Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ubiquitin: three points, first I’m glad to see you have finally realised your error, as you have not answered anything. Second of all as I have stated above, rav Chaim does not even write seforim if not for an ibbur yair, kol shekein this.
As for the Midrash, there are no such medrashim (unless you mean the sifri, bit if so it is obvious that you have never seen it inside…).apushatayid: It’s not ‘too busy’ but rather this is not a simple halachic concept, it has a lot to do with the metzyas. Did you hear Rav Chaims shittah on the new chickens? No, but why not, is he to busy to be mevarer? the answer that he is for such a type of question which involves a lot of detective work, and learning a metziyos.
It is well known that Rav Chaim only writes a sefer on an ibbur yair since otherwise he has no time. The Techeilis is no different.ubiquitein:
“No. so it isnt every mitzvah. you go on to list some more excellent examples…Um, that may be kefira. Repaying a loan, giving a Get are absolutly mitzvos”.
As you have vlearly misunderstood (for the umpteenth time), it is ONLY a mitzvah when P (the circumstances) call for it. Only a foolish man would say that one has a mitzvah to repay a loan if he has not borrowed. But isn’t that kefirah? Isn’t it a chiyuv to repay a loan? The answer is simple and glatt, (no brisker torahs need here), it is not a mitzvah if P (in this case the borrowing) is not there, but if P has been done, the AND ONLY THEN is it a mitzvah. Same with gitten and other mitzvohs. So in short, it is not that a person is not mechuyiv if P is not fulfilled, rather ther is no M IF AND ONLY IF P is not fulfilled. [think about this for some time, it is not too difficult].“I think it self understood that you have nothing to say on this topic ”
about the silly comment of: no race to do mitzvohs.No. It is with everything we do. From the very names of the aleph beis”
You have obviously not understood why I capitalized HALACHA. Go back and reread my comment, you should be able to understand it, again it is not to difficult.you do realize there are midrashim that say tat about techelies as well
First off we don not paskn like aggadah, even for a brisker it is imperitive to learn kalalei hapsak.About the CI
Actually you are contardicting yourself, since in such a case we are not uprooting a halacha, there is no halacha not wear techeilis.ubiquitin: Again please think before you answer. No, it is neither verbatim or conceding a point! Premise A is that one has to do all mitzvos possible, that means every mitzvah. But let’s think for a moment, must one get married so he can divorce? Must one injure someone so that he can pay? Must one borrow so that he can repay? Obviously not, even though premise A is correct, these are not a mitzvah, meaning these are mitzvohs (M) if such and such happen (P). Now so long as P does not happen there is no M. the reason why one does not do M is not because one does not have to do M (as you have mistakengly understood), rather there is no M as long as P does not happen.
There is a big נפ”מ between these two ways of thinking, for according to your understanding of M, there is a concept of M, you just don’t need to do it. Whereas according to my (and the correct) explanation of M, so long as P does not happen THERE IS NO m AT ALL. So to reiterate, there was NO agreement to any of you סברות כרסיות.“what follows is ” there is no race to fulfill mitzvos” Though you haven’t admitted this point. It is of course accurate. Again there is no race to perform every mitzvah, as there is no race to perform a Get.”
I take it that you have no problem arguing with Shlomo Hamelech who stated חכם לב יקח מצוות, or with the Tanna who has stated לעולם הוה רץ לדבר משנה, wince, we have no mesorah for this… [I think it self understood that you have nothing to say on this topic since you have clearly not addressed this point other than restating this concept which is against the whole ‘mesorah’ of yiddishkeit].
[as an aside, I now understand why Chazal had to give a special name for one that does not put on Tefilin קרקפתא דלא מנח תפלין, since seeing that their are frum people such as yourself, who do not see an issue with not doing mitzvohs, since, after all there is no race, they would not even put on teffilin if not for the statement of קרקפתא…].As for yibbum, I can’t believe you really meant what you said. Terutzim?! Do you consider not blowing shofar on shabbos because of the gezaira a ‘terits?! We don’t do yibbum because Chazal told us not to! it’s not a kahya teritz! seriously, even for you….
you can stop with your excuse of mesorah, the only place in HALACHA that we find the concept of mesorah is with birds, for everything else we rely on a sefer which you may or may not have heard of, it is called the Shulchan Aruch. There cannot be a mesorah against techeilis as there was no techeilis to speak of….
As for Rav Chaim, explain to me, do you have a different explanation of the mishana?! Why Rav Chaim is not meverer is simply because since he from the Gedoei Hador and has real limited time…..
“disagree completely! Im here to learn. and if I’m mistaken or you have new knowledge to share Im eager to learn.”
