Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mdd: I agree, hair being a Chatzitzah is a Chumra of the Achronim with a relatively weak basis in the Rishonim. But they do bring it down. Pashtus the difference is whether this is a spot where the hair naturally grew, though such a difference isn’t Shayach in Hilchos T’vilah. That’s why I said a combover. Though it’s fairly clear that some Achronim hold that having thick or long hair naturally at the front of the head could be a Chatzitzah. I agree it’s a Dachuk P’sak. But you cannot deny that some Achronim do say it.
Yekke: That’s against the famous Ramban (and several other Rishonim) who point out that Ya’akov couldn’t be married to two sisters. And talking about Chiyuvim for B’nei Noach doesn’t help. We assume the Avos kept Kol Hatorah Kulah like B’nei Yisrael. So yes, it was before Mattan Torah so there’s technically no Issur. But the question still stands.
And the Midrash seems to look down on the fact that Shimon married Dinah (it says that they did a Ma’aseh that was done by the K’na’anim).
Yekke: The Rambam in the Moreh (dunno precisely where) says that they certainly will die afterwards. I’ve heard that others say no but have never seen it inside.
It’s because the mods are sleeping/busy at that time and no one is approving posts. It happens for everyone.
Shmoel: You missed his point. The Satmer Rebbe didn’t hold of that. He held that Bizman Hazeh it’s Assur to live in E”Y. So the fact that those Rabbanim lived in E”Y, even if they were anti-Zionists, means they did not completely hold of the Satmar Rebbe’s Shittah. It doesn’t mean they supported Zionism or the Medinah, but it does mean that they disagreed with him (at the very least on some points).
Interjection: No. They are because it is Assur to have any pleasure from any interaction with a woman who is forbidden to you (including a Niddah).
And yes, technically the Avos could violate Halachah before Mattan Torah. But we assume that they didn’t unless we are forced to say otherwise. And the Shvatim marrying their sisters isn’t explicit in the P’sukim and is also probably a Machlokes Hamidrashim (and also a bit against the P’sukim that tell us that Y’hudah married the Adulami’s daughter.)
Shmoel: Why would it apply if you know that your life is more important? He has an obligation. V’chai Bahem and no reason to override that. It’s a tough question. There has to be something more here.
mdd: I don’t think so. We’d have to see if any Achronim bring up the case of someone with a long mustache blowing Shofar. But I don’t think by T’vilah it’s a Din in Hefsek. I think it’s a Din in the water not physically touching. Hefsek is a Halachic term, not necessarily a statement of reality.
Interjection: That’s Yichud. N’giyah according to almost all Rishonim is D’oraisa.
Englishman: You missed my point. I don’t expect anyone to Pasken from what I say. That’s why I usually cite the approximate source and don’t double-check. I give people a Mareh Makom. Here, that’s not possible. I’m not worried that someone will pasken incorrectly from what I say. I’m worried that a not-easily-disprovable Ziyuf Shel Torah would come from what I write here.
I’ll look at Nazir again.
Oomis: She was a P’nuyah. N’giyah is Muttar. That’s the real P’shat in the story.
Aurora: Grab a Kitzur Shulchan Aruch. Both Artscroll and Metzudah have published one with an English translation, though in my opinion the Artscroll one is better (especially because of their footnotes). It is not so long (it’s not short either though) and familiarizing yourself with it would mean that you would at least have a passing knowledge of almost every concept that can come up in day-to-day life.
mdd: I’m just as surprised with you. What reason do you have to connect Hilchos Chatzitzah in Niddah to T’fillin? Pashtus is there are two very different issues at hand here. One is about being M’akev the water (though I will be honest, I’m not perfectly clear on YD 198 whether a Chatzitzah is only about blocking the water or whether there are two types of Chatzitzos there as well) while by T’fillin we’re worried about creating a Hefsek between where the T’fillin are supposed to be and where they actually are.
Shmoel: Once again, there are a lot of factors involved that I (or anyone here) is far from qualified to judge. And these questions have to be far more detailed. For example, if there were Eidim that actually said that he died then she might even be allowed to remarry him. But each case like this has thousands of potential Tzdadim and really requires looking into it deeply.
(I had a whole Shtickel written out on some specific cases but I erased them. I am not confident enough in anything I say here to actually post it because I do not know if it’s Emes and do not want to give even the slightest misinformation on a topic like this. Not because this type of topic is more important than any other Halachic topic C”V, but because things like this are so complex that if I were to make a mistake (as happens often enough) it would not be so easy for someone to point it out by just bringing a simple Mareh Makom.)
Rabbaim: Halachah never states to sit Shiva for a not-Frum child. There was a Minhag for a long time to sit Shiva for a child who intermarried (R’ Schachter says that it was originally only for a son who intermarried and that the Shiva is for his children who won’t be Jewish). Some Yechidim sat Shivah in individual situations to show extreme sadness. From there, somehow, the custom has spread to where a lot of people sit Shivah for a lot of things. But it’s not Halachah.
