Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lubliner: No Tefilin until the K’vura is a Din of Aninus. It also isn’t worn on the first day of Aveilus (maybe they put it on at Mincha, I’m not sure about that; but definitely not at Shacharis).
Wallflower: The Mechaber Paskens that an undisputed Gadol HaDor has the Din of a Rav Muvhak, for whom you tear Kriya. An undisputed Gadol HaDor is incredibly rare nowadays (indeed, R’ Elyashiv probably didn’t qualify because not all Poskim were Kafuf to him), but R’ Ovadia almost certainly qualified as one for the Sephardic community.
Realist: Oh. But Shreck was right according to most Poskim. (I feel like there is a Sha’agas Aryeh who disagrees but I might be misremembering that.)
Every single Sefardi was Mechuyav to tear Kriya upon hearing that R’ Ovadia was Niftar.
And everyone puts on Tefilin during Shiva. Just not the first day.
Assuming the Makor is correct, why does R’ Nachman’s saying about someone visiting him extent to visiting his Kever?
I will say this. I would be disappointed in any Yeshivah that did not have some sort of Divrei Hesped for R’ Ovadia or R’ Elyashiv. Any Yeshivah, no matter how big or small.
HaLeivi: Maybe a moment of silence wouldn’t have been so inappropriate. There is a T’shuvah in the Yaskil Avdi that brings Mekoros that a moment of silence is a legitimate Jewish way to commemorate something. I know R’ Ovadia quoted this T’shuvah, but I don’t remember if he was pro or con.
Baruch Chacham HaRazim.
Realist: No, because that is not what Bal Tosif means. And Shreck is 100% correct. Sort of.
VM: I think grooveshark isn’t legitimate. It’s a sharing site, just no downloads, only streaming (that’s how it was described to me).
To answer the original question, it’s a massive Machlokes HaPoskim.
I saw that YU gave Hespedim. It’s on YUTorah right now. One from a Talmid of his and one from R’ WIllig. I honestly hope this isn’t true. I’m very surprised Lakewood didn’t do anything.
PBA: Lounges can have bartenders too. A bartender just means that the place has a bar, not that the place was a bar.
Besides, Torah seems relatively progressive. Maybe she took her date to the bar.
When the Commentator does happen to publish things that are very beyond the pale, enough of a stink is made that articles or issues get retracted. But mostly, no one cares. The only people who see the Commentator as a travesty are those who see YU as a travesty to begin with and are just looking for self-confirming examples. Some people like reading some of the stuff and most people don’t care. I didn’t hear anything about that particular issue, but I can imagine that most of the more right-wing (and even centrist) guys were probably offended by a review of a bar being in there, unless it was a high-class establishment.
PAA: R’ Schachter gives several Pshatim in what Oleh Echad L’70 Shana means and how it can fit with the Trunculus (or any creature).
Redleg: It does pass the practical test because, while the color is the same chemical makeup, there are two extra molecules on the end that allow it to form much stronger bonds.
Made-up borderline Avodah Zarah?
Silver Spring also has a fairly modern day school. It’s co-ed, but it’s still pretty Frum (a strong majority came out Frum 10 years ago; I can’t say what it is now). So the Yeshivah isn’t the only option. And if it is the only option in your eyes, you probably qualify as “Yeshivish” anyway.
HaKatan: I did answer your point about the Commentator. The Commentator in no way represents YU or the opinions of the majority of people who go there. It represents the opinions of the writers and the editors. That’s it. They are almost always among the most liberal on campus and just barely fall into the spectrum of Orthodoxy, if they even do. They do not represent YU and they certainly don’t represent Modern Orthodoxy.
I was reading for some T’shuvos from R’ Ovadia today and I saw that in Yoreh Deah 1:8 he discusses the issue of Bittul Sakanah L’chatchilah. He is Meikil in the end.
And to explain to Jothar why this could be D’oraisa, he begins with a Machlokes Rishonim about whether Chavalah B’atzmo is D’oraisa or D’rabannan and then tries to figure out if that would apply to a Chavalah S’guli, not Tivi, as he calls it. (Derech Agav, he assumes in that T’shuvah that the rabid dog mentioned in the Gemara is only a S’guli issue and not Tivi; I wonder if anyone told him about rabies and if that could have changed his mind on that detail.)
heretohelp: If the work meeting involved getting alcoholic drinks with non-Jews then the issue still exists.
HaKatan: What kind of moronic question is that? I am going to say that someone who knows orders of magnitude more Torah than me has an untenable Shittah? That would be like you asking me to agree that R’ Elyashiv has an opinion well outside the bounds allowed by the Torah. It’s ridiculous. It’s an absolute Bizayon to Torah to say such a thing.
