Chacham

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 594 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Echad Mi Yodea in Yiddish #1720218

    Chacham
    Participant

    דְרַייצְן דְרַייצְן . ווֶער ווֵייסְט ווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן?
    ,
    אִיךְ ווֵיי א ,סִיךְ ווֵיי ס. א ִיךְ ווֵיי סווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן!
    אַ גָאט פֿוּן רַחְמָנוּת . א ִיז א וּנְזֶער בּוֹרֵא
    ,
    דְרַייצְן מִידוֹת . לֶערְנְט א וּנְז דִי תּוֹרָה
    יַעֲקֹבְ’ס קִינְדֶער . פֿוּן דוֹר צוּ דוֹר / דִי צְוֶועלְף שְׁבָטִים . אוּן רְאוּבֵן אִיז דֶער בְּכוֹר
    עֶלְף שְׁטֶערְן . הָאט יוֹסֵף גֶעזֶען / וָואס בּוֹיגְן זִיךְ . צוּ אֶים אַלֵיין
    אוֹיף בַּארְג סִינַי . הָאט אוּנְזֶער גָאט / אוּנְז גֶעגֶעבְּן . דִי צֶען גֶעבָּאט
    נַיין מָאנַאטְן . אִיז אַיינְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט / אֵיידֶער אַ קִינְד . קוּמְט אוֹיף דֶער וֶועלְט
    אַכְֿט טֶעג . וֶוען אַ קִינְד אִיז אַלְט / מַאכְֿט מֶען אַ בְּרִית . אוּן עֶר וֶוערְט גֶעמַלְט
    אַ גַאנְצֶע וָואךְ . גְרֵייט מֶען זִיךְ צוּ / אוּן דֶער זִיבֶּעטֶער טָאג אִיז שַׁבָּת . שְׁטֶעל זִיךְ אָפּ אוּן רוּ
    אוֹיף זֶעקְס חֲלָקִים . עֶפְֿן אוֹיף אוּן זֶע / אִיז בַּיי אוּנְז צוּטֵיילְט . דִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה
    דִי תּוֹרָה אִיז צוּטֵיילְט . אוֹיף פִֿינְף סְפָרִים / בְּרֵאשִׁית שְׁמוֹת וַיִקְרָא . בַּמִדְבָּר דְבָרִים
    פִֿיר אִמָהוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / שָׂרָה רִבְקָה . רָחֵל וְלֵאָה
    דְרַיי אָבוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב . זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה
    צְוֵויי לוּחוֹת . פֿוּן סַפִּיר שְׁטֵיין / אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְט הָאט זֵיי . דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער אַלֵיין
    אֵיינֶער אִיז . הַקָדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא / אוֹיף דֶער עֶרְד אוּן הִימְל . אֵיינֶער בִּיסְטוּ!

    in reply to: Echad Mi Yodea in Yiddish #1720217

    Chacham
    Participant

    the last stanza

    דְרַייצְן דְרַייצְן . ווֶער ווֵייסְט ווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן?

    ,
    אִיךְ ווֵיי א ,סִיךְ ווֵיי ס. א ִיךְ ווֵיי סווָ א סאִיז דָ סאדְרַייצְן!
    אַ גָאט פֿוּן רַחְמָנוּת . א ִיז א וּנְזֶער בּוֹרֵא
    ,
    דְרַייצְן מִידוֹת . לֶערְנְט א וּנְז דִי תּוֹרָה
    יַעֲקֹבְ’ס קִינְדֶער . פֿוּן דוֹר צוּ דוֹר / דִי צְוֶועלְף שְׁבָטִים . אוּן רְאוּבֵן אִיז דֶער בְּכוֹר
    עֶלְף שְׁטֶערְן . הָאט יוֹסֵף גֶעזֶען / וָואס בּוֹיגְן זִיךְ . צוּ אֶים אַלֵיין
    אוֹיף בַּארְג סִינַי . הָאט אוּנְזֶער גָאט / אוּנְז גֶעגֶעבְּן . דִי צֶען גֶעבָּאט
    נַיין מָאנַאטְן . אִיז אַיינְגֶעשְׁטֶעלְט / אֵיידֶער אַ קִינְד . קוּמְט אוֹיף דֶער וֶועלְט
    אַכְֿט טֶעג . וֶוען אַ קִינְד אִיז אַלְט / מַאכְֿט מֶען אַ בְּרִית . אוּן עֶר וֶוערְט גֶעמַלְט
    אַ גַאנְצֶע וָואךְ . גְרֵייט מֶען זִיךְ צוּ / אוּן דֶער זִיבֶּעטֶער טָאג אִיז שַׁבָּת . שְׁטֶעל זִיךְ אָפּ אוּן רוּ
    אוֹיף זֶעקְס חֲלָקִים . עֶפְֿן אוֹיף אוּן זֶע / אִיז בַּיי אוּנְז צוּטֵיילְט . דִי תּוֹרָה שֶׁבְּעַל פֶּה
    דִי תּוֹרָה אִיז צוּטֵיילְט . אוֹיף פִֿינְף סְפָרִים / בְּרֵאשִׁית שְׁמוֹת וַיִקְרָא . בַּמִדְבָּר דְבָרִים
    פִֿיר אִמָהוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / שָׂרָה רִבְקָה . רָחֵל וְלֵאָה
    דְרַיי אָבוֹת . זֶענֶען בַּיי אוּנְז דָא / אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב . זִכְרוֹנָם לִבְרָכָה
    צְוֵויי לוּחוֹת . פֿוּן סַפִּיר שְׁטֵיין / אוֹיסְגֶעקְרִיצְט הָאט זֵיי . דֶער אוֹיבֶּערְשְׁטֶער אַלֵיין
    אֵיינֶער אִיז . הַקָדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא / אוֹיף דֶער עֶרְד אוּן הִימְל . אֵיינֶער בִּיסְטוּ!

