Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Live right: There are different Minhagim that have developed (and are still developing) as the Minhagim for Kaddish continue to develop. A very prevalent opinion is, so long as they have their parents’ permission, someone with 2 living parents may say Kaddish Yosom.
DY: That doesn’t answer the issue. If it’s Sod Hashem Lireiav, how could it be wrong?
WIY: From what I have heard, at least, they do put the money to very good use, don’t they? They really do help feed a ton of poor families. They just use mass superstition and scare tactics to get the money, which is quite underhanded.
Gamanit: The issue is that that’s not the only source. They say B’shem the Arizal that it messes with Midas Hadin or Midas Harachamim or something like that. So if you’re Mapkid on that it would be problematic for women as well.
DY: That’s more of a problem, then. How could Chazal be Chozer if their original Shittah came from a Mesorah from Sinai/Torah Sheba’al Peh? How could they have been wrong in the first place?
It seems clear from that Gemara that, at the very least on some level, Chazal trusted their contemporaries and/or did their own form of scientific research to discover physical realities, and not that they had a Mesorah from Sinai for them.
Oh, and HaLeiVi: I think the Artscroll Gemara in Mi She’achazo in Gittin says that Chazal had a Mesorah on the Refuos as well and the only reason they don’t work nowadays is either Nishtaneh HaTeva or that we don’t know the precise translation of all of the Aramaic words in them. I don’t remember if or who they quoted that from.
apushatayid: That’s not being fair to them. That’s just pointing out that they are lying. The campaign 4 years ago claimed to be the 9th year (and it is according to our count-if you assume Yovel still exists, that is). This year is the 9th year according to the Rambam, who we don’t accept (and who didn’t accept his own calculation in lieu of the Mesorah that the Geonim had). I have no idea what they used 2 years ago to claim it was the 9th year. I’d look into it, but I’m bored with this topic already.
Oh, and some quick Googling shows that Kupat Ha’ir ran identical campaigns on 9 Kislev in both 2009 and 2011. So this “once in 50 years opportunity” seems to really be every other year. Oh, and the 2009 Kupat Ha’ir ad quoted R’ Chaim Kanievsky as saying that he’s never heard of this and that T’fillah always works, anytime.
Wait. It doesn’t matter how we Pasken. Either way, Yovel has to follow Shemittah. So year nine of Yovel has to be either two years after a Shemitah (if Yovel counts as year 1) or 3 years after (if it doesn’t count). Either way, this year can’t be year 9. So either Kupat Ha’ir knows better than the Mesorah we have from the Geonim, or they were secretly Machmir for Shemitah 2 years ago with their own Mesorah from the Geonim. Or they’re just making stuff up.
I’m voting the latter.
DY: Your point stands, but it is much more common to find “black hatters” accepted in Srugi communities and not vice versa, especially in Eretz Yisrael.
Can I ask a stupid question? Based on how I recall we Pasken, it’s not possible for this to be the 9th year of the Yovel cycle. It’s the 6th year of Shmitah. I thought we Pasken that Yovel doesn’t count as the first year of a Shmitah cycle, which would make this impossible. Am I wrong?
HaLeiVi: I don’t know what I think about these things, but I do feel comfortable saying that Chazal could have accepted the scientists of their generations. After all, many of the same supposed “errors” they made were shared by their contemporaries. And R’ Shlomo Zalman held that way, so you’re not in bad company if you do. I don’t think it’s an untenable view.
Just find one Kosher show (does such a thing exist anymore?) and only watch that for a while. Then you can stop completely.
DY: Can I ask, if you hold that Chazal didn’t err in science, what do you do with Pesachim 94b? Also, what do you do with the Gemaras that are obviously against what we currently know (half-mouse half-dirt, salamanders, etc.)?
WIY: It’s a Machlokes Rishonim when Shmittah is. The Rambam has a calculation but disregards it in lieu of a tradition that the Geonim had.
We know when Shemittah was, in theory, because we know when B’nei Yisrael entered Eretz Yisrael. However, there is a Machlokes Tannaim whether Yovel counts as the first year of the next Shemittah cycle or not. To know when Shemittah is we would have to know that the Beis Din HaGadol never Paskened the way that we don’t Pasken now (or that they corrected it post facto if they ever did). That’s just one of the issues with knowing when Shemitah is. We assume we know, but we are not completely sure.
