Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If this is actually a major problem and you can’t solve it then you might be Pattur from Sukkah because too many bugs would be a definite Mitzta’er.
Washing is a D’rabannan of Inui. Overstuffed would for sure not be a Mitzvah, because that’s not called an Achilah. What does it matter if you don’t like the food? Inui is determined by fullness, not enjoying the food. And by “being full” I meant not being so hungry. Maybe you would need to eat a Koseves in K’dei Achilas P’ras but I don’t think so because that’s not how the Mitzvah is worded. But it does bear looking into.
Curiosity: Not that it looks like a violin. All violins have the same greek letter to the sides of the strings at the bottom. I have no ideas if cellos do as well.
Wisey: Because maybe it’s not an actual Mitzvas Achilah. Maybe the Mitzvah is a Kiyum of being full (the opposite of the Issur of Yom Kippur which is not an Issur Achilah but a Kiyum in being M’uneh).
Curiosity: Where does a violin fit into a math problem? 😛
WIY: Leaving it over Shabbos Chol Hamoed would be a problem. Also, if he puts them back after Minyan then goes to a later minyan the next day you could have 24 hours.
I don’t know who says what, but I was told that several major Poskim Passul Arbah Minim if they are Mevushalim. And since Kavush Kimvushal, if they’re sitting in the water for 24 hours straight then we’d say they’re Mevushalim and P’sulim.
Shlishi: There’s a Machlokes Tannaim B’kol Hatorah Kulah about whether it takes something happening twice to create a Chazakah or whether it takes 3 times. The Gemara in Yevamos talks about why and in which cases we split the P’sak. So the reason we say it’s a Chazakah after 2 in the case of a Katlanis (and by Meisu Echav Machmas Milah) is because there’s a Pikuach Nefesh involved so it’s S’feiko L’hachmir and we treat 2 as a Chazakah. But even if you will say like this Rashi that a concept of “Muchzekes L’geirushin” exists, there’s no reason not to Pasken that it takes 3 times to create a Chazakah because that’s the way we Pasken in almost every other case.
Lechayim: There’s a serious Shaila about doing that.
Wisey: Every Mitzvas Achilah has a specific Shiur within K’dei Achilas P’ras. That’s the Halachic definition of “Achilah” (having a K’zayis Bichdei Achilas P’ras).
Shlishi: Tzarich Iyun Bidvarav because his case should only be Shayach to a woman who was divorced 3 times.
Yekke: I can’t. Apparently the Ran is against however I understood that Gemara a year ago.
CRuzer: A Alman/Garush that marries another Almanah/Grushah only gets 3 days of Sheva Brachos, not 7.
Mommamia: A twice-widowed woman is not supposed to get remarried (except in certain circumstances; this is one of those issues, like Mamzeirus and Igun, where the Poskim use every possibility to be Mattir them).
Yitay: I had no idea. Oops…
Plain love and true love? What are you, an ad for a Disney movie? How about we let people who love each other determine what their love is. There’s no reason to judge or set rules about this for anything.
Shein: 7a (maybe 8a), where it discusses the Sheva Brachos. On the words, “Re’im Ha’ahuvim”, Rashi translates that as “Re’im Ha’ohavim Zeh Es Zeh”. Please, tell me how I misunderstood that. I don’t claim to have perfect P’shat in everything, but this one seems pretty clear (to me, at least).
(By the way, it’s idiotic when people say that a wedding should be the “happiest day of their lives”. It shouldn’t be at all. The couple should love each other more and be happier and happier together constantly after their marriage. But this Rashi clearly states that it’s assumed that there are already feelings of love under the Chuppah.)
WIY: Only on the first day. Other days it’s a Mitzvah Haba’ah Ba’aveirah.
Shein: I have a Rashi in Kesuvos that seems to disagree with you.
Supposed to? I don’t know. I believe the source is the Yesod V’shoresh Ha’avodah. So can that create an obligation? Probably not. Is it a good idea? Probably.
