ubiquitin

I know it is a bit early, but I wanted to share some marei mekomos I came across last year in the Mesifta Hagada.

first a recap, the discussion began about size of a “kezayis” and somebody brought the obligatory kvetching about how hard it is to eat modern day “kezaysim”.

I pointed out strictly mesevara that the discussion regarding size of “kezayis” always struck me as starnge, since a kezayis is the MINIMUM amount needed to be considred an achila. It isnt a goal to strive/struggle towards. There is something wrong with the sizing if eating a kezayis is a struggle for a normal person.

I maintained that the Mitzva is eating matza period. As all mitzvahs there are techinical (sometimes critical) halachas, minimum shiur: kezayis, maximum shiur: Achila Gasa, time frame: Kedei achilas pras etc etc.

I didnt bring any rayahs since this seemed obvious to me. There is no Gemara that brings a limud how much Matza needs to be eaten, like any achila (both mitzvos and issurim), any less that a kezayis simply isnt called eating.

DY and Sam2 pointed out that the implication of my statment is that there is a mitzva/hidur of some sort to eat more than a kezayis a notion they disagreed with.

Here are some marei mekomos:

Rambam 6:1 is mashma this way. He says “there is a mitzvas aseh to eat matza period (literaly)…once a person has eaten a kezayis he is yotzeh yedei chovoso” He does not say There is a mitzva to eat a kezayis matza.

(Diyuk brought in moadim uzemanim)

Bach brings besehm Maharl that all eating matza leshem mitzva is part of the mitzvah.

Kehilas Yaakov kidushin siman 34 brings the same idea besehm the shiltos and brings many raayas (Its actually a very nice read, though I dont own a kehilas yaakov so i havent seen it in a while now)

Lior just so your question.

Yes absolutly. Grownups should act like grownups and not spend on kiddushim they cant afford. THat is what the takana should be, I have never heard that shmooze, the shmooze is always the way you describe, that is backwards.

If we are bringing Gemaras I can also play the Gemara game. B”K 27b.

bottom line is my comment was to Goofus who said “”if you feel wronged you shoudl go to the courts” Al pi Halacha this is not correct In fact the very lashon of the siman in Shu”a where this is discussed is “Keitzad Oseh Din Leatzmoi” or “How a person can make judgment for himself”

In my first two scenarios there is no question the fellow can take his item back. The last case is arguable. Rema in the above siman bring Mordechai in Hamaniach as a yesh omrim that would arguably assur Lior’s action, (I only say arguable because I’m not clear on the difference between taking the item and another item. I will have to see Mordechai inside, it may be the case that in a store with an ssigned value to the item, it would be allowed)

However the first two scenarios are without doubt alowed. and Goofus’ assesment, and your blanket disagreement are wrong.

DY

Arguably.

In this case, In a store where everything is for sale the items lying around all have a monetary value.

Put my wallet case aside for a second. Say Lior was shortchanged $5 which he watches the cashier slip into his pocket. Can he tiptoe around the cashier and pull his $5 out?

Can he take a different $5 from the cashier’s pocket?

I think most would agree Lior can do both and there is no need to “go to courts”

Do you disagree? Does anybody?

Taking a different item, say the cashier’s sunglasses that Lior estimates at $5 is trickier. So we can leave that aside.

Now in a store, say he watches the cashier slip the $5 into the register.

Can he take his $5 back out?

Can he take a different $5 bill out?

So far it is no different than the above. The only scenario that could be different is if the cashier is ripping of Lior and Lior is taking money “back” from the storeowner. I am assuming that isnt the discussion at hand (Either the cashier is the storeowner or the cashier seems to have made an honest mistake and isnt pocketing the disputed $5)

Again I assume we agree that Lior can take his $5 back from the register or a different $5.

Do you disagree? Does anybody?

Now in a store i would argue that Lior can take the sunglasses that have a $5 sticker on them. There is no estimation of value that is the value that the storeowner is assigning the sunglasses. Lior IS taking $5 back

Do you disagree?

Goofus

If I grab your wallet from you and claim it is mine. Do you really think you have no right to grab it back, that “if you feel wronged you shoudl go to the courts”

Why is this different?

yayin R’ Moshe says YD 1 11 Specificaly that it is not Ubechukosehem lo seleichi (He doesnt mention darche Emori as that is irrelevant to the subject at hand) He does say that it is Bitul Torah. Is that what you meant?

