Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Shmendrik: Your formulation of Emunas Chachamim in this thread and calling it an Ikar Emunah is probably in and of itself Apikorsus, certainly according to the Rambam.
Health: I’m not ignoring the Rama. He is a member of a minority and some try to read him as well as saying that Ein Hachi Nami it’s Avodah Zarah, but we’re allowed to do business with those that keep this Avodah Zarah. Also, it’s entirely possible that there are censorship issues here. Many editions of the Shulchan Aruch in Orach Chayim 114 (104?), where he calls a cross Avodah Zarah, were censored out. And the Rama doesn’t disagree there.
Rebdoniel: Wrong again. 3 days only applies in Eretz Yisrael. And most Christians that we see are Protestants, who (almost) everyone agree isn’t Avodah Zarah. See the Rambam Avodah Zarah 5:4 (I think; and the uncensored versions) where he says that you can never do business with Catholics in E”Y because Sunday is a holiday and 3 days before and after means every single day.
Rebdoniel: Most Achronim don’t read Tosfos as Shittuf being Muttar for a Goy and no one (and I mean no one) Paskens like that Meiri. According to that Meiri even ancient Greeks and Romans (and modern Hindus) aren’t Ovdei Avodah Zarah. The Meiri is not even a Tznif Lehakel. Also, the Meiri’s definition of Notzrim as a Sun Cult claiming to descend from Nevuchadnezzar (which actually existed in Provence from the tenth-15th centuries) is clearly not what the Gemara meant. And that Rosh was not even brought down as an opinion in Shulchan Aruch, if I recall correctly, so it’s hard to Pasken by it. Your quoting about Ovdei Avodah Zarah B’CHU”L is good, but R’ Moshe already pointed out (and this has to be P’shat) that that clearly doesn’t apply to those who are obviously Addukim Bo, such as the ministers, priests, missionaries, etc.
Naysberg: They believe in 1 G-d. Not a trinity. They are Avodah Zarah just as much as Islam is. And while the Ran (and, L’pele, the Tzitz Eliezer brings this down) Paskens that Islam is not Avodah Zarah, the Olam has been Tofes like the Rambam that Islam is Muttar for Goyim and for Jews to enter their mosques if necessary.
No, the reason it was Muttar B’sha’as Had’chak for R’ Sacks to attend the wedding was due to it not being Avodah Zarah, and not for any other reason.
Naysberg: It was a Anglican, not Catholic Church. It’s not Avodah Zarah. That’s why he felt it was okay B’di’eved to enter. If it was actually A”Z he wouldn’t have.
I happened to open a Tshuvos Harama today and saw the two T’shuvos that rebdoniel referenced. Let me just say that they were grossly misrepresented. The one about wine is the most tentative Limudei Zchus I’ve ever seen (look at it; it’s beyond clear that he doesn’t even want to say it but feels like he has to to not Passul an entire community) and he admits that getting married on Shabbos was a minority opinion that he utilized in an incredibly B’dieved situation. Referencing the T’shuvos the way you did is a pure Ziyuf of Torah. And to answer your sarcastic question, yes, we would do as the Rama did in those precise situations.
HaLeiVi: Absolutely. Choosing not to go to a Mikvah because you have a Minhag is one thing. Closing the MIkvah is something else entirely.
Naysberg: Davka looking for a Frum from birth involves an incredible number of Issurei D’Oraisa. If a particular Baal T’shuvah has issues that you don’t want to marry, fine. That happens. Not everyone is meant for you. But to inherently write off someone because they are on a higher level than you could ever be, well, then you’re just a moron.
This thread honestly disgusts me. Every post encouraging discriminating against Ba’alei T’shuvah is a violation of over dozens of Lavin D’Oraisa (go through the Chofetz Chayim’s count by speaking Lashon Harah, they should all apply here) and 36 Aseis of Ahavas HaGer. Nothing is more dear to HKBH than a BT. The concept of Mutav Shey’hu… doesn’t apply nowadays with the internet (it applies to Pratei Dinim, not to Klalim). Every day that someone spends as a Frum person is worth a tremendous amount to HKBH and Klal Yisrael, even if they later go off again. How dare anyone ever try to remove that from them? I guarantee you that anyone who ever turns off a Ba’al T’shuvah and he is Chozer L’sirchono because of it is Asid Litein Es Hadin on every single future Aveirah that that person will do. And I guarantee that it’s possible that some people were turned off by some comments in this thread. V’su Lo Midi.