    in reply to: New Techeiles Movie #1600406

    Chacham
    Participant

    5- As far as the discussion of Nignaz. I think it is silly to make believe that Reb Chaim never claimed that the chilazon is nignaz etc. and it is only hearsay. I honestly believe that that is what he holds. But like every area of Halacha, not all poskim have to agree to one opinion. Besides Moreinu Harav Chaim, the rest of the poskim who discussed techeiles didn’t raise the issue of nignaz.

    Obviously, this doesn’t mean you can’t be somech on Reb Chaim, but again it also means that it is not a black and white case.

    In the times of the Radziner Rebbe, The Maharsha”m, Reb Itzele Ponvitzer, Reb Chaim Ozer Grodzintsky and other gedolei hador (including the letter from the Beis Halevi that the Radziner quotes) all held it was possible for techeiles to return, and obviously thought that Nignaz is not a kasha.

    The Yeshuas Malko was misquoted as holding that nignaz meanas literally. Fakenews.
    He wrote a teshuva explaining that the Radziner’s techeiles is based on assumption and not on rayos, and he writes:
    איברא שאם היה נמצא תכלת בבירור והיה ידוע לנו כיצד צובעין, ודאי היה ראוי לאחוז במצווה זו אלא שאין לנו בירור גמור שזה התכלת

    Doesn’t sound like he understood nignaz to mean that it can’t come back.

    A few commenters quoted Rishonim saying Nignaz means you can’t find it. This isn’t true. Not one Rishon discusses if you can find it or not. There is however a rayo from the Ri”f that brings all of hilchos techeiles, that he obviously held that the laws still applied bizman hazeh, even though he doen’t bring the laws of kodshim.

    For a full list of mareh mekomos on the issue see the article on the techeiles.org site from Reb Yisrael Barkin <<http://bit.ly/UA2er2>&gt;

    in reply to: New Techeiles Movie #1600405

    Chacham
    Participant

    I saw this discussion, and I couldn’t help but comment a few points:

    1- Although I have nothing to do with the making of the video, I watched it and I think it was very well donr. It is true that it was indeed made by those in the pro-techeiles camp, and the techeiles people always got the last word, but there was no distortions on the matter. They had big big Rabbanim speaking against it, and they in no way hid the fact that the gedolei harabbonim do not support techeiles. And those making the video are only achrai in what the narrator says, not what the Rabbanim they interviewed say.

    2- They also stated bfeirush that the intention of the video is to give knowledge on the subject, like learning halacha and obviously everyone should ask a Rav. They in no way are encouraging people to start wearing techeiles without making a sheilas chacham.

    3- A commenter above stated that the claim that there is no harm in wearing techeiles is a proof of the dishonesty of the video since anyone who knows the first thing about techeiles knows that this isn’t true. Let’s get things clear: The baalei Havideo didn’t say that, rather it was said by none other than Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlit”a and Rav Dovid Kohn Shlit”a, although they are clearly against the identificatioin of the Murex as the Chilazon.

    in reply to: New Techeiles Movie #1600407

    Chacham
    Participant

    Also, for those who are interested you can get techeiles niputz lishma, and they even made a run once of geziza lishma, etc.
    But again it is wrong to compare a hiddur that the poskim debate about to a chiyuv de`oraysa that there is a machlokes about.

    in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518820

    Chacham
    Participant

    7- Last week Lee Weisman (who btw admitted in a phone conversation that he is totally unaware of the story of Avoda Zara loosing hair…shoin a reyusa oib her iz taka aza groiseh mumcha, also you keep on changing whether he was in India for 6 years or six months. Make up your mind.) said that Indians answer a question the way that the asker wants to hear. Im kein, there is no significance to the whole interview with the priest, specifically because you put the words in his mouth.