Yayin I dont follow why would you consider giving a kkk member money?

Do you mean buying something from a kkk members granchild? If it makes you uncomfortable then dont as ive said regarding buying from Germany.

You do realize every illogical comment is furthering my point that avoiding german products isnt driven by logical factors.

Rema, im sorry what? Esav and yishmael are allied in the torah? Where? And how is that relevant?

Genders can mingle at any party (Chasunah Purim etc) Dont even need a party can be at shul.

Its not a violation of darkei ha’emori.

Oh and personally poppers.

Lior. Mazel tov. Are you saying michiyas amalek is a “mitzvah sichliyas” that you would have come up with on your own? Are you saying we have a mitzvah to kill all germans? Please elaborate

yayin

“And if the storm would have happened the mayor would have been just as wrong, just no one would have complained.”

At least youre being consistent. Fair enough.

Are you always opposed to mandatory curfews? What about a hurricane? What about mandatory evacuations in cases where wildfires/tornados are headed towards a city?

“I love conspiracy theories.” I love them too, I find the mental gymnastics people go through in an attempt to deny the obvious fascinating!!

yayin

Not quite he repeatedly said based on “predictions”.. “likely” etc etc. And even in a sentance or two where he didnt say it. Everybody above the age of kindergarten knows weather predictions are based on models that oftn change. Meteorologists aren’t guessing, nor have I ever heard them claim to be God. When you see dark clouds overhead and you say “Its going to rain” Are you claiming to be God?

At any rate Now i am really confused. Are you saying he deliberately over played the storm as a “distraction from the police saga,”? If so Seems risky considering a day later he will be exposed as a fool, and and how does that fit with “hoped to come out looking like a hero,”?

Your last post isn’t coherent. blaming murders? I thought we were talking about a blizzard

curious yenta, Did you really think the meteorologists are in charge of the weather?

Reb Yid. It shouldnt but as of today 2015 It absoultly would

(which is why the lie was started int he first place)

Sorry Im late to the party. A few points in response to VM’s reopening what should be a forgotten topic.

“I possess literally no objective or accurate information about vaccines.”

– Perhaps the only accurate statement in the post.

“The vaccine controversy is real and it is the fault of the medical establishment as much as it is the fault of a few flawed studies.”

– The controversy is contrived it is the result of one flawed study and a few evil celebrities (!) who endorse it.

“Because of the stakes involved in public health, nobody ever gives a straight answer to questions about vaccinations.”

– Straight answers are given repeatedly there have been studies (plural) proving the safety and efficacy of vaccines. (do a pub med search)yet the appeal of celebrities is hard top overcome.

“Moreover, you can believe that the doctors, the government and big pharma are acting totally l’sheim shamayim (they are not, BTW) and still believe they are lying. Their job is to support the public health. If vaccines caused any ill effects, their job would be to weigh the public benefit against the public costs, and make a decision whether to be open about the costs if it may result in fewer vaccinations.”

– This is true. thats why your it comes with possible side effects noted.

“But an individual should care about the individual costs and make a decision based on his or her personal circumstances.”

-Debatable, as a member of society individuals should make decisions based on society.

Here are some examples that support what I wrote above:

“1. We are nagged endlessly every year to get the flu shot. Few doctors will tell you the objective fact that the flu shot is directed only at a few strains of the flu, and that it has side effects.”

– I allways mention POSSIBLE side effects, Ive always been told of POSIBLE side effects.

“They will tell you that the flu kills 35-50000 Americans every year. Assume the number itself is true (it isn’t); they don’t tell you that the overwhelming majority of the victims are elderly or infants,”

– It is ture that the flu kills 3500 – 50000 Americans each year. While majority are infants and elderly (i.e >65). surprise doctors care for them too So I’m not quite sure what your point is. Furthermore the obese, those with Lung dieases (Astma/COPD) are at risk as well. Never mind the fact that hospitalization is what doctors want to avoid as well. As many as 200,000 are hospitalized annually for complications related to the flu. This year in particular has been a bad year and among the deceased I know of are a couple (not elderly they were in late 50’s) who caught a particularly nasty strain of flu (H3) complicated by CA-MRSA and died.

” and that the flu vaccine is only designed l’chat’chila to address about 50% of anticipated flu cases in the first place.”

