Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joseph- You seem convinced that there are poskim that paskin that you absolutely need to get drunk to be yotzei ad delo yada, and that the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion is not a halachically valid option. According to that premise, I agree with your conclusion that dina demalchusa dina/illegality of underage drinking plays no role in this discussion and the only concern is whether its dangerous or not.
I just disagree with your premise that there are any poskim today who rule that way and I believe that everyone agrees that at least bedieved you are yotzei if you follow the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion.
We agree to disagree.
Random question- what is the chiyuv of ad delo yada?
I always learned that there are 4 mitzvos of Purim- megilah, matanos la’evyonim, mishloach manos, and seudah.
Is the chiyuv ad delo yada part of the seudah in the sense that you have a big seudah, with bread and meat and wine, but you haven’t hit ad delo yada (according to whichever shitah) then you aren’t yotzei your seudah?
Or is ad delo yada a separate fifth chiyuv of Purim that can only be fulfilled during the seudah?
I don’t think there is any posek nowadays who would say that you are not yotzei if you rely on the “kula” of the Rama and the M”B. Maybe they would say it’s a bedi’eved, maybe they say one should be machmir to be yotzei according to all the dei’os, but it’s not a matter of black and white psak halacha (maybe your posek paskins differently than normative halacha and concludes that one is not yotzei at all that way, but I doubt it). Once we are in the realm of chumros and kulos, lechatchilah and bedieved, and not straight up psak halacha… then other considerations like dina demalchusa dina can come into play.
Joseph- if that’s the case, then fine. But are there indeed poskim that will say it is against halacha for a 13 year old to rely on the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah on Purim? Is there a posek that allows or requires a legal minor (and halachic adult) to get drunk on Purim when they can be yotzei through those shitos? Please ask your posek who requires you to get drunk, if he would allow (or require) a minor to follow the Mishnah Berurah instead of getting drunk.
But, the question I was asking is, does one of the two options I presented indeed violate dina demalchisa dina more than the other.
And again, every chumra is a kula. Is being machmir to go further than what the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah require when it is being meikil on dina demalchusa dina really a chumra? Maybe the proper chumra is to fulfill drinking on Purim like those shitos and being mekayem dina demalchusa dina completely. Then you get the zechus of fulfilling two dinim instead of just one.
Underage drinking is illegal and yet if halacha requires drinking, we would be required to follow the halacha against secular law.
Now according to many poskim, one is required to get drunk on Purim. But according to (at least) 3 heavy hitters- the Rama, Pri Megadim, and the Mishnah Berurah- you can be yotzei (and the M”B even writes that it is ideal to be yotzei) by drinking more than usual and going to sleep but there is no need to actually getting drunk.
Now, from a secular law perspective, for someone under 21, both of these options are technically illegal (I think) because they both involve underage drinking. Once you are breaking the law by following the halacha, from a legal perspective, is there a reason to choose the option that requires less drinking?
The Queen- Are we so sure those things will end when Mashiach comes?
DY- I don’t think he thinks there is anything wrong with Eretz Yiroel. That is, after all, the name of the land. I think his point is, that sometimes it seems like people are going out of their way to avoid saying the State of Israel as if they are trying very hard not to acknowledge its existence.
Because Goyish governments never tortured Jews or murderers or terrorists before. I’m obviously not trying to validate the Israeli government if they did in fact torture these boys, but I don’t think that’s a difference between Goyim and Frei Jews.
Health- Why is that a problem? Why is it better to live in a country with Goyim running the country than Frei Yidden running it? And we’re not comparing two equal countries… we’re comparing Eretz Yisroel to another country. So not only are you saying it’s better for some reason to live in a country run by Goyim than Frei Yidden, it’s SO much better that it even outweighs the benefits of living in Eretz Yisroel.
DY- “Don’t confuse Zionism with the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel. “
This I think is one of the biggest problems with anti-Zionism. In an effort to separate Orthodox Judaism with Zionsim (which while I disagree, I understand. There are many problems with Zionsim), the anti-Zionists have separated Orthodox Judaism from Eretz Yisroel as well. Because Zionists have prioritized Eretz Yisroel so much (possibly too much), to counter that Anti Zionists have delegitimized Eretz Yisroel (definitely too much). It has come to the point where people have even suggested that the mass return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel might not have anything to do with the geulah! Crazy!
DY- Do you really believe that? The physical return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel has no connection to the geulah? It’s like we’re so used to the idea of being able to return to Eretz Yisroel, we try and conjure up ways to lessen its significance. If you went to the European Gedolim 400 or 500 years ago and even suggested that the mass return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel has no connection to the final geulah, I would guess that you would be laughed right out of the Beis Medrash.
DY- Why wait?
