncing other Jews’ practices as unacceptable is a violation of Lashon Hara, Sinas Chinam, Ahavas Reiacha, and probably others.
To the second point: Off the top of my head, peanut oil as Kitniyos, R’ Akiva Eiger on how to give a Get, the different Kinyanim by Mechiras Chametz, Davening Nusach Sefard, the Mesader Kiddushin not drinking the wine under the Chuppah. It happens all the time. That’s an integral part of the Halachic process- that the Poskim continue learning and can be Mechadesh against what the accepted Dinim are. They just have to be really sure of themselves for a major Chiddush.
IDK: Umm… first of all, that night was the 15th of Nissan anyway when the Torah specifically says you can’t do Melacha (to them in Mitzrayim). And it specifically says Ochel Nefesh is Muttar. So I don’t see your point. At all.
squeak: People turn mainstream accepted practice on its heels all the time when they think they can prove that the practice came from a mistake or an improper reading of the Gemara or something like that. I am not bold enough to posit this on my own (certainly not in absolute language, though I’m not sure that I’ve used absolute language about horseradish either), but there are certainly Ashlei Ravr’vi that agree that you might not be Yotzei with horseradish.
DY: Yes, that’s an oversimplification. It’s “in the wrong” in the sense that, in this limited debate, it is the position that has chosen an unfair debate. It is unwilling to meet the other position on even terms. It could be the correct side of the debate, but in terms of having a fair discussion it’s not playing by the rules.
DY: But that wasn’t what I said. Being unable to back up your opinion doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make it foolish of you to dismiss someone else outright.
OURTorah: I thought most of us were talking pretty nicely.
DY: What point did squeak make, other than to misrepresent my position and insult me? I have not claimed intolerance of intolerance at all. Rather, I have claimed that the inherently intolerant position doesn’t gain anyone anything. It might be right, but if you can’t back it up then it is essentially meaningless to hold.
DY: Interesting point. I’ll concede to it to some extent. But part of what makes him “superior” in the first place is what makes him worthy to emulate. He is not worthy of emulation because he is superior, but he is worthy of emulation because of what he did in the first place. No one was born superior than anyone else. So it’s the Torah that creates this superiority. We want to emulate the Torah and we find the proper people to emulate to do that.
squeak: I’m saying that if you’re going to reject someone’s opinion, you should either know how to or at least be able to cite someone who successfully rejected that opinion. Otherwise, how do you know that you’re right? And if you can’t dispute the opinion but believe you’re right, just walk away and say, “That’s not for me”. What’s wrong with that? That’s not a dismissal nor an acceptance. That is an admission that you are not well-versed enough in the issue to have an opinion either way. You just know what you believe in and that that is acceptable, but you don’t know enough to preclude someone else’s opinion.
“Superior” is a dumb word in this discussion. It’s pointless. Am I superior to my not-Frum neighbor? Is a Gadol HaDor superior to me? Is a Gadol HaDor superior to my not-Fum neighbor? The answer is that it really doesn’t matter. Where there are practical Nafka Minas (e.g. we can’t trust my not-Frum neighbor’s Kashrus, we can probably trust mine, and we can ask life-and-death Shailas to the Gadol HaDor), that doesn’t make anyone better or superior. That’s up to HKBH to decide. Debating it is kinda the reason we have Halachos of Lashon Hara.
DY: I made the final sentence a little stronger than necessary for the sake of humor. The fact is, any argument about intolerance can be turned on its head. It shouldn’t, though, because intolerance is often a bad thing and blanket arguments about “you’re saying I’m wrong” hurt good and decent people.
To actually explain my last line, sans the humor. I am taking it as a given that it is impossible for honest discussion to begin if your assumption from the start is that my position is wrong. If you can prove my position untenable, you have won the debate. If you can’t, and I also can’t prove you wrong, then we clearly both have acceptable positions. My point wasn’t that you would be wrong with the inherently intolerant position. It’s that you’re no longer playing by the same rules. I wasn’t saying you can’t do that. I was pointing out the position of dismissal out of hand (which we’ll call the inherently intolerant position) does not presume to be involved in a debate. Therefore, someone taking that position is claiming an a priori moral superiority without even deigning to prove it (or at least to begin by citing others who have proven it). I won’t tell you that such a position is wrong without proving it (though it seems fairly self-evident), but I will say that it is obvious that someone has the right to defend himself, and strongly, against the inherently intolerant position. Prove me wrong. That’s fine. But dismissing me out of hand is, well, pointless.
PBA: Disagree. I think that, until such time as you can clearly disprove the other opinion, the opinion which is dismissive of others is in the wrong. Once you give a clear disproof, then whoever still holds to the disproven opinion is in the wrong. But until you present said unanswerable disproof, the opinion excluding others is to be considered in the wrong. I think that’s the only legitimate way to have any discussion (see what I did there?),
PBA: Right. Which is why that it should be an acceptable starting ground to not dismiss other peoples’ opinions outright without clear disproofs.
PBA: I think the point is that he (she?) is claiming that squeak is claiming to be intolerant on Hashem’s behalf when, in actuality, Hashem isn’t against the same things that squeak is.
DY: I have been told, on more than one occasion, that because I eat Chalav Stam I have no Ne’emanus on Kashrus because “Kol HeChashud Al HaDavar”. They wouldn’t eat meat in my house.
Also, I once heard a great quote from a Rosh Yeshiva ZT”L of mine. He said that when he was growing up, it was a Mechze K’yuhara to follow every “Ba’al Nefesh Yachmir”. He said a Ba’al Nefesh meant R’ Chaim Ozer or the Chafetz Chaim. Nowadays every guy who opens a Mishnah B’rurah suddenly thinks they’re a Ba’al Nefesh.
Gamanit: If that is the case, then according to Pashut P’shat in several (most?) Rishonim, they are not Yotzei Korech.
DY: I’ll have to look again. I remember him explicitly discussing Daniel, but I thought he mentioned all Gemara also.
sam4: That was a Purim Shpiel I once wrote. Everything is a Machlokes so it’s Assur to eat because of Safek Brachos. You have to live off an IV.
Ka’Eileh is the one word of Leining everyone listens to. We should be happy, not complain.
The point is that they wanted to eat bread. Matzah was the staple of the slave and they wanted bread to celebrate being free. But they had to leave too early for this planned bread to rise.
Davar Katan: R’ Moshe said it’s because T’shuvot are so nuanced that any translation would easily corrupt the P’sak. Not because he didn’t want it accessible in foreign languages. That’s what the Tzitz Eliezer says about English Gemaras (in the beginning of Chelek 14, I think).
HaLeiVi: A crunchy Matzah? What about the soft Matzah thread?
squeak: It meant as opposed to his comment that there were several. I wasn’t saying better or worse; just correcting his inaccuracy.
Chaimy: Most bugs found on lettuce are only 1 D’oraisa. And Chazal knew about bugs when they told us to eat lettuce.