simcha613

What’s pshat with the rakia separating the upper waters and the lower waters? Poshut pshat and the way Rashi seems to understand it is that the lower waters are the oceans and rivers and the upper waters is this (presumably floating) storehouse of water in the sky which is where rain comes from. From a scientific perspective this is not true. There is no storehouse of water in the sky. Rain is recycled from the oceans via the clouds. I’m okay with Rashi being incorrect about science, but how else can we understand this passage in the Torah?

Correct me if I’m wrong but I think this is an accurate summary of the arguements:

Argument 1 for Zionism- Having a Jewish run government in Eretz Yisroel is the beginning of the final geulah.

Argument 2 for Zionism- Since the founding of the medinah, there is been more Jews and Torah in Eretz Yisroel since around the destruction of the 2nd Beis Mikdash and we owe the medinah our hakaras hatov and support.

Argument 1 against Zionism- It is assur to have a Jewish run government in Eretz Yisroel until Mashiach comes. We are in golus and it is not our place to decide when it ends.

Argument 2 against Zionsim- Most of the government is not religious and some of the government is even anti religious. The government of Israel has an agenda to create a secular state in Israel and is prejudiced against Charedim and Frum Jews. We should not support such a government.

There is one basic difference between the Yeshivish/Charedi world and Modern Orthodoxy. The difference between the two has nothing to do with being meikil or machmir in halachah or interperting halachah to conform with secular society. It happens to be that many people who claim to be Modern Orthodox are more meikil in an effort to be more like modern society, but that’s not real Modern Orthodoxy. That’s an unfortunate result of what true Modern Orthodoxy was meant to be.

Basically everyone agrees that there are positive and negative things about secular society. The Charedi/Yeshivish world believes that the negative aspects of secular society are too great and therefore we should shut ourselves out to secular society unless it is absolutely necessary. Modern Orthodoxy believes that there is tremendous positive that exists in secular society and we should try our best to take advantage of those positives while keeping away from the negatives. Basically, an ideal Modern Orthox Jew is as shomer Halacha as a Charedi, values Torah as much as a Charedi, but feels a greater involvement in the secular world is a positive thing.

In terms of leaders- I guess the main leaders are the Roshei Yeshiva of YU like R’ Schachter and R’ Willig. Though, to be honest, while the Charedi world in general aren’t machshiv the Rabbanim of the Modern Orthodox world, the ideal Modern Orthodox Jews have tremendous respect and are influenced greatly by the Charedi Gedolim like R’ Elyashiv zatzal and R’ Kanievsky shlita. For example, in YU and many other Modern Orthodox yeshivos and shuls, there were hespedim this year for R’ Scheinberg zatzal, R’ Elyashiv zatzal and R’ Nosson Tzvi zatzal. I am not sure if the main Rabbanim of YU would get that same respect in a Charedi or Yeshivish yeshiva or shul.

Health- I don’t think that’s what the S”A meant. The Rama is clear that a woman is obligated to learn the practical things. The S”A however opens up that they get sechar for learning, but they don’t get as much sechar as a man because they aren’t obligated to do it! Obviously he is not talking about the practical areas, because they are obligated to learn those things and would get the same sechar as a man! The S”A meant she gets sechar for those areas of Torah where she isn’t obligated to learn like the non practical areas of Torah Sheba’al Peh, but it’s not allowed to be taught to her. How do we reconcile these two statements? I stand by what I said before. It can’t be imposed on women in general but a woman who is lishmah can learn and will receive sechar.

I heard a shiur a long time ago, so I don’t remember who said what- but I think it’s a machlokes- is it something that the Goyim do that’s based on something idolatrous? Or is it anything that the Goyim do that wouldn’t have been done in a shielded Jewish community? Nafka minos could be a male wearing a wedding ring or a momenet of silence after a tragedy. I think we (at least Ashkenazim) paskin like the former.

Lichorah he is only talking about Minchah and Ma’ariv during the week. No one wears a hat during Shacharis with their Talis and Tefilin. And on Shabbos, I think the Ramban says that davening with a minyan is D’Oraysa on Shabbos, so I find it hard to believe that R’ Chaim would say to be mevatel a D’Oraysa (according to some Rishonim) to wear a hat (especially since most married men don’t wear a hat during Shacharis with their tallis).

R’ Yosef Dov Soloveichik and the Brisker Rav

S”A 235:3- Lechatchila one must say Krias Shema at Tzeis (M”B- because of zrizin makdimin leMitzvos) and its zman is until Chatozs (M”B- and if you say it later then you are violating the words of the Chachamim) but if you violated this and delayed past chatzos, then you are yotzei as long as you say it before Alos (M”B- that’s if you did it on purpose but if you were oneis you can even be yotzei if you say it before Neitz).

