simcha613

CA- do the Republicans who denounce left wing extremists also denounce the right wing ones? Usually not.

It’s not so clear from the S”A that women aren’t allowed to learn Torah Shebal Peh. Even though the S”A says that one who teaches his daughter Torah it’s as if he taught her “tiflus” (tiflus being something negative), the S”A also say that women receive sechar for learning it! Now if the S”A was saying that it is assur, the S”A wouldn’t have said they get a reward for doing it. The S”A just says it can’t be taught to them which I understand to mean that it is not allowed to be imposed on them, however if they learn it by choice, then they receive reward.

One also has to factor in (based on the S”A and the Rama) that a woman does not have a chiyuv to learn Torah which has no practical application, and has a chiyuv to learn Torah that has practical application (halachah, mussar, Tanach [Gemara in Megilah says that the only nevu’os that were recorded were those who’s messages are meant for all generations, therefore Nach is practical], etc…). It’s a positive thing to learn the areas which have no practical application (the S”A says they receive reward), it’s better than wasting time, but it’s not a chiyuv.

Based on this, I think there are 4 criteria that need to be met for women to learn Gemara:

1) They have to want to do it.

2) It has to be for lishmah reasons, not feminist reasons.

3) They need a teacher to guide them in the right way to learn Gemara.

4) It can’t come at the expense of learning those areas of Torah that are a chiyuv for them to learn, but it can only come at the expense of things that are reshus (learning secular subjects, going shopping, etc…).

The Mon fell from shamayim.. but Klal Yisroel had to go out to get it. The less of a tzadik you were, the further you had to go to get your portion. We who are even lesser tzadikim have to walk very very far to get our parnassah that God sends from Heaven.

Joseph- I’m assuming the rule that women shouldn’t be in the public arena or that they shouldn’t do anything that could distract them from their domestic responsibilities is waived when being the primary family bread-winner in order to enable a husband to learn Torah full time?

I can’t speak for other Religious Zionists, but my personal understanding of the medina’s relationship to the final geula is how it facilitated and continues to facilitate kibutz galuyos. One of the most important aspects of the medina since the beginning is the right of return which gives all Jews automatic citizenship to the medina if they want it. In this way, the medina has enabled an incredible amount of Jews to return to the Land of Israel, to the point where almost 50% of our nation has returned to our Land. Assuming kibutz galuyos is a return of our people to our land, and that kibutz galuyos is an essential component of the final geula, I find it hard to separate the medina from the ongoing kibutz galuyos and the final geula.

DY- you have to take everything in context. In 1948, just three years after the end of the Holocaust… Hisgarus b’umos wasn’t a top concern.

Joseph- I didn’t mean they weren’t answered. I meant that they weren’t answered by the classic halachic compendiums that I listed. Of course they were answered in different ways. And you are illustrating my point exactly, each side thinks theirs is the only pshat. There doesn’t seem to be any אלו ואלו even though there is no clarity in the Gemara itself and those Rishonim/early Achronim I listed don’t discuss it (even though those are the starting point in determining psak halacha). It seems strange that each side is so militantly against any other possible interpretation. Even Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai seemed to have more respect for each other’s position when they were arguing about far more serious matters like yibum vs. giluy arayos which led to mamzerus. As I also mentioned, I think the timing of יום העצמאות is sending us a message to be a little bit more respectful of the other side. There is not just one way to answer those questions.

I think it would be quite extreme for a girl to be repulsed by a boy who got a halachically valid heter to shave.

I haven’t read every post here… I read the first post and it seems like there is a dispite on whether taking “tznius too far” is a bad thing, good thing, neutral but if the tzibur wants it then who has any right to complain… something along those lines.

I don’t want to comment on the specific case in the OP, but theoretically, in a very similar case but it was a picture of a 4 year old boy in camp wearing shorts that was blurred out in the name of tznius, would people have the same reaction? I mean, if the tzibur felt that a young boy’s legs should not be shown in a public magazine, would this be an appropriate expression of tznius?

IMHO, people can do what they want. If there is a consensus (but I mean a real consensus, not social peer pressure), to blur out pictures of boys and girls who’s pants or skirts are “too short” that’s fine. But I think it’s hard to call blurring a picture of a little boy for wearing shorts “tznius,” “halacha” or a “chumra”. So too, just because people want certain pictures blurred out of a magazine, and they have every right to do so… that doesn’t automatically make it an expression of tznius, halacha, or a chumra.