Ready now: Only someone intentionally looking for a flaw would misread that line as you did. I think it was pretty clear what he meant.
Chacham: I’ll try and look it up. I was pretty sure it was him, but I could be wrong. I thought he was Mechalek between shaving and cutting fingernails and says that you can’t do the latter because even after a week those don’t look bad. I’ll have to look this up again. I could be misremembering things.
Chacham: Nope, didn’t forget. I am entirely unaware of it though. Care to enlighten me?
Simcha: I just re-read your OP. The Aruch Hashulchan brings up your precise point and says that if you shaved for the first days then you can shave for the second if you don’t look nice with a week of growth.
Simcha: Shailos Utshuvos Nodah Bihudah Orach Chayim 1:13, I believe.
On the ball: I believe that quote is attributed to the Ba’al Shem Tov. I also think I quoted it in another thread here.
HaLeiVi: Why would I advise someone against marrying a niece? Birth defects? That’s a bit of an issue but not so much. I could hear the Tayneh that the reason for marrying a niece doesn’t apply so much anymore, but I don’t see any inherent problem with it.
And I’m not confusing anything. It’s an Aggadta in Brachos that says how great a city was that had 80 pairs of Kohanim marry 80 sisters and that the searched and the only thing they found like it was that a certain Amora and his brother had married 2 sisters.
Yekke: R’ Elyashiv says that a computer screen is real K’siva and that changing the screen is an Issur of M’chikas Hashem (he held that Bar Ilan was a tremendous problem).
Squeak: To answer your original question, even though showering on Yom Tov is Shaveh L’chol Nefesh (at least in American nowadays; Israelis can probably go 2 days without a shower quite often), there is still an issue of G’zeiras Habalanim according to some Rishonim.
Vochindik: Welcome back. I thought you had left this screen name behind. It is mentioned in many Poskim that it might only be for his direct descendants (you are correct that it probably means most Ashkenazim nowadays, so maybe they mean Ben Achar Ben). And most of the things in the Tzava’ah seem to be against Gemaros (certainly the things he says not to do were all Muttar Midina D’gemara). He had different Cheshbonos for what he wrote in the Tzava’ah, obviously.
Ready now: He’s absolutely correct. The Perek and Passuk numbers used in all standard Chumashim (except for R’ Aryeh Kaplan’s) are the Christian divisions. According to us, they are counted by Parsha breaks (Pesuchos and Stumos). The only case where we agree with them is Tehillim. And even then, Chazal in Brachos say that the first 2 Perakim are really only 1.
Forget Yevamos. It’s an explicit Gemara in Brachos (somewhere in the 40s) that it’s a Ma’aleh.
HaLeiVi: Interesting. I should read through the whole Tzava’ah at some point. However, I have heard from many important Rabbonim that the only part of the Tzava’ah that the whole Olam is Noheg to be Makpid on is the same name issue.
Why is there a problem? The Gemara seems to say that it’s a very good thing (the two brothers marrying two sisters).
I have normal Nike sneakers. Check online. Most are leather-free.
Belief in G-d inherently comes with belief in the supernatural. Why try to explain it away?
Yitay: I forgot this thread but I saw in the Ran in the middle of Yevamos (it was definitely the Ran, I think it was in the middle of Yevamos but it could have been anywhere) where he makes that precise Kal V’chomer by saying Hamis’asek B’chalavim… and says if that’s Midas Hadin then Midas Harachamim Lo Kol Shekein.
PBA: Yes, Rav Schachter proves from the Mishnayos about a Sukkah in an Aliyah that as a prerequisite for having a Sukkah you need 4 walls and a floor. (It was in his Shiur online on Inyanei Sukkah from last week, if you want to go back and listen to it.)
Shein: Fine, I apologize for faking humility on Motza’ei Yom Kippur and not using a more definitive statement and said “probably”. I’m sure of it. When I’m not sure I say so. I think I’ve been posting here long enough for you to realize that. When I say “probably” it means I’m sure I’m right. I’m sorry for using a Lashon that confused you.
