Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
dhl: Care to define this “Modern Orthodoxy” that you’re so strongly railing against.
By the way, everyone mentioning glass vs metal and hot vs cold is ignoring a Taz (Shach) in Yoreh De’ah that says you need separate cups for milk and meat because sometimes some Mamashus of food gets left on the cup from your lips. Pashtus is that nowadays when we clean our dishes much better it’s not so Shayach, but it definitely is something to keep in mind and be Machmir on if you can afford it, especially if you don’t put your cups in the dishwasher.
It’s a little skewed because a lot of the people in these high schools aren’t Shomer Shabbos and Kashrus to begin with. My experience is that not so many have gone off. Unfortunately, I know that my experience has been very lucky and that most of the people I knew from these types of schools were raised properly and very Frum starting out. It is a problem in a lot of places. (I wonder what the rate is for graduates of “Yeshivish” Yeshivos?)
WIY: I’m shocked that you’d say that. R’ Moshe is Machmir on this. (YD 1:36 if I recall correctly; it’s somewhere around there.)
Esthermalka: That’s true for Sefardim but the Rama rejects the concept that soap is Pogem.
Peirush Rashi on Pirkei Avos on the Michnah of Chavivin Adam Shenivrah B’tzelem. This is also quoted as Rashi’s opinion in the Machzor Vitri. (It’s also Mashma in a Rashi Al Hatorah in B’reishis by Na’aseh Adam or Asah Es Ha’adam B’tzalmo or one of the Pessukim that mention creation of man.)
Sushee: It would be Apikorsus to believe something that’s not true about Ma’aseh B’reishis, according to the Rambam. So read through the Moreh and see what he says about Ma’aseh B’reishis. Lema’aseh, however, I don’t think anyone holds like this Rambam (even R’ Chaim was just explaining the Rambam, not Paskening like it). The Ra’avad makes the biggest point. Rashi and other Rishonim believed that Hashem has a body. It’s inconceivable to say that L’ma’aseh they are Apikorsim. (Also, Judaism nowadays probably has a much more Kabbalistically-influenced view of Olam Habah than the Rambam did, and the Rambam’s Shittah on an Apikores who mistakenly believed it is a direct result of his view of Olam Habah, which we probably don’t quite hold by anyway.)
She can’t marry a Kohen, I believe. Other than that, there’s no reason not to marry her. In fact, there’s probably an additional aspect of Chessed involved in marrying her because there are probably some people who will think that something is wrong with her and therefore wouldn’t marry her.
WIY: It’s the famous Ra’avad in Hilchos Avodah Zarah (maybe T’shuvah? I don’t remember) where the Rambam talks about Apikorsus. The Rambam explicitly says that one who mistakenly believes in corporeality of G-d is an Apikores, to which the Ra’avad famously replied, “Gedolim V’tovim Heimenu… have erred on this matter because of their learning”.
MediumThinker: I don’t remember where precisely, but look in the Moreh by where the Rambam defines Olam Habah. It’s somewhere towards the beginning. It’s pretty Mevuar. Also look in the Moreh (this might be a Peirush Hamishnayos somewhere, actually) where he discusses Halachos L’moshe Misinai.
Oomis: The scientists call it Pangaea or something like that. And no, it did not exist post-Mabul. I once did hear a theory that the Mabul is what broke it up.
But to answer your question, the Passuk in Shvi’i says that Hashem spread the people out all over the world after Migdal Bavel. So HKBH himself put people in these far-flung places. And, of course, he moved animals and a functioning ecosystem there with them.
Naysberg: Be careful there. That statement sounds very much like secular Zionism. I honestly don’t know what you actually meant, but I’m assuming that that wasn’t it.
MediumThinker: It is also interesting that you give that as an example. According to the Rambam, thinking that a lemon is Kosher for an Esrog might be Apikorsus as a denial of Torah Sheba’al Peh because Pri Eitz Hadar meaning Esrog is a Halachah L’moshe Misinai and no one has a right to argue on them.