    8- In interview with Rabbi Paskesz, you keep getting back to Rashi in Yevamos that says Tikrovos is a Doron. Indeed, rashi says that, but this in no way means that tikrovos is only a doron, rather the case of that shoe is that it was a doron to Avoda Zara, but there are also cases of Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no Doron.

    The rayas for this is that any Shechita to Avoda Zara assurs the entire beheima as Tikrovos Avoda Zara even if there is no intention of giving beheima to AVODA ZARA.
    במשנה (חולין לח:) מבואר שלדעת רבי אליעזר אמרינן שסתם מחשבת נכרי הוא לע”ז, ועוד ילפינן חוץ מפנים, זאת אומרת כשם שבפיגול [לדעת ר”א ברבי יוסי] מחשבת הבעלים יכולים לפסול הקרבן, הוא הדין בשחיטת חולין שמחשבת הבעלים לעבודה זרה אוסרת את כל הבהמה משום תקרובת עבודה זרה. ולכן אם יש לנכרי חלק קטן של הבהמה, כיון שסתם מחשבת נכרי לע”ז, כל הבהמה אסורה משום תקרובת ע”ז, כיון שהגוי הוי שותף בבהמה ומחשבתו יכול לאסור הבהמה. ואמר ר”א במשנה שם “שאפילו שחטה לאכול להגוי מחצר כבד שלה בלבד פסולה”, ומפורש שם שחיישינן אף אם הגוי “אוכל” מהחצר כבד, ולא מקטיר ממנו לע”ז, וחצר כבד לאו דווקא כמש”כ תוס’ שם, אלא הוא הדין כל חתיכה קטנה בבהמה. וכן מפורש בגמ’ שם לט: שאפילו אם הנכרי רק נתן זוזא לישראל ע”מ לקבל חלק מהבשר לאכילה, אם הוא גוי אלים, אז מעות קונות, ומחשבתו פוסלת את כל השחיטה, יעיין שם.
    מבואר מכל זה שהמחשבה לע”ז שאוסר הבהמה הוא אפילו אם אין כוונתו להקטיר הבהמה, אלא אפילו אם כוונתו לאכול אותו עדיין מחשבת הגוי אוסרת את כל הבהמה. ועד כאן לא פליגי חכמים על ר”א אלא אם חיישינן שמא סתם מחשבת נכרי הוא לע”ז, אבל במקום שהגוי מפרש שהוא עובד לע”ז בשחיטה, לכו”ע הבהמה אסורה משום תקרובת ע”ז גם אם לא חשב על שום מעשה הקרבה, הרי ששייך לעשות תקרובת ע”ז בשחיטה גם אם אין הכוונה להקטיר ממנה כלום.
    ועוד ציור שמצינו תקרובת ע”ז בלי שום מעשה נתינה הוא שכשוך יין נסך. לדעת כמה ראשונים (עי’ רש”י גיטין נב: ד”ה מנסך, וכ”ה בחולין מא. ד”ה שניסך, תוס’ בגיטין שם) גוי ששכשך ידו לתוך היין לכבודו של הע”ז נאסר היין מן התורה משום יין נסך על אף שלא ניסך ממנו להע”ז כלום. ועי’ דברי הרא”ש (ע”ז פ”ד הלכה יג) שכתב “עיקר ניסוך הוי בהגבהה והורקה… דוקא בפני עבודה זרה, אבל שלא בפני עבודה זרה, אין דרך לשפוך אלא לשכשך” עכ”ל. וכן כתבו הראב”ד (ע”ז עד.), והריטב”א (ע”ז עב: ד”ה דנרגמוה), והאריך בזה במרחשת ח”א סוף סימן כא.

    That being the case by shechita, it follows that any cutting which is the tolda of shechita, also makes it tikroves Avoda Zara even without any mayse of giving like what Rabbi Paskesz said. Other cases of tikrovos Avoda Zara with an action of cutting making it assur without having any nesina to the Avoda Zara include:
    א- פרכילי ענבים
    ב- אבנים שחתכו לצורך זריקתן למרקוליס [מאירי]
    ג- הדס שנחתך לע”ז [רש”י יב: ע”פ מאירי מד:, ועי”ש בתוס’]
    ד- מעות שבצרן לצורך מרקוליס [מאירי, ורבינו יונה]
    ה- מנעל שנחתך לשם ע”ז [שאילתות פח, מאירי ראש תוס’ חד מקמאי יבמות קג:]
    ו- שופר שנחתך לשם הע”ז [מאירי ר”ה כח]
    ז- כלים שנחתך לשם ע”ז [רמב”ן רשב”א ריטב”א בשם הראב”ד ע”ז נב.]

