Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It’s not an imposition on an unmarried man. The Minhag is to have our Shat”z (for Mussaf on Y”K but it spread from there to all Yomim Noraim) be as similar to the Kohen Gadol as possible. One of those requirements was to be married (that’s a Din D’oraisa). So the Minhag developed to have a Shat”z be married. I’m sorry if you don’t like that as a single, but the fact that singles will feel bad about it is not enough to be Mevatel a Minhag that old.
PBA: So why would helping someone with their luggage be any different? (Now that I think back, I think I also helped a bunch of seminary girls pull their too-heavy luggage off the baggage claim thingy when we first landed too.)
dafyomi: There are Halachic concepts here. D’varim Shel Kedushah are different than D’varim Shel Mitzvah. Kedushah is something that you have to have additional respect for. Mitzvah you don’t have to have respect for, you just aren’t allowed to outright disrespect them. Wearing clothes in a normal manner isn’t disrespect. If your Tzitzis hit the ground when you sit or walk or whatever, that’s fine. It’s not disrespect unless you’re walking through mud or something. You might not personally like the idea of Tzitzis touching the ground, but it’s M’vuar in the Gemara that it’s not disrespectful and that it’s Muttar.
Very. Zombies can’t live without them.
PBA: Meh. You’re making too much of a big deal of simple things. I was once on a bus in Israel. A Beis Yaakov girl lost her phone. I helped her find it. I never learned her name, where she was attending BY, where she’s from, anything. I have never seen or heard from her in the 6-8 years since. And if I did see her, I probably wouldn’t remember it. There is no friendship or anything untoward created by doing normal niceties.
mdd: I have not heard of him either nor do I care who he is. I saw the Gemara. I still think P’shat is precisely as ben said.
Oomis: Ma’aseh Eretz Mitzrayim is not an Assur form of Arayos for Goyim. The Rambam mentions what they are in Hilchos Melachim.
42: Slices of pizza or bagels would fall into the Machlokes of “Es Shedarko vs Kol Shedarko”.
mdd: No, I think ben read that Gemara perfectly. People today say it like the Gemara meant it was a huge deal. But to quote a prominent Rav I once heard, “The Gemara says they have 3 things they get a Z’chus for. Okay. Now they’ll have 2.”
HaKatan: I actually don’t get you. Why are you here? You clearly hold that the majority of the CR (and Frum world) are Ovdei Avodah Zarah and have no Chelek in Judaism. No one here (except maybe Joseph, and that’s not something to be proud of) agrees with you and I highly doubt that anyone wants to hear you anymore.
What’s a “mishmar shaila”? I just thought that you meant this was a question you thought of at Mishmar one night.
ben: Yes, well, R’ Moshe’s T’shuva about the subways is strange enough in its own right. And he has a situation there where it’s Assur. So it can’t be objective. (See the T’shuvah. I think it’s Even HaEzer 2:12 or 2:20 or something.)
PBA: I completely agree. I’m just saying why they themselves and the world don’t think these requests are insane.
I think the basic idea is that they don’t consider them murderers. They would view them more as soldiers/POWs. And you always free the POWs when the war ends.
ben: I mean, it’s one thing to say that a handshake can be Derech Chibah. I think everyone agrees to that. But to say that it’s inherently Derech Tayva or Derech Chibah is very difficult to understand.
PBA: Your Mashal is even better if you tie in the beautiful famous Midrash on that sentence.
I think we basically said the same thing. I just used fancier language and you were clearer. That makes perfect sense.
A tooth’s edge probably isn’t sharp enough. It probably depends on if you hold the tines of a fork are Duchka D’sakina also (I would love to hold that was but I don’t think anyone does).
Ben: That also seems like a very, very strange definition of Terech Ta’avah V’chibas Biah.
HaLeiVi: No, because the egg is a Safek Issur because we never Paskened on the egg before it became mixed in.
PBA: What was DY’s deleted answer from two years ago?
HaLeiVi: Tongue in mouth wouldn’t be a problem anyway because it’s never fully submerged in the same saliva so there’s no Kavush Kim’vushal.
Ben: Interesting. Could you show me the Makor for that R’ Moshe please. (Also, that presumably doesn’t make sense as R’ Moshe was Machmir on handshakes; according to the approach you presented he should have been Meikil on handshakes.) I will grant that R’ Yehudah Hertzl seems to assume like the second approach you mention.
dafyomi: It’s not a Davar Shebikdusha. But leaving that aside, I think you should repeat your statement to R’ Yochanan’s (maybe it was R’ Yonasan’s) face.
mdd: Perhaps you would say it like this: There is a difference between finding a situational Heter in an extreme case and attempting to make said Heter the status quo?
Akuperma: It’s a dead dispute. The world holds like R’ Moshe.
PBA: Ah, that makes sense. It’s a D’rabannan so it’s S’feiko L’kula. My Chiluk doesn’t work for you though? We don’t know which is Assur so we treat each individual case as Assur. But at the end of the day it might have come from a Muttar spot. So if you don’t know what that spot is then as long as you have a way of Bittul you can use the Bittul.