Squeak- Of course geulah is not only about returning to a physical geographic location. Which is why the geulah will not be complete even if every single Jew returns to Eretz Yisroel. But part of the geulah is returning to the physical geographic location of Eretz Yisroel and that is currently happening.
DY- You’re right. I spoke too strongly. But kibutz galuyos in its literal sense is happening. Klal Yisroel is returning to Eretz Yisroel. How much credit goes to the Medinah and how this is connected to the geulah is a judgment call.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Hakamas Hamedinah is at least the beginning of the geulah. One of the signs of the impending geulah is kibutz galuyos which has happened/is currently happening. Almost 50% of Klal Yisorel now lives in Eretz Yisroel and Medinas Yisroel with its right of return is a large reason for that. So unless you believed the Jews have to leave Eretz Yisroel before the geulah happeneing, it’s hard to deny that this is hatchala lege’ulasa.
Re: question #1 and title of the thread
The Gemara on Chagiga 5b says that HKB”H cries three tears: “over him who is able to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does not; and over him who is unable to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does; and over a leader who domineers over the community”
Each one is ideal for those who it is ideal for.
The Gemara on Chagiga 5b says that HKB”H cries three tears: “over him who is able to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does not; and over him who is unable to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does; and over a leader who domineers over the community”
What’s the deal with Yaakov only having 3 female descendants that made it to Mitzrayim among 67 male descendants. That can’t be natural. It must have been a miracle, but if so… there must be some message behind it.
You gotta love global warming!
Maybe Yosef thought Yaakov was part of the plot to sell Yosef. I mean, Avraham rejected Yishmael, Yitzchok rejected Eisav, maybe Yosef thought that he was the rejected son of this family. Yaakov did send Yosef to the brothers by himself without any escort (which according to the sugya of eglah arufah [the last sugya they learned together] is equivalent to killing him). Maybe Yosef thought that the brothers were acting under Yaakov’s instructions and he didn’t contact Yaakov for the same reason he didn’t contact his brothers… he assumed they didn’t want him anymore and they wanted him out of the picture.
Maybe he thought Yaakov was in on it. I mean, Avraham rejected Yishmael, Yitzchok rejected Eisav, maybe Yosef thought that his sale was his rejection. Yaakov did send Yosef to the brothers by himself without any escort (which according to the sugya of eglah arufah [the last sugya they learned together] is equivalent to killing him). Maybe Yosef thought that the brothers were acting under Yaakov’s instructions and he didn’t contact Yaakov for the same reason he didn’t contact his brothers… he assumed they didn’t want him anymore and they wanted him out of the picture.
Joseph- where does the Torah prescribe a subservient role? In Parshas Bereishis for Chava’s curse? It also curses Chava with difficult childbirth. Does that mean a woman is not allowed an epidural to ease the pain? It also curses Adam to work for a living. Does that mean it is assur for a man to rely on the financial support of others?
One can argue that a curse is not the same thing as a command. One is not required to make sure that that curse comes true. Maybe a curse is just a statement that a new reality exists but it does not impose any new active restrictions. Like if man used to have the ability to fly and God cursed man by saying “you shall not fly” and took away the ability… that just means there’s a new reality that man can no longer fly. That doesn’t forbid man from building a balloon or an airplane.
The new reality is that it will be much more difficult for man to earn a living, but it does not forbid one man from making it easier on another man. The new reality is, is that childbirth will be much more difficult, but it doesn’t forbid a woman from making it as easy as possible. The new reality is that there is a new natural dominant relationship between man and woman, but it doesn’t forbid a man and a woman from having a different dynamic if they choose to.
Joseph- if it’s against halacha for a woman to work, why is a woman allowed to break this halacha to support her husband in learning? Usually the husband could probably find another source of income other than kollel that would allow his wife to not break this halacha.
And, I would like to apologize for using the term “relegated.” There are many women that find much fulfillment and menuchas hanefesh as a full time wife and mother. But not all women fit that mold. Are there contemporary poskim that say that it is assur for a woman to have a career if not completely necessary for financial reasons? I would love to see contemporary sources that say that explicitly (other than the S”A that you mention).
Bookworm120
+1. I agree wholeheartedly. Being a frum woman does not mean you are relegated to being stay at home or working at a dead end low paying job just because she’s female. And being a feminist doesn’t necessarily mean a desire to destroy all role differences between men and women especially in the realm of religion.
Joseph- you mean they aren’t supporting their husbands in koillel??? I’m not mekabel!
“A mention of the miraculous wars was inserted into the prayers, but it seems that the Sages were concerned mainly with remembering the miracle of the oil.”
I think the premise of the vort is wrong. It’s not a mention, the tefilah just talks about the war and a passing reference about the oil. The Chachamim seemed to incorporate BOTH miracles, the oil in our actions (with a little reference to the war Maoz Tzur) and the war with our tefilos (with a brief mention of oil at the end). I don’t think the war was downplayed at all in our Chanukah observance.