And there is a Passuk against your attitude. The Torah says, “Lo Yuchal L’vaker Es Ben Ha’ahuva Al P’nei Ben Has’nuah Hab’chor.” The Gemara says that “Has’nuah” means even if he is “S’nuah Lifnei Hamakom”.
Pashtus is that a Bluris is a combover. (Actually, there is a fair bit to discuss here. A combover should Vadai be a Chatzitzah for T’fillin. It’s unclear if a Bluris could also include other types of hairstyles that include having the hair be very long or bushy but leaving only the natural-growing hair in the forehead area.)
Human beings are inherently differentiable from one another. Each person is Kavua because each is recognizable. This applies to both men and women. (And once you recognize the person you could know if he’s Jewish or not).
(Maybe you could claim that if there would be a set of triplets and the embryos were all put in different surrogates that you could actually have a case of people that aren’t Kavua.)
Shmoel: No. I honestly couldn’t. I said “think about”, not “answer” because there are always complex Halachic pieces in place in these types of cases. What Eidim are believed to say, who qualifies as an Eid, whether we are able to believe 1 person on such a matter, whether we are allowed to believe 1 Eid, how much proof constitutes proof, etc. I know how I would approach such a case, but it takes someone with magnitudes higher levels of knowledge than myself to be anywhere near confident in giving an answer.
Shmoel: What are you saying? That all Gittin in New York are P’sulim? That’s ridiculous. You clearly don’t know whaat a Get M’useh is.
Wolf: The Gemara’s S’vara for why you can’t kill someone even for Pikuach Nefesh. There are some cases where it really shouldn’t apply. What do you do then?
Shmoel: Learn the last few Perakim of Yevamos and the T’shuvos Nodah Bihudah Even Ha’ezer and then you might be able to think about some of these types of Shailos. (See N”B O”C 1:35 too though, if I recall correctly)
Who the heck cares? Why are you trying to label (and therefore judge) what someone went through. They had an experience. You should respect them just as much as you respect any elder. This thread is inane and offensive.
Wolf: Sharon Ventura
By the way, responding to a post in this thread should not be legal. That would, by definition, not be random.
Wolf: I once asked R’ Schachter that. The S’vara shouldn’t apply if a Gadol Hador is threatened unless he’ll kill an Am Ha’aretz. It’s a tough question.
Shmoel: The graffiti in Meah Shearim disagrees with you.
Some say that you can’t. The Tzitz Eliezer has a T’shuvah where he explains that even most of the Shittos that hold that you can’t say Mikrah at night hold that Tehillim is okay.
PBA: But what if she actually needs the help? Would it be inappropriate to accept? And what if, out of a (false*) sense of Tznius, she refuses? Is that inappropriate?
*I say false because you yourself set the parameters here being whether she actually needs the help or not.
rob: I don’t know whether or not he did drugs. I do know that he has advocated getting high (or has been quoted as such) in his books.
PBA: But that’s irrelevant. Whatever the norm is is what sets what you should do here. And if the norm changes the proper course of action will change as well.
Avhaben: Citing a 614th Mitzvah is a violation of Bal Tosif D’oraisa.
rob: Be fair. You’re not being so nice here either. And I feel like unless Popa tells us exactly how he’s feeling (and sometimes even then), his tone always needs to be taken with a grain of salt.
And Popa, I don’t think that’s so true. From those who I’ve spoken to in the Chareidi community in Israel, they don’t seem afraid that they’ll be Shmaded. Nervous about the law, maybe. But I think you’re exaggerating the feelings (or the feelings are exaggerated by your friends who don’t really know what attitudes are like there either).
From a Rebbe of mine (I think I recall this speech pretty close to verbatim, but I might be off on a bit here or there):
“I don’t know what’s Muttar to say. I don’t know if I should say it. Or how to say it. But I have to say it. When they have a ‘Carlebach Kaballas Shabbos’, it’s not right. There’s nothing wrong with the tunes or the singing. I happen to find them uplifting sometimes. But I feel like to name a part of Davening after someone that that person should be someone very special. I think it’s known-the stories about him and women and him and drugs. And if it’s not known, then people really have no idea who he was. He may have been a lot of good things. Or maybe not even that. But he definitely wasn’t someone to name a style of Davening or Chassidus after.”
Shlishi: Not quite. That’s a separate issue of saying things are normally said out loud differently than the Tzibbur because it will cause confusion. Also, R’ Moshe writes elsewhere that there is no Lo Sisgod’du in places like New York because after all of the immigration it’s like Shtei Batei Dinim B’ir Achas and everyone knows it.
Yitay: It should be a Davar Pashut, but I remember thinking that the Lashon of the Rambam made them sound the same.
