Forum Replies Created
There were no Rabbis because this was the arrangement made by the OU with the organizers. Had there been an Orthodox Rabbi — they were willing to have one — there would have also had to be a Reform and Conservative. Hence, no Rabbis at all. That was the Orthodox request. Organizers would have been perfectly willing to have Orthodox Rabbis speak.
Should be made clear, however, that ACCORDING TO PRACTICALLY EVERY POSEK, electricity in EY is NOT produced b’Issur and is halachically permitted.
This is because the electric company supplies the entire grid and at any given time there are certainly people who need electricity in their homes as a matter of pikuach nefesh.
And within each neighborhood or street, they need to supply the entire grid.
Those who use neighborhood generators on Shabbos generally do so as a matter of chumra, not min ha Din.
This is why they might use the Shabbos generator for their lights, but use regular electricity for air conditioning, especially in shuls — and most everyone outside of Bnei Brak (yes, I’m sure someone could cite exceptions) does daven in shuls with AC powered from the regular grid.
Yes, we agree.
And the way they chose to “limit such an approach from becoming mainstream” was to ban its sale, ban it from all shuls, ban it from all Battei Midrash, ban it from all homes, and characterize it as having the “spirit of haskala.”
In other words, it is so compelling and attractive that had they not banned it from all homes and all battei midrash, it would have become so popular that it would have become mainstream, supplanting Rashi (the cherem says this was their goal).
Avira asked about the proof for the two battei Din. It’s published in the response to the Lakewood cherem from the peshuto Shel Mikra publisher and can be seen through a Hebrew Google to the hebrew discussion groups that discuss this in depth, like the Otzar hachochma forum.
And this has nothing to do with the sefer by Rav Copperman of michlala. That is a different sefer.
Rashbam explains in his introduction to Chumash that chazal did not engage in peshat, only in derash.
Therefore, he says, he is not arguing with chazal when he explains pasukim differently.
For he is explaining according to peshat and they are explaining according to derash. To repeat, anything that appears in chazal is by definition derash. Nothing from chazal is peshat.
And when he disagrees with Rashi, which is the majority of his peirush on Chumash, it is for that reason as well. Not that Rashi’s peirush is invalid, but that it is derash, not peshat.
Same with the other mefarshim who disagree with Rashi, that Rashi is derash, not peshat.December 6, 2022 11:43 pm at 11:43 pm in reply to: The Haredim are the most voluntary sector in the State of Israel! #2145455
No, they’re not doing it because they’re bored and idle.
It’s just that not having a full-time job gives one a lot more flexibility as to how one will spend their time.
I was not aware that the relatively low level of haredi full-time employment was a matter of debate.
If you’ve got data that shows otherwise, please post it.
Here’s what “The Haredi Institute for Public Affairs” reports (bracketed words are mine):
As of 2017, the rate of employment among non-haredi Jews aged 25–64 was 87.8% among
men, and 82.1% among women, compared to 51.7% among haredi men and 73.4% among
haredi women of the same age group.
…[And among those who do work] Haredi men also work about 20% fewer hours on average than men in the general public.December 6, 2022 9:57 pm at 9:57 pm in reply to: The Haredim are the most voluntary sector in the State of Israel! #2145434
“I’m not clear on your point. Are you saying you aren’t uninformed or are you saying you aren’t trying to put down “part time” hareidim?”
Not putting anyone down.
Only stating my opinion that the higher rate of volunteerism in the EY haredi community relative to the EY non-haredi community is not necessarily due to their moral superiority, but to their having more time on their hands.December 6, 2022 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm in reply to: The Haredim are the most voluntary sector in the State of Israel! #2145416
“undoubtedly one of the most ignorant and misinformed posts in a while.
I guess when you want to insult a group of people why let reality interfere…..”
Ok, then, educate me as to the realities I am uninformed about.
(You ARE speaking to a present member of a haredi community in the US and prior to that longtime resident of Eretz Yisroel, including many years in one of its most haredi communities.
But go ahead, educate me. )December 6, 2022 12:56 pm at 12:56 pm in reply to: The Haredim are the most voluntary sector in the State of Israel! #2145297
When you don’t have a full-time job, you’ve got lots more time on your hands to volunteer.
When you do have a full-time job, you do not.
And when both husband and wife are working full-time, as is common in Israel, you REALLY don’t have time for volunteering.
