Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Right wing Supreme Court? Surely you must be joking!”
no not at all:
On the right I put Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia (he was alive during this fracas)
On the left Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan.
Even if you disagree with some of their conclusions that is how they generally vote and lean. Though granted there may be exceptions
Even if you where to quibble and say though Kennedy was appointed by a Repblican he is to liberal for you. In 2008 The court was even more right wing since you cant make the same argument regarding Oconner.
“You MUST be supporting Bernie”
nope
Health
Upon further research. Looking at the State Department website. You may have a point.
They seem to understand the revision to Title 8 I cited earlier as applying only to the final clause as Volokh understood it and not as the simple reading would have it (which was how Volokh first understood it)
Now while this doesnt really make sense, as applied to Obama since it would be impossible for his 18 year old mother to have spent “five after the age of fourteen” nevertheless this IS what the State Dept website says so I cant fault you.
Interestingly if born out of wedlock the requirement arent as strict, as only 1 year of living in the US is required. But let me guess you suddenly recognize his parent’s marriage, although his father had a Kenyan wife at the time?
However luckily he was born in Hawaii so this conversation is moot. However I have to change my statement to even if born in Kenya he MOST LIKELY would still be elligible.
why do you think the courts wouldnt hear cases on the subject. Including the Right-wing supreme court? Are they all in on this “Demoncrat” conspiracy?
There
Health
“Says who? You?”
Yes. And my Mommy too.
” If there is any validity to his comments, they would get a professional opinion!”
There are many many legal analysts on his side. (and a few on yours) However the consensus is that even born in Kenya he’s eligible
” Why don’t you call up the news and inform them about your disagreement?”
I’m not in disagreement with the legal consensus. as well as law as written and as I undertsand it.
” After all, you claim to be a lawyer!”
I never claimed that. Can you admit this line is non-factual?
“what made them “most creditable” the fact that they said what you wanted to hear”
Because they aren’t anonymous & they have professional titles!”
Most lawyers and scholars with proffesional titles say Obama is eligible
“stop pretending that this is a court of law and you’re defending your client Obama! “
“I’m not. Im pretending this is yet another thread where your dishonesty can clearly be displayed for all to see”
” I quoted a law professor that stated that if Obama was born outside the US he would not be eligible to seek the presidency”
and I repleid a. with the law not merely an appeal to authority .
and now with b. Neal Katyal and Paul Clement, two (TWO!! I’m winning) former solicitor generals who wrote an op-ed in Harvard LAw review in 2015, idscussing the etymology of “natural born citizen” and how it includes anyone with a US citizen parent.
Oh Deputy Assistant Attorney General and constitutional law attorney Thomas Dupree said the same on Hannity in January (comments were made regarding Cruz who unlike Obama was NOT born in the U.s, yet is elligible)
“I also quoted a You Tube video that brings proofs that the birth certificate presented to e/o was a forgery!”
and I asked several times if you believe the proofs that the Holocaust was a hoax and 9/11 was a jewish operation both of which have many videos on youtub proving their cases.
“I’m willing to discuss those proofs.”
Lol! No your not. I asked the question regarding youtube videos 4 times now. YOu most certainly are not wiling to discuss it.
I also cited actual laws. You keep doubling down on a legal scholar (who btw believes Obama is elligible since he was born in Hawaii. However ok I guess we do hold of palginan)
“The reason I posted on YWN is to show e/o why you shouldn’t vote Democrat (DemonCrat)!”
Why? Because we can read laws? I dont get it
Sam2
I know
Health
I love our discussions!
“S/o who perverts the truth!”
Nope that’s not me…
“Wrong! I actually quoted from UCLA Law Professor:”
True though you alos quoted a commentator who disagreed
“There are many posts online about his eligibility for president, I picked the ones that are the most creditable!”
what made them “most creditable” the fact that they said what you wanted to hear
I cited actual laws to you. That doesn’t “mean nothing” that is all that matters. Especially given that there are “many posts about his eligibility” with opinions on both sides (and both cited by you)
“stop pretending that this is a court of law and you’re defending your client Obama! “
I’m not. Im pretending this is yet another thread where your dishonesty can clearly be displayed for all to see
also
I cant help but notice you still haven’t answered my questions:
Out of curiosity do you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, or that Jews were responsible for 9/11? believe it or not there are dozens of youtube videos “proving” both.
and
Are John Mccain and Ted Cruz who werent born in the U.S. qualified to be President? (I reworded this one but it is similar to an earlier I asked a few times)
“Are you a DemonCrat?!?”
I’m not sure what that is.
I love how you replied to my citing you actual law with Wikipedia.
At any rate, thanks for trying, however
a. IT doesn’t really make sense that in order to be a U.S. Citizen in this case the child’s mother has to be at least 19 so that she spent 5 years after age 14 living in the U.S. IF she lived the entirety of her life after 14 in the U.S. why would that matter? Imagine a young married American chasidish girl in ISrael she is 18.5 lived her life in the U.S. It is hard to imagine that the law would preclude her child from being naturalized at birth. however you certainly could argue the point.