MediumThinker: No. That doesn’t work within the Rambam. Because according to the Rambam it’s not about beliefs that you are allowed to have or not; it’s about beliefs that are inherently false. Which, even if an Amora had them, still makes one an Apikores and brings the consequences thereof.
Yekke2: He’s clearly talking about the mythical Sirens, not mermaids, but close enough.
Also, R’ Meir Stern’s P’shat is a nice Teretz, but it doesn’t work if you really study the Moreh. According to the Rambam, he would have to say that R’ Hillel was an Apikores. Since Apikorsus is defined as incorrect ideas about Hashem (according to the Rambam), it doesn’t matter whether or not you have permission ro argue. If you’re wrong, you’re wrong, and nothing can change that fact.
DY: I never noticed that before. The Mishnah Brurah and other Achronim point out in several places that Tzarich only implies a Lechatchilah.
I always try to stay. I don’t always succeed.
I can go into this at length, but basically the Rambam holds that Olam Habah is a continuation of the amount of understanding of G-d that you earned in this world. Thus, someone with false ideas about G-d inherently does not receive this, whether or not it’s his fault. Because if you have false ideas, there is inherently nothing for you to receive in Olam Habah. Pashtus is that we hold by the Ra’avad in this.
Vochindik: Wrong. Shehechiyanu and Hatov V’hameitiv are Brachos that are dependent on a level of Simchah, something which certainly changes with the times. In Chazal’s times, the level of Simchah for having a daughter was much less, which had Halachic Nafka Minas. Nowadays, the level of Simchah is the same (according to many Poskim), which also has Halachic Nafka Minas.
R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and other contemporary Poskim say that even though the Poskim bring down that the Brachah on having a baby girl is different than a boy, nowadays society has changed and there is the same Simchah when each is born.
WIY: It’s a Machlokes Tannaim in Ta’anis. I don’t know if Rashi Paskens one way or the other anywhere, but it’s not ridiculous to think he would say that.
I think I once quoted a T’shuvah in the Tzitz Eliezer here about whether or not shoes Halachically count as clothes (the precise topic was putting on galosh-covered shoes or whether that’s an issue of putting on two Begadim at once, I believe). Presumably the same would apply here. If shoes are clothes, then for sure they didn’t wear them. If shoes aren’t, then there’s no Hechre that I know of (maybe a Medrash somewhere refers to it; I definitely don’t recall one about it though).
No questions are Kfira-dik. We are not Catholicism. We believe that all questions have an answer and therefore all philosophical questions are okay. It’s the wrong answers that can be Kfira. (Yes, the Mishnah in Chagigah says not to ask 4 questions because those are beyond human comprehension and therefore could lead to people giving wrong answers.)
There’s a Minhag not to. I believe it’s from the Tzava’ah of R’ Yehudah Hachassid. Whether or not that creates an obligation on everyone is a Machlokes Haposkim.
Bubka: Interesting. The Lashon of the Rambam is in plural, which does imply Beis Din. However, the Ramban quotes it in the singular, which would imply the husband himself.
Vochindik: Of course not. If the Ba’alei Simcha don’t want mixed seating why would they have it?
Naysberg: I have heard the phrase used by many Rabbonim, some “MO”, some “Yeshivish”.
Here We Go Again: Please tell me that was facetious. A wedding should not be about making sure that every possible guest should be accommodated. The sheer ridiculous implications of that should not need to be expounded upon. (Also, what about the people who will not attend if it is completely separate because they would be insulted if they can’t be seated next to their spouses?)
GAW: I asked my father that. He said that one of the rules of nature that HKBH set up was that someone who eats from the Eitz Hachayim will live forever. Thus, even though He can abrogate that, He usually limits himself to the laws of nature that he set up.
Lulei D’mistifina, I would say that we have to wonder if the Rambam’s society influenced this Halachah. After all, he also says that a husband should beat his wife if she doesn’t listen to him, something which no one nowadays would agree to.