Shein: Why? I’d have to review everything, but we hold that a Sukkah G’zulah is Passul. And since we hold Karkah Einah Nigzeles, that probably means that it’s Passul if you build a Sukkah somewhere that you don’t have permission to. What’s incorrect about what I just wrote?
PBA: I’ll look up precisely where. I’m almost positive about this though.
PBA: Yes, but that doesn’t make it Muttar.
PBA: Even if it is Muttar to say things about him, that doesn’t mean that anything goes. You can still only tell facts, not theories or suspicions.
Shmoel: No matter what you hold about R’ Tendler, that last line is pure Lashon Harah and Assur to say. Suspicions are irrelevant. The mods shouldn’t have let that line through.
If I had to guess, I’d say that it was a Mormon interested in genealogy.
An Eved isn’t allowed in the Azarah either. That wouldn’t change anything.
WIY: Of course he didn’t. Now that R’ Elyashiv was Niftar people need another name to put their insane ideas behind. It’s sad. For the past many years now a lot of Chashuve Rabbonim have been saying that you can’t trust anything unpublished that was said B’sheim R’ Elyashiv because every right-wing (and even some left-wing) nutjob would say whatever they want and then just stamp R’ Elyashiv’s name on it as if he said it. I truly and honestly Daven that the same does not become true of R’ Chaim now.
Moda’a L’rabbim: 1984 is not clean.
WIY: And I’m saying that that can’t be in this case because we have a precedent from Chazal themselves. So while it might be that the idea of a Goy doesn’t mix with the idea of a Sukkah, in practical life there is no reason to avoid allowing the former inside the latter.
Bamorga: Chazal told us what to do about the Goy. Chazal had Goyim in their own Sukkos. But I guess you are more sensitive to the “hidden Issurim” of Torah than Chazal were. And it’s our job to understand Chazal and Mesorah, not to invent new ones. Everything is found in Torah. Are you really so arrogant to think that you have found an Issur that Chazal and all the Rishonim missed? Your idea abrogates Mesorah entirely. Why look at what the Halachah is? We should just try and figure out what Chazal wanted us to do on our own because of course they couldn’t tell us? It’s arrogance, it’s denying our Mesorah, and it’s pure Apikorsus.
WIY: Lulav being M’ratzeh for the Ruchos is in Nigleh too. Look, we have a tradition that when Nigleh contradicts Nistar we have to Pasken like the Nigleh. The basic explanation that I have from my Rebbeim is that Nistar explains and complements the Nigleh. But all of Halachah is found in Nigleh. In fact, I was once told by a huge and well-respected Talmid Chacham not to worry if I ever found that Nigleh contradicted Nistar. The reason we Pasken by Nigleh is that all of our Nistar is based off Shittas R’ Shimon, so if there’s ever a contradiction it’s just that we don’t hold by R’ Shimon in that matter but that the other Tannaim also had Nistar to explain their Shittos as well. But Halachah L’ma’aseh, Ein Lanu Eisek B’nistaros.
I am calling troll on this entire thread, by the way. I just noticed that the same person began the thread with a question and now all of a sudden has a clarity on it like it’s a Halachah L’moshe Misinai. I’m not sure why this poster decided to push this random agenda, but I’m calling troll.
Bamorga: That is ridiculous and borderline (and I’m only adding the word borderline to be nice) Apikorsus. We have a Mesorah and a Halachah that does cover every scenario. And if this precise case isn’t mentioned in specific detail, then the general rule is. There is no rule Assering having a Goy in a Sukkah. Hence, it’s Muttar. We are a religion that believes in a Mesorah that tells us what’s right and wrong and tells us what’s Assur. If you want to make up your own “Halachos” based on… (I have no idea, what are you basing it on?) then Orthodox Judaism is not for you.
MZ: ? Safek D’rabannan is Lehakel. Of course you can say a Sfek Sfeka on a D’oraisa.
Bamorga: Your statement makes no sense whatsoever. If there’s no Issur then why isn’t it Muttar?