However:
“This proviso shall be applicable to persons born on or after December 24, 1952, to the same extent as if it had become effective in its present form on that date;”
So Obama is still qualified.
BTW
I can thelp but notice you still haven’t answered my questions:
Out of curiosity do you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, or that Jews were responsible for 9/11? believe it or not there are dozens of youtube videos “proving” both.
and
Are John Mccain and Ted Cruz who werent born in the U.S. qualified to be President? (I reworded this one but it is similar to an earlier I asked a few times)
Health
“I did look at the laws and it looks like if Obama was born in Kenya, he’s not eligible!”
Look again, my friend.
According to the U.s. constitution : (article 2 section 1)
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, … shall be eligible to the Office of President…”
As to what constitutes a “natural born citizen”
I refer you to U.S. code title 8 1401
“The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth: … a person born outside the geographical limits of the United States and its outlying possessions of parents one of whom is an alien, and the other a citizen of the United States …”
Hi Health
I cant help but notice you havent actually replied to my questions.
Here they are again:
Out of curiosity do you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, or that Jews were responsible for 9/11? believe it or not there are dozens of youtube videos “proving” both.
and
As an aside you do know that even if he wasnt born in Hawaii, much like John Mccain and Ted Cruz who werent born in the U.S. he can still be president right?
Health
“The proof is in the video. Pull up the video and view the comments!”
You HAVE to be joking. I thought you were kidding when you brought “proof” from a youtube video.
the only thing sillier tthan proving from a youtube video is proving from youtube commentators.
Out of curiosity do you believe the Holocaust was a hoax, or that Jews were responsible for 9/11? believe it or not there are dozens of youtube videos “proving” both.
Excellent Feivel. Very well done
Health I found the original of that speech
See this speech “The President Talks with Students in Turkey” delivered
April 7 2009. available on whitehouse.gov
You were tricked.
Sorry
Health
“He says clearly -“It’s true – I’m not from the United States – I was born in Kenya!””
Um no. You need to listen a few more times that is not what he says. There clearly are pauses eg “I come from (pause) Kenya” It could also easily be cut if he had said “wackos like Health think I come from Kenya and planted seeds in Hawaiian apers at my birth knowing I would one day run for president which even if I was born in Kenya since I am a natural born citizen as my mother was a citizen under the constitution I would be eligible anyway.”
“I’m not interested how the DemonCrats fooled so many Americans!”
Why arent you interested in the truth?
Here is a snippet from the above piece:
“If you listen closely, you can hear bad editing. The volume and sound quality of his voice change at key points, such as between “it’s true I’m not” and “an American.” The video never shows his lips where he makes his key admissions, so you can’t see if his lips are in sync with what he’s saying. And his audience offers no reaction to what should be a stunning admission.
So where did that portion of the video come from? The logo at the bottom of the video reads obamasnippets.com, which takes you to a YouTube humor channel that features seven videos in which Obama’s words have been edited for laughs.”
BTW the original unedited version of that speech is available online as well. Though I am too busy to find it now
Lol Health
That video is quite obviously edited (and poorly)
see here “YouTube video purporting to show Obama admitting he is not a U.S. citizen far from the truth” on politifact .com
You dont have to be a democrat to laugh at the idea that birth announcements were planted in Hawaii newspapers over 50 years ago planning one of the longest running conspiracy plots ever
As an aside you do know that even if he wasnt born in Hawaii, much like John Mccain and Ted Cruz who werent born in the U.S. he can still be president right?
Please don’t listen to theprof1. Clearly he is complelty frei since after aleinu every siddur has the ani maamins and shiesh zechiros therefore they must be integral parts of shacharis too I’m not sure why he indicates it would be ever ok to skip it.
Besides, that the shulchan aruch DOES NOT say when “shacharis starts” nor does it say to say kitores
Please stick with DY and Feivel.
Thanks for the correction Feivel.
Though I would like to point out that no studies have shown apples are safe.
(Also in that thread I was focusing specifically on autism)
Here is the thread
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/things-causing-autism-jokes
PBA
“What doctor do you know who would engage on the topic?”
dozens and dozens. Both in person and online. In fact on ywn there are several such threads
I am not a pediatrician, but I have had several conversations on this forum on this subject. One went something like this
anti-vaxer: If vaccines are so safe why cant they just prove it with a study once and for all.
Me: There have been dozens here they are…
anti-vaxxer: No it needs to have x number of people
ME: heres one with those number of people
anti-vaxxer: No that was funded by a pharmaceutical company and they are suspect
ME: Here is one that wasn’t funded by companies
anti-vAXXER: but that was funded by the government they are worse than the big-pharma
ME: here is a study that wasn’t funded by government or big pharma
anti-vaxxer: That was published in a journal and journals are suspect because have advertisements from big pharma.