(The single egg with a blood sport itself is a Safek D’oraisa. And even if it was D’rabannan this would be analogous to the case of the 4 Kosos; see the Ran there in the last Perek of Pesachim.)
No, the point is that this is the internet and it’s full of morons and anti-Semites who don’t like to dig but if something falls into their lap will milk it for all it’s worth. The people smart and interested enough to do the research are going to be fair and even-handed. The people who start libels aren’t.
It makes perfect sense that having an organ in Shul in Sephardic lands wasn’t considered Chukas Akkum. They weren’t relating to Christian service at all and therefore did not have the same concept of an organ that Ashkenazim did. And that’s okay. That doesn’t make those Poskim not-mainstream. They Paskened correctly according to the situation as they saw it. If they had been familiar with contemporary Church practices maybe they would have Paskened differently. Ashkenazim were and did. Also, Sephardic lands did not have to go to the lengths that Ashkenazim did to avoid association with Reform. And, as R’ Schachter says, if an Apikorsus movement decides to make an issue something they define themselves by (even if technically there are Tzdadim to legitimately Pasken that way in certain cases under Ikkar Hadin), then following them is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.
There is no Mimah Nafshach. It’s not that every spot is Assur. It’s that we don’t know where the Assur spot is, so we treat all spots as Assur. But at the end of the day it might be Muttar. So if you see the blood spot you have a Safek in Din about whether this blood spot is Muttar or Assur, something that we are Machmir on. But if you don’t see the spot until later then the Safek is in Metzius, was the blood in a Muttar spot or not? (I feel like you’re leaving something out. I haven’t done this in many years but don’t you need a second Safek in order to make this Muttar?)
PBA: The Gemara says you can’t trust a Kusi’s Kashrus because they don’t hold of Lifnei Iveir (it’s somewhere on an Amud Aleph in Chullin in the first 20 Blatt; maybe it’s 4a or so?).
The question is obvious, though. But they still hold you can’t eat Treif. So why don’t they hold that they can’t trust each other? I think Pashut P’shat is that they held that you don’t have to be Choshesh that someone is lying, even if they don’t hold of Lifnei Iveir. Therefore, when they tell you food is Kosher, you can believe them. The buyer didn’t do anything wrong because he was allowed to believe the seller. The seller didn’t do anything wrong because Lifnei Iveir doesn’t exist according to him.
Can we please remove all traces of blood not being Treif from the internet? Including your blog Yitay? That’s just something stupid to publish. It really, really is.
HaLeiVi: Meh. Once again, I didn’t see this as trying to slander “Yeshivah guys” in general. Hopefully no one is dumb enough to make assumptions about tens of thousands of people based on a small group in a certain area. And everyone knows that some people are jerks, so therefore some Yeshivah guys will be jerks. I saw this as someone venting about some jerks potentially using Frumkeit as an enabling factor to being jerks. And, as I said before, the CR is a fine place to vent about a nameless story that happened at an unspecified time.
PBA: I was going to say that to be a Davar ShebiMinyan it has to be an individual count (I think a few Rishonim in the beginning of Beitzah say that explicitly), but Yitay beat me to it. I haven’t looked at this in quite a long time though, so it bears actually looking into.
PBA: I could see people thinking that Goyim don’t have to be bound by the Torah’s morality (still bound by its laws, just not its morality) and therefore think it’s okay to let them choose their own morality. And they feel bad for actual gay people and maybe even people that want to be gay and therefore want them to have a legal recourse to feel normal.
Torah: Of course. She is raising the royal baby the way a Jewish mother should. 🙂
rob: No. Absolutely not. He does not in any way say it’s Muttar. He says that they have a S’vara and are Moreh Heter, which (even though they are wrong) makes them not Chashudim Al Hadavar and therefore don’t have a Din of Lo Dano V’lo M’ido.
Nisht: (I was actually waiting for you to ask this.) Anyone has a right to join and post what they want. And if I thought this was actually a guy who saw this (or a similar) story then I would take it at exactly the same face value that I took the OP. My only protest is based on my assumption (and I’m pretty sure I’m right; just waiting for Mod confirmation on it) that this was Joseph making a new screen name just to claim firsthand knowledge of something and therefore slandering the person. He was not telling a potentially new story or giving legitimate information about this girl (who may or may not exist) described in the OP, but rather slanderously invented a terrible thing to say about the girl mentioned in the OP.
And I wasn’t saying that it was Lashon Hara. It was just deceitful, underhanded, and illegitimate.
SF: No, they were never cooked together. Also, leather does not have the Halachic status of “Basar”.
Popa: Wasn’t that the Shittah of the Kusim?
Either an Israeli just made an account at 3 am, or Joseph just tried to slander someone he’s never met less than 10 minutes after creating a new account.