    9- Rabbi Paskesz says that sheviras makal is an act of serving the Avoda Zara, you jump on him and say it is only tikrovos and not actual avoda. Rabbi Paskesz was only quoting the gemara, which you apparently are unaware of:
    “אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה אמר רב, עבודה זרה שעובדין אותה במקל, שבר מקל בפניה, חייב, ונאסרת
    The word chayav means that the one who does it is chayav misa, meaning he served the Avoda Zara. Any act of giving tikrovos is an act of serving the Avoda Zara. Being that he is only quoting a gemara which you are unaware of, it is extremely unfitting of you to tell him to go learn the sugya and that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. I am sorry for saying this, but he actually spent some time on the sugya and the Rishonim and he isn’t the one who has no clue about the sugya and is parroting the mareh mekomos prepared for by someone else.

    10- Your whole argument the whole time is that it is tallui in the way the priest think it is fitting to serve it. That being the case, when Mrs. Berger quotes the TTD who actually run the temple, you can’t get a bigger clarity than that. Even if there is a tzad that Avoda Zara is really talui in the way the galach thinks, there is no tzad that it is tallui in what biased Emma Tarlo from London thinks. And the TTD who actively run the temple, have a lot more of a de’ah in what the Avoda Zara is than some random priest living in America.

    11- You mention quickly in the beginning of the show that there is two taaruvos, and therefore it is muttar. Basic mistake. The case of 2 taaruvos is only when a ring gets mixed into 1000 rings and one of the rings separates, and then falls into another taaruvos. But when the 1000 rings fall into 10,000 rings, it is still the same taaruvos. Following, since the hair mixed in India is never porish from the taaruvos, rather the whole taruvos gets remixed, the hetter of 2 taaruvos does not apply. וכן מפורש בבית יוסף (סי’ ק”מ), וז”ל: “וכבר כתבתי לשון הגמרא בסימן ק”י (קעד. ד”ה ולא מיבעיא) ונתבאר שם דהיינו דוקא כשמיעוט התערובת הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אבל אם רוב התערובת הראשון נתערב עם אחרים אין זה ספק ספיקא, ולפיכך כולם אסורים” עכ”ל.
    There is much more to be maarich, but I will stop here.

    in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518819

    Chacham
    Participant

    4- Rabbi Bohm says that most of the Indianhair used for sheitels is not sourced from the temple, rather from hair combings. This is not true, as the hair combings are non-remi hair, and almost all sheitels are remi hair as was already pointed out.

    5- Also Rabbi Bohm indeed claims to know the story of their Avoda Zara loosing hair, but he claims that the say that the reason for tonsure is to make themselves bald similar to their Avoda Zara. Well, I have seen the story in countless places [I found a link to a PDF file with all the sources in the Mareh Makom page for show 167], and I have yet to see even one place that interpreted the way Rabbi Bohm said, so I challenge him to show us some of his “overwhelming majority of sources”

    6- Rabbi Bohm also claimed that only black hair comes from India, this is not true since they treat the black hair with an osmosis bath, which naturally changes the color without removing any of the cuticles. This is not to be confused with dyed hair, as this hair is much higher quality and lasts much longer. There is one company called Great Lengths that only buys temple hair from India and yet they have every color and shade of remi hair available.

    7- You keep mentioning Emma Tarlo as the one who researched the topic of Hindu hair for 30 years. Well, not exactly. She is an anthropologist, but mostly studied the code of dress by Muslims, and spent 3 years researching hair in all the religions. But this is not important.

    What is important is whether she has any neemanus lhalacha. If she was masiach lfi tumo it would be one thing, but all she is, is a liberal jew who is very bothered that the Rabbis should dare interfere with the way women wish to dress. This is extremely clear in her book many times. When contacted by email to request info, she wrote explicitly “I sincerely hope that Jewish women will not be prevented from wearing wigs on the basis of mis-information” She also said in a recorded phone conversation: “…How terrible it would be if the poor Indian people would lose their income from the hair- how they need it so badly.”
    So first of all, she is not masiach lfi tumo, so zero neemanus. Secondly, she clearly has an agenda. And to top it, in various places she is soiser what she now claims.
    For example, in her book she writes: (of course she didn’t mention this at all in her interview):

    “…the official legend behind tonsuring at Tirumala. According to this tale, recounted on the temple’s website, the god Venkatateswara was wounded on the head by a blow from the axe of a cowherd. The injury left him with a bald patch which was soon covered by hair given by Princess Neela Devi, who cut some locks from her own head. Touched by the gesture, Venateswara declared that from that day on devotees would be tonsured at the site and their hair would be dedicated to Neela Devi.”