You must say Krias Shema before Chatzos. Assuming you did that already (by davening Ma’ariv after Tzeis, or if you davened Ma’ariv at shkiah then by repeating Krias Shema some time after Tzeis), then you can say Krias Shma al Hamitah as late as you want until I assume Alos HaShachar.

For those who don’t accept the pre-nup- how can we protect women from men who want more than a Beis Din or secular court are willing to give them, and will not give their wife a get in order to get what they want?

Tomche- easier said than done. You have to look at the other side too. If you look through Chazal, you see the tremendous concern they had for agunos, and how they sometimes “cut corners” to protect them. The answer to the issue is not to ignore pre-nups, because unfortunately there are men who take advantage of the system and are willing to make women agunos for their own benefit. If according to major poskim that prenups do not create a get meuseh, and they protect women from becoming agunos, that also has to be taken into account. I don’t know the answer- safek mamzerim vs. agunos, but it’s not that simple.

We know Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai had major machloksim about yibum to the point that perfectly valid marriages for one of them led to mamzerim according to the other. Yet the Mishnah still says that they didn’t stop marrying into one another’s families. The question is, does that mean because they respected each other’s psak, and therefore if Beis Hillel called someone a normal Jew, Beis Shammai would rely on that even though according to their logic he would be a mamzer? Or does that mean they respected each other to the point that even though Beis Hillel may have thought someone was not a mamzer, he would make sure to tell any Beis Shammai followers not to marry him because according to Beis Shammai he’s a mamzer? If it’s the second case, then if you are a talmid of R’ Willig or R’ Schachter, then of course you can use the pre-nup… just keep track to warn any potential R’ Elyashiv followers from marrying into that family.

When I was younger I decided to wear a black hat “lekavod Shabbos.” I guess I felt that where I was in my spiritual growth, it was kedai for me to start wearing it. As I got older, I realized that I didn’t need it for kavod Shabbos because I already wear a suit (something I don’t wear during the week) for Shabbos. I also felt, that it gave me a sense of ga’avah, like “I’m frummer than you” when I wore it in places that it wasn’t the norm. I felt like I was losing more than I was gaining. I stopped wearing my hat in shuls where it’s not the norm, and I wear it when I go to places where it is the norm.

I’ve said this in the past- it seems that the Benei Torah who are sitting in learning would make the best soldiers. In Sefer Shoftim, Hashem told Gidon to take the Talmidei Chachamim as soldiers. He didn’t say that they should sit and learn while the non-learners fight. The zechus of Torah is what protects us, but maybe it protects us in the form of the Talmidei Chachamim on the front lines.

Again you miss the beginning- “ishah shelamdah Torah yeish lah sechar aval lo kisechar ha’ish mipnei she’einah metzuvaeh ve’oseh ve’af al pi sheyeish lah secahr tzivu chazal shelo yilmad etc…”

So you have to reconcile the beginning of that halachah that they have sechar with the end that it is not allowed to be taught to them. If you say that there is an issur for women to learn Gemara, why would S”A add the part that they receive sechar? What does that add practically?

So, you could argue that it adds nothing practically, and the S”A was just saying that theoretically they receive sechar but Chazal made an issur for them to learn. IMHO, if that were the case, S”A should have left it out. Are there any other Mitzvos that women are theoretically allowed to do and probably receive sechar for it but Chazal assured it, and the S”A told us all that? Does the S”A say that women receive sechar for wearing tzitizs or tefilin, but Chazal said they aren’t allowed to?

The way I’ve learned it is that a woman is allowed to learn Gemara and she receives sechar for it, as long as she genuinely wants to learn for lishmah reasons. However it cannot be taught to her, in other words it cannot be imposed on her. The issur is on the male (or female) teacher, not the female learner. The teacher has the responsibility to make sure that she wants to do it for the right reasons, and only then can she be taught.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with what R’ Teichtal did for his haskamos. He knew no one would give haskamos to the content of the sefer, probably because it was so controversial. So he used haskamos of his previous seforim not to praise the content of the sefer, but the competency of the author. I don’t see an issue with this at all.

I think it makes a lot more sense to say that the hakamas hamedinah was Hashem telling all of us to return to EY. Many at that time were homeless following the Holocaust, and the time was ripe for all of Klal Yisroel to return. We chose not to and we planted ourselves in the USA instead of EY. If we all would have went together, Mashiach would have joined us.