(I’ll dig up the thread later. OF course this isn’t a verbatim recap but it is the gist of it)
Granted Doctors don’t have these conversations with every single anti-vaxxer but it is clear that most are not interested in discussing it. Take one simple specific example (Which perhaps unfairly tarnishes the entire “movement”) namely MMR and autism. IT has been studies over and over and over and there has been no link found. The ONE study that had linked the two was found to be fraudulent. Yet most anti-vaxxer/pro-diseaseer Ive encountered even if they don’t fully embrace that flawed study still has trouble letting it go. This is not a fact based argument it is one of emotion. Of course when parents make bad decisions based on emotion in opposition to all the research on the matter it makes pediatricians upset. I’d be more concerned by a pediatrician whose response was “oh you want to put your kids and others at risk based on some flawed studies and anecdotes you read online, Gezunderheit I have no problem with that In fact lets have a measles party in my waiting room so all the kids can strengthen their immune systems and who knows maybe if we are really lucky one of them will give it to his pregnant mother”
I am not sure where you stand on MMR and autism but the bottom line is there is a greater chance that internet use causes autism (since as internet use picked up autism picked up, and unlike the MMR, to the best of my knowledge a link between the two has not been studied)
“Imagine a plumber who comes to your house, and says you have a leak in your pipe and need to fix it. And you say, I don’t know, I read online that sometimes water can drip from condensation, how do you know it isn’t that. So the plumber says if you don’t let him fix it, he’s never coming to your house again. Good plumber? “
you missed a few steps first the plumber says well even if there is condensation this pipe is still leaking and needs repair and besides it is unlikely to be condensation since this room is very dry and the humidity is too low for any condensation to occur. and even if moist it is too cool for any copndesation to occur etc etc
And the response is “I don’t know, I read online that sometimes water can drip from condensation, how do you know it isn’t that.”
And the plumber replies well as Ive explained… (how many threads are on this forum on this very subject?)
This goes in circles for a while with the person insisting what they read online is correct. Yes the plumber should say ok if you don’t want my services you are welcome to find a different plumber.
Ah but dont forget minhag oker halacha 🙂
“bonfires are everywhere, following a truly ancient minhag.”
Out of curiosity how ancient do you think it is?
DY
I didnt really mean they are being “oker halacha”
However as you correctly point out “snd as long as it’s conceivable to be toleh sitting in the sukkah on it being pleasant, we do so”
Obviously there is an element of subjectivity there. But to me it doent seem conceivable to be toleh sitting in the sukkah on it being pleasant, it is obvious that by sitting in the sukkah you are announcing “today might be chol” no less than shuckling lulav would. From Tosfos and other Rishonim this was vclearly not the case in their day/locale. However in 21st century new york I have never seen people sitting outdoors for a meal in late October.
I dont really mean those who do what the shukachan aruch says are “oker halacha” I am sure they caim it is conceivable, and given that the stimas of shulchan Aruch does say that way, Of course you have what to rely on.
Thanks for the nitei gavriel. I actually flipped through it over Shabbos most interesting was the end of the tesuvah where he lists those who didnt eat and the (much longer list of ) those who did, I was surprised to see many chasidish rebbes among those who ate in the sukkah including satmar, pupa and munkatch.
mw13
“And as MDG pointed out, if we were to celebrate anything, it should be the end of the war, not the beginning..”
As i pointed out, this is incorrect since the battles against Yevanim did not end with Chanukah
Sam2
The gemara was talking about where sitting in a sukah can be explained as not just becasue sukkos. Tosfos says this explicitly.
Whether that applies to OCtober in New york is debatable. But what tosfos says is not.
besides, you dont mean I am wrong you mean me the Divrei Chaim, Oheiv yisroel and others. (I believe some Rishonim mention this including maharil and machzor vitri also made reference to this)
you are of course entitled to your opinion (and obviously most poskim say like you)
DY
Yes I assume he just meant it as a limud zechus.
though I laughed at the “very cold climate” How do you define “Very cold”
Care to guess what the temperature is in vilna in September- OCtober? I dont consider 40’s – 50’s “Very cold” but admittedly that is subjective
“but I suppose that was based on your not knowing the gemara/S”A”
Hardly. Its just that ive looked at tosfos too…
Those who do sit in the Succah on Shmini Atzeres are in direct violation of the how most (all?) Rishonim understand the Gemara, and should keep eating in the sukah, because they have on whom to rely and minhag is oker halachah.
Look the bottom line is this discussion is quite simple.
Have you ever eaten outdoors on October 23 if it wasn’t a safek maybe last day sukkos?
If yes no problem! I have to tell you I haven’t nor have I seen anyone doing it
No worries DY. I write quicky and often my writing only resembles English (which I beleive is ok according to the rules)
there is a general rule that we never do anyting to be mezalzel yom tov. In other words Every yom tov sheni is Safek yom tov rishon, safek chol. Mideroisa there is no second day of yom tov sukkos it is either the first day or the first day of chol hamoed. So while on the third day of sukkos we say indicate in our davening and laining that it is either the second day or third day of sukkos (both chol) we never do this on Yom tov. Even tefilin which is De’oraisa even those who wear on chol hamoed dont wear it on yom tov sheini even though it is safek chol (should say safek deoraisa lechumra) we arent mezalzel yom tov. Not with words and certainly not with actions.