DY: Of course I do. That’s the part where I say it’s irrelevant if it happened or not. Chazal say it, so as far as we’re concerned we treat it like reality.
ROB: Yes, but you are backwards. You can say the story was allegorical as long as you keep the lesson. You are throwing out the lesson but keeping the story. That, without a doubt, falls under Mach’chish Magideha.
DY: What about me? How close does my last paragraph come to being worlds apart? It might be a relatively unique view of Chazal, but I definitely think it’s a legitimate one (as opposed to rob’s, which is not legitimate at all).
rob: And I think saying such a thing costs you your Chelek in Olam Haba. The only potential cases where we can say Chazal were wrong are medicine and science (if you hold that Chazal could be wrong on those; but I think the vast majority holds that that’s a valid Shittah).
Let me be clear. I don’t know if the Tur Shimon story happened. I don’t even think that I care. In a sense, it’s irrelevant. Whether the city existed and that’s what happened or not doesn’t matter. What matters is that Chazal say it happened and give a reason. That reason is part of Torah Sheba’al Peh. It could be that Chazal made up a city to teach us this lesson. But that doesn’t matter. The lesson is still part of Torah Sheba’al Peh. You can deny the story ever happened. But you cannot dismiss the lesson of it. Doing that falls under Mach’chish Magideha.
rob: One can deny the supposed infallibility of the Gedolim and yet understand the infallibility of Torah Sheba’al Peh. There is a massive difference between saying that a Gadol can’t know why HKBH did things and saying that Chazal couldn’t one.
That’s basically true. Chazal said it didn’t make the cut, so it didn’t have Kedushah. It’s also possible that Chazal strongly recommended against reading it (a la Ben Sira) once the Christians put it in their canon.
rob: Yes, we believe the Torah Sheba’al Peh is infallible. When Chazal say something, we listen. We don’t ask questions (we ask questions to understand, never to contradict) or dispute their sources. (There is debate about whether we extend this principle to scientific matters. This is not a scientific matter.) Asking what R’ Huna’s sources were, without a doubt, is a violation of Mach’chish Magideha and loses a Chelek in Olam Haba.
HaLeiVi: The issue here is obvious. Judaism believes that Tzadikim and Talmidei Chachamim can affect this world in ways that the average person can’t. That much is obvious to anyone who learns.
On the other hand, what we see is a reaction to the hero-worship of “Gedolim” that sometimes borders on near-deification. The reaction is to deny any sort of non-Halachic authority to said Gedolim. The proper response should be to learn Torah and learn what Chachamim can and can’t do.
HaKatan: I’m not going to comment on your theories in this thread (because while in a perfect world they might be true they are just not), but you misunderstood the Midrash about S’dom. It was never about a bed. It was so that everyone would be equal. The Mitah was just a torture device.
Squeak: And I am saying that the burden of proof is on you that this is an actual “sensitivity” and not some form of Chillul Shabbos. I find it very strange that the people would be punished for something not Assur. Therefore, either it was so pervasive that it did not allow for proper respect for Shabbos (I can hear that, but it still feels weird) or it involved actual Chillul Shabbos (either Mid’rabannan and it was so pervasive that it was M’vazeh Talmidei Chachamim or actual Chillul Shabbos D’oraisa). You cannot just take a Sasum Yerushalmi/Midrash and Darshan a Halachah from it. There is a burden of proof that the Gemara actually thinks this is something that shouldn’t be done.
Kupat Ha’ir is tricking people for many reasons, but the Gemara does say that a “Chacham’s” Tefillah is more effective than an average person’s.
And now this thread is bordering on Mach’chis Magideha. Yay!
Squeak: I’ll take a look. The fact stands, though, that you need a Makor that playing ball is inherently Chillul Shabbos (and that ping pong counts as playing with a ball; the potential Chilukim are obvious). I would still assume that it constituted Chillul Shabbos because there was no Eruv, it was Muktzah, it was an Ashvuyei Gumos situation, etc.
I still don’t think you can claim “Not Shabbos-dik” to be Oseir here. 301:2 didn’t disappear.