    She also wrote: (p. 78)
    Hair is a woman’s beauty,’ a woman with shoulder-length hair tells us as we step outside. ‘When she gives it to God, her beauty goes straight to him.’
    She also wrote extensively that china does not import comb waste, since it is illegal, rather it all goes to Myanmar. now she was suddenly choizer, and all the hair in china from india is non remi hair.

    In an interview with BBC [Untangling where your hair extensions really come from, 11/1/2016]: “In terms of marketing it’s up to the integrity of traders all the way along the line to specify what hair is what. Quite a lot of mislabelling goes on and often the people buying it don’t ask questions anyway.”
    She also says there: “Hair from India was a staple supply for wig makers in Orthodox Jewish communities across Europe, the US and Israel – until 2004”

    What happened? Sheforgot to mention that it was really brush hair??
    She also mentions in her book: (p. 101).
    ‘It was a really bad time for us,’ George Cherian of Raj Hair Intl tells me in India. ‘The Jews were important clients because they bought good quality remy hair, which is what we were getting from temples. In India, women love their hair and would never sell it. Instead they donate it. But the rabbis made a fuss, and that was the end of that.’
    She also writes: (pg 102-103)
    As another Indian trader tells me, ‘I sell the hair as Indian but what the buyers do in their own countries, we cannot say. Those rabbis made it very difficult for Jewish women when they introduced the ban on Indian hair. Nowadays, hair has to travel a very long way before it gets to them!’ It is not inconceivable that some of the hair sold in Europe as ‘Brazilian’ or ‘Ukrainian’ began life on Indian heads.

    Basically, when she wrote her book she was masiach lfi tumo and didn’t understand the ramifications of her words and she was very clear that sheitels did once use temple hair, and that the official reason for tonsure is that story. But when she understands the toikef of her words and is not masiach lfi tumo, her tune switches, v’al zeh neemar, keivan shehigid shuv aino choizer umagid.

    in reply to: “Headlines” Indian hair episode: is it biased or activist? #1518818

    Chacham
    Participant

    Comments on the second show that I recieved in an email from a friend.

    He apparently sent it in to the headlines show, and they didn’t post it for some odd reason.

    Hi, I just finished listening to this past weeks show on the sheitel controversy, and I would like to makeseveral crucial points.
    1- Emma Tarlo keeps getting quoted about the majority of hair from India not being sourced from the temple. In an exchange of emails, she explains that 80% of the hair is what comes from comb collected hair, and only 20% from the temples. Yiyeh aich sheyiyeh, even if a professor in anthropology is actually a trade expert, this isn’t very helpful for our discussion. All comb hair is non remi hair, and all temple hair is remi hair. 90% of sheitels are made from remi hair, this can be checked very easily by feeling if the hair cuticles are intact. That being the case, If a sheitel is indeed made from remi hair it will not help at all that 80% of the hair in India is comb collection, being that you can know bvadai that the sheitel in front of you is not from those hairs.

    2- I hear quoted Rav Elyashiv’s letter where he writes that 75% of the hair in India is sourced from the temples and you naturally claim that the psak was made based on misinformation. Very silly. Rav Elyashiv did indeed write that, and the information was based on what the Israeli Consulate in India reported based on what they heard from the Finance Ministry of India (should be a decent source in my opinion, much better than an anthropologist who doesn’t study international trade). Attached is a link to that file (removed)
    But for some reason you left out the continuation of Rav Elyashiv’s teshuva. He never paskend based on those numbers, rather he writes explicitly:
    גם אם זה להיפך, דין קבוע להם כמש”כ בשו”ת דברי חיים ח”ב סי נ”ז וזה לשונו, “כשהקונה כותב ומבקש ממנו מן הגוי שישלח לו כו”כ והוא שולח מביתו, בכה”ג הו”ל כלקח מן הקבוע ולא יחלוק ע”ז זולת חסר דעת”
    He writes that the hair from the temples have the din of a kavua, and therefore even if only 25% comes from the temples it will still be a problem. Yes, there are those that argued on Rav Elyashiv, but honestly if it is not a Shayla in metzious rather a Shayla in Hilchos Kavua, there is a lot of weight to the opinion of Rav Elyashiv. This also fully disregards Rabbi Kuber’s point (agav we are all still waiting for the source of his numbers).

