Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
PBA: I don’t think that it was okay to say in private either. I just think that it having been said in private means that there’s no need to make such a strong (or any) statement like you are against it.
PBA: If you were the only person, then you’d probably be wrong in your assumption that what you’re doing is standing up for Kavod HaTorah. But that’s irrelevant. This discussion, as is, should have died after it was clear the letter never should have been made public. You can create a new thread to decry the other tangential points brought up in this thread.
DY: What women, other than Chabad, don’t light Channukah candles? That would be a Bittul Asei Mid’rabannan (unless their husbands light for them). Chabad are just plain wrong on this.
It’s B’feirush in the SH”A that Lo Yilbash changes with the times (YD 178:1, if I recall correctly). There is, however, a T’shuvas HaRashba (4:90) that was not available at the time of the Mechaber (and see the Rama CM 25:2). My guess would be that that is the Da’as HaOsrim.
Ben Levi: While ROB is not correct in much of this thread, you are not right in your last post either. The shoelace case was Davka a case where it was Halachically relevant. See Rashi there.
RD: Maybe because they learn Tosfos there and don’t take the Gemara’s statements out of context when they don’t understand the entire Shakla V’tarya…
I’m not sure why there is fighting on this thread. It seems that everyone agrees to the following points:
1. R’ Ovadia is entitled to an opinion and may say anything if it’s Halachically necessary and relevant, including attacking another person (e.g. R’ Stav).
2. R’ Schachter, R’ Willig, etc. are entitled to an opinion and may say anything if it’s Halachically necessary and relevant, including attacking another person (e.g. R’ Ovadia).
3. Random Rabbis from the RCA are not entitled to an opinion and may not say anything to attack another person (e.g. me, or R’ Ovadia) even if they feel it’s Halachically necessary and relevant.
Good, so the entire argument in this thread is about whether or not who will be the next Chief Rabbi is a “Halachically necessary and relevant”. Is that worth fighting so much over?
(Ironically, the right-wingers here are holding that it is such an issue while the not-as-right-wingers are holding it isn’t. See how things get much simpler when you boil them down?)
147: The Rishonim all discuss that. Pashtus is that you just put the Tefillin on top of the hair.
Toi: Look in the Rishonim. I think someone (maybe a Ritva?) mentions the Avodah Zarah thing.
The Kitzur says it only applies to the 7 nations. Incredibly unclear why.
Charliehall: Wrong. The Gemara is Mefurash like me (though one De’ah in Tosfos has a possibility otherwise, but we don’t Pasken like the opinion that he is going like anyway). Pruzbul only works in Sh’mittah D’rabannan. Look it up there (Gittin 36b).
DH: According to the Rambam (in the Moreh) Ikkarei Emunah are immutable. Holding that they can change would be itself a violation of Ikkarei Emunah. Thus, the two Shittahs do not go hand-in-hand.
And writersoul is right and you are just wrong. If the Rambam reaches a conclusion which he then can conclusively prove wrong, then the original Shittah was a mistaken Shittah. If he came to a Shittah based on inaccurate information, then that Shittah is incorrect. That holds true of the Rambam, any other Rishon, or you or me. When he holds of two mutually exclusive Shittos, one is wrong. If the Rambam thinks over a Gemara for a year and reaches a Maskana, and is then Chozer on that Maskana because he didn’t have access to a P’sikta that shows the context of the Gemara, then his Chazarah is saying his original Shittah was based on false information and wrong. So too here.
Also, why do you think the Poskim always say that the Piskei HaRosh is more important than the T’shuvos HaRosh because they came later (maybe I’m backwards?)? Because we care about the Shittos that the people thought of. You can’t have a Machlokes of someone against himself. If he was Chozer then he was Mevatel his earlier Shittah.
Midwesterner: That would be a great assumption, however the Gemara (Gittin 36b) says Mefurash otherwise. Pruzbul won’t work in Yemos Hamashiach because it only works for Sh’mittah D’rabannan, not Sh’mittah D’oraisa. Why it doesn’t work Min Hatorah is incredibly unclear, but apparently it doesn’t.
Toi: Once again, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with being inspired by them, so long as you are not encouraging being like them in all other aspects. No one is praising them to elevate them, rather they are praising them to elevate themselves. Second of all, maybe there is room to be Meikel because they are not real Ovdei Avodah Zarah. Third, maybe everyone is Somech on the Kitzur Shulchan Aruch Bazeh.