Millhouse: I don’t know about Mazals and such. I know that Yom Kippur is an Issur D’Oraisa and that Tishah B’av is because we act like we’re Aveilim. That’s entirely different from allowing a Minhag to make us be M’vatel a Chiyuv/Mitzvah D’oraisa. See Tosfos Bava Basra 2a V’havein.
It’s one thing to stop learning on Nittel. People need rest anyway sometimes so why not take it this one day a year. It’s another entirely to close the Mikvaos. There are some Mikvaos that are closed on 4 days (the 25th, the T’kufah, and the night before of each), which is actually being M’vatel K’lal Yisrael from Piryah V’rivyah.
Rebdoniel: Now you are showing some clear ignorance. I would hate to think where you get your information. R’ Schachter made odious remarks about women? Just because some moron leftist thought that R’ Schachter saying that a wedding is perfectly Kosher if a monkey read the Kesubah meant that R’ Schachter thinks that women are monkeys doesn’t mean that R’ Schachter has made “odious remarks about women”, as you put it. Next time fact-check before you make such claims. (Also, the famous line about the prime minister was taken out of context and put on Youtube. I should know. I was there.)
Shraga: Correct. It is exactly the same way that every area of Judiasm over the centuries has been “Mafriz Al Hamidah” in some regards to save Judaism from what they perceive is a grave threat. We still all eat Cholent (or Hamin) to show we’re not Karaites!
Longarekel: I am far from the expert, but do the Rishonim n Pirkei Avos explain Emunas Chachamim in the way that everyone here seems to assume it means?
I will IY”H explain the super-rationalist position on the “power of Gedolim”. Many things in Judaism are reactionary. We see throughout history that Minhagim and G’zeiros came around as reactions to issues affecting Judaism. Most recently, the Kollel lifestyle was a reaction necessary to save Torah learning post-WWII and before that the Mussar and Chassidic movements were reactions to the Haskala.
A lot of the super-rationalists see places where Chassidus influenced or changed standard Jewish thought and are attempting to go even more rational than Jewish thought was in the first place to counter that. The concepts of “Daas Torah” and “Emunas Chachamim”, which are now spoken of as Ikkarei Emunah by some here, just didn’t exist in even close to the same manner (if at all) 500 years ago. People always went to a Rav or Rosh Yeshivah for advice, but they never treated their words (nor did the Rav himself treat his words) as Halachos L’moshe Misinai. It is very clear that Jewish thought in this area has been influenced by Chassidism (I wonder if a Bar Ilan search would even show up the phrases “Daas Torah” and “Emunas Chachamim” if you went Rishonim and earlier) and some are reacting to the extreme to that to try and say that that is not part of what they feel is authentic Judaism.
WIY: I have heard of many cases where the Rav/teacher/friend who acts as a therapist really thinks that his friend/student/Talmid is better off not being married to the person and therefore feels the right thing to do is to give advice that will eventually break up the marriage. In fact, I once had a former Rosh Chaburah crying to me asking me how to do T’shuvah for the two couples he broke up. He thought he was doing the right thing because he felt that these particular marriages were hurting his Talmidim’s ability to learn, and he didn’t even realize he was doing it until after the fact. I am not saying that these stories are common or normal, but things like this do happen and they can happen to people in all walks of life. Anyone in a position of giving advice on a serious topic has to truly search themselves to make sure they have no vested interests whatsoever in the outcome of the situation. For that reason, if nothing else, it’s worth it to go to a trained, respected therapist over a friend/Rav/teacher/mentor. You know that they have no vested interest in the outcome and are there to only do their job and can’t be biased. Even if you trust your Rav or friend, they can’t always even know for sure that they don’t have some hidden ulterior motive that not even they will realize until it’s too late.
Interjection: That is not at all K’fira. What makes it K’fira?
Midwesterner: Correct. The point there is that it would have been even more dangerous for R’ Akiva to take over because he didn’t have the Zchus Avos.
Midwesterner: Don’t make up reasons for Dinim D’Oraisa. That might be a nice explanation, but the real reason is that Hashem told us Mikerev Achecha Tasim Alecha Melech. R’ Akiva was not because it would have been Assur to do, but because there was a real Sakanas Nefashos (see the end of the Tanur Shel Achnai story).