    3- The Shayla whether or not it is possible to make Tikrovos Avoda Zara in a way that the galachim do not serve this Avoda Zara is a very basic Shayla that is lechoirah discussed in a mefurashe Mishna.
    Markulis was an Avoda Zara that was served by throwing stones at it. However, the Mishna writes that if you find on it Grapes or wheat stalks, it is assur because we are choshesh it is Tikrovos Avoda
    This is the lashon of the Rashba 51b
    “…דמתניתין לכאורה אפי’ בשאין דרכה בכך מיירי דהא ממרקוליס סליק וסתם מרקוליס אין דרכו אלא בזריקת אבנים ולא בפרכילי ענבים וסלתות”
    It is mefurosh that although it is not the way to serve markulis with anavim and flour, it is still tikrovos Avoda Zara.
    This is also clear from the Gemara there that says:
    אמר רב אסי בר חייא כל שהוא לפנים מן הקלקלין אפי’ מים ומלח אסור
    Meaning that anything we find by the Avoda Zara is tikrovos, and there is no condition that it must be something that it is the derech to serve that way.
    The Rambam furthers this rule even more, that anything, even if it is not ke`in pnim, is assur because of Tikrovos Avoda Zara, if it is found in front of the Avoda Zara, see Rambam Hil. Avoda Zara 7, 21-22.

    The Rashba also writes that Parcheilei Anavim are only assur if we know that it is the derech to serve this Avoda Zara by cutting the anavim for it, but if it is not from the laws of this Avoda Zara, it is not assur unless we know it was cut. Meaning the Mishna is discussing the laws of what is found, and something that it is in the laws of this Avoda Zara to cut lishma is assur because we are choshesh that it was cut lishma, but if it is not in the laws it is still assur if we have the yediah that it was cut lishma. Zos Omeres, it is possible to serve Avoda Zara by cutting it and it even creates Tikrovos Avoda Zara, even if it is not included in this Avoda Zara laws.
    This is his full lashon:
    “פרכילי ענבים ועטרות של שבלים. פירשה רבה בר עולא בגמ’ כגון שבצרן מתחלה לכך, כלומר שיש בחוקיהם לבצרן מתחלה לכך, וליכא לפרושי בדידעינן ודאי דבצרן מתחלה לכך דהא מצא קתני, ואומר רבינו הרב נ”ר דאע”ג דבבשר הנכנס לע”ז לא חיישינן דילמא נשחט מתחלה לכך, הכא שאני דאין דרכן להביא מן הבצור אלא ממה שבוצרין מכרמיהן בתחלה לכך אבל בשר דרכן להביא מן החתוך, והילכך אף בפרכילי ענבים אי ידעינן דאינם קפדין בחוקיהם לבצור מתחלה לכך אף הענבים הנמצאים שם מותרין עד דידעינן שנבצרו מתחלה לכך”.
    ומבואר מדבריו שעל אף שכתב שתלוי בחוקותיהם, מ”מ כל ההיתר אם אינו בחוקותיהם הוא רק משום שאז אין לנו להניח שנבצר מתחילה לכך, אבל אם ידיענן שבצרן מתחילה לכך, אפילו אין זה דרך עבודתה בחוקותיו, כל שבצרן מתחילה לכך עדיין אסורה

    Another basic raya is the actual case of shviras makal, since it is talking about an Avoda Zara that the derech is with kishkush makal, and even so if one brakes a makal it is Avoda Zara and he is chayav misah even if the galach isn’t maskim. Vsu lo midi.

    Now let us examine the rayos you brought otherwise.
    1- The gemara that says that a woman who accepted to serve every Avoda Zara in the world asked the comrim how do they serve baal peor. You brought a raya that you must do like the comrim.

    But it is not a raya bichlal, this woman wasn’t trying to make tikrovos and make up a new Avoda Zara, all she wanted to do was to serve baal peor the way the “right” way, from where do you see that if she were to have served it contrary to galach’s opinion it wouldn’t have been Avoda Zara.
    2- The gemara that says that Savta ben alas served bal peor in a new way and the galachim praised it
    Again, there is no raya that if they would not have praised it that it would not constitute as Avoda Zara.
    So, what is the inyan of derech avodaso mentioned in the gemara and Shulchan aruch? Very simple. The halacha is that if you do the maysa of Avoda Zara even without accepting it as a god you are still chayav. The lashon of the gemara is:
    הפוער עצמו לבעל פעור הרי זה עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין לביזוי הזורק אבן למרקוליס זו היא עבודתו אע”ג דמיכוין למירגמיה
    Meaning that if you do the act of Avoda Zara without kavana you are chayav. See minchas chinuch 26,1 barichus. So, this is nogea only if you do derecho avodasa, like throwing a stone to markulis. But if you are mechavein to accept the Avoda Zara as a diety, no matter what you do, it is definitely Avoda Zara as the rambam writes about picking up a leveina. Vdoi”k.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1475614

    Chacham
    Participant

    “How does bitul come into the picture? Mema Nafshoch, if it is not kein penim bitul is not needed, and if it is kein penim bitul doesn’t help.”
    that is true. except the rambam holds it is possible for something that is not kein pnim to be assur, and on this law, maybe bittul applies