And the people with full-time jobs are the ones paying for the social benefits, health care, police protection, fire services, and army protection that goes to the people who “volunteer” a few hours a week.
How do you explain that the Eida Chareidis Beis Din declared this peirush “kulo kodesh”?
(After having their shaliach go through every word in all five volumes?)
Two multi-volume series in hebrew: לרעך כמוכה and בין אדם לחברו.
They might be hard to find.
New York State Police are investigating a fatal vehicle crash on Route 6 in the town of Woodbury
16 August 2022
NEW YORK STATE POLICE
Major Paul M. DeQuarto
Troop F Commander
On August 15, 2022, at approximately 8:23 p.m. state police responded to U.S. Route 6 in the town of Woodbury for a report of a three-car collision with entrapment and serious injuries. Initial investigation revealed that a 2021 Ford Explorer was traveling east on US Route 6 when the operator of the vehicle, age 24 from Spring Valley, NY, attempted to pass a Cadillac in front of him and crossed over the double yellow line and entered the opposite lane striking a 2003 Nissan X-Terra head-on. The Ford Explorer then crossed back over striking the Cadillac, he was attempting to pass. The operator of the Nissan was pronounced deceased at the scene. Chaim Gordon was transported to Nyack Hospital for minor injuries. Two passengers in the Ford, Yakov Gordon, age 22 and Mordchi Fromowitz, age 18, were transported to Nyack hospital for non-life-threatening injuries. Additional passengers in the Ford, Levi Szwerin, age 22 and Duvid Grunwald, age 20 were transported to Westchester Medical Center for treatment and later released. The occupants of the Cadillac, including Rabbi David Twersky, age 81 of New Square were not injured. State Police were assisted by the Town of Woodbury Police Department.
This is an ongoing investigation with charges pending.
“Entering the Temple Mount— in Halacha and Jewish History” available online on the Hakirah site addresses many of the issues discussed here.
Sounds to me that the issue here might be different experiences as to what’s considered “normal conversation.”
Which yeshiva are you part of, where your experience of “normal conversation” is the type of thing that moderators here consider unacceptable?
Maybe not loshon hara, but certainly ona’as devorim.
What cruelty to take such delight in aggressive ridicule of others!
BIGBOCHUR: Which yeshiva can we thank for your not understanding this?
Hate to be a broken record here, but Reb Eliezer, while your sevora seems quite reasonable, I do suggest you read the series of articles I recommended before thinking you’ve proven anything.
דיבור כמעשה – הבעיות ההלכתיות
הכרוכות בהפעלת ‘עוזר אישי’ בשבת
אמירה למכונה בשבת – הפעלת עוזר וירטואלי באמצעות דיבור בלבד
Coffee Addict: I suggest you read the series of articles I linked to.
See the first article in the journal I mentioned before (vol 129).
(And continue with vols 130-132 for the continuation and the responses.)
דיבור כמעשה – הבעיות ההלכתיות
הכרוכות בהפעלת ‘עוזר אישי’ בשבת
Glad you appreciated it.
See the webpage of the main author of that article (Rav Prof Dror Fixler) for tens of discussions on similar issues.
For a discussion of your question,
see issues 129-132 of the journal אמונת עתיך
For the second article in the series, Google אמירה למכונה בשבת – הפעלת עוזר וירטואלי באמצעות דיבור בלבד
Oh, so it wasn’t within the site, by looking at the pasuk’s mefarshim on that site, that you were innocently led (by Sefaria) to a woman singing (“stumbled into”)?
But that GOOGLE showed you a link, not Sefaria?
Yes, I also addressed the claim that the gemara TRANSLATION was “skewed.”
I asked for examples (from the TRANSLATION) and did not get any.
Do you have any, perhaps?
I agree that we have to be careful about who our sources are.
But the thread title is “Ban Sefaria.”
After describing his having stumbled upon a video of a woman singing (which he later explains occurred when he was looking for meforshim on a certain posuk), the questioner says “I struggle to understand why know one knows this and so many frum people use this??”
And I attempted to answer his question, to whit: Perhaps nobody “knows this” because they have not had the same experience, even after trying.
And because they, unlike BIGBOCHUR, have not had this experience, they continue use it.
He asked a question and I answered it.
This thread is called “Ban Sefaria.”