This is why we dont shake arba minim on shemini atzeres doing so would clearly indicate that we are mesupek that it is really the 7th day of sukkos (yom chol) and we dont want to be mezalzel yom tov (Muktza is a side issue and is circular since if we took lulav on shemini atzeres it wouldnt be muktza, so not taking it solely BECAUSE it is muktzah is circular since is only muktzah since we dont use it).
The Gemara of course says we sit in sukah on shemini atzere. Many rishonim including Tosfos on the spot explain that since there are times that a person eats in sukah (nice weather) it isnt obvious that he is announcing today is chol so there is no zilzul. I beleive tur and Rosh say this too.
It seems obvious and I believe the Orach Hashulachan (!!!) says this beferish that if it is obvious that eating in sukah is BECAUSE maybe it is 7th day of sukkos it shouldnt be done(I dont recall if he says this lehalacha or just a limud zechus I have to double check it seems surprising that he would say not to eat in sukah).
Now I have to tell you that I have never eaten in a sukah unless it was Sukkos. Even outdoors depending Isnt something I have done or seen many poeple doing in the New york area in October. Eating in the sukah on Shmini atzeres is clearly becasue maybe it is 7th day of sukkos. This is a zilzul to yom tov and shouldnt be done.
Of course I am sure those who do eat in sukah have a good reason too.
(an exception to this is counting sefira on he second day of PEsach therby signaling that perhaps it is chol. The nosei keilim talk about this.
The Erev tavshilin al tnai MIGHT be another example. Seems debatable
I cant think of any other example)
MDg
If only it were black and white life would be much simpler. It is also black and white that it is assur to do anything to be mezalzel yom tov by indicating that it is chol.
As for “dwell” in the Sukah (which would presumably include sleeping) to the best of my knowledge nobody holds you do this on shemini atzeres Dthe Darchei Moshe brings this besehm the Rosh and tur for the reason mentined above. That “sitting” is alowed becasue we sometimes do it with no mitzvah, which is not so for sleeping. So Dwelling/sleeping in sukah is presumably assur (read not optional but assur) as for “sitting” assuming it is something we do even when not a mitzvah, thus not being mezalzel in yom tov then (and only then) can we eat in the sukah on shemini atzaeres
Getting back to Yom ha’atzmaot…
Chanukah does not celebrate the end of war nor the ability to live in peace. The war continued for several years after liberating the beis hamikdash. IT is black and white in megilas taanis (with several days commemorating battles that took place after Chanukah eg Yom nikanor) and lehavdil Josephus
Dy
You have that backwards. You mean like eating in sukkah on shemini atzeres clearly zilzul of yom tov no less than arba minim would be.
Sure people claim that eating in sukah isnt nikur that it is chol, which is of course nonsense (though perhaps it was once true) since there is no way to explain eating in sukah other than the chashah that it is hoshana rabah, I have never seen anyone eat in a sukah for any other reason. (Though again perhaps at one point it wasnt unusal, since many say that it isnt nikur that doing it for sukkos, something which is clearly not true today)
In fact it runs counter to the classic tur that the reason we commemorate sukkos in the fall is precisly when people are going indoors and it is no longer “normal” to eat outdoors as the weather gets cooler, that we leave the house for the sukah. SO how then can one be mezalzel yom tov of shemini ateres by calling it (in practice which is seemingly worse than word) “safek sevii shel pesach” ?
I am sure that the many gedolim who eat in a sukah on shemini atzeres have a valid reaon. PErhaps it is an example of minhag oker halacha
NC
(sorry for the delay, ive been busy)
“Yes, it is correct that there are plenty of minhagim that have nothing to do with Halachah.”
Oh good! I guess I misunderstood you earlier. My apolagies
“However, as for those that do, it’s not because one side is going against halachah and the other isn’t.”
Obviously the people following a minhag don’t think they are breaking halacha.
” There can be differing halachic opinions without it meaning that one is “trumping the halachah.””
true however there are cases where minhag oker halacha exists. We seem to be going in circles
“Also, I thought somebody mentioned on another thread that the Rema considered Kitniyos fully assur. “
It is assur, because of a minhag!
Sadly this conversation is getting more repetive than most of mine. So I’ll some up succinctly (though without adding any further examples to the several ive brought earlier)
Bottom line is see Magen avrohom cited by DY, clearly “minhag oker halacha” exists. He says so explicitly. Granted it (like many of our rules) has rules where it applies and is not a blanket pass for any act somebody decides is a minhag, however it seems to apply to every minhag yisroel Ive encountered both in real life and on this site in general and this thread in particular
BTW NC
In addition to there clearly not being a halacha that 13 year olds shouldn’t wear a talis. The very minhag that prompted this thread namely Gebrokts is also not “how you and your group hold in the halachah.” To the best of my knowledge nobody holds “in the halacha” that Gebrokts is assur, (nor kitniyos for that matter, though perhaps since it is such an old minhag the minhag status is somewhat elevated, but nobody holds that if you go through Pesukim, Shas etc you come to the conclusion that kitniyos is assur on PEsach)Nor does anybody hold l’halacha to have a proper kapara you need kapparos before Yom Kippur.
