Sam2

Englishman: I meant no disrespect. And yes, it troubles me greatly that I am troubled that R’ Moshe does that. But what can I do? I have to learn Torah, and when I learn R’ Moshe and see that he says that Rishonim just can’t say what they actually do say, I have no idea what to do. I can’t C”V disagree with any P’sak. But when I want to learn and find Amittah Shel Torah I am very troubled.

(I can perfectly explain what R’ Moshe did and why he did it. He knew Kol Hatorah Kula and learned Ad Amittah Shel Torah and therefore knew that certain Shittos just could not exist in the Rishonim. So he says there must be a typo or misunderstanding somewhere. Because those Shittos would go against Amittah Shel Torah, therefore they can’t exist. But when I (or anyone else) is trying to learn and see that these Shittos do actually exist in the Kidvei Yad or are cited in other sources, I just don’t know what to do. The most famous example is the Sefer Hatziyuni. R’ Moshe says it must be a forgery because it says Apikorsus and attributes it to R’ Yehudah Hechassid. But the Sefer Hatziyuni was a well-accepted and often-quoted Kaballah Sefer for hundreds of years. And the Shittah of R’ Yehudah Hechassid that R’ Moshe said could not exist because it was Apikorsus is stated by or in the name of R’ Yehudah Hechassid in other Mekoros also. So I honestly have no idea what to do with such a Shittah. The Tzitz Eliezer addressed such a Derech very harshly. I am not the Tzitz Eliezer and therefore cannot say anything negative about it, but it does trouble me greatly. In fact, that fact that it troubles me so much is only because of the extreme Kavod I have for R’ Moshe. If most other Poskim would say such a thing I would probably just say he’s against the Rishonim and move on.)

I hope that explains things. It was not at all C”V intended to be a Chutzpah towards R’ Moshe.

Pcoz: That is true. He argues on Rishonim sometimes (albeit very rarely) and is perfectly allowed to. That’s not the issue here.

There is a Shittah of the Sh’vus Ya’akov. It is a complete Da’as Yachid that is rejected quite harshly by many later Poskim (the S’ridei Eish had some very sharp words about this, if I recall correctly). However, many seem to rely on it. Sort of.

Englisham: I think I did. You didn’t see my last paragraph?

pcoz: R’ Moshe does that often. It’s a bit troubling sometimes, actually. (See how the Tzitz Eliezer responded to R’ Moshe’s abortion T’shuva. He has some very, very harsh words in there for R’ Moshe’s willingness to do that.)

First of all, many Goyim were circumcised as babies so many Geirim only get a Hatafah. And when an adult Ger has an actual bris, it’s almost always done in a hospital where I doubt they allow M’tzitzah B’peh. So the question is probably moot.

Ironically, the whole controversy about M’tzitza B’peh probably wouldn’t apply to an adult. The whole issue that those who are concerned about it has is that direct blood contact with a virus by a baby can be very dangerous to the still developing immune system. There is no such concern at all by an adult with a properly developed immune system (who was probably exposed to Herpes Symplex before anyway).

To answer your question, the man has just undergone an excruciatingly painful procedure. I’m sure there’s no Chashash of anything inappropriate at all.

Repharim: That’s not true. Everyone is Mechuyav to wear Tzitzis if able unless there is something extenuating stopping them. See Tzitz Eliezer 8:4 if I recall correctly.

On the ball: No. I suggest you go over what the Gemara and the Poskim say about having any activity (with the sole exception about a meeting for Pidyon Sh’vuyim, if I recall correctly) in a “circus and theater”.

on the ball: I disagree. It’s one thing to say that when Chazal knew of some other forms of public entertainment and nevertheless weren’t Mechalek themselves. It’s another when it’s very logical to say that our sports are not what they were talking about at all. If there is any source at all that Chazal were even talking about a nonviolent or nonsalacios public arenas then I would be Maskim to you. And I will give you a Raya that the Olam holds of this Chiluk. We have our Siyum Hashas (and the recent Asifa) in such stadiums, which would be absolutely Assur L’fi Pashtus Divrei Chazal. Thus, we seem to hold that Chazal’s statements about theaters and coliseums don’t apply to our football stadiums.

mw13: Yes. Yes he does.

Kozov: It is precisely because he was accepted that we have to listen to him. It’s kind of circular when you think about it, but not quite. He was recognized as the undisputed Posek Hador, and therefore we were Meshabed ourselves (yes, even those of us who weren’t born until after he passed away) to every P’sak of his. Cases where he was ignored are tough to deal with, though it should be noted that people were Noheg to use Shabbos clocks before everyone started listening to him (and before he Assered them), which is probably an important factor.

Csar: I almost parenthetically added the words “with very select exceptions where the Tzibbur was not Noheg like him”. But even then, it’s clear that he was against Shabbos clocks L’migdar Milsa, and not from straight Halachah. Thus, using on an air conditioner or even anything else in the house doesn’t violate his P’sak the same way doing something that is actually Assur would.