– The developers predict strains to inoculate against the efficacy is variable. This year has been particularly ineffective.

“So you’re taking a vaccine with a high chance of side effects, to protect against a disease that would be incredibly unlikely to harm you at all, and the protection is only 50% better!”

– Should read” So you’re taking a vaccine with a low chance of mild side effects, to protect against a disease that while incredibly unlikely to harm most healthy people, has a high chance of harming you and even higher chance of harming in catastrophic ways those you may love including elderly/infants and those with predisposing conditions, and the protection is often as high as 50% better and by some estimates as much as 90%!!!

“NONE of what I wrote is remotely controversial.”

– Because it isnt factual.

“It happens because ten thousand people getting minor side effects is nothing to the government, while 20 lives of elderly people and infants that are saved is something to them.”

– Ummm isnt it something to all?

” So forgive me if I am skeptical generally of the government’s claims about vaccines.”

– Forgiven! Dont trust the government. dont trust me. Do a pubmed search yourself. Or Find someone who is knowledgeable on the subject ask him to explain the literature to you. Make sure s/he explains terms such as absolute and relative risk reduction and number needed to treat. Then see if you can visit your local ICU and note how many patients have Droplet precaution notices on the doors to their room. Then you will be truly informed on the subject.

I am not as well versed regarding varicella and HPV So those can wait for now.

Actually froggie. hitting is assur becasue it is a lav in the Torah of Baal Tosif and as codified by the Rambam. If not for the pasuk forbidding it it would be allowed. (Of course there is also Veahavta lereicha etc…) But there is in fact a passuk in the torah and halacha in shua forbidding hitting.

Things arent assur becasue they seem assur they are assur if the Torah/Chazal/Poskim tell us it is assur. if you dont know if it is assur there is noting wrong with asking whether it is of more knowledgable posters or of your Rav.

DY

I mostly agree with your last post. My only point of contention is regarding “Editing a picture is not falsehood per se. It depends on whether the idea being represented is false.” It depends on what the idea being represented is. In this case the idea being represented is a world unity rally led by world leaders. Pictures in a newspaper are often used to illustrate a story. (After all a picture is worth a thousand words. Many people glance at the picture and skip the article. A headline serves the same purpose. Thus even if the story mentions Merkel being there if the Picture is edited it still conveys a dishonest message. There is a frum website that often has dishonest headlines to pieces for example (not an actual example but they have done very similar headlines) They’ll have a headline Obama says “Attackers are justified” Then in the course of the article they say the full quote “anybody who says the ATTACKERS ARE JUSTIFIED is a terrible person” Obviously this admitedly extreme case would be falsehood. It isnt enough that the story is true. The headline, which to a certain extent summarizes the story has to convey truth as well.

The wedding question is even less of a sheker than the others because the pictures arent meant to document what occured. IT is more of a souviner or memento. Nobody looks at wedding pictures and says “Remember how we all stood with our backs to a backdrop” If a person edited in some Rosh Yeshiva to show how chashuv he is that so and so attended then it would be sheker, but I think we agree on this that it is all about context.

Regarding edited Gedolim pictures, that is trickier because it depends on the point of the book, Obviously Artscroll “biographies” serve a different purpose than biographies as generally percieved, and arent meant to give an exact history. In which case the context is different regarding editing in yarmulka (you didnt address Tznius) though In a general biography it would be dishonest to edit pictures.

So the discussion is really over what is the context that the picture appeared in the paper. To me it seems it is meant to depict a historical event as it occurred and as further described in the accompanying article.

In the course of this conversation their is something that is being overlooked.

If it is halacha, minhag or even a legitimate chumra. I dont think we should care about what Others think. This goes for milah, metzitza, and not printing pictures of women. (of course there is a (relevant) side discussion whether some of these are legitamte hakpadahs However this shouldnt detract from the main issue at hand)

Hamevaser never prints pictures of women, Haaretz didnt have a story last month that there were no women. That isnt the issue. I dont know if Z-Dad agrees, but it should go without saying that any paper has every right to come out with any fardreita chumra they want they can avoid pictures of women, reshaim, all goyim, all animals, treif animals, fruits or apples

(BTW Trust 789, When I see pictures of apples in frum newspapers, I cringe. Ditto, frum websites. It isn’t “faltche frumkeit”. I don’t cringe for myself, since I love apples).