I will preface my question with a brief summary of the sugya as I understand it. The debate on whether one should wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed seems to have both a סברא component and a textual component.

The סברא component is whether Chol HaMoed is considered an אות. Tefilin are considered an אות and are not worn when the day itself is also considered an אות. Shabbos and Yom Tov are considered an אות because of the work prohibitions and therefore Tefilin is not worn. The question is whether the Mitzvos of Lulav, sukkah, matzah, and partial work prohibition on Chol HaMoed also makes it an אות.

The textual debate is between the simple understanding of a Mishnah and the explicit understanding of the Zohar. The Mishnah in Moed Katan says that one can write Tefilin on Chol HaMoed. The simple understanding (though not necessarily the only one) is that is permitted to write because tefilin have an immediate use… There is a requirement to wear them on Chol HaMoed. The Zohar however is explicit that one should not wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed… And the Zohar speaks very strongly against this practice.

It seems that this dispute falls along “party lines”. Chasidim and Sepahrdi Achronim who normally​ put more emphasis on sources like the Zohar, say not to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed. Most early Ashkenazic Achronim/poskim who normally do not emphasize the Zohar especially in determining halacha, say to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed.

The one outlier is the Vilna Gaon who said not to wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed (which is the reason why most Orthodox Jews today, including Ashkenazim, especially in Israel, do not wear Tefilin on Chol HaMoed). However, I do not know why the Vilna Gaon ruled like that. Did he put halachic emphasis on this Zohar? Did he have reason to learn the Mishnah in Moed Katan differently? Why did the Vilna Gaon divert from most of the other Ashkenazic authorities?

I found this quote by catcher Ryan Lavarnaway particularly insightful and meaningful:

Everything is muttar in an airplane because ?? ????? ???

With regard to wearing a tie, I once asked one of my Rebbeim if I were to dress for davening the way I would dress in front of a king or president, logic would dictate that I should wear a suit and tie and then there would be no difference between davening and Shabbos. He suggested that it meant if you were standing in front of a king that you see multiple times a day like if you were working for him. In this day and age, it would mean no jacket and tie but he still suggested to wear a jacket so that something special is worn specifically for davening.

With regard to the hat and JFK, it may have been true at the time that hats were still respectable and he was lowering the bar for when to dress respectfully but that’s certainly not true anymore. Now a hat is simply not respectable. Even if a real king would exist, a vast majority of people would not wear hats as it’s no longer respectable and might even look a bit ridiculous. JFK may have started it but the transformation is now complete. Styles and respectability change. What was respectable in Rashis time in place was not the same as the Shulchan Aruch which wasn’t the same as the GRA which isn’t the same for us. The stylistic reality is, is that hats are out.

With regard to one hand out of the sleeve, I think Rav Soloveichik held that way. At one point later in life he stopped wearing a jacket for Shacharis. He explained because he just inherited R’ Chaim’s tefilin which were quite large and couldn’t fit under his jacket sleeve. He felt it was more respectable to not wear a jacket than to wear one abnormally with one hand out of the sleeve.

Joseph- honestly, it hasn’t really come up in a very long time so I haven’t really thought about it. I wonder if it’s a problem but I assume not because a glass of kiddush wine is not something the authorities care about. I guess you could make the same argument for Purim as many have here.

But it seems like at the very least you admit that there’s no halachic reason to serve them wine when they are not partaking in your seudah and when they will have a seudah on your own. Considering the possibility that kids can abuse alcohol (and unfortunately we see that they do especially on Purim), then what’s the point?

I also don’t think your assessment of the chiyuv is correct. I bet even the Roshei Yeshiva you mention who advocate the shitah of the Shulchan Aruch would agree it’s only an ideal and not me’akev… In other words they would agree that a person would be yotzei if they “only” followed the Rama and Mishnah Berurahs’s shitah of yoser milimudo. Yes, we all try and be machmir, but when a chumra comes at the expense of a din (in this case dina demalchusa dina) one would presume the din takes precedence over the chumra. Yes, even the Rama’s shitah violates Dina demalchusa dina as that would be illegal as well, but I am under the impression that the more you serve a minor is a bigger violation of that law and by extension dina demalchusa dina.

The quaint rare minhag is the combining of ad delo yada peshuto kemashmao outside of the seudah. Giving kids things to drink when they come to visit you during the day is either not fulfilling their chiyiv or going way too far. It certainly violates Dina demalchusa Dina according to most shittos when the kids are underage and no chiyuv is being fulfilled.