I read the article and, by the way, I think you’re misreading it slightly. He did not say so about the State of Israel as a Zionist entity. He said it about Jewish control of Eretz Yisrael. Since we are in a constant state of Milchama there, laws of Pikuach Nefesh don’t apply in all situations (like the Minchas Chinuch says). Thus, in order to win the war (by protecting our land), sometimes there are bigger considerations to take into account than individual lives.
I’m not sure if I agree with that or not. But that’s not relevant. It certainly is a legitimate Shittah. And he is not saying, as you want to imply, that Zionism is more important than Jewish lives.
There is a serious Issur D’rabannan of going to a bar to drink with non-Jews.
Shani: YGW might be pretty moderate, but they would definitely not like being called MO.
yeshivaguy: There should be nothing inherently wrong with it. But you won’t find Kosher L’Pesach peanut butter with a Hashgacha so it’s a moot point. I would buy peanut butter with an OU Kitniyos for myself in a second.
Rebdoniel: We get it already. You think Ashkenazim are foolish backwards people who are Apikorsim because we deny Chazal like Tosfos did. Why don’t you choose to be Jewish first? Then you can become a Sephardi.
PAA: What Midrash said Nignaz? Maybe that was written in the times of the Geonim when it had been forgotten by then?
Rebbe yid: Non-science doesn’t make it wrong. It just means we don’t know it yet. Now, I believe it is a Machlokes Achronim whether working via placebo effect is enough to get you out of Darchei Emori.
I eat peanuts on Pesach myself (or would if I had any inclination to eat peanuts). But corn has been Nahug for 500 years not to eat. It started for a reason; it wasn’t a mistake. It might be a later Minhag, but it is just as strong a Minhag, even if the reason is just a quirk of history.
And you can’t be Matir Neder to not eat Kitniyos. Real Minhagim don’t work like that.
Most peanuts are not totally raw. I think even in the shell they are at least toasted usually.
yytz: The standard assumption nowadays is that the Zohar is primarily the teachings of R’ Shimon Bar Yochai (it can’t entirely be because it quotes Amoraim), but for your own knowledge you should look up the word pseudophygria.
yytz: The history of a Hamsa in Judaism is neither long nor strong. There are serious Chukas Akum issues with it.
nossond: It is not so clear that nail-biting or hair-pulling is only D’rabannan. That is Tosfos’s Shittah which seems to be quoted in the Rama, but there are a number of Rishonim who hold it’s D’oraisa.
Rebdoniel is wrong, by the way. Someone who is Over a D’rabannan is still a M’challel Shabbos. It’s an explicit Peirush HaRosh in Horiyos, if I recall correctly.
Assaf: I am very sorry for your situation. I would always advise being honest with family. And if you can’t bring yourself to tell them, maybe you should start thinking that the life you’re living isn’t worth it. If you can’t share it with those who love you, then you have to think there’s something wrong with what you’re doing. That aside, it is always very important to make sure not to burn bridges in case you ever want to come back.
yeshivahguy: The Minhag HaPashut until the 1970s was that peanuts were not Kitniyos. There was a bit of a political battle and, to quote a major Yeshivish Posek, “The Kashrus organizations caved to the Machmirim.” There are still many who in theory would hold that peanuts aren’t Kitniyos, they just won’t eat them because they don’t have a Hashgacha. Thus, some Rabbonim are allowing Ashkenazim to but food with an OUKitniyos/Batatz L’ochlei Kitniyos if peanuts as the only problematic ingredient.
As an aside, R’ Moshe’s T’shuva is based on an incorrect historical assumption. R’ Moshe says explicitly that the reason that potatoes are Muttar and corn is Kitniyos is that corn is an old world grain while potatoes are a new world grain. This isn’t true. Corn wasn’t introduced until the very late 15th century, when they found it in American. There are several ways to explain the fact that corn is Kitniyos and still hold of R’ Moshe’s general rule that nothing new can be added to the Kitniyos G’zeiros. However, the fact is simple that no one in their right minds would think that corn isn’t Kitniyos.
I was reading the Wikipedia article on reincarnation (and other research) to see about this, and apparently Indian religions didn’t introduce art-of-moi’s type of reincarnation until recently. So it could be a Jewish idea first that they appropriated from us.
I did crack up, however, when there was a picture of a Jainist reincarnation symbol on the page. It was a Hamsa. So much for those who thought that a Hamsa was a Jewish mystical symbol…
I think it’s honestly silly that someone cannot suggest a person for themselves, but that appears to be the current mode of operation.
To those saying that anyone who kills themselves is inherently ill, please realize that there are Halachos about a M’abed Atzmo L’da’as for a reason. It can exist. It might be incredibly rare, but saying it is impossible is denying these Halachos.
It is incredibly unlikely to ever find someone that we Halachically consider a M’abed Atzmo L’da’as.
Thehock: It’s not Avodah Zarah in and of itself. If she believes in Avodah Zarah, that’s a separate issue. If it actually heals people, then there are no Issurim of Darchei Emori and Chukos Akum and such.