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1475425

    Chacham
    Participant

    The hair is cut off the head in an act of avoda, therefore it is Kein shveria.
    this act alone is enough to assur it, without it being brought in front of avoda zara just like any shechita does not have to be in front of avoda zara [see tos. chulin 40a, az 32b etc.], and parchelei anavim the rashba also says isn’t in front of a”z

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1475395

    Chacham
    Participant

    1- The article says that the reason they sacrifice their hair is to express devotion to their Avoda Zara. Doesn’t that sound like the passuk:
    ויאמר שמואל החפץ לה’ בעלות וזבחים כשמע בקול ה’ הנה שמע מזבח טוב להקשיב מחלב אילים
    Look how the Rishonim explain the mitzva of Korbanos. The Rambam (Moreh 3 32, brought in Ramban Vayikra 1,9) says the main point of Korbonas is to remove tayva for Avoda Zara. The Ramban writes that the reason is to cause the Makriv to think that the behaima is in his place, and it is as if he was makriv himself.
    If this is the case with korbanos that their are reasons given to explain that it is for the Makriv’s benefit, not to give the korban Kavoyachol to Hashem, than obviously tikrovos avoda zara is the same. If there is a maysa which is for the mussar purposes of the makriv it is mommish domeh to korbanos.

    2- The teshuva from R. Y. soloveitchik (which wasn’t written lhalacha lmayasa as he writes) is not disputing any facts, but rather he is claiming that cutting hair isn’t similar to a maysa shechitah. Acharei Hamechila, it is ridiculous to claim that shechita, which is cutting simanim of an animal, is more similar to breaking a stick than it is similar to cutting hair. There are many more rayos if necessary.

    3- In the article from Rabbi Yair hoffman he claims it is muttar because of a Sfeik Sfeika. Safek if the hair is given as an offering and a safek where the hair comes from.
    That is straight out ignorance in the rules of Sfeik Sfeika for many reasons.
    A- We don’t say sfeik sfeikos, if one safek is in the guf hadavar i.e. is it tikrovos or not, and one safek is because of a taaruvos i.e. if hair came from India. This is the most basic rule in Hilchos safek sfeika, see Yd 110, 9 and shach klalei sfeik sfeikos 1.
    B- The Safek as far as what they believe, is a safek chisaron yideya which is not either mitzaref to safek sfeika. (see taz yd 98,6)
    C- If there is a rov from India, which is pretty clear that that is the case, than most Achronim hold you do not say sfeik sfeika against a rov.

    4- Tikrovos avoda zara has no bittul, this is muskam lakol, in the gemara (az 50) of the street paved from avnei markulis. the gemara says it is muttar to be nehneh from the street since it is not kein pnim.
    there is a machlokes rishonim what that means, the raavad broght in the ritva says that tikrovos a”z sheino kein pnim is also assur, just it is possible to be mevatel. Most Rishonim hold that it is muttar and doesn’t need bittul.
    Now, irrelevant to this, the Rambam rules that anything found inside the beis avoda zara is assur, and the BY and many learn that this includes things that are not kein pnim. Comes along the Bais Shlomo and says that the cases of tikrovos sheino kein pnim that the Rambam assurs, with a bittul the Rambam is maskim that it is muttar, just like the Raavad.

    That has absolutely no Shaychus to our discussion. Kein pnim means either an object that was sacrificed bfnim, or a maysa domeh to pnim was done. I.E. Shchita assurs even a grasshopper acc. to the way the shulchan aruch paskens, since the maysa shechita is kein pnim. Same story with shviras makal, or any tolda of shechita.

    Therefore in our discussion that the hair was cut, which is dumya to shechita that is kein pnim, the Beis Shlomo is totally irrelevant, and it is clear that there is no bittul.
    5- the pri megadim that rabbi hoffman brings in oc 586 is not talking about tikrovas avoda zara, rather regular avoda zara, and vaiter has no shaychus.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1475138

    Chacham
    Participant

    there is no kuntz to give links to teshuvos that say one way when i can give links to teshuvos that answer those teshuvos.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1475136

    Chacham
    Participant

    gaon, you obvously don’t know what you are talking about.
    you quoted article that says reason for tonsure is to show devotion. I answered so what, the same thing can be said about karbanos. so now you tayne cutting hair isn’t kein shvirah.
    what shaychus? if that is true than it makes no difference what they think since it won’t be tikrovos mimah nafshach, so why did you bother bringing the article???

    eleh mai you are saying a new tayne. ok
    you were trying to say that cutting hair isn’t כעין זביחה. that is a tayna that not rav elyashiv and not rav belsky made, and for a good reason, because it is tzarich iyun gadol.
    there is absolutely no tnai that it has to involve shvirah. the meiri and rabeinu chananal writes any maaseh chituch is included. this vadai includes hair. the rashba also writes that lisha of bread is kein shvira.
    this tayne was answered very clearly in many other teshuvos.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1474353

    Chacham
    Participant

    in all your arichus i didnt see any answer l’inyan.
    you get off topic to discuss pn in general which is totally irrelevant, because even if in your eyes Rav karp has negiyos, or whatever other terminology you might call it, it doesn’t answer for anybody else.
    all i learned is that i totally missed the boat inn the sugya. . maybe explain. And can i ask did you ever even learn the sugya? or you saw a few teshuvos?

