Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Halevai more people should act with such (un)common sense.
What’s the therefore of the OP?
What about using an artscroll?
This question has to be addressed separately to men and women. (I’m guessing you’re a woman.)
There is a gemara in kiddushin that states about an amora that when his head covering blew off, he immediately stole some fruit off of a tree. (basic thrust of story)
no links
???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ????? “?? ?????” ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ?????? ?????, ??”? ????? ?????, ?????? ????? ?????? ???????.
????? ????? ?? ??? ???”?, ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???. “?????? ???????? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ??????? ?? ????? “?? ?????” ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ??”?”. ??? ???”?. “??????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????,’ ????? ??? ????? ??????, “???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ?????”.
This is what R’ Aharon Feldman Shlita wrote about him.
And that furthermore, much of what people claim / have claimed in the name or basis of modernity is hashkafically &/or halachically deviant, which even more so causes the name to ring with (somewhat true) overtures of non-apikorsus heresy.
Considering that most of what is objectively modern is morally decrepit, that makes sense.
Huh? There’s lite point in making a asifas tefillah of people who have no clue what they are saying.
1- Presumably the idea that they are involved in a public gathering of sorts because there is a desperate situation going on makes an impression that 1- this issue is very important; 2- we believe in davening / koach tefillah (especially if it’s worth being mevatel learning (gasp!!) for), so even to the participants, it has a practical upside.
2- Davening without kavanah is still worth infinitely something!!
3- There is also the issue of public visibility and impression to consider. (to just throw a few out there. I am not privy to the reasons why, nor am i pretending to know that these were necessarily a key part of their cheshbonos.)
Tefillah is avodas shebelev.
That might be the ikkar, but there is mystical value inherently in uttering the words without any kavana whatsoever.
Without knowing what your saying you won’t be activating the shebeleiv aspect and therefore you are just shouting out words. Might as well be screaming out some prayer in Chinese.
That’s precisely the difference between saying it in lashon hakodesh and chinese – the words of lashon hakodesh as formulated by chazal are intrinsically laden with kedusha. Which is not quite as true about chinese.
The basic point being that you get schar for “laining” davening, as there’s a mitzva (and a chiyuv) to say the words, and with a few exceptions you are yotzei with saying the words without an iota of what they mean. So, just like the rest of the mitzvos we do, our words of prayer are pitifully lacking but they limp their way up to the heavens which apparently have disability access these days.
I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?”
I think i might have misunderstood your point. (I thought you were saying that you could say the same thing about R’ Chaim.) But it still makes no sense. From the perspective of someone living today, there is a concept of “hilchisa kebasrai” (the scope and definition of which is beyond the scope of the CR). Following R’ Chaim is not saying that you think the Maharal is wrong.
Please explain how it could be worse to follow the Torah than to change a minhag.
This is nonsensical, circular logic, or gruesomely misleading (but still nonsensical). By definition, if Mesorah (or anything else legitimate halachically) says something, that is what the Torah says to do; that is following the Torah. The comparison that you can make, if this is what you meant, is between following whats written/stated b’feirush in the Torah, but devoid of any other context, and changing a minhag. However, that comparison is absurd because being written in the Torah does not give it any “chumra” over a minhag vis a vis whether Mesorah talks to it (besides for the language being criminally misleading by expressing “source for the mitzva” as “following the Torah”).
Is it possible that Patur’s name just might be a freudian slip?? lol
Something is not assur unless there is a clear halachic basis and precedent. Real poskim often will not say assur, and instead say something along the lines of “it’s not assur but it’s not a mitzva” (that’s a line iv’e heard from one). Kol Shekein where there is no basis whatsoever for such an issur. Maybe the rebbe knew who he was talking to and felt that either the specific context justified calling it assur or knew he coukd take the license to say assur, but there is neither an issur mideoraysa nor miderabanan in weight lifting or any other conventional means of exercise. At best (or worst) depending on what the questioner may have in mind, something else about it might be problematic (the op doesn’t make it sound like there is a tacit implication that the weight lifting will be done together with a female partner or such, so there doesn’t seem to be any apparent other issur tangentially in play here), but it seems grossly misleading if not outright lying to state panoptically that you’re in violation of any issur.
especially since he didn’t make them up.
Than why is it a machlokes rishonim not only if those of the Rambam are accurate, but also whether there are a slew of others?? (One shitta has i think 24(!) (including one to believe kabbalah is true)). No where in any jewish literature through the gemara is such a concept laid out.