The argument given that it should be banned is BIGBOCHUR’s claim that while searching that site for mefarshim to a certain posuk, he innocently “stumbled upon” a video of a woman singing.
I have not been able to reproduce that finding.
Anytime I click on any mefaresh on that pasuk, I get what it says I will get.
I have not been able to reproduce a situation where I thought I was clicking on a mefaresh and instead had a video of a woman singing.
I do not see the justification for banning that site if the given justification is not reproducible.
If you want to start another thread about the halachic argument to have Gedolim ban things using claims for which there’s no evidence, that would be an interesting thread, if you want to start one.
I wonder if we could get back to the matter of innocent bochurim like BIGBOCHUR innocently going to Sefaria, going to Psalm 27:4, looking at the meforshim there (commentaries) and upon clicking on one of those commentaries being innocently led not to a mefaresh, but to a video of a woman singing, “stumbling” into it, when actually clicking on something else.
I have not been able to reproduce this result.
Could the rest of the oylam here see if they can?
Perhaps you didn’t notice.
I did answer your question about Judith Hauptman.
I said that the TRANSLATION was the Koren Translation – – and that in fact is what it is.
The person I was responding to had commented on the TRANSLATION being skewed and I asked for examples and I said that as far as I know, the translators and the editors are Orthodox.
And I’m still mystified as to how one could innocently wind up with a video of a woman chazan from looking at the mefarshim to the posuk you mentioned.
Which mefaresh did you click on that brought you to the video?
Maybe some other people here can try the search and see if, like you, they are innocently led to a woman singing.
What I meant is what I said, that the TRANSLATION is straight from the Koren Edition.
I was addressing someone who specifically pointed to the TRANSLATION.
I did what you did (both in hebrew and in English) and looked at the meforshim brought there.
All I saw were various texts.
No videos of anyone or anything.
What “mefaresh” did you click on that accidentally brought you to that video?
(You said you were looking for “mefarshim,” so that’s where I looked.)
Jewish Thought (7)
Tanakh Commentary (32)
Mishnah Commentary (5)
Talmud Commentary (16)
Jewish Thought (1)
Could you provide some examples of lines of gemara (from the Sefaria gemara translation itself – as opposed to the source sheets) that were translated in a “skewed way”?
As regards to their translation being the work of “non-Orthodox scholars,” it’s straight from the Koren Steinsaltz edition, which is the work of many tens of people, all of them Orthodox, as far as I know. (I worked on it myself.)
It seems that you know more about this translation than I do, so I’d appreciate your showing examples of its being “skewed.”
(That’s not saying I agree with every translation there, but “skewed” is another matter.)
You “stumbled” across two things (a Beis Hamedrash filled with women and videos of women singing chazonas), neither of which I have seen in my hundreds of visits to that site.
So how is it that you stumbled across these TWO things and I haven’t stumbled across even one?
How often have you used that site?
What were you searching for, when “stumbling across” TWO seemingly unrelated things?
As an experienced user, I couldn’t find EITHER ONE of the things you mentioned, even intentionally, searching both “Women Beit Midrash” and “Women Chazonut”.
And yet you, dear bochur, found BOTH, without even trying!
Given that I can’t find these things, even by searching for them and you find them even without searching for them, I partially agree with you about the ban.
You, dear bochur, who so innocently stumbles across michsholim, even on Sefaria, should DEFINITELY ban yourself from Sefaria and from the internet in general.
If you can’t ban yourself and need a Rabbi to ban you instead, I have semikha and would be happy to oblige
BigBochur: Could you describe the process by which you “stumbled” upon these things?
I’ve used that site hundreds of times and never “stumbled” across what you “stumbled” across.
Chas v’Sholom, chas v’Sholom that I would think you said “stumble” when you really meant “I never use that site for actual learning, but because I was bored, I searched and searched and searched until I found something to hock about.”
Person A: “No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person B: “But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge.”
Person A: “But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge.”
(The above illustrates the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Commentators to this thread would be wise to contemplate it.)April 25, 2022 1:34 pm at 1:34 pm in reply to: Classics and Beyond Pesach: great reason we have 4 cups by Seder #2079758
GotaGoodPoint: It’s a 500 + page sefer. Daled Kosos chapter alone is 40 dense pages. You get an e-version or printed version from Magnes Press, the publisher.April 19, 2022 12:27 am at 12:27 am in reply to: Classics and Beyond Pesach: great reason we have 4 cups by Seder #2078769
You are 100 % correct that this is how Chazal and Rishonim and Acharonim ultimately represented it.