(Yes, this is more a Limud Z’chus on this thread than a Lechatchilah. But I think it’s a fairly good Limud Z’chus.)
What the Mod said.
WIY: The left side thing B’pashtus isn’t Halachah as that was a medical Eitzah (post-Gemara) and we generally ignore medical Eitzos from the Rishonim. I don’t see why this one would be different. (The reason given in the Poskim is something along the linesnot of having the liver move to the other side of the body so food can digest easier, something which our medical Eitzos nowadays obviously disagrees with.)
Git Meshige: Adam Harishon wasn’t Jewish.
Nisht: Sometimes, though, emotional arguments are so strong that the Halachah could not be otherwise conceivable. For example, R’ Chaim Hakohen Ba’al Hatosfos’s emotional argument of “Eizeh Bayis Asher Tivnu Li” for if you would say a Kohen is Assur to be Mitamei to a Cherev Harei Hu K’challal is accepted L’ma’aseh.
DY: It’s very difficult to call a B’rachah a R’shus. Why is it different than any other Birchas R’iyah? (I really, really don’t hear the answer that because this one Brachah is called being “Mekabel the Sh’chinah” that it’s a special P’tur for women. EIther they’re Chayav or they’re not. You can’t volunteer a Brachah like that.)
RD: The Ra’avad did not hold that God could be corporeal. He just held that one who does hold that way because of how he reads the Pesukim and Midrashim isn’t an Apikores. There is a massive difference.
The Rama has a ton of Chumros in Hilchos Shechita, but as far as I know even Sefardic Hashgachos are Mapkid on the Ashkenazi Chumros nowadays. I know nothing about this Badatz firsthand, but I would be shocked if they put a Hechsher on what Ashkenazim call a N’veilah, even if Ashkenazic custom is against the Gemara and the vast majority of Rishonim in these cases.
yekke2: I would think the opposite is Mistaber. R’ Moshe is not such a fan of Nusach Sefard because it was invented much more recently.
The_Cool_Jew: He was having lunch with Elvis.
It is a tremendous Stirah that women say Birchas Hachamah and not HaLevana. Either they are Mevatel a Chiyuv Brachah every month or they make Brachos Levatalah every 28 years.
DH: You can’t say that, though, because that’s not a legitimate outlook on Ikkarei Emunah according to the Rambam.
yekke: He has 2 T’shuvos and never clearly says what constitutes “being said out loud”.
HaLeiVi: Do we know the Ra’avad was a meukubal? I usually think when early Sephardic Rishonim use the word “Sod” it often does not mean Kaballah in our sense of it.
RD: And, once again, who on earth do you think you are that you have any right to disagree with their methodology?
DY: Come to think of it, Stam Yeinam of a Ger has to be a Shaila that the Poskim talk about. I’ll do some searching and see if I can find a Makor. The Din should be the same in both situations.
DY: He’s not anti-Ashkenazi. He’s just dumb enough to think that he’s smarter than Tosfos.
DY: Not so Pashut. The food was never Assur to him. And since the reason is Chasnus, it doesn’t make sense to Asser it post-facto. See the Poskim who say that a Mumar can eat his own food and drink his own wine. It’s a Machlokes Achronim, but according to that Tzad I could see his own food being Muttar for him to eat.
RD: You can’t see that you’re being ridiculous here? Yes, the Rambam codified his rules. But Tosfos was entitled to their own set of rules. You can say you want to hold like the Rambam and that’s fine. But to pretend like you know better than the Ba’alei Tosfos and the Rama is just plain stupid.
RD: Yes, but that’s your Shtus that you think that Tosfos, the Rama, and the Ashkenazik tradition is against what you think the process of Halachah,
yaakov doe: That is a terrible attitude. You can destroy reputations and Parnassahs by saying “just avoid the question to be safe” in cases like this. I’m not discussing details on this particular issue, but your attitude is untenable here. If they’re acceptable we should promote them as such and if they aren’t we should say so. The middle ground doesn’t exist.