Why do you assume there is a modern day equivalent?
DY- I say halachic problem because I think we have a halachic responsibility to show hakaras hatov. If we don’t show hakaras hatov in this case, that means there is a competing halachic problem with doing so- like in the story you brought, there was a potential halachic problem of ribis in that case which is why he couldn’t express hakaras hatov.
DY- I hear. But that begs question, do those who feel they are not allowed to show hakaras hatov to the medina and to Tzahal… does it really bother them that they can’t?
And is it really true that there is a halachic problem with expressing hakaras hatov to the medinah (for the funds to yeshivos) and to Tzahal (for protecting us)… or that there is no way to show hakaras hatov without giving the impression that you agree with them hashkafically?
I don’t know the answer to one, but I am skeptical about the answer to two.
DY- Feeling hakaras hatov without showing it? Is there such a concept? And there is no way to show hakaras hatov to the state without giving the impression that you agree hashkafically with it? I don’t think my showing hakaras hatov to a Christian implies that I agree with him philosophically.
DY- What about Tzahal protecting Israel or the Israeli government giving money to yeshivos? Shouldn’t the Charedim show hakaras hatov to the medinah?
Just like Hashem protecting Israel is not an excuse to not show hakaras hatov to the tools that Hashem uses (the US government), so too Hashem protecting Israel and funding Torah is not an excuse to not show hakaras hatov to the tools Hashem uses (Tzahal and the Israeli government).
“Is using American citizens employed in American national security to spy against America on American soil or the Israeli prime minister coming to America to speak against the president a form of hakaras hatov? “
Probably not. But I think Israel’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe is probably more important than hakaras hatov. And Israel has other ways of showing hakaras hatov as other posters mentioned- intelligence sharing and a strategic ally in the hostile Middle East.
Rabbi of crawley- in my humble opinion, they don’t feel it’s wrong, rather they probably feel it’s ineffective and counter productive as sometimes protests strengthen the resolve of the opposition. I would imagine Charedim Rabbonim would agree with that assessment, but they would argue that they aren’t arguing for the result, but rather they are arguing simply to show that they disapprove and that they are against this- whether it’s Chillul Shabbos or reform or some other kind of public aveirah.
And that’s the question, is the purpose of these public protests to show that the Frum Jews do not accept this unholiness in our land and we will stand up for it, or are these protests for the purpose of actually stopping the unholiness and being mekarev the perpetrators? Charedim seem to prefer the former while Dati Leumi seem to prefer the latter.
ROB- you’re making pointless arguments. As you have seen many, many times, not only does the Anti-Zionist Charedi have a different understanding of the 3 shevuos (which is completely legitimate), they will never admit that there are other ways of understanding that Gemara. To do so would shake the very foundation of their belief that Zionism is pure apikorsus and no amount of combination of religion with Zionism can make it a legitimate form of Yiddishkeit.
Joseph- And while I do believe those who learn Torah contribute more to the protection of EY then the army does, that doesn’t mean they are owed more hakaras hatov for the simple reason that they risk far less to learn that Torah. Their lives aren’t at risk in the same way that a soldier’s is on the front lines even if their contribution is greater. So yes, they each owe each other hakaras hatov, but a Charedi arguably owes a soldier more hakaras hatov, and just because a soldier fails to show hakaras hatov, it doesn’t mean that a Charedi is exempt from it either.
The same is true for money from the government. Just like kollelim show hakaras hatov to those who donate large sums of money and don’t rely on “well, our limud Torah is the greatest hakaras hatov to our benefactors so therefore we don’t owe them any additional hakaras hatov”, Charedim should show that same amount of hakaras hatov to the medinah who gives them a tremendous amount of money. And if a benefactor gave a lot of money to a mesivta and didn’t express hakaras hatov to the mesivta for learning Torah, that doesn’t exempt the mesivta for expressing hakaras hatov to the benefactor who gave them money.
Joseph- hakaras hatov and limud Torah are not synonymous. Does that mean a person who has his nose in a Gemara doesn’t need to express hakaras hatov to anyone?
And just because secular Jews or Jews who are less holy because they don’t learn Torah all day don’t express proper hakaras hatov, that means Charedim don’t have to express hakaras hatov?
Karl- Are you saying that since the Arabs don’t have hakaras hatov to the medinah for subsidizing them, then the Charedim don’t have to either?
Hakatan- My point exactly.
Joseph- factual observations based on first-hand experience is not necessarily accurate or representative of the community at large. And factual observations based on first-hand experience is not an excuse to say loshon hara.