There are dozens of minhagim that are not “how you and your group hold in the halachah.”
beningnunman.
that is exactly what i have been saying. Though I gave example of “minhag” to bow down to Avoda zara. Obviously “minhag oker halacha” doesnt apply. However the concept is real within a certain framework as laid out by the magen avraham cited earlier.
(and wonderfully explained by you in this post http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/when-minhag-trumps-halacha#post-608590)
The only thing I was adding is that (by definition) if something is a “minhag yisroel” then it must have SOME rabbinic backing in which case it will trump halacha.
Nobody has provided an example that shows that statement wrong. (though admittedly, the argument is a bit circular and is probably impossible to prove wrong, which is partially my point)
N.C.
Did you look up the Mishna Berura I cited? I transliterated it above. If you dont like my transliteration here is the original:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14170&st=&pgnum=56
17:10 The M”B calls us who avoid talis gadol until marriage “yoshev ubatil mimitzvas tzitzis” (Though I freely admit, I dont understand why he sat=ys that I wouldve said like you and in fact mentioned that in my first post, however he does say it is being mivatel a mitzvah, sorry) Nevertheless, we do delay it based on minhag.
(Nor do we add techeles even though there is a tiny chance it is a mitzva based on minhag).
And I’m not sure what you mean, are you saying some hold the HALACHA is a 14 year old shouldnt wear a tallis gadol!?!?
Actually on second thought the talis example is better than I first thought.
N.C. said the following earlier “No. We haven’t proven that minhag overrides halacha. We’ve proven that sometimes when we say minhag, we mean how you and your group hold in the halachah.”
Clearly nobody holds the halacha is a 13 year old CAN’T wear a talis! In other words nobody and no group says the halacha is a talis shouldnt be worn by 13 year olds.
Yet for most ashkenazic Jews we put off being mikayem a mitzvas aseh (granted its a mitzvah kiyumis and granted we dont put it off completely since we wear a talis katan) yet we remain as the M”B says “yoshev ubatil mimitzvas tzitzis” becasue that is our minhag! (again of course within the framework provided by the M”A we need (and have) Rishonim’s sanction for our minhag.
Yet I think this example proves that minhag does not mean ” how you and your group hold in the halachah”
yekke2
“This ‘weak justification’ comes from Rishonim” Yes I know, thats why I didnt wear a talis until marriage
“so it doesn’t matter if you understand it or not.”
True, though I fully understand it! Minhag Yisroel should be justified. Puk chazi I rely on the maharil no matter how weak the justification. Even the M”B who clearly isnt thrilled with this justification calls it a “davar t’muah” but doesnt actually call for abandoning the minhag! (End of siman 17)
“Again, this isn’t Minhag v. Halachah,”
The M”B seems to disagree. (Though again, he doesnt actually call for the minhag to be abandoned)
” it is Halachah v. Your Question.”
i’m not sure what you mean, what is “my question”? I dont have a question here. The bottom line is There are cases where minhag trumps halacha within. We have no less an authority than the Maharil on whom to justify our minhag. I do not have any question
“and I too never understand the rationale behind not wearing.”
Wonder no more! The rationale for not wearing is becasue that is the minhag! (As to how the minhag devolped that is a historical question, the theory I’ve heard is that it was too expensive to give every 13 year old a talis, as for tefilin, they could be passed on generation to generation so at bar mitzvah a boy could use his Grandfather’s while the Talis either: a. was too worn out to be used and/or b. The deceased was burried with it. but this just a theory (not my own))
“The Hekesh, if anything, would apply to Tzitzis as well.”
Ah, but that isnt the minhag!
DY
Agree with most of the post you linked. However while misleading. the concept “Minhag Oker halacha” DOES exist.
“In other words, a minhag without any halachic support is a minhag shtus or minhag taus. A minhag with halachic support, however, can override the normal klalei horaah and the halacha would follow the minhag.”
I outright said the second clause throught this thread. As for the first clause, While true I cant think, nor has anyone provided an actual example of a minhag without halachic support. (A few decent examples were provided, however even the providers of those examples didnt actual view those following their minhagim in those cases as acting “without halachic support” I.e. those who daven sefard, eat indoors on shemini atzeres are still frum Jews even if some (most?) poskim would pasken they do otherwise)
Another example prompted by the talis thread.