Mik5: To slightly tweak something you pointed out. It is Assur to say Amein louder than the person made the Bracha/said Kaddish. You should say Yehei Shmei Rabbah louder but not Amein. Also, the Poskim point out not to scream so loudly that it looks like you are making a mockery of what you’re saying.
mik5: The Gemara in Zevachim explicitly states that if it’s learning B’ones (that you’re thinking about Torah even while trying to avoid it) then it’s okay.
Wolf: That really is a problem. Ba’alei Simcha should be more careful about it or have them play classical music over the speakers in the bathroom to avoid this problem. I once gave this Eitzah to a couple getting married and B”H they listened to me. And people were impressed by the wedding that they had classical music in the bathroom, not realizing (well, maybe some realized) that it was there for Halachic reasons.
WIY: For whatever it’s worth, I also say Tachanun before Chazaras Hashat”z. I don’t do Nefilas Apayim, however, because that would be an Issur D’Oraisa of Lo Sisgod’du, even if I think the shul’s Minhag is a Minhag Ta’us. There’s no Issur of being Mafsik between SH”E and Chazaras Hashat”z. However, one should not interrupt between SH”E and Tachanun (see the Aruch Hashulchan who speaks very strongly on this).
Apparently this idea was the basis of a recent movie. Also, I once had a Rebbe quote it to me B’sheim the Ba’al Shem Tov.
Longarekel: Rav Schachter quotes the Maharal that you need Dumia D’mikdash and therefore you need them all in a Kli. And besides, the Lashon of R’ Chaim’s was that people might come to use a 7-branch Channukiah, not that they would have to.
Thanks guys. I’m good, B”H. Busy with life, learning, listening to R’ Schachter all day long on yutorah. The usual. I do miss this place and peek in once every few days or a week just to see what everyone’s up to. It’s definitely nice to pop in and even nicer to be appreciated for it.
I saw today in the Derech Chochmah (Beis Habchirah 7:10 in the Beur Hahalachah) where he quoted from R’ Elyashiv that the reason Channukah is 8 days is that if there were 7 branches on the Channukiah it would be an Issur D’oraisa.
RD: You are wrong. Ashkenzi P’sak is almost always like the Rama (in the SH”A, not necessarily the Tshuvos) and to Lechatchilah go against something he only Mattirs B’dieved is something we cannot do without some serious dissent from the Achronim. You would have been far better served quoting the Shach as Paskening like the Mechaber (I looked for it but couldn’t find it; but I know that Rav Schachter quotes it) rather than writing off the Shittah of the Rama. That is something that requires a lever far greater than yours (or mine, or PBA’s, or anyone’s here) to say and it behoove you to recognize that fact, especially if the burden of Paskening for others rests upon you. Of course, it would also greatly behoove you to recognize just how much of a burden that is.
Now, the reason I came back to this thread was not to disagree with you. PBA and DY did a good enough job. The reason was to defend PBA. He is far from a bully. We have had our disagreements and he has insulted me on occasion. That does not change the fact that he does not insult to get a power trip or to put someone down. He insults when he feels that it is necessary to ensure that others do not get confused by what he perceives as a slight to HKBH’s or the Torah’s honor. Now, I might disagree with him on occasion as to what constitutes a slight to HKBH’s honor. But it would more than behoove you to think about what he has said and why he has said it, and perhaps realize that he is far closer to being in the right here than you are.
Pashtus is according to the Gra there is always an Issur D’Oraisa of Chukas Aku”m to wear a tie.
Matan: I used to think that was the answer, and also greatly explains what relevance Parei Hechag have to Channukah. But I mentioned it to R’ Schachter and he said he thinks it’s a mistake. It wasn’t that they celebrated Sukkos. He quotes a Tanchuma that says that all Umos used to dance with Lulavim after celebrating a military victory. Thus, the taking of Lulavim after winning the war wasn’t a delayed Sukkos; it was just how everyone celebrated winning a war.
Just my Hapence and PBA: The Rabbeinu Yerucham saying three hours is the most famous Ta’us Sofer in the history of T’uyos Sofer/T’uyos Had’fus. He never said 3 hours. In fact, there is a Cherem on reprinting the original page of the Rabbeinu Yerucham because of this typo and many publishers over the centuries have actually died shortly after reprinting it.