Avhaben: Her point was that what is done at weddings by women (I’m assuming, I haven’t investigated this for obvious reasons) doesn’t count as dancing.
Hersh: Wrong. The Rambam says that on a Halachah L’moshe Misinai there can’t be a Machlokes. Nothing else is Talui in Mesorah because the Mesorah doesn’t work like that. There is no Mesorah on individual Halachos, according to him. According to the Rambam, the only Mesorah are the Middos Shehatorah Nidreshes Bahen (and the Halachos L’moshe Misinai) and every Beis Din in every Dor has the right to Darshen as they see fit (at the end of the Tannaim they agreed to no longer Darshan that way and to not argue on the previous Doros).
Simcha: By the way, you’re OP takes a Davar Pashut like the Geonim about the Hishtalshelus Hamesorah and not the Rambam.
Wisey: It is a phrase I have heard used by several Chashuve Rabbonim and Roshei Yeshivah, Davka about this issue. Their point is that the Chassan and Kallah put all of their friends who might be Shayach for each other at the same tables so that they can meet and perhaps make a Chasunah of their own someday soon.
Bubka: We have a tradition that Chazal have no Machloksim about Metzius that they could easily determine by looking at. That doesn’t mean they don’t argue over reality. See the Machlokes in Ta’anis about the water cycle. Or the Machlokes of whether a Treifah can live or have kids. Or many other Machloksim. (And by the way, R’ Moshe said that if the Rashba saw reality and Treifos today he would never have said what he said.)
gr8 masmid: That is the Shittah of the Bach who is a very minority opinion (and the reason is not precisely as you say it, but close enough).
TLKY: When you say words like “all”, and italicize them, you should be sure that you are right. Which you’re not. There’s a famous SHU”T Sh’vus Yaakov on this (I am not saying he’s accepted by anyone-he’s not; but he is a more than legitimate source and he does disagree).
Simchah Goreres Simchah.
Bahab starts in a week and a half, not next week. And what does this line, One Modern Orthodox person I know fasts it, and some frum people also fast it. mean?
Wisey: Why would it be? There’s no Mitzvas Achilah. There’s a Mitzvah of Simchah. And being drunk might be fun, but that’s not real Simchah. Nor is Stam eating meat.
Find a Shiur/Chavrusa that works for you or buy an Artscroll.
We don’t beat Hoshanos. We beat Aravos.
Yatzmich: A not-agreed-upon-by-everyone Shittah in the Achronim can be Kovea reality now? Besides, Chazal never said that you definitely said the right way. They just said what you must assume in the case of a Safek.
Avhaben: That’s not even close to Apikorsus. We say things like that all the time. In fact, the Nodah Bihudah said it first. R’ Schachter often says that if they had floss and toothbrushes in Chazal’s time that Chazal might have mandated doing that instead of waiting hours.
At my Minyan, there were 5 people who didn’t circle the Bimah once.
TLKY: If you’re Mitzta’er in your Sukkah then you’re Pattur. Once you go inside it’s fine. You’re not Mechuyav to search every Sukkah in the city after it rains to find one that isn’t dripping because it might exist. Mitzta’er is different than if your Sukkah becomes Passul somehow.
WIY: That’s his point. If it was a Chiyuv then maybe you’re Yotzei something. Since it’s just a Minhag and you’re not actually gaining any understanding from it, it borders on a waste of time.
Wisey: Maybe not. Because it’s Chazei L’itztrufei. And we hold that Chatzi Shiur is Assur Min Hatorah, you’re just not Chayav. So Yitay’s Kal V’chomer from the beginning of the thread should hold up by a Chazti Shiur too.
PBA: I don’t think so. There are Poskim who mention that if you Daven one Mussaf Shmoneh Esrei for Shabbos and one for Yom Tov that you are Yotzei (though I don’t think it’s agreed upon by everybody). But if it’s in the same Shmoneh Esrei when you went back then you cancelled your first part, so you’re now missing Shabbos.