So go to techelis.com, don’t sstart writing nonsense. It is quite clear you have an agenda….as for the Esrog, it’s a moot point, there has never and would never be such a thing,
youdontsay: well said!
ubiquitin: This is getting tedious, but I shall try to explain this simple concept to you one last time. ‘as you admit as there is no race to fullfil mitzvos…’ I have never ‘admitted’ such an absurd concept. Of course there is a ‘race to fulfill every mitzva possible, do you argue on the Mishna of ‘לעולם הוה רץ לדבר מצוה’?! All I said was that a מצוה קיומית meaning a mitzvah that there is no obligation to do unless wanted to, אין חיוב קיום מוטל על האדם. But of course he should do it if he can. But giving a get is NOT even a מצוה קיומית, there is no reason why one should divorce if not needed, it is a last resort, if nothing else can help, but of המביא שלום בין איש לאשתו אוכל פירותיהם בעולם הזה! As such every logical indivisual should understand the difference between Gitten and other mitzvohs.
As for yibbum, again your comparison is fundamentally off. The reason why we do Chalitza over Yibbum is because Chazal knew that most people perform Yibbum the wrong way as it is CLEARLY written in Mesechtes Yevamos. it is not US who ‘forgo it’, Chazal have stated that we are not מקיים מצות יבום כהלכתו. So again it is not a kiyum mitzvas Yibbum which we ‘forgo’ rather it is mitzvahs chalitza which CAN be done the correct way which takes precedence.
But of course any mitzvah that CAN be done correctly, any person with half a mind should RUN and do it.חכם לב לקח מצות.
DY: The Yehushuas Malko is irrelevant to the present discussion as the issues raised in the teshuva were only relevant to the Rezhiners techeilis. Sorry to bust your bubble.As to the Gedolim, again you miss the point. The Gedolim in question say that the have not been מברר the מציאות. And Rav Chaim Kenievzky said that one is entitled to disagree with him and should wear techilis.
י”ט אייר תשע”ב ז”ל הגר”ח קניבסקי שליט”א: אז איר האלט אז איר ווייסט ברור, זענט איר מחויב על פי דין!as to the Pri Chadash etc, I know that you have not seen it, which is what I meant that before you write any comment do the research before.
Please think before you answer this, and do not just answer off the cuff.
ubiquitin: it seems i must explain exactly what i mean. I did not rewrite premise A, rather I explained to you why you’re wrong. I’ll explain myself again. You’re under the impression that a when a person gets married he has a mitzvah of giving a get, that is simply incorrect. There is no mitzvah of getting divorced. the reason why one should not give a get is not because one should try doing the most mitzvahs he can, rather one has no mitzvah of giving a get unless he wants to. Big differnce. the same is with yibbum or any other circumstantial mitzvah.
Which is why there was no difference in giving the example through gitten or yibbum, both of the there is NO MITZVAH UNLESS WANTED, not that one should try doing as many mitzvohs as one could.
I hope this is clear and simple enough.as to the testimony of the gentiles. i’d advise you to look up the Pri Chadash (Y.D 80:2) and the Steipler (kisvei hachadashim 119:20) before dismissing anything lightly. It is an extremely irresponsible to give an opinion on something you have obviously done no research. And again all Rav Eliyashv said is that we can’t be mechayiv the world to carry, and that was before all the new evidence of recent times.
ubiquitin: I’m sorry but you are simply incorrect. Premises B and C dictate premise A without your addition. Premise A, all Jews must do all mitzvohs. Objection of Gitten and Yibud are fallicious, for Gitten is a mitzvah only if a divorce is needed. So to Yibbum or Chalitzah are circumstantial mitzvohs, as is tzitzis (if a beged of four corners is worn) Every circumstantial mitzvah is a mitzvah if and only if the circumstances call for it.
Premise A in regards to Gitten would be such: Premise B, Gitten is a mitzvah ‘when it is needed’ (otherwise it is not a mitzvah). so if a get is needed it is a mizvah other wise it is not. Therefore your objections are as wrong as can be.
As to archaeology, it is only used as a snif for techelis, the simanei chazal and testimony of the gentiles are the actual arguments.
in conclusion: spreadthetruth is correct, whilst your wrong.DaMoshe: Your statement in regards to Rav Eliyashiv ztz”l is incorrect. Rav Eliyashiv held (in his 1997 letter) that since we do not have a direct mesorah we cannot be mechayiv the population, not that we shouldn’t wear it. Furthermore now days that we have much more evidence even Rav Eliyashiv might agree,. In fact his biggest talmid Harav Karp does wear techielis.
ubiquitin: Your comment need explanation. premise A) all Jews must do every mitzvah possible. Premise B) techielis is a mitzvah. Premise C) this is the real techelis (which is your premise a). It therefore follows, if B and C then A.
Joseph: statue might actually be an issur as per the Shulchan Aruch. A picture is a different story since it is not 3D.