Not wearing a talis after bar mitzvah! sure we come up with very weak justification such as a “hekish” of ki yikach ish and gedilim taseh
(Though to be sure, there is no halacha you HAVE to wear a talis, so it also might not be the best example)
NC
I’m sorry I dont follow. The M”A says beferish, (and he is quoting earlier sources) “Minhag Oker halacha” That seems to be a pretty good proof that minhag overrides halacha. Granted minhag doesnt mean any act under the sun it has to have SOME halachic basis but if it does the halachic consensus (i.e. the normal way halacha is decided) can be ignored. In other words the concept “Minhag oker halacha” clearly exists!
furthermore although some seem to be arguing that it doesnt exist, nobody has provided an example of a minhag that DOES NOT trump halacha. Even the isolated examples brought where some say “No minhag doesnt trump halacha” (nusach sefard, sukkah on shemini atzeres) we still dont “write off” those who “ignore” halacha and follow thir minhag.
To sum up:
1) it is a Magen Avraham “Minhag oker halacha”
2) In practice nobody has provided a minhag that is not oker halacha, so by default it is (broadly speaking, again there are excellent examples where isolated Rabbanim say to ignore minhag in place of halacha however none of us view those who eat indorrs on Shemini atzeres as those who dont eat matzah on second day Pesach or those who daven sefard as not having davned today! (as an aside when I was in yeshiva my mashgiach gave a lengthy vaad on why kesav beis yosef was the real kesav and kesav ari shouldnt be used. I asked him afterwards my tefilin are kesav ari what should i do? He looked at his watch and said it is 15 minutes to shekiya go borrow mine you still have some time))
So for example techeiles you say its impossible, ut at the very least there is a chance that its a mitzvah? 1%? 0.1%? There is no harm in having a blue string. However it isnt our mesora for whatever reason Hashem wanted it lost. so we really on the Rema (O.C. 9:5) that the minhag is to have davka white strings. Even if their is a chance (however remote) that we are missing out on an aseh.
If youd like a more controversial example. One of my Rabeeim in E”Y starts his Purim seuda shortly before shkiya on Purim (tes-vav since he lives in Yerushalyim). When asked why he said it is a beferish Remah 695:2 “shenohagin lehaschil samuch la’erev veikar haseudah hi leil tes vav” (Interestingly same Yeshiva as my other story above!)
however have a look at the 5 words preceding the above
(sorry for the worse than usual sloppy autocorrecting/spelling in previous post should read:)
“We would never eat from a restaurant, caterer, or food vendor that does not display a hechsher that we trust”
Why not? If you trusted the store owner why do you need someone else to tell you it’s kosher?
If r’ belsky z”l owned a restaurant you would only eat there if he paid the ou to certify it?
Camps and schools have a morah Horaah that pakens their shailos, If you find him releiable, why would you need some other hashgacha on top of that?
Dy I was thinking about it and the truth is the m”a you cited how’s there IS such a thing as “minhag over halacha” granted it doesn’t apply to ANY act that a person describes as a minhag. However the concept is real and while there are individual rabbonim who would reject it’s application in some examples brought above, we COLLECTIVELY would apply it in every single example brought.
Even the sukkah example WE don’t equate not eatingeating in sukkah on shemini atzeres with not making a seder on the second day pesach (the most analogous example I could think of that involved a mitzvah aseh). Even if a rav paskened that they were the same, obviously we collectively don’t view them the same, rather we allow and even respect (I believe you used that word) the fellow who eats indoors for following his minhag even though it is against halacha, since it is in compliance with the m”a.
I can’t think of any example of a (actual) minhag that wouldn’t meet the m”a criteria.
Another example that came to mind was not wearing techeiles. We come up with all sorts of tenuous reasons to justify our minhag, as we should! It doesn’t matter what halacha says we follow our me sora which sadly was lost. Of course we need some justification to be in compliance with the m”a’so criteria so we come up with a justification.
The bottom line is: the m”a shows clearly there is a concept of minhag trumping halacha. Though with an important caveat that (almost be definition) doesn’t exclude any actual minhag
“We would never eat from a restaurant, caterer, or food vendor that does not display a hechsher that we trust”
Why not? If you trusted the store owner why do you need someone else to tell you it’s true?
If r’ belsky z”l owned a restaurant you would only eat there if he paid the ou to certify it?
Camps and schools have a moral Horaah that passes their shallow, why would you need some other hashgacha?
NC
Even if R’ Moshe did mean chasidim should change, we don’t follow that.
what I mean is we all recognize certain leeway (for lack of a better word) within the halachic process. As long as the rules are followed even if different conclusions are reached all are valid within a certain framework.
For example if you were to ask r” Moshe regarding carrying in Brooklyn he would say no. However we (collectively) still allow those who follow R” Menashe Klein or Ybcl”c R’ Yechezkel Roth to follow their psak and carry.
So even if R’ Moshe did mean that all chasidim should abandon nusach Sefard (I haven’t seen the teshuva recently I think the mashmaos was he did feel that way) and even if the two Roshei Yeshiva DID mean that all should eat in the sukka on shemini atzeres, we (again collectively) allow for those with a different minhag to “trump halacha” again, within the framework laid out by the M”A cited by DY earlier. As DY said “but I don’t look negatively at someone who doesn’t” He and I assume all of us allow for these variances within a certain framework.