I don’t check back here so often any more, but this thread has been disturbing me. The vast amounts of Halachic misinformation is scary.
anonymouschochom: Wrong. The age at which a girl’s uncovered skin is considered an “Ervah” by D’varim Shebikdushah has absolutely nothing to do with an “Ervah” as in the singular form of “Arayos”, which is what is relevant to the touching discussion.
RavHamachshir: The Tzitz Eliezer in 6:39 Perek 22 or 23 discusses that precise case, if I recall correctly.
You’re allowed to touch her past 3. There is no D’rabannan of N’giyah by a P’nuyah (unlike Yichud; Yichud with her must stop at 3 according to almost everyone). Therefore, you can touch her until she is a Niddah. Since some girls can reach puberty as young as 9, it’s probably best to stop touching at 8. (Yes, there is no Derech Chibah for a 9- or 10-year-old girl even if she is a Niddah; still, we usually avoid non-Chibah contact whenever possible even though it may technically be Muttar.)
Right? I don’t know? The Litvish long a sound for it has a much longer Mesorah than the Yeshivish diphthong oi sound, which is saying something. The long o sound is probably technically more correct, though I don’t know whether it’s worth changing a Mesorah over.
MDD: The one where he says that Chibah Y’seirah means that we look like Hashem? I mean, if you want to ignore the Pashut reading of “Tzelem” like MT did, then fine. But I think Pashut P’shat is pretty M’vuar.
MediumThinker: I am not trying to think outside the box here. I would love to say that all of the Rishonim held the beliefs that we do today. It’s just not true. What do you think the words, “D’mus D’yokno” mean? What is the Rashbam saying there in Bava Basra (and that Gemara is clearly where this Rashi is from) that an Amora shouldn’t look at Adam Harishon because then he’ll know what HKBH looks like?
Look up “Moses Taku” on Wikipedia. He lived too late, so I was wrong about the Rambam writing a letter directly against him. I will find the letter B”N where the Rambam mentions that some Gedolim from other parts of the world believed in corporeality of G-d.
MT: Counter-read the Rashis all you want. Do you have a way to waive off B’reishis 1:27? He says what he says. I don’t see why you say, “Chalilah”. Just that we have accepted the Rambam’s opinion and not Rashi’s in this does not mean that Rashi wasn’t entitled to his own Shittah on this. Bava Basra 58a sounds like HKBH has a Tzurah. See the Rashbam there who says it almost explicitly. R’ Moshe Taku, one of the Ba’alei Hatosfos, was famous (the Rambam mentions him by name in a letter) for believing in the corporeality of Hashem. Just because the Rambam is the only accepted Shittah on this nowadays doesn’t mean that we have to deny that at some point there were other Shittos.
dhl: You didn’t say anything meaningful. What does “living a more modern lifestyle” entail? What is involved in that (whatever that means) that makes someone an improper Oved Hashem? You defined “Modern Orthodox” as… “Orthodox but Modern”? I don’t even know how to categorize that. Give a definition that has some actual substance in it please.
Vochindik: How about you define this “MO” that you think is so problematic? I will grant you that a “Modern Orthodox bungalow colony” that has established mixed swimming (should such a thing exist; which I actually doubt) is not really Orthodox. But that shouldn’t reflect on “Modern Orthodoxy” as a movement. If I would start a “Chareidi bungalow colony” with mixed dancing and mixed swimming, would that mean that people shouldn’t be “Chareidi”? No. It would just mean that I misappropriated a name. So too here.
There seems to be a widespread belief that “Modern Orthodoxy” and “Torah Judaism” are far from the same thing. It’s an idiotic assumption. The actual “Modern Orthodox” have the same Mesorah and Halachah that everyone who thinks of themselves as “Torah Jews” do.
Health: I don’t think so. I think everyone agrees that not Derech Chibah is Muttar Lechatchilah (see Kesuvos 17a). The only issue is whether not Derech Chibah can actually exist in a practicaly, everyday situation.
Jimmy: If that’s actually true of you in every situation then there’s actually no problem. But you can’t know that. What if she is very attractive? And what about all the other men out there who aren’t as strong-willed as you are and will slip in this area? It’s such an easy line to cross. It takes a split-second (even during a brisk handshake) to go from just shaking hands to noticing that she’s pretty. It might actually be Muttar if you know yourself and that there are Mamash no issues. But it’s just not worth it.
GAW: See T’shuvos B’nei Banim Chelek 1 (maybe 2?) who is M’chalek between the two.