Imanonov: Or as Chazal have already stated in Avos: מלה בסלע….
מלה בסלע משתוקא בתרין
iacisrmma: You somewhat misquoted the yerushalmi, although the point is more or less the same.
RebYidd23: as usual I find that I strongly disagree with you. First off from the above Yerushalmi we clearly see that the idea can be entertained. Furthermore, what is so difficult to understand? There would be two mouths connected to one esophagus.תפסת מרובה לא תפסת just means that when the Torah says a word in plural form, the most we can infer from it is that it referring to a minimum of two.
The rationale behind it is that even if the truth is more than that, the minimum is still part of it, (see Rashi and Tosafos Rosh hashana 17a). For instance, let us say that we have a contract stating that rent is ‘hundreds’ of dollars, yet we don not know if it means two hundred three hundred or even more. Yet one thing we do know, and that is, the rent is a minimum of two hundred, for even if it was three hundred, part of three is two.
This statement was not said in regards to prayer, although there are different Mamarai Chazal pertaining to it.Probably a forum so that people that do not know what they are talking about can have a place to give their ‘dayah’.
p.s. ignore what I said, since I to do not know what I am talking about….The government has a right and an obligation to prevent this practice, it is no different than monopolies.
The Little I know: Well said, but if i might add ‘and the experience of the beauty of Torah and mitzvos’… can only be done through teaching theology. Now, I don’t mean the philosophical aspect of theology, or as it is known as ‘chakira’ that is a pure waste of time, and most people will not understand it anyway. what I mean is either Chassidus or Nefesh Hachaim (or both as they are not mutually exclusive). Without teaching them the beauty of the Torahdige worldview one cannot show the ‘beauty of the mitzvas since without this deeper understanding the mitzvahs are nothing but a pressure.
zahavasdad: You are one hundred percent correct, the vast majority of people in general and OTD in particular do not care about about theology, which is why it ‘s no point discussing it with them to bring them back to the fold as that was never the issue to begin with.
RebYidd23: Do you disagree that most people do not know what religion is? Do you think that the vast majority of yidden have studied yiddishe theology? Let me ask you a very simple question, without looking it up can you tell me the difference between the Bal Hatanya’s worldview and the Gra?RebYidd23: your comment is vary ambiguous, would you care to explain what you mean by explain it to us?
GAON; I have yet to find one person that went OTD tha actually knows theology. I’ve debated many of them, and would debate anyone of them, none of them have any clue of what religion really is…
RebYidd23 ; I’m disappointed to see that you did not understand my comment, let me make it a little clearer for you. For an opinion to mean something one has to be m’inyan to give an opinion. For instance, let’s say someone who is not a physicist is going to give an opinion on quantum mechanics, does this even count as an opinion? Or let’s say a gentile is going to give an opinion to a machlokos haposkim, surely one cannot say that the gentile has such and such an opinion! For the gentile has no yediah whatsoever in these topics to give an opinion!
Now if someone does not know what God means (I don’t mean the simple definition as kids say it, rather I mean the real definition), then he cannot express either belief or disbelief since he doesn’t even know what it means. Thus if an average person professes disbelief in Hashem it means absolutely nothing since he does not even know what it means. He is Neither a theist, atheist, or agnostic, rather he has no opinion. It’s like the gentile giving an opinion on a din Torah. An atheist means someone who has studied theology and has decided against it, not someone who has no clue what he is talking about, that is called a fool….
With this understanding you might be better able to understand what the Chovos Halvavos states in the begining of shar hayichud and the Rambam in his hakdamah to the Moreh.OhTeeDee: As someone that…. there is an interesting story related about the Mahrayatz of Lubavitch. there was once aa self profeesing jew turned ‘atheist’, and when the Mahrayatz once met him, he started speaking to the ‘atheist’ about Hashem etc. the ‘atheist laughed and said “Rebbe, you know I don’t believe in these things”. The Mahrayatz looked at him and said, you think because someone sits on bence cracking sunflower seeds and professes to be an atheist he becomes one?
The point is, as the Mahrayatz clearly understood, someone who knows no theology and just decides not to believe in Hashem does not become an atheist. in order to really be a non believer one has to know what there is to believe!
Although I really feel for you, I found your statement funny. ‘religion is just not for anyone? Have you ever actually studied religion? Waking yup every day to daven making brachos etc is not what religion is about at all. religion is not actions, religion is the duty of the heart, it takes a tremendous amount of studying to understand. what’s worse off is that we are not toaght religion in yeshivas. therefore, although sad, your comment actually sums up the issue. People in general do not know what religion is at all…..To my understanding this question is a misunderstanding. memah nafshech, if your getting married al daas to get divorced, it’s against halacha (see Nedarim 20 b, O.C. 240). If you’re going into the marriage knowing that it won’t work and that ultimately you will get divorced it is the same issue, moreover as getting divorced is an extremely harsh thing in the eyes of chazal, (see gitten 90 b), how can one justify getting married even though he knows it wont work. Furthermore he will transgress the mitzvah of love thy neighbor etc, (see kuddushin 41 a that chazal forbid marrying a woman before seeing her because of this, and I think it obvious that it pertains to this as well). And all this besides for the more obvious transgressions that will take place, such as lashon horah, fighting etc.