The problem with Hakatan, and many anti-Zionists in general is exactly Rabbi of Crawley’s point… they can never admit to eilu va’eilu on this issue for some reason. Not only do they argue with the DL’s interpertation of the 3 shevuos, but it’s silly and worthless. Any DL gadol who subscribes to that and argues with a Charedi gadol is not a gadol, is hardly even a rabbi. Any legitimate gadol of the past who said things that may support religious zionism didn’t really say it or didn’t mean what the DL community thinks he meant. And they take it even further… anything good that the medinah has done, like increased Torah and yishuv EY, they say it was in spite of the medinah. The Arabs hate us because of the medinah. The medinah causes assimilation. The medinah causes intermarriage. The medinah has caused the death of thousands of Jews. 1967 was not a miracle, but a strong nation beating up on weaker ones. To the anti-Zionist, on this issue there is no eilu va’eilu. It’s all black and white. The medinah is the epitome of evil, of Godlessness. It’s not enough to argue against Zionism, but it must be delegitimized.
DY- I guess you could say no one fights like brothers but eventually they come together. The rift between Chassdim and Litvaks used to be much larger, because they too are brothers. But brothers come back together even if the differences still exist. IyH that will happen soon between DL and Chareidi as well.
Joseph- First of all, DL and MO are two different things. The gender issues is more of a dispute between Chareidi and MO than Charedi and DL.
With regard to Zionism, I guess that’s Rabbi Crawley’s question. The issue of Zionism is regarding a few lines of Aggadeta at the end of Sanhedrin that’s not brought down lehalacha by the Rosh, Rif, Rambam, or Shulchan Aruch. Why doesn’t eilu va’eilu apply to how we understand the 3 shevuos? It seems like such a small detail to create such a large rift.
Zogtbesser- Women dancing without the Torah is not a fulfillment of the minhag Rishonim, but neither is their watching the men dance. They don’t have a minhag Rishonim to keep. So why should it make a difference if they watch men dance or dance themselves?
mw- I don’t have a hard time believing that there are indeed women who enjoy watching the festivities. I have a hard time believing that dancing is an inappropriate way to celebrate for those women who don’t enjoy watching the festivities.
DY- I agree with you 100% on the resisting change. I just don’t see this as much of a change in tradition, more as a cause and effect. The cause is learning Torah and the effect is how to celebreate. Men who don’t learn do the hakafos because they have to, but they don’t really dance. The less they have to celebrate the less they actually celebrate. When women learned less the Torah, the effect was that they didn’t feel the need or desire to dance. When they learn more, they desire to celebrate more. It’s not a change in tradition as much as it a change in metzius and a new cause (more learning) leading to a new effect (dancing). Accepting that women learn more but not allowing them to celebrate that learning in traditional fashion is unnatural and can make women feel distanced from Simchas Torah.
DY- for the record, I’m not talking about Gemara (that’s a separate discussion). I’m talking about Chumash and Navi.
Matan- his reason is, since it’s not traditional, it’s not the way. Did women dance on Simchas Torah in Europe? No. Then it’s not the way it is done nor should it be done. Even though there might be a stronger logical connection between dancing and Simchas Torah then polka dotted shirts and Simchas Torah, since neither are traditional, they are equally invalid ways for women to celebrate Simchas Torah. I don’t agree with his logic, but it’s pretty simple and straightforward.
DY- Dancing is a traditional way to celebrate the Torah. Dancing is a traditional way for women to celebrate things. Not every permutation needs to be played out.
In years past, most women didn’t really learn any Torah. They only connection to Torah was through supporting their husbands and it makes sense that their celebrating of Torah was through their husbands. Nowadays women are learning more and more Torah, their connection to Torah is not solely through their husband and it makes sense that some of them may want to celebrate in ways that aren’t solely through their husband. That doesn’t mean it’s not traditional. It was just never a situation that expressed itself in the past with most women not engaged in personal Talmud Torah as much.
Also, women who don’t support any men in learning Torah (like if they are single) probably aren’t “yotzei” by watching other men celebrate. It makes sense that they should have their own celebrations.
Joseph- I’m sure you would agree that the Torah is not limited to a physical scroll. Why is it so difficult to understand that a woman can dance to celebrate Klal Yisro’els accomplishment in Torah this past year (and might I add somewhat controversially, maybe their own accomplishments in Torah this past year), even if they don’t have the actual sefer with them? What if they would even dance with a chumash, would that be better?
I’m sorry Joseph but the burden of explanation is on you here. Dancing is an appropriate way to celebrate Torah as we see that men do it. Women also naturally celebrate things by dancing as we see they dance at weddings. So, you have to explain why even though dancing is a way to celebrate Torah, and women celebrate other things by dancing, it is inappropriate for women to celebrate the Torah by dancing. Don’t try to avoid the question by bringing up something completely irrelevant.