Everyone wants to be a victim. No one ever wants to be the aggressor. Thus, no one sees any post that they in essence agree with as being hateful. But there are posts, from both sides, that come across as incredibly hate-filled.
MT: Rashi Al Hatorah B’reishis 1:27. He says that Adam’s “D’mus Dyokno” looked like his Creator’s. That’s pretty explicit. And Rashbam on Bava Basra 58a clearly agrees with that interpretation.
Wolf: The Ra’avad clearly doesn’t agree that Hashem can have a body because he uses the phrase “Ta’u Mitoch Limudum” to explain those who think that He does.
MT: That Rashi Al Hatorah is pretty clear. I just don’t feel like taking the 5 minutes and finding the exact Passuk for you. Maybe I will later this afternoon. And the Pirkei Avos is clear, even if you deny it. And Old Man gave you the page number in the Machzor Vitry (thanks, by the way).
Also, look up where the Gemara uses Dibrah Torah K’lashon B’nei Adam (which is a Machlokes Tannaim anyway and we seemingly Pasken like R’ Akiva and not R’ Elazar Ben Azaryah anyway); it’s never in regards to anthropomorphisms.
Look, the Peirush on Pirkei Avos is clear. I’m sorry you’re denying it. Please, what does Rashi mean by “Tzelem”, according to you? We are so used to the Rambam-esque interpretation because we know it can’t mean “form”. But Rashi wasn’t bound to that. In fact, that’s precisely what Rashi is coming against. When (if) I see the Machzor Vitry again, I’ll B”N post it here.
PBA: You’re missing the point that we’re expected to be better. That’s why it’s a Chillul Hashem when we’re not.
MediumThinker: What do you think Rashi is doing here? What is he coming to reject? He is rejecting the Spanish/rationalist reading of the Passuk that has to split that Passuk in two to avoid a corporeal G-d. He says that you can’t split the Passuk. Ki B’tzelem Elokim Bara Es Ha’adam. What do you think Rashi means Tzelem means? It means form or shape. Look at Rashi Al Hatorah on Na’aseh Adam or somewhere around there. It’s a 2-word Rashi that says “B’tzalmeinu Kidmuseinu”. Rashi, as well as many of the French Rishonim, believed that you read the Pessukim literally and that G-d has a body. I wish I knew where in the Machzor Vitry this is brought down offhand, but I’ll find it and post it at some point. (Someone also told me that there’s a Rashi in D’varim that’s Mashma like this too, but I don’t recall what it is.)
I don’t see why you’re so strongly refusing to believe that Rashi could have held that. We know that other French Ge’onim at the time held that. So what would the Chiddush be in Rashi holding that? And who do you think the “Gedolim V’tovim” that the Ra’avad refers to are? R’ Moshe Taku? He’s talking about Rashi and some of the Ba’alei Hatosfos, who clearly did not see a problem with believing in the corporeality of HKBH.
MediumThinker: You didn’t see it? Did you look? Rashi there on Pirkei Avos, D”H Chibah Y’seirah. In fact, he calls it (close to) Apikorsus to believe that G-d doesn’t have a body because the Passuk explicitly says that we were created in “G-d’s image”.
WIY: No, that’s aside. R’ Moshe says no even separately.
TLKY: B’feirush 1 of each. Machlokes Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel in the middle of Yevamos. We Pasken that it’s 1 of each (first Siman in Even Ha’ezer, I think).
Akuperma and midwesterner: It’s a Gemara in Yevamos in the 40s or 50s brought down in the Shukchan Aruch (maybe 56b?). Havlad Kasher Aval Pagum Lik’hunah.
Shmecdrik: You missed the point. Yes, major Rishonim hold that. However, the idea has long ago been Paskened and the Shittos nowadays that would even require a Giyur L’chumra to be Yotzei Rashi’s opinion (I think Tosfos has different opinions different places, if I recall correctly, but I’d have to go over them again) are almost nonexistent. Did you know that major Rishonim hold that it is possible to convert away from Judaism (the Me’iri and others quoting Shittas Hag’onim)? It doesn’t matter, because that issue was also resolved long ago and most Poskim wouldn’t even use that Shittah as a Tziruf to be Mattir an Agunah. Sometimes there are major Shittos, but they have been Paskened against so completely that we just aren’t Misyaches to them at all when dealing with Halachah L’ma’aseh.