Then there is the issue with ruining your kids lives. having divorced parents is emotionally straining and scarring.
What’s more, I’m not sure how one can even think that living with a spouse one does not get along with is a fun concept, it can be a gehenom on earth, (see yevamos 63 a).
So in short, it is definitely not condoned by chazal, will cause numerous transgression, and there is a large likelihood of scarring the children for life, that besides for the fact that life is not enjoyable in such circumstances.
Of course if one gets married normally and for whatever reason, after marriage consoling etc, it doesn’t work out there is a reason why Hashem allowed divorce. But to get married al daas kein, is definitely wrong.Sojewish47: first off, you are right that is ‘just what guys do’, but that doesn’t it make it a correct thing to do, and it just shows that our chinuch system needs a major revamp. As for cigarettes, you are wrong, since even one cigarette is an issur deoraisa and cannot be condoned.
and just to reiterate, even if it is the norm, it is still wrong.iacisrmma: I don’t know if you are purposefully misconstruing my intentions, but I will clarify my words nevertheless. I’ve never said that beer is inherently a bad thing, all I’ve been saying is that ‘chilling with a beer’ is a hefkerdige concept. it is goyish in the extreme. not the actual drink. So of course gedolim would drink beer, but they dont ‘chill’ with beer.
—and as to what ‘chilling’ means. there is no need for a bottle of beer to relax, it is like smoking. nobody likes smoking when they start, yet because of social pressure they persist and become addicted to smoking. the same is with alcohol, these young bochorim do not even enjoy it, it’s just a ‘cool’ and ‘in’ thing to do. that is why it is wrong.
but again, relaxing is not wrong at all, a hefkerdige mindset is.iacisrmma, You’re making a mistake by combining two separate things, namely sports and chilling. There is nothing wrong with sports or other pastimes, on the contrary it is commendable for bochorim to have a hobby that they enjoy. but ‘chilling’ is not a Yiddishe concept. I challenge you to find one real gadol that ‘chills’ with beer and the like.
Haskafa, you are only partially correct. The truth is that since today all legitimate hobbies are frowned upon, be it art, music, learning secular (kosher) subjects, and that is the reason why we sadly have so many otd cases, it does not change the fact that the ‘chilli with a beer’ is a hefkerediga concept and is not OK for bochorim to do it.
haskafa, morever what you wrote that ‘you have to show them how to behave…’ is also partially incorrect. the issue here is that bochorim have no hashkafa, they are not taught it in yeshiva, nor do they learn it themselves. they must learn hashkaffah not only mussar. when learning Nefesh Hachaim why do all yeshivas skip to perek 4? is there not a reason why perek 4 is not perek 1? And saying that since the first three perakim deal with kabalistic concepts one must skip it, is begging the question- did not R’ Chaim write the whole sefer for everyone? isn’t clear that he felt it necessary for everyone to konw it?
Your sons are typical ‘good bochorim’. Sadly it is the norm in our age. It doesn’t mean there hashkafahs are correct. But, take heart, bochorim today’s days aren’t taught hashkafah in yeshivas so it’s not fault…..
Simple: I’m fresh out of a ‘top yeshivah’ and know the bochorim there. i’ve been there done that.
Let me ask you, do you honestly think any of these ‘top bochorim’ learn hashkaffah? Mussar some do, but that isn’t hashkafah.I beg to differ. A mediocre yeshiva bochor who does not touch beer on principle, because he understands the mentality behind, is a better thousand fold than a ‘top bochor’ that knows nothing about hashkafah only his ‘lomdos’.
editedTheir is no question that it is an issue. it has become a ‘cool’ thing to do nowadays. It is like smoking, albeit not as dangerous. the issue is not with health, the issue is with mentality behind it. all boys, and for that matter girls, need outlets for their excess energy and time to relax. but a ‘chill is another matter entirely. It is a concept of ‘hanging out’ ‘chilling’ ‘killing time’, in a prikutzdige way.
So although it sadly is the norm in today’s age to ‘chill’ with a beer, even in these so called ‘top yeshivas’, the mentality behind it is wrong. A true ovad would never be caught in such a manner. just because someone is a ‘tob bachut’ doesn’t mean anything about his ruchnayis, all it means is that he likes to learn ‘lomdos’.