And DY: Uvdin D’chol has to have some sort of potential Chillul Shabbos connected to it. So until you can find a potential Chillul Shabbos in ping pong (and the ball breaking isn’t it, for several reasons; though I could hear the Ta’ana that playing with a cracked ball is), I can’t see a reason that would be Oseir.
Squeak: The word “B’Shabbos” does not appear in the Yerushalmi (at least, not the one in front of me). Where are you quoting from?
Also, that doesn’t stand up to the fact that there was probably no Eruv, which means they were being M’challel Shabbos. Or that they held like the M’chaber and a disgustingly dirty ball is inherently Muktzah. Neither one applies to ping pong.
WIY: I read that article (or most of it). I don’t know who R’ Hochman is, but what he did to the T’shuvah of R’ Tzemach Gaon is just, well, I’ll let you re-read it and decide for yourself. It’s not P’shat.
That being said, I don’t think anyone (aside from R’ Tzemach Gaon) ever took Eldad Hadani seriously. He was respected as an Aggadic authority and Talmid Chacham (and therefore quoted by the Rishonim), but I don’t think the vast majority of them actually believed that the travels were real. They were all a Mashal for couching his Aggadah and Halachah.
That story is very similar to one in the Gemara. It doesn’t matter who it happened to. Mistama it has happened several times (more, probably) over the centuries. Who ie precisely happened to doesn’t change the point of it.
The Gemara says bowling is an issue of Shema Y’shave Gumos.
DY: I seem to recall the Tzitz Eliezer having a T’shuva where he says that bicycle riding is an Uvdin D’chol at worst. (I think it was in the T’shuvah about a doctor driving back from the hospital after going in for Pikuach Nefesh.)
I also seem to recall a separate Yerushalmi (maybe in Moed Kattan) that described a game that kids would play where they would bounce a ball off a wall and it would hit and kill each other. I thought that that was what this Yerushalmi was referring to at first.
This was back in 9th grade when I went through the Yerushalmis in Moed (except for Eruvin, obviously). I haven’t been able to find that Yerushalmi again since, so take a 10-year-or-so memory for what it’s worth.
DY: Riding a bike is a separate issue. Playing ball is a decent split among those who mention it (that I’ve seen). The M”B quotes the Yerushalmi, but it is not at all clear what the Yerushalmi means. And even if P’shat is for playing ball on Shabbos, it would seem much more likely to be a case where that constitutes Chillul Shabbos (either because the ball is Muktzah because it’s dirty and wasn’t M’yuchad before Shabbos or because there is no Eruv; I think R’ Ovadia or the Tzitz Eliezer has a long T’shuvah trying to be M’varer why the M’chaber says balls are Muktzah). It’s a Pele that I haven’t seen anyone who Assurs playing with balls on Shabbos be Misyacheis to 301:2. But I think that most agree that in a situation where there is an Eruv and the ball is relatively clean that it should be okay.
Some people (not Poskim) say that it’s Assur to sweat on Shabbos, but that’s only because they don’t know what the word “L’hazia” means.
You should look up that Yerushalmi. It’s not at all clear that it was because of playing ball on Shabbos. Or why that would cause the city to be destroyed.
I don’t know why a sport would be Assur. But that aside, there is a Kiyum Mitzvah of Oneg Shabbos if you enjoy it (301:2, if I recall correctly). Why isn’t being M’kayeim Oneg Shabbos “Shabbosdic”?
Notasheep: You’re going to make an emotional issue of the definition of a word? Words are semantics. So rename Jewish “marriage” as something else. You haven’t lost anything.
And people can be biologically gay. This is not to say that every “gay” person is that way biologically. But there are plenty of males who are naturally only attracted to males and not females. (Anyway, as Popa pointed out in an insightful post last year, the entire debate of whether ss attraction is from birth or develops later in life is wholly irrelevant. The fact is that there are men who are only attracted to men. Whether that came from genetics or something else doesn’t matter at all.)
PBA: I would say that the only way I would ever support using the Get as leverage is in the case you just mentioned, but unfortunately if that were true then every single M’agen would just begin to claim the wife abuses the kids and use that an excuse. So while in theory I agree there are situations where it could be warranted, those situations are lost Mipnei Harama’in.