PBA: You’re kind of unfairly quoting R’ Moshe’s T’shuvah though. If you read it carefully, he says that it’s Muttar (when not Begged Ish) just that it’s not worth it if your Kavanah is for Apikorsus, because then you’re changing it from a Ma’aseh Mitzvah into a Ma’aseh Apikorsus.
Rational: Or maybe it’s Begged Ish because no woman wear it, not because they’re not allowed. There’s no Issur on men to wear heels (Mitzad the heels themselves). But it’s Begged Ishah because only women wear them. So too by a Tallis.
Don’t give me a random rule and a Rambam and tell me it’s a big deal to go against them. The Mechaber knew the Rambam too and Paskened against him. Look at the Mechaber and look at the Tosfos I cited for the reason why.
DH: You’re being ridiculous. The “Chazarah” never happened. If such a thing happened everyone would know. I can’t find a big Rabbi who gets up tomorrow and says that the Satmer Rov, Brisker Rav, etc. all were Chozer on Zionism right before they died. It is a meaningless statement. It is unverifiable and pointless. You can’t make unverifiable statements hundreds of years after the fact and expect to be believed. The Maharam Al Ashkar either was misinformed or (more likely) tore the Sefer he was responding to to shreds (look at what he writes there, it’s the most Charif T’shuvah I’ve ever seen from any Rishon) and pulled out all the stops, even if he had to cite an apocryphal and untrue legend to do it.
Kasher: You’re making a ton of assumptions here. The question is is there a way to make them Muttar once the Goy cooked them. The answer is no. We can try and find ways that it wasn’t technically cooked by a Goy, but the question as asked has a very simple answer.
Akuperma: Shooting and killing an animal on the spot is not Tza’ar Ba’alei Chayim but might be Bal Tashchis (see the Minchas Chinuch on P’sik Reisha).
WIY: See R’ Henkin on R’ Akiva’s “Talmidim”.
frummie: The Mechaber says that women shouldn’t wear Tefillin. Also see Tosfos Eruvin 96a.
There are Poskim who hold that a Tallis Gadol as we wear today could be a Begged Ish issue.
No.
Nisht: They held that reciprocity was the essential backbone of social existence. Thus, doing something nice for someone who does something nice for you is a basis of humanity and religion.
RD: I wouldn’t say it’s clear that they can. I would say it’s clear that those who want to have what to rely upon. Your Brachah thing is only true of Sefardim, and even then not for that reason.
Toi: I think there’s a Pashut Chiluk between praising their greatness and saying what we can learn from their good deeds. Also, the Acharonim say that the source is that it’s similar to a Matnas Chinam. This wouldn’t be Stam for no reason. Thanking for an actual service (especially since a lack of gratitude might compel others to not do similar things in a similar situation) should very much be Muttar, I wuold think.
Nisht: There were philosophical Rishonim and Geonim who held that gratitude was the first basic principle on which the world runs.
Torah is right. Sort of. And WIY is wrong. One can be inspired without praising the person as a person. And by WIY’s logic, Gedolim stories shouldn’t exist because people should be more inspired by the Avos, who were greater. Elah Mai? Inspiration can be found everywhere and from anyone, even if they weren’t the Avos and weren’t Gedolim.
HaLeiVi: I’m not sure about the Ramchal, but the Ari Z”L very much has things that violate the Rambam’s definition of the Ikkarim.
DH: The (apocryphal) story is that either he or his wife (or both) went senile at the end of their lives and admitted it was a fake, for whatever that’s worth (not very much).
PBA: Look, we agree again. I think this is going for a record here. (I was just a bit more concise than you on this.)
AbA: That is true of many people, but there are definitely some genetically wired to only be attracted to men.
On the general issue, I can definitely hear open but not-practicing people wanting to get away from attacking eyes. Then again, I don’t know if a Minyan exists of open but not-practicing people attracted to the same gender (I have met a few, though, so maybe there are10 of them around the world). But calling it “Pride” and including the “B” and “T” parts of those sheds light on what the Minyan is trying to accomplish and it seems to be accommodating far more than just Shomrei Torah Umitzvos with a certain Yetzer Hara.
The 2 extra. I can’t pin an Issur on it yet (but I’m very much thinking of one), but there’s something very, very wrong about it.
HaLeiVi: You mean the Rambam knew Kaballah and rejected it? And I thought the conspiracy was that R’ Moshe De Leon’s wife admitted that he made it up, not he himself.