In other words, grosse lamdanim seem to be quite willing to say baalabatishe svaras when it comes to Mesora. The Ramchal says the same thing regarding chassidus — the “chachamim” think there is no depth, etc, in middos, (and therefore they neglect it(generalization of part of hakdama to Mesillas Yesharim)). Meaning they look at the particular subject as being bereft of normative, deep lomdus characteristic of shverer Rambams.
Mesorah is a very, very complicated, deep, nuanced, and difficult, among other adjectives, concept. Mesorah is not simply, chas veshalom, a fancy way of saying “tradition”, or “Divine Tradition”. Mesorah is, as a concept, an integrated and integral part of the fundemental fabric and basis of validating and assessing Halacha and Hashkafa realia. What Mesorah, or what a specific Mesorah, says and how it says it is among the most complicated subjects in Judaism. What role Mesorah plays, the scope of its role — both in general, and even more convolutedly, in specific subjects or particulates — is a multi-faceted machlokes that involves myriad very subtle and finely nuanced factors. It’s brazenly presumptuous for someone to think that they understand what Mesorah is, it’s scope, how we apply it, etc, so thoroughly that not only do they have an informed opinion about it (which they don’t), they have as good a grasp (if not better) than Gedolei Doros.
Likely someone who for certain things conducts himself in the “yeshivishe” manner and “modern” for others. What thigs are more/less essentially defining probably depends upon who is doing the assessing.
If it’s a live caller, ask him/her to hold for a minute, put down the phone and leave him/her hanging. Besides for the personal satisfaction, if it’s for a candidate that’s not the one we want people voting for, the time wasted on you is time that can’t be spent calling someone else. And it’s possible that the caller will put you down on a “absolutely never call this ungrateful creep again” list, since they’re going to suffer and lose out if they call you again.
Theres a few articles in Tradition on this that point out pretty dammingly that the DOH is relying on to claim that there is any danger in MBP is, even from a laymens perspective, a professional disgrace in literally just about every way possible without blatantly saying we’re just inventing stuff because “common sense” judges it to be so. (Wait a minute — they actually did spell that out as one reason in the study’s wrtten report.) The legal standard to override freedom of religion is pretty high — this not only doesn’t come close, but may (probably?) not even pose any added danger whatsoever!! That’s a huge breach by government into religious freedom.
my school ended early that day at least
These asifas are almost pointless because the kids have no clue what these kapitlach tehillim mean.
If the sole purpose of an asifah was to instill in kids an appreciation for the meaning of the words they daven, then that would be an accurate statement.
“The Sages of blessed memory said that one who casts off the yoke is in the category of reshaim gemurim. Included in ‘casting off the yoke’ is if one says ‘I will keep the whole Torah except for one of the Mitzvos, because my fathers did not teach me it and I was not accustomed to being careful to do it in my youth’ or ‘because the people of my place are not careful to do it’. Because a slave cannot say to his master ‘I will choose to do these but not to do these’.”
Perhaps one can add one who says ‘I will invent my own methodology of understanding Torah concepts and textual statements’.
If you could say you have (had) different “ways” before – after R”H, the problem isn’t relapsing, it’s that there was never any change in the first place.
I don’t believe that to be universally true. There are those who suffer eternally and have no chelek at all in Olam Habah.
The way the Ramchal (ie kabbalistic) explains it, gehenom, while not necessarily limited to 11 months, does not endure forever — at some point, the whole thing is vanished from existence, and the neshamos of people who do not make the “cut” (that’s actually the way he says it) cease to exist together with gehennom. And gehennom is only one of many, many goodies that are waiting up (down?) there for people, but Chazal talk pretty much exclusively about gehennom because it’s the most prominent one (if i’m remembering the reason correctly. I assume there are others in any event anyway).
It’s fine to say that we don’t entirely hold like the Rambam on this issue, certainly because mainstream Shittos are far more mystical and less rationalist than the Rambam was. But trying to answer it up and say why it works within the Rambam is, frankly, an insult to the Rambam
But unfortunately, people today apparently wouldn’t be able to come to grips with the idea that there may have been some pretty extreme machlokasim on some awfully fundamental issues. And there is also the “mitzvas asei chiyuvis to answer every shver Rambam” mentality.
Additionally as was posted earlier, using your logic how can R’ Chaim say what he said if Rishonim and earlier Acharonim said differently?
What part of my “logic” suggests in any way that the gedolim of one generation cannot ever disagree on psak with those of a previous generation?
Rabbeinu Yonah in Iggeres Hateshuva writes:. . .
This is an egregious misrepresentation of the havanah by presenting it as if the context in which his words are written includes even where halacha (in this case derived from mesorah) says the opposite. R’ Yonah expected people to be able to understand the obvious contextual limitations.