HaLeiVi: Our Kippas, assuming they’re fairly big, probably constitute a Sudar anyway. And a Sudar seems to potentially be societal in nature anyway.
That aside, that can’t be what R’ Chaim is referring to. How can you say that a Middas Chassidus trumps T’fillah B’tzibbur?
WIY: Because that’s not considered “laxness”. Your cause and effect is backwards. Mechitzah, for example, is an absolute Chiyuv. If someone doesn’t have that, they’re K’negged the Din. The only imperative for wearing a hat is that society has determined that it’s not appropriate to Daven without one. But if you’re in a society that never made that determination and/or has changed their norms from that determination, then the Halachic imperative to wear a hat (read: dress appropriately for Davening) never existed.
Syag: Most of the cases that hit the news are well past that point. Many divorces take a few months because one side “refuses” to finalize the divorce until there is counseling or something like that. That’s fine, normal, and sometimes even recommended by the Beis Din. What is never, ever okay is refusing to give/receive the Get as a bargaining tool for money, custody, and stuff like that. The stories that are in the news are often well past the point of custody, money, etc. being finalized and yet the Get still isn’t being given.
If a legal divorce is finalized and the Get still isn’t being given, that’s usually a massive red flag that something very wrong is going on here.
WIY: I still don’t believe R’ Chaim said that. And if he did, he meant in a community where not wearing a hat and jacket would be considered not being properly dressed for Davening. He didn’t mean somewhere where not wearing a hat is considered tolerable/acceptable.
getzel: It is much rarer for a woman to refuse a Get than for the man to refuse to give (though I believe ORA tells men to sign the prenup because they have cases of men who are “Agunim” as their wives won’t accept a Get).
But a man has a recourse of a Heter Meah Rabbonim (sometimes legitimate, sometimes not). Also, many men care a lot less because their kids won’t be Mamzerim. Yes, they may have violated a Cherem (and they try to get out of it by quoting Acharonim that the Cherem is over etc.), but that’s nowhere near the level of the Issur of Eishes Ish D’oraisa.
It is interesting, by the way. I have heard several Gedolim speak that they are very upset about the fact that people think they can just look up a bunch of Shittos on Bar Ilan and thinking they can argue with major Poskim. “Being a Talmid Chacham is about much more than being able to use a search engine properly.”
One of the most memorable lines of my childhood is from the leadup to the Ahavas Yisrael song in the Marvelous Middos Machine (tape 3). “Look over there. There’s that boy with the funny-looking knitted Yarmulke. And he’s carrying a Gemara. Why would he need a Gemara?” It’s sad that some things haven’t changed.
I have not yet found a compelling Halachic reason to wear a hat. I do know that R’ Schachter says it’s completely unnecessary nowadays (he still wears one though).
writersoul: Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah 1:13. It’s quoted in Shulchan Aruch YD 245 (maybe 246).
That said, the Drishah on that Siman in the Tur says that if a girl volunteers to learn on her own then it’s totally fine. While this P’sak is not publicized so much, most seem to assume like it. Some extend this Drishah to mean that if a girl volunteers to learn you are then allowed to teach her without any parameters. Many do not like this extension of the Heter. But most knowledgeable Rabbonim would not fault you if you opened up a Gemara on your own and started learning.
HaLeiVi: Was T’chiyas HaMeisim an Ikkar Emunah before Matan Torah?
Redleg: Genuflection as a Christian practice is not the same as bowing. Bowing isn’t Assur.
And the Ran holds that Islam is Avodah Zarah, arguing on the Rambam. (And the massive Pele is that the Tzitz Eliezer Paskened like the Ran.)
Froggie: Shin Dalets are not the same as Sheidim. See the Shach in Hilchos Sefer Torah.
I usually don’t look up sources before quoting (which is why I usually say “I think” or “I believe”), which is probably why I’m usually off by a Daf/Siman or 2.
Sam4: You are right, by the way. He’s pretty detailed. The lack of the pointing is glaring (though he does mention that it’s L’harot L’kahal). I’ll try to find where R’ Schachter said it. He might have also quoted R’ Sheinberg on this.
Sam4: I think R’ Schachter once said it’s in the Ben Ish Chai. I thought I saw it also. If I remember where and/or can have someone ask him I’ll check.