However, see the sefer מה נשתנה, from רב דוד הנשקה, pp 125-165.
He meticulously shows there how Chazal’s representation of daled kosos (and just about everything else regarding Leil Pesach) evolved over time.
My representation was of how, according to him, it was ORIGINALLY understood.
Your representation is of how it was ULTIMATELY understood.
His sefer is a dense and scholarly work and simply summarizing won’t do it justice.
One needs to see how he builds his arguments though meticulous examination of hundreds of sources.
If you’re interested in the challenge, ayein sham.April 15, 2022 1:47 am at 1:47 am in reply to: Classics and Beyond Pesach: great reason we have 4 cups by Seder #2078438
How about because
1) Kos al Kiddush haYom (like any other Yom Tov meal).
2)Kos on Hallel (Hallel is to be said on a kos. Hallel is divided, half before the meal and half after. So two kosos for Hallel.)
3)Kos al Birkas haMazon (like any other meal).
4)Kos al Hallel (Hallel is to be said on a kos. Hallel is divided, half before the meal and half after. So now we have another Kos on Hallel.)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4 (רב דוד הנשקה)
“How can a halachik opinion have weight and authority if it’s not a halachik opinion based on the 48 kinyanei Torah, many of which include the removal of bias?”
I didn’t realize you were such a radical guy, more radical than the academics whose research I recommended! (They don’t view Rambam’s Ikkarim as no longer binding.)
You, however, are advocating Conservative Judaism/ Reform/ Haskala ideas with that one!
Nope, I’m not aware of that at all.
Halachic practice is one thing and conceptual understanding of halachic argumentation (whether it’s called lomdus or it’s called academic scholarship) is something else.
Let’s take, for instance, the question of what motivated the Rambam to formalize Ikkarei Emunah. Why did he do this at all?
Why did he pick specifically these 13?
Why did Ra’avad object so strongly in Hilchos Teshuva, especially if Ra’avad did not personally believe that HASHEM has a guf, c’v?
Is his strong rejection of the Rambam there tied to his strong rejection of the Rambam in Avodah Zarah 11:4?
Would we perhaps gain some insight to their mahlokes by better understanding the differences (both practically and philosophically) between the community of Andalusian Spain vs that of Posquiere?
The scholars I suggested (Halbertal, Kreisel, etc) do not tell people how to pasken, nor they tell people what to believe or what to do.
Rather, they present evidence to help people to better understand things.
The one academic author who does address halachic aspects and does write about the Ikkarim using both academic and halachic methods is Rabbi Prof Joshua Berman, whose Ani Maamin: Biblical Criticism, Historical Truth, and the Thirteen Principles of Faith is published by Koren and has been widely reviewed and discussed by Orthodox Rabbis and scholars all over the internet.
Not sure what you were referring to when you thought I’d implied you or anyone else was a kofer.
As for Ra’avad, as I wrote, his dispute with Rambam was not about what is an ikkar and what is not an ikkar, but whether the mistaken belief that HASHEM has a guf would cause someone to lose their Olam haBa.
Any sources you might have as regards to how Ra’avad (specifically Ra’avad) feels about the CONCEPT of Ikkarim would be appreciated.
(Not only what’s an ikkar and what isn’t, but the IMPLICATIONS of something being an Ikkar — For instance, would philosophical or dogmatic mistakes cause someone to lose their olam haba, as the Rambam maintains?)
I partially agree with you.
The academic authors I suggested are only for people who are open to arguments from evidence.
I partially agree with you.
The sources I recommended are for people interested in arguments from evidence.
Those who find your answers satisfying need look no further.
It did not appear to me that Square was in that category.
I believe that Ra’avad’s issue with Rambam’s ain lo guf was not whether HASHEM had a Guf, but whether someone who mistakenly thinks so would necessarily lose his olam haba.
The issue seems to be loss of olam haba for a belief that was mistaken but apparently prevalent.
This is what he objected to.
As for the need for Ikkarim and Rambam’s rationale for advocating them, this is a complex matter, way beyond the limits of this forum. I would recommend Moshe Halbertal’s “Maimonides Life and Thought” as well as Orthodox academicians Kreisel, Hyman, Seeskin, and Manekin.