Avhaben: He had the very logical Shittah that we must recognize the Nissim and be thankful to HKBH for what He gave us in Eretz Yisrael now while at the same time acknowledging that the current government has major faults. You’re repeating what he says. Moreover, by using the far-too-broad term “Zionist”, you’re confusing what he says. The definition of a “Zionist” even then (and certainly nowadays) was very different than the definition of a “secular Zionist” that the Gedolim in the early 20th century fought so strongly against. Almost every religious Zionist will tell you that those secular Zionists did not have Yiddishkeit’s best interests at heart, to say the least. But using one term “Zionist” to combine both camps is misleading and only causes more (unintended, usually) hatred.
PBA: Eh. Your tone came across as very unwilling to discuss civilly. His response wasn’t so unexpected.
It might be rude. It might be tacky. It’s a Mitzvah of being M’sameach Chassan V’kallah. If you have the money to be M’kayem it in that way, great. If you don’t or just don’t want to then you don’t have to give.
HaLeiVi: The Rambam doesn’t hold of Hashgacha Pratis in the way that it’s normally thought either though.
RebRY: Such a statement is Lashon Harah. You either need to give a reason that would be Nogeiya to everyone here or you can’t say that. (You could say that his music doesn’t appeal to you; that’s just a statement of personal preference and is for sure not Lashon Harah.) (And no, this is not an endorsement of R’ Shlomo (nor is the lack of endorsement a condemnation); I was just pointing out that such a statement is not Muttar to make by itself.)
Health: I hope I’m not the first. I honestly don’t know. But I don’t think it’s such a Dachuk claim. And you can’t brush off Lo S’chonem like that. You can’t say “Goyim can’t own the land anyway” and make the Issur D’oraisa go away. That’s precisely what the Issur is. It’s giving them the land, even if they can’t technically acquire it.
Englishman: The Rambam is not “some Shittah somewhere”. More often than not, we hold like him. But that wasn’t my point. It could very well be that the Rambam’s Shittah on Y’mos Hamashiach is not the one we Pasken by. But people have an almost mythical expectation for what Y’mos Hamashiach are like. And maybe that will be what they are like. But it needs to be pointed out that there is a major Shittah that says something very different.
Englishman: The Rambam certainly doesn’t hold that.
ovktd: That could be. I haven’t looked at this particular piece in Orach Chayim in a very long time. I seem to recall being Mesupak if it was similar to the “woman can get an Aliya but then they can’t” Halachah (meaning that M’ikar Hadin one has to wash but he shouldn’t because nowadays it’s arrogant) or whether it was as you are presenting it.
Why wouldn’t you? A Seder is usually considered enough to make a Siyum on. People learning Daf Yomi make a Siyum on each individual Masechta, don’t they?
Health: Karka Einah Nigzeles. The Goyim never had the R’shus to become Ba’alim on it. (And even if you Pasken Yeish Kinyan L’AKU”M L’hafkia…, they still can’t actually own the land. Eretz Yisrael belongs to the Jews L’olam Va’ed.) Whether or not making a State was Assur, you can’t fix that by being Over on another Issur D’oraisa.
And you can’t know that it would be Pikuach Nefesh to give up Israel. It might be. Or it might be worse. But I don’t think that your assumption about what world terror organizations would be satisfied with even creates a Safek Pikuach Nefesh to get out of this Issur D’oraisa.
(I could also make the claim that this Issur is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor because it’s related to Avodah Zarah and because the Passuk directly implies it, but I’m really not in the mood to discuss that at the moment.)
Twisted: That can’t be. There’s a Machlokes between Tosfos and Ramban by the Shiur for a Mikvah. According to the Ramban, a person is 3 Amos tall (18 Tefachim). According to Tosfos a person’s neck is 18 Tefachim high. Either way, though, it’s not like you’re saying. I’ll need to look into this more. (And either way, those Mekoros do not support the 10-Tefach Mechitzah.) Oh, and your Terutz is also Mevuar not like the Tzlach (then again, archaeology is Mevuar not like the Tzlach too though).
Englishman: Of course. That’s basic psychology (and I remember once thinking a Gemara said the same thing but don’t remember where it was). What you expect to cause inappropriate feelings will. What you are used to will not cause such feelings as much. If someone expects to be aroused by a 3-year-old, they will. If someone is used to playing with their 3-year-old cousin (or even a 10-year-old cousin) they will not become aroused by it because they are used to it. (Obviously this has limits, but the basic principal often applies.)
WIY: Throughout Israeli history (as far as I know), the government’s leaders have always conferred with Gedolim before undertaking military ventures. Whether they listen to those Gedolim’s advice is unclear. But the stories are famous of secular leaders asking for Brachos from the Lubavitcher Rebbe or the advice of Halachic figures.
Health: Avi K makes a good point actually. How is what you endorse not an Issur D’Oraisa of Lo S’chonem?