Csar: Because that’s what the convention was hundreds of years ago. (I honestly think that to continue wearing shirts with buttons on the left side is a serious Safek of Begged Ishah.)

Chacham: That could be. I will admit there are many “Yadua” opinions of R’ Moshe that I am unfamiliar with. But I do take anything from the last two Chalakim with a grain of salt. I respect it so long as there is no good reason to say otherwise, but I certainly don’t feel M’shubad to it the way I do to the first 7 Chalakim. (I have at different times called someone who would argue with R’ Moshe’s P’sakim L’ma’aseh (in America, at least; not necessarily in Eretz Yisrael) a Zaken Mamrei or a Mored B’malchus. But I only say that on the first 7 Chalakim.)

Chacham: Chelek 8 had enough controversy about it. Kal V’chomer Chelek 9.

RebRY: Actually it was neither. Some of the Asifa protesters were probably well-intentioned and have nothing against the Gedolim and Halachah (though I think many did), but it was definitely the wrong time and place for it (from what I have heard about it, at least).

GAW: Igros Moshe CM 2:12 (maybe 2:11) mentions that the only thing a woman violates when she goes outside not dressed properly is an Issur Asei. So it’s clear that there’s no Lifnei Iver. What’s unclear is why he doesn’t also mention that she’s Machshil Es Harabbim.

Maybe it’s true in regards to certain interpersonal relationships B’olam Hazeh, but certainly not B’olam Haemes.

Josh31: Being (even marginally) protected from the elements by them inherently counts as a benefit, even if it’s very hot out.

Rabbaim: See the first Siman in the Minchas Shlomo. I honestly don’t know what to do with it.

Dash: I believe whether or not it means to just lessen or to eliminate completely is two Dei’os in a Tosfos in Yevamos.

Ready now: I didn’t respond once, but I will this time. You actually believe the Sun revolves around the Earth? I have heard ways to talk about it so that from our perspective or whatever the World revolving around the Sun is a true statement, but I thought people who honestly believed that stopped existing in the 17th century at the latest. Who knew?

Interjection: The issue with these Halachos is that they are not explicitly stated anywhere. The closest we come is in Orach Chayim (somewhere in the early-to-mid 70s; 74 maybe) where the Shulchan Aruch says what is an Ervah that is Assur to say a Davar Shebikdusha when you see them. The reason is that since these areas cause certain thoughts more than others when men see them, therefore you may not say a Davar Shebikdusha when they are within sight. From that, it’s obvious to understand why they must be covered in public at all times. The point is they are much more likely to cause men to sin, therefore they must be covered. (R’ Schachter gives an example in several situations that revolve around the fact that the Gemara calls all of these body parts-thigh, upper arm, hair, etc.-an Ervah. He says that everyone obviously wouldn’t walk in public completely naked. Halachah considers showing these body parts being completely naked. So why would we treat them any differently?)

After that, though, the issue becomes a bit more muddy. Just from this, for example, wearing only pants or thick pantyhose would seemingly be okay. There would be no problem with having clothes that are way too tight. Everyone obviously agrees that these are problematic. So there is a second issue, aside from just being Halachically “naked” in public, that any clothes that are too attracting are not allowed. That there is no source for and is probably dictated by societal standards and common sense (i.e. even if society accepts something that is objectively too attracting, that wouldn’t make it okay; but if society says that something is too attracting, it would be problematic to wear even if it’s objectively not too attracting). And even though it would not be inherently Assur to say D’varim Shebikdusha in front of a woman wearing, for example, tight pants, the problem with that is obvious.

Ohr Chodesh: Specific source please (I’m not disagreeing with you, just asking you to provide a specific source, which I highly doubt that you can).

Ohr Chodesh: That’s just a semantics game then. You can play that however you want. It’s clear what I meant when I said physical as opposed to spiritual Galus though.

But this isn’t determined by how you walk on the street. Presumably someone who’s relaxing or reading or resting in his room would be comfortable doing so in just an undershirt (I don’t know, maybe I’m wrong). Therefore, you put on your undershirt under the sheets but after that I think one could get up and put his shirt on.

Yeshivishsocrates: That’s not what that Gemara means. Dreams have actual meaning, it’s not that you say anything random but good about any random dream and that’s what the dream means. The point is that most dreams have several possible interpretations and in such a case there is more of a chance that the interpretation that you say it means will come about. Otherwise, what is the point of the large amount of Gemara in that Perek telling us what certain things mean. Wouldn’t Yosef Hatzadik be a Shofech Damim for subjecting Egypt to famine? Why does the Gemara say that there were people who were experts at interpreting dreams? The point is that the dream has a limited number of meanings. In Paroh’s case it was just one. And the interpretation that you give, so long as it’s one of those meanings, is the one that will come about.

Ohr Chodesh: Maybe the point is that Golus is clearer and more potent outside of Eretz Yisrael. In Eretz Yisrael it’s stilla spiritual Galus. But outside there is both a physical and spiritual one. Why not fix as much of that as possible? I think that’s the point of those types of statements.