Sam2

zdad: We know he existed. You’re thinking of the fact that we have a manuscript with Unsaneh Tokef in it from before when he lived.

ROB: That is precisely why I said Ikvisa D’mishicha in my first post.

HaKatan: So your apology is that “MO” and “DL” are people who routinely commit Avodah Zarah but you are not commenting on their personal status as Ovdei A”Z. Got it.

What Akuperma said is basically correct. There are some passages identical to those found in our Midrashei Halachah. They might not prove anything about Yiddishkeit back then (though can learn about the “Orthodox” by what their opponents said), but they certainly prove things about the larger Jewish society, for whatever that’s worth.

rob: Why are you being obtuse here? Everyone, even those that hold by the oaths, hold that HKBH is Mattir them for us at such a time as Mashiach will come. Your Kasha isn’t a Kasha.

DY: I always have dafyomi.com (formerly e-daf) and the CR open side-by-side.

nisht: He was right. Sort of. A girl does have to be Bas Mitzvah age to choose to get married.

rob: You are making contradictory arguments. Saying we’re in a near-Mashiach period and therefore the Shevuos don’t apply is fine. Saying that the Shevuos couldn’t have existed (even as an Eitzah Tovah) because Mashiach has to come is silly.

rob: Your Kashya from Mashiach isn’t a Kasha. The oaths are binding (if they are at all) only until the Ikvisa Dimshicha. Everyone agrees to that. It’s from the Passuk, “Ad SheTechpatz”.

rob: Who determines what is Halachah and what is Aggadah then? And if it has a clear (stress the word clear) conclusion, why would that not be binding on us? Maybe it’s not a formal Chiyuv/Issur, but it’s certainly not something that can be flippantly ignored.

Logician: I thought Popa had quoted Kol Kevuda, not Lo Tov. My bad.

It is a Machlokes Achronim whether psychological assumptions made by the Gemara can change. The Ritva clearly says it by “Ein Isha Meizes Paneha Bifnei Ba’alah Lomar Geirashtani” (I might have the precise phraseology off). R’ Schachter quotes R’ Soloveitchik as pointing out that there are psychological assumptions that are built into the Briah and those that are based off what the Gemara observed from those around them. R’ Soloveitchik held that those built into the Briah (his example was Tav L’meisan, if I recall correctly) cannot change and that it is K’firah (because it denies Dinim D’Oraisa) to say they can. But those observable can change, as the Ritva said. Presumably, Nashim Atzlaniyos is the latter but I can’t prove that.

My issue with the whole situation comes when hard-line assumptions trump common sense. I find it inconceivable that every single women’s job in life is to support her husband’s and childrens’ Talmud Torah. That might be what is true of the vast majority, but even they have their own Chiyuvim. There have been women in history who have clearly done important things on a national (or even local scale) and staying home and making their children learn would have been a tremendous waste for them.

My example often is Nechama Leibowitz (Sarah Schnierer is equally effective). Because of her classes and tests that she toiled over every week, she taught thousands of people how to teach. She has a tremendous amount of Zchuyos for the amount of Torah she was Marbitz. R”L, it wasn’t her place in life to have children. Should we say that she has no Schar for Talmud Torah because she couldn’t help her children learn? Of course not. She earned everything on her own and the world owes her because of that.

So yes, the main point for most women is to be behind the scenes and take care of a family. I do not think, however, that should preclude communal responsibilities if they are able. Ad’raba, if a woman is able to help out the community then she is obligated to because she is depriving Klal Yisrael by not doing the best of her ability.

DY: If I recall correctly that Gemara does have some context, no?

Logician: We don’t Pasken “Kol K’vudah”. It’s a Machlokes Tanaim whether it has Nafka Minah L’ma’aseh and we seem to Pasken that it doesn’t.

Also, not that I’m defending 00646’s statements, but B’dikas Chametz comes to mind.

DY: He makes it personal every time he calls every “Zionist” and “MO” Ovdei Avodah Zarah.

Can I ask where Chazal say that Hashem gives you everything you ask for on Purim?

Logician: Sometimes Rishonim thoroughly disprove one another. Should R’ Saadya be correct here, then the concept would be totally illegitimate.

Logician: Not really. Just re-word the question to “do you hold like R’ Saadya on Gilgulim or on everyone else”. It’s the same thing. And no, R’ Saadya is not misunderstood in the slightest. He is against the existence of Gilgulim in the strongest terms.

Itche: The Rashash.

For what it’s worth, some of the bugs in these plants are probably Muttar to eat anyway. I honestly don’t know if people have done enough research on where these bugs come from.

I will start this post with a disclaimer: There are people (at least a few) who attended YCT who are good, Ehrlich people that have complete Ne’emanus. Just because the institution is Passul that does not mean that everyone who attended there is.

That being said, to writer.at.heart: A YCT “Rabbi” who claims to be Orthodox with his YCT Smicha without in some way distancing himself from the institution is neither Orthodox nor a Rabbi. Honestly, if there is literally no other option, I’d rather a mod give you my email so you could ask me shailas in emergency situations than him. Rav Schachter has said many times (and I think he is very right) that listening to Psakim from non-Orthodox Rabbis falls under Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor. Your intuition is better than his. He is not someone who should be asked a Shaila in any situation unless he is publicly willing to state that YCT and their associates have done things that put them beyond the pale of our Mesorah.

Why do you assume a Mechitzah means a “wall”? A Mechitzah means something that delineates one object/area/thing from another.

Also, look carefully at every case. Lavud D’Oraisa only applies to Mechitzos. The concept may be borrowed for D’rabannans in other cases.

DY: According to their D’chiya of Rashi that each individual Mitzvah has a different explanation as to why a Shittah would Assur women volunteering as an Eino Metzuvah V’oseh, they don’t give an alternative explanation why a woman couldn’t volunteer Sukkah.

See also Eruvin 96a Tosfos D.H. Michal Bas Kushi who gives the same answer as I did (Bal Tosif) but rejects it (because he disagrees with Rashi’s Bal Tosif D’rabannan here) without really offering an alternative to why Hilni did it.

DY: R’ Akiva Eiger asks about women being Pattur from Chinuch and leaves off with TZI”G, I think.

To answer the original question, maybe the author of this Braisa held like Rashi (R”H 33a, I think) that women cannot volunteer Mitzvos Asei Shehazman Grama and that it would be Bal Tosif.

Or maybe because she was so important that she was concerned that if she did the Mitzvah, others would think that women are Mechuyavos (similar to the answer given by many about why Tevi didn’t sit in a Sukkah in a Kosher fashion).

BaalHabooze: See the Ritva on 2a.

How about we close this thread and let the old fight (already linked) speak for itself?

I used to have a best friend. Then I found out he was Popa.