Yitay: This is a famous Sugya. I believe that what I said would be agreed to by both the Beis Yosef and Shach. Pashut P’shat is that the Beis Yosef held that a man and his wife is always Derech Chibah but that they agree to the same basic principles. But even if you don’t say that, it’s really not tenable to say that the argument is as wide as some make it. It just doesn’t make sense. And everyone holds of the concept of “Derech Chibah”. The question is how to define it. And the Shittah of the Ezer MiKodesh and the B’nei Banim is quite a minority opinion.
rob: It’s T’shuvas HaRama Siman 104 or 105, if I recall correctly.
And mdd, truthsharer gave a perfect example of what I was referring to. R’ Moshe’s Shittah on Chalav Yisrael is probably a similar example. (Though I would word it slightly differently. I would say that Poskim think, “It’s not possible that so many Jews are drinking Trief; therefore I will make sure to prove that it’s Muttar.”
Nisht: Meh. It took me about 5 seconds to realize that all of rob’s “j”s should be read softly. The extra g was just a typo. Those happen.
My point still stands, though. These Bochurim described in the story were quite bad. Now, they might not actually exist. But that issue is separate from the point that there was something wrong with the Bochurim described in the story.
Honestly, though, the story doesn’t strike me as a vicious attack on Yeshivah guys. It strikes me as someone who feels offended on behalf of her friend’s daughter and is honestly complaining. Yes, some details seem exaggerated. So what? Something reminiscent of the story as told probably happened. There’s nothing wrong with a little venting. And when done in the privacy and anonymity of the CR, it’s probably the easiest way to vent without being Over on Lashon Hara.
rob: They must be assuming that for most people shaking hands is never Derech Chibah. They would all agree that if it was for someone that that person should avoid it. Or, to quote Rav Schachter on handshakes, “if she’s ugly it’s Muttar Lechatchilah; if she’s pretty it’s Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.”
Nisht: Chill. Everyone understood what he meant. Just because he chooses to transilterate in a particular way doesn’t mean he’s speaking “mermish”. You’re just picking a fight.
Just to be clear, anyone who can actually read the T’shuvos sees that the Rema was never Mattir anyone to drink Stam Yeinam. He says so explicitly. Repeating that the Rama was Mattir Stam Yeinam for Moravian Jews is misrepresenting Halachah and being Motzi Shem Ra. Not only that, it is Megaleh Panim Shelo KaHalachah because it denies the important K’lal that the Rama is actually trying to present in that T’shuvah.
Toi and PBA: I’m assuming he’s sarcastic and was referring to those who don’t keep Kosher. And PBA, there’s a Gemara towards the beginning of Chullin (maybe even Eilu Treifos) about if fowl requires Shechitah Min HaTorah and how much. I’m pretty sure we hold it’s Siman Echad Min HaTorah.
Everyone in this thread is dead wrong. Pikuach Nefesh does not override Sh’miras N’giah. N’giah is an Abizraihu of Arayos and is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor. We are very Machmir on N’giah and never touch at all, even if the situation is not Derech Chibah whatsoever. However, in extreme situations, we ignore that Chumrah and treat it like the Ikkar Hadin, which is why you’re M’chuyav to save the drowning woman. (And if saving a drowning woman is Derech Chibah for you, it’s still not for her and there’s no reason for her to die because you’re a pig. If it would be Derech Chibah for her, she would be obligated to tell you that and to allow herself to drown before being touched Derech Chibah.)
In this case, there is certainly no Derech Chibah even if any accidental contact was made and the story, as told, is about a group of Yeshivah guys who are very much in the wrong.
To PBA and Torah: While I don’t disagree with you, there’s a story I once heard R’ Willig say on YUTorah. Someone once asked him a Shailah and he answered it. Then the person the Shailah was about came screaming to him about how unfair it was that he gave a P’sak without listening to everyone and completely understanding the story. R’ Willig responded that he wasn’t a Dayan here, he was a Rav answering a Shailah. He answered the specific Shailah he was asked and it is not his fault if the asker misrepresented the case. Assuming the case was as it was presented, he answered 100% correctly. So too here. Whether or not this precise story actually happened is irrelevant. In the story, as it was presented here, the Yeshivah guys are in the wrong.
mdd: While you are completely correct in theory, history bears witness to what rob is saying. If you look at the T’shuvos throughout history, you see a different type of N’tiah in those who were actually involved in the community than those who just learned. It’s not looking for Kulas or finding extra Sha’as Hadchaks or anything like that. It’s that those who lived in the Tirchos of the Tzibbur had a different outlook on life, just like’s everyone’s experiences in life affect the way that they learn every Sugya. That’s why HKBH gives us lives and Nisyonos and situations instead of just putting us in rooms to learn 24/7.
About Time: R’ Chaim Ozer made Havdalah on the bulb to show that he held that a burning filament was a real fire, not just to show that you couldn’t use it on Shabbos.
Nechomah: Not quite. That’s a (relatively) modern Chumra. In theory, you can have blood spots that are still Kosher.
rt: Well, the Rama certainly entertained the possibility of Leining from a printed Chumash. That aside, though, I don’t see your point. Something can have Kedushah and not have the Kedushah level of a Sefer Torah. A siddur is a Davar Shel Kedushah because it has Shem Hashem.