Obvoiously if someone had a minhag to bow down to yushke (or to bake a loaf of bread with a cross or cross shaped object that’s a inyanei diyoma joke, I have such a minhag)when pointing out that it is kineged halacha “minhag trumps halacha” is not a valid response.
however in all the examples cited in the thread including davening nusach sefard, not eating in sukkah, klapping by haman, not learning by nittel etc etc, minhag DOES override halacha within a certain framework
PBA
So the gemara was sharing a interesting piece of information that is of no practical use?
Even if it would only apply to the most selfless person ever, who truly davened for her friend to get married not thinking about herself. So when the davener gets engaged first is she disappointed since she really wanted and davened that her friend should get engaged?
Of course this is possible, but I assumed it is meant as others describe it if you want to be answered in something daven for someone else
DY
“Who cares what I would say?”
Me! Dont sell yourself short I value your opinion (even if your wrong most of the time 🙂 .
Thanks for the reply and Joseph your example is a good one too thanks.
Bottom line is I guess I misunderstood the point of the thread.
I imagined it went like this
Guy 1 “why are you doing [fill in the blank] it is keneged halacha?”
Guy 2 “Oh it is my minhag and “minhag trumps halacha”
DY “It doesn’t.”
the reality is that in (virtually?) every case, even the decent examples provided by you and Joseph, those following their minhag (not eating in sukkah on shemini atzeres or davening sefard) aren’t blindly violating halacha because “minhag trumps halacha” What they mean is they are relying on the shitos that allow those practices (And there were/are gedolei olam who did both) since it is their minhag even if most poskim, and perhaps the strict interpretation of halacha disagree. Which is correct behavior as I understand the M”A you provided.
So minhag DOES trump halacha. In the sense that since my family minhag is not to eat in the sukkah and to daven sefard I dont follow R’ Moshe as I might generally but rather follow the minority poskim/gedolim and continue my minhag.
Joseph
Again the way it works (at least in one place I know of) there is no “buying back” the chometz is sold to the guy forever but with a built in clause that allows him to opt out after x number days which would return the chometz for now on to original owners. There is no clause that allows for the seller to force the goy to keep the chometz if he chooses not to go through with it.
Joseph
Ive watched them sell Chametz at MTJ many times (though not in past few years) The way I remember it they sell him the chametz, he puts a down payment and he has x number of days to decide if he want to go through with the sale. Once those days are up he can keep everything forever (and pay the rest of money for it) or the stuff returns to original owners.
There is no “buying back” the chometz from the goy.
Though I am not sure if everybody does it this way. Since I often hear peple refer to waiting for the Rabbi to “but the chametz back from the goy” after PEsach.
Thanks
DY
I was actually thinking of that example. But dismissed it since in my view there is legitimate backing to avoid eating (I actually have a hard time understanding the heter to eat in the sukkah on shemini atzeres
but dont want to hijack this thread).
I did not know Litvish gedolim advised people to eat in sukkah, so that is a decent example, yet you ruin it with “It is also well known that many great Chassidish Rebbe’s who were talmidei chachomim didn’t, and to be dan l’kaf z’chus, even if we don’t understand it, we assume that they must have had halachic justification.”
So in that example. Given that my family doesnt eat in the sukkah on shemnini atzeres, are you saying I should eat in the sukkah?
Do you have any other examples? preferably without a caveat allowing for the “minhag to trump halacha”
I’m a little confused by this conversation.
Dy perhaps you (or anybody else) can help.
It seems to me that by definition any minhag practiced by frum Jews has some rabbinic backing, including many brought above (banging by haman, not washing for shalsoh seudos not sleeping in sukkah etc) If there is no “justification” then a forced one is brought or a daas yachid is relied upon.
What is an example of a minhag with NO halachic support about which the expression “minhag trumps halacha” or “minhag brecht a din” would be (wrongly) applied.
DY the reason I singled you out is this line “where the rav has told people to abandon minhagim which are clearly against halachah,” do you (or anybody else) mind listing these minhagim?
DY
“Ubiquitin, so you’re saying that keeping minhag is sily? I don’t get it.”
no chas veshalom! As Ive said before in this thread (and others) keeping minhagim is very important.
What I said (or meant) is the minhag is silly. However, I believe even silly minhagim should be kept, especially when it come to Pesach.
another (less controversial?) example si putting aside keleim that fall on floor. It makes absolutely no sense halachicly. And is a textbook example of silliness yet those who have this minhag (I dont) should keep on doing it.
“Looks like we have a few more days of fun now.”
chas vesholom to call a heilige minhag “fun”
There all helige kavanos to be had when saying “Ka’eyleh” The honigkvetcher Rebbe explains Keileh is Roshei teivos for Kivshos hayetzer, Ashiris, Limud Torah, and general heligkeit!
Why do people love knocking minhagim?