AviraDeArah: Thanks for the reply.
I’m sorry, but I do not see the logic behind the points you made regarding Miriam and regarding Kuzari, but given that I’ve made my argument and you have made yours, we can leave this to other readers to compare what each of us said and judge for themselves.
As for your definitive and unqualified statement “We don’t find a machlokes in the rishonim regarding the veracity of the ikkarim,” this is an argument from authority — we must accept this as true because YOU are the one saying it.
As to the vast amount of scholarship that documents otherwise, your answer is that the writers are “Zoologists and Sensationalists.” In other words, we should not examine their citations, nor consider those citations on their merits.
And this is because the ones who compiled them are “Zoologists and Sensationalists.”
(That’s how appeals to authority work — and why they’re so attractive to many of us. Makes life a lot easier.)
When you say that once we concede that there has never been a mahlokess about HASHEM’s having a guf (let’s say that’s true, that there’s no mahlokess), then it follows that similarly there was no mahlokess about ANY of the other Ikkarim, this is simply not logical.
And it’s contrary to available evidence, well-documented in a book by one of the “sensationalists,” among other places.
However, I realize it’s a good debating point: Attack on one issue (Guf) and then through association, think you’ve thereby knocked down everything else the author wrote.
Anyway, Chag kasher v’Same’ach to everyone and should any readers wish to examine these issues further, Google is your friend.
This is my last post on this issue, as the back-and-forth could go on forever. I’ve made my points and AviraDeArah has made his.
AviraDeArah: Thanks for the reply.
Your first paragraph, saying that it’s a halachic matter that has been finalized by halachic authorities, is inherently an appeal to authority. I thought the questioner acknowledged that it was a halacha, but was saying it’s hard to understand. By answering that it’s a halacha, you have not addressed his question, but only said it must make sense because authorities say it does.
(I don’t doubt this is true, but it nevertheless doesn’t answer the question, as it asks the questioner to trust the authorities.)
As for your second paragraph, yes you did cite the so-called Kuzari Argument and have characterized it as a logical proof.
However, how is it a logical proof of the reasonableness of the Ikkarim or even of their traceability back to Sinai?
Even if the Kuzari Argument is logically sound, are there no limits as to what it logically proves?
There was an intact messora for each of the ikkarim (from Sinai), but the Rishonim who rejected many of the Rambam’s Ikkarim hadn’t heard about that messora from Sinai?
And the Acharonim who accepted all the Ikkarim had a better messora than those Rishonim (who preceded the Acharonim and rejected many of the Ikkarim) did?
How is that logical?
I am not disputing whether we have a halachic obligation to follow the Ikkarim.
AviraDeArah: I thought you were replying to #2 as well (Nowadays emunah through derisha vachakira is discouraged).
Perhaps I should rephrase:
AviraDeArah: In what sense are your answers anything more than appeals to authority?
Appeals to authority are certainly legitimate within a religious framework, but less so for those asking about arguments from logic or from evidence.
AviraDeArah: In what sense are your proofs anything more than appeals to authority?
Educate him that you actually gave him an upgrade.
Despite the fact that people think otherwise, gelilah is more chashuv.
And tell him that now that you see what an am ha’aretz he is and ba’al lashon hora, maybe you will give him the lesser kavod (hagbah) next time.
JacobLev: Yes, it’s true that Bush was president during 9/11, but it’s also true that Clinton didn’t do anything to stop it.
(OK, he wasn’t the president, but that’s just a technicality. Why not blame him anyway? Isn’t this a haimishe news site?)
Yes, Romney will now be persona non grata at Yeshiva dinners!
WHich Orthodox institution would possibly honor someone who acted out of good conscience and according to moral principle and religious belief?
Standing up against Trump just because he’s a compulsive liar, menuval, thief, and bully?
What kind of role model is Romney for our children?
ALL grape juice is “watered down.”
All grape juice is made from concentrate, to which water is then added.
The “light” grape juice, as far as I know, just has more water added to it.
It’s no less “grape juice” than the regular product is.
Personally, I buy the regular and add my own water.
If you think I’m wrong try getting Kedem to deny that they’re doing anything other than, when they reconstitute the concentrate, adding more water.