Ben Levi: The “Chazarah” never happened. The Rambam (who wrote until the end of his life) and none of his correspondents nor his son mention it anywhere. So either the Chida was wrong or was mislead. I chose to go with the latter. If you want to claim the former, that’s on you.
Ben Levi: I didn’t say that it is reliable to hold like the Rambam in this, only that claiming that the Rambam didn’t say what he said is, well, ridiculous. The Rambam was never Chozer. It just didn’t happen. To think that the most important Chazarah in history could have happened and no one knew for 700 years is a joke. Someone tricked the Chidah. I do not know what the Radziner said, but once again, saying that the Rambam wrote Al Pi Sod is just wrong. Laughably so. To say that is an insult to the Rambam and what he held. Until you show me the Radziner inside, I won’t believe he said that. And if he did, well, then I’m sure the Rambam gave him a good correction in Yeshivah Shel Ma’alah.
superme: The opinions are the Halachah here. I have no idea who this is, but in short, if it works it’s Muttar and if not it’s Assur.
HaLeiVi: I think he meant the Rashi about not starting from HaChodesh HaZeh Lachem.
Ben Levi: You should just stick with the Ta’anah that the Rambam is a relatively minority opinion and that later authorities have mostly rejected his Derech. Saying that he did retract and/or would retract if he knew Kaballah is very Dachuk at best and borders on insulting to the Rambam’s position. I don’t know who (if anyone) says that the Moreh is meant to be learned Al Pi Sod but, to be frank, [I’m not going to finish this sentence, but insert harsh phrase here].
I am going to side with Popa here, V’lav Mita’ameih. It is terrible parenting to explicitly state such a thing to your child. That does no one any good. That does not change the fact, however, that sometimes it has to be true. A Frum kid should know that if he forces his parents to choose between him and Frumkeit, they’ll choose Frumkeit. Frum parents won’t eat at his Treif house, for example. But there are ways to show that and ways that are just wrong.
The confusion stems from the fact that Yosef happens to be both his middle and family names. See the Hakdama to Yabia Omer where he calls himself Ovadiah Yosef ben Asher.
yitzchokm: Is the second reason that he was a banker? There is a famous story about that.
PAA: Your example was not of something Patur Aval Assur. By Mapis Mursa, it’s either Chayav Chatas or Patur UMuttar. If it’s L’hotzi Leicha then it’s Ein Tzricha L’gufa and Chazal weren’t Gozer in this case. If it’s La’asos Pesach, it’s Chayav because now it’s Tzricha L’gufa.
Chacham: I don’t know if you’ve seen or mentioned it at all in this thread, but Tosfos Shabbos 75a seems pretty clear that the Chilazon is a fish. Any thoughts?
There is only one translation of the Yad. It’s the Chabad Moznayim one and I have some issues with it, though overall it is a good translation.
The Kitzur Shulchan Aruch represents the backbone of much of Jewish Law as practiced in the past century. I would advise starting there so you know what to do and then branching out into other things after. It is not a shortened version of the Shulchan Aruch. It is its own Sefer and stands entirely on its own merit and that of its author.
Hanoch Teller has a story about a woman who he thinks was a Gilgul of the Chafetz Chaim. I don’t remember where it was, though. It was because she made a huge campaign for Shmiras Halashon and she lived for 27 years, which adds up to 120 with the CH”CH.
There is a statement in the Mishnah B’rurah that a woman cannot be a Gilgul of a man.
LAB: I believe the Tzitz Eliezer has a T’shuvah where he discusses that case and one of his potential reasons is that there might be a Chillul Hashem involved if you don’t give him directions. He might have rejected that, though. I don’t quite remember the whole T’shuvah.
Until he knows enough to be solid in his Yiddishkeit in the outside world and/or as long as he can afford it, depending on circumstances.
yitzchokm: R’ Schachter has said it several times throughout the years. He throws anecdotes like that in to Shiur to keep everyone interested. He might have mentioned another reason but I can’t think of it off the top of my head.
TR: Okay. Yes, their are anti-Jewish people that want to ruin our system of life. That is true. But there are also good, Frum people trying to be Ovdei Hashem who have legitimate (I’m not saying definitively either way; I’m just saying they are legitimate) Ta’anos on Kapparos and MBP. The fact that anti-Jewish people make similar claims is irrelevant. Fundamentalist Christians are anti-gay marriage. Most Frum Jews agree with them. That doesn’t mean that most Frum Jews believe everything that these Christians do.
Charliehall: Yes, but the current reactionary ultra-rationalists have quite a bit less support. (They have support, true, but they go far beyond what the Rambam held in much of their rationalism.)
Some Rishonim held it was Pashut. Others held it was Apikorsus. The Rashash held it was wrong. The Chassidim didn’t learn the Rashash because they feld it bordered on Apikorsus.
What did Ami say?