That is not what happened in this instance. They could have easily avoided pictures of women. Ami, Mishpacha Yated and Hamodia all managed to report on the story without pictures of women and without raising the world’s ire. The literal editing women out of history is what the issue at hand is

Flatbusher: “Isn’t that the underlying reason why women’s pictures are not published in frum publications?”

No! The underlying reason is it serves as a shtemple of faltche frumkeit. It has become the norm that charedi publications dont have pictures of women, therefore to be considered a Torah-True TM publication you cant have pictures of women. It has zero to do with tznius as DY points out ” the type of picture a frum publication would print is highly unlikely to be an issue.” And in Merkel’s case it is completely unlikely.

This is why people get upset over this. Of course they can exclude women or anybody they deem objectionable in a any way. That isnt the real issue. However when it becomes an international story, if it was based on halacha, who cares what the international community says! But when it is based on faltche frumkeit, it is upsetting

Lior

I dont know what her thoughts would have been but according to the book it has the support of her family

Hamevaser has millions of copies in distribution? Wow!

The book is more prominent and is meant to last a while to be reread over and over.

The tachlis of A newspaper printiing a picture or Rebbetzin KAnievsky would be identical to A biography.

As far as the level Torah audience, I never farhered nor took a survey of hamevaser’s readership vs Artscrol biography’s So I simply dont know. Though Im not sure how that factors in. Does a higher Torah-level audience make you more or less susceptible to pictures?

Lior

I’m not sure if your question was addressed to me but, I demanded no such ting.

I do have a question for you though. Do you think Rebetzen Kanievsky is opposed to the Artscroll Biography of her? (It is full of her picture)

Golfer neither point is being overlooked

Your first point is wrong for several reasons first of all the split with more vs left doesn’t hold up. Since a. it is a false dichotomy less educated (in a secular sense) people tend to be more religious so by your metric do people feel the need to be tolerant of them? and b. It is all relative people who are less fortunate are more unfortunate so this less vs more split doesn’t quite hold up. More to the point if something is viewed as intolerant the call for tolerance doesn’t hold water. We aren’t tolerant of antisemites, racists or sexists, nor should we be. If (as some believe) the women were removed out of intolerance for women, calling those who criticse the intolerance, intolerant doesn’t hold much water.

Your second point “Still, it’s easier to refrain from publishing any photos of ladies, than to have to sit in judgment” is wrong too. There is no question it is easier to look at the picture determine there is nothing wrong with and print it than to sit there and edit out the women. Spare me nonsense about coming up with standards. This one was straight forward. If it is uncertain fine, edit it. OR better yet use a different picture which is also easier than editing!

Answer is simple. It is becasue to be a charedi paper you cant have pictures of women, this is the new norm, so having pictures would make your publication less frum.

As to how it got this way read any of several sociological works on the right ward shift of Orthodoxy

DY evenif it isnt direspect. How isnt if falsehood? Editing a picture without a caption admting it is edited seems false to me.

When mods edit a post they make clear that it is edited.

Why do you say the papers arent guilty of falsehood?

Mod-42

2 points I’d like to clarify. My discussion with DY is not about asking someone to do somehting for you, rather limited to “lifnei iver” by telling him in, Lior’s example, say where to find Parsha sheets.

Secondly I’m curious does your Rav hold that ungvarer chasidim (followers of R” Menashe Klien) are allowed to carry i.e not for you? I have heard from R’ Belsky on several occasions that they may not, in which case of course its lifnei iver to direct them to Parsha sheets.

DY, you say “how can you assist someone do something assur yet not be oiver on lifnei iver?”

Not quite when Talmid B”H helps talmid B”Sh with tzaras bito he is helping him to something muttar! The way I see it even the acording to Talmid B”H, the talmid B”Sh is in fact allowed to marry tzaros bitto. If it was assur it WOULD be lifnei issur.

(As far as the paradox of not being lifnei iver for the machshi to help do somehing assur for the machshei to do himself, there are many such examples, nazir helping regular person drink wine, kohein helping yisroel be metameh. In ALL these cases there is no issur helping the nichshol do something muttar.)

I agree with your summary but with the caveat that I’m only talking about cases where the machshi holds the nichsol is allowed to do “it” (C”S/ carry with Eruv/ marry tzaros bitto) on his own, thus making it mutar for the nichshol, even in the machshi’s opinion.