And how can you say that once a mitzva is discontinued it is a deviation to reinstitute it? That might hold true if the mitzva was specifically discontinued (e.g. the chachamim were gozer not to blow shofar on shabbos so we cannot reinstitute it). But that is not the case by Techeiles. There was never a gezeira to not wear Techeiles. What happened was that people were unable to wear it hence they didn’t wear it. Let’s say the government would prohibit importing esrogim and no one was able to get an esrog. Would you say that we can no longer fulfill the mitzva of esrog because it’s not part of the Mesorah?
You are arbitrarily making up this distinction between intended discontinuation and passive discontinuation. Who said that is even a relevant criterion?? Again, what the geder for when the muchzak switches from having the mitzvah to not having it, go ask someone who has a legitimate opinion — it’s definitely not simple at all.
This has nothing to do with understanding the scope of Mesorah.
Actually, it has everything to do with it. Not every detail – or anywhere close – of how mesorah operates, it’s boundaries, scope, it’s halachic weight against various types of other halachic factors, etc, will you find verbatim chapter and verse. But only an ignoramus takes that to mean they therefore aren’t true. You want to find out, ask one of the R”Y’s who still stand behind mesorah for this today.
I could respond to your R’ Chaim quote with, “Do you think you know the Sugya better than the Maharal to say anything to the contrary?”
For that to even be remotely plausible in the first place, you would have to assume that R’ Chaim is arguing with these rishonim/acharonim as opposed to understanding them differently.
Even granting that, though, your analogy is anyway fundamentally flawed — you taking on R’ Chaim is not in any way comparable to R’ Chaim taking on the Maharal whatsoever — when you have legitimate Daas Torah like R’ Chaim does, then you’re entitled to argue. Furthermore, R’ Chaim isn’t assuming the Maharal etc blew pshat — in arguing, he’s merely saying that he cannot understand how he gripped the inyan, and therefore paskens differently, just as the rabanan said about R’ Meir (Tanna).
Us Talmidim are entitled to point out that he is arguing on said Shittos and in the minority.
True, but that doesn’t extend to the point that you can claim what R Chaim is saying is indefensible and is not a legitimate pshat in the first place.
By that logic, you should never say P’shat in anything, ever, because you don’t know better than everyone who has ever spoken on it ever.
I have no idea what you’re talking about — when it comes to learning to be mekayeim mitzvas Talmud Torah, then you follow your own intellect far more (how much, etc, depends on your yeshiva/rebbe, etc); when it comes to halacha lemaisa, then you don’t have a relevant opinion against a gadol for sure without being a pretty heavyweight posek yourself.
How about eating a meal or two by someone else?
Thanks!!
how many mods are there?
“True. But you don’t go to gehenom for broswing/ downloading 1500+ cc cookie recipes”
Theres a mishna in kesubos that says that it is very dangerous for a woman to not have constructive activities to be engaged in. Downloading 1500 recipes seems like having a lack of said activities.
“but for a mitzva d’oraisa (which in actuality is is not a deviation) we can’t?”
Once the mitzva was discontinued, it is a deviation to reinstitute it.
“And if you are so concerned about not doing anything that the previous generations didn’t do, why do you all where your tzitzis out?”
Your comparison is absurd. There is a vast difference between instituting a mitzva and being following a chumra, for which common sense should be enough to distinguish.
“It is quite outrageous to suggest that we cannot fulfill a mitzva d’oraisa because we don’t have a mesorah as to the exact identity of the chilazon.”
I think it is quite outrageous to suggest that you understand the place and scope of mesorah in Judaism better than the Gedolei Rosh Hayeshivos. Mesorah is a very deep, profound and nearly impossible to understand even for such great men — for us, we have no relevant opinion nor are we entitled to one amidst our gaping deficiencies in Daas Torah (& Daas stam).
LevAryehBoy Thanks!!
“Let’s revoke Cherem D’Rabbeinu Gershom with a Heter Meah Rabbanim and have boys start marrying two girls. Problem. Solved.”
While the <i>get</i> crisis balloons out of control. . .
First of all, if R’ Chaim feels that that is a valid interpretation of “nignaz”, despite the rishonim/acharonim who seem to indicate to the contrary, than who are you to argue?? Unless you think that you have a better understanding of the sugya than R’ Chaim does. In which case. . .
There are a few legitimate reasons to not wear techeiles that some gedolim do hold by, such as requiring a mesorah to re-institute or R’ Chaim Kanievsky’s interpretation of “nignaz” to mean quite literally hidden from us until the yemos hamashiach.