DY
“At this point, it’s considered more of a minhag than a chumra, but based on a time when there was a possibility, which meikar hadin we don’t need to be concerned about, which nevertheless some were machmir on”
Very well said!
Thus the notion that there is an actual “chasash chometz” with gebrokts today is silly both because of the metzius and becasue of the inconsitency in how we treat this chasash chometz (though I dont blame you for not being willing to outright say that)
“Now, some have the minhag to be machmir even though we grind the wheat better and have thinner matzah, and they keep the minhag as their ancestors kept it when there was a (remote and not halachically binding but real) possility of chometz.”
yep. I have this minhag!
Yehudonya
“Could somebody explain why it’s OK to use keilim for gebrokts on the eighth day and then use them the next year on erev Pesach?”
i can! becasue that is the minhag!!! The very same minhag that assers gebrokts allows the kelim the following year!
” It’s not a full 12 months. Is it miktzas hachodesh k’kulo?”
Interestingly some only eat Gebrokts on acharon shel Pesach when the following year is a ibbur yahr so that there are (at least)12 full months until the next PEsach. Nitei Gavriel is a great source for minhagim in general particularly among various chasisdish groups (I dont have it in front of me, but If youd like Id be happy to provide details)
DY
“hat do you mean “real”? Assur meikar hadin?”
No I mean that it really might be chametz. Namely that there is s possible issur of achila, baal yireh etc.
“and the last day being d’rabbonon, is not an arbitrary chilluk.”
What are you saying? I have a cake in my freezer that may be chametz. Can I eat this chasahash Chametz on Achron shel pesach? Thwere are few distictions we make between the first and second day. To the best of my knolwedge allowing “chasaah chometz” isnt one of them.
As for keilim a year later the bleios of gebrokts/ “chashah cometz” dont magically disapear
That’s not so pashut; obviously for most issurim we don’t assume 12 months helps, but for some cases we do, so some are meikil for gebrokts which is merely a chashash.
“That’s not so pashut; obviously for most issurim we don’t assume 12 months helps, but for some cases we do, so some are meikil for gebrokts which is merely a chashash.”
Again, If I had keleim that might be chametz can I use them after 12 months?
mik5
“If it’s silly, then why do you follow it?”
Tradition!
I beleive mesora should be followed. Of course it is silly. DY mentioned a chashash for chmoetz. Nobody views it as a real chashash otherwise you wouldtn eat it the last day. As for keilim a year later the bleios of gebrokts/ “chashah cometz” dont magically disapear and yes I know there are some who use seperate kelim for last day or only make keneidlach if the next year is a leap year so the added month can make the belios over a year old but these arent mainstream minhagim.
BTW, Has anyone heard of a minhag applying baal yiraeh baal yimatzeh to this “Chashash Chametz” during the first 7 days?
And as mik5 said “For the record, the Vilna Gaon laughed about the minhag of not eating gebrots, ” Why wouldnt he? Its pretty funny!
Joseph
“If someone conforms to the shitta that it is not permitted to eat gebrochts, and DY outlined the reason for it right above, then it makes no sense to eat from keilim used with gebrochts. It is contradictory and the gebrochts keilim are assur for the same reason eating gebrochts are assur.”
I never met anybody who actually held gebrochts are assur. The vast majority of people eat Gebrochts on achraon shel PEsach chas vesholom to say they lessen a chashash of Chometz! furthermore this year most of those will prepare their Kneidlech on shevii shel PEsach since Acharon shel PEsach is Shabbos (obviously some wont, but most do).
It isnt a real chashash of Chometz, nobody says your oiver bal yiraeh if have matzah meal products in your home. It is a minhag plain and simple. Minhagim are important. Especially PEsach when we have heightened sense of mesora and passing on tradition.
And yes some minhagim are silly. That some find that offensive doenst make it less silly. For example putting aside any keilim that feel on the floor makes no sense halachicly and is in fact (in my opinion) silly. Of course if that is your minhag keep practicing it much as those with minhag to avoid gebrokts (present compant included) avoid gebrokts
Mw13
“it is good enough to give every person a small piece of the top and middle matza, and they can eat the rest of two kezaysim from other matza”
If you do it that way, there is no reason to have two kezeisim. The reason we eat two kezeisim is because safek which matzav is used for mitzvah whole or broken so we do both.
But if you’re eating other matzas what is accomplished by eating two kezeisim?
The Jewish fact finder by Yaffa Ganz
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=19961&st=&pgnum=127
Moadim uzemanim, chelek 3 siman 252
Whoa somebody fell asleep at the wheel.
Putting aside the obvious incoherent rambling of t of this thread.
I’m sure we can agree quoting the “new” testament is out of bounds?
“So, it would seem Mr. Trump likes the number 666. Where does that come from?
“Here is wisdom. Let him that hath understanding count the number of the beast: for it is the number of a man; and his number is Six hundred threescore and six.” Rev. 13:18″
!?!?!
Thank you for bringing it to my attention.