    And why is it relevant that there is an old avoda zara that they once gave hair too?

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1474032

    Chacham
    Participant

    dude, i lack the time and energy to fight on the subject. My main point is that there is a makom to dan, and don’t be so quick to dismiss the shaylah. I have a tremendous arichus to say, I have already read through every teshuva on the subject, and i have a lot to tayne. My main point is that it is not honest to keep looking at it as Rabbi Dunner vs. facts. Seriously, most sources, including the ones you bring are clear that the avoda zara wants the hair. [and even if he wants it just to see devotion like the article you brought above, it is still tikrovos avoda zara, since korbonas are exactly the same, as it says countless times in tanach, וירמיה (ז, כב) אמר “כי לא דברתי את אבותיכם ולא ציוויתים ביום הוציאי אותם מארץ מצרים על דברי עולה וזבח].
    2- to accuse Rav Karp of saying there is a problem of avoda zara because we wrote that mitpachat is better than a sheitel is ridiculous and veiter bizayon hatorah. Honestly, the opinion that a mitpachat is better is the opinion of many many rabbanim, and to say because of that he will lie and push forward on an agenda, is zilzul chachamim bhiddur, see the chazon ish in emuna and bitachon. and did you ever stop to think that perhaps there is a negiyos for those who wear sheitels to be mattir? Can you honestly say about yourself that you are researching this subject without making up your mind first??
    Tachlis, Rav NIssim’s Beis Din in their letter from cheshvon this year write very clearly that there is a problem, and that also they aren’t against sheitach bichlal, besides for Rav Shternbuch. Stop answering with cop-outs.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1474035

    Chacham
    Participant

    Which point from Rav Belsky’s teshuva did I fail to understand?
    [וצע”ג איזה נאמנות יש לה אם היא כבר הבינה שהיהודים מפסיקים לקנות מהם מחשש ע”ז, כמו שאמרה בפירוש] who said:

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473810

    Chacham
    Participant

    dude, Rav belskys teshuva claimed that anyone who thinks they are giving the hair for more than ego purposes is a shotah. He writes that explicitly, that is hard to claim today.
    Also it is clear that avoda zara is talui on What they believe today, not what their ancestors believed [this is meforush in many poskim hilchom yayin nesech]

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473809

    Chacham
    Participant

    your only hochacha is because that you never heard anybody say anything, therefore Rav Chaim Meir Vosner is no longer neeman to proclaim what his fathers position is?
    Rav Gross gives a hechsher, and rav Moshe shternbuch holds it isn’t good. but that isn’t really the nidon being that 90% of sheitels don’t have a hechsher to begin with.
    and there are plenty of new michtavim from this year. I can’t help if you are uninformed

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473780

    Chacham
    Participant

    It is beating around the bush to make this a shayla how accurate wikipedia is. do some research yourself. google “tonsure tirumala temple” and see what the results are.
    And then tell me it is a total coincidence that both, rav dunner, and rav karelitz’s shliach came to the same conclusion .
    Vadai the pashtus is like what i wrote that the getchka wants hair, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise
    and btw what is written on upsherin’s is actually quite accurite, aval ain can mekomo

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473732

    Chacham
    Participant

    please if you are totally not knowledgeable on the subject it is ok, but don’t claim that there is no makom to be choshesh. and if there is a makom to be choshesh, obviously the correct approach is to burn them.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473731

    Chacham
    Participant

    Where did you get that Rav Wosner and Rav Karelitz held you can be somech on the hecsher. Sheker Vachozov. Rav Vosner’s son signed the kol korei this year, bsheim his father. rav Nissim’s Beis din also similarly said you can’t be somech on the hechsher. Give me evidence that they said you can be somech on a hechsher. Don’t make up things because you are uninformed.
    Either way this doesn’t help you for 90% of sheitels that have no hechsher. Honestly, are you even aware of the existing hechsher?
    And the new proclamation from Rav Shternbuch can be seen here.
    link removed-79

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473476

    Chacham
    Participant

    I saw you responded on the news page about Rav Moshe sternbuchs view, basically saying that he only said so on indian.
    however in his sefer teshuvos vhanhagos 5, 271 he writes how you have to be choshesh hair from anywhere is a taaruvos of indian and you can’t even be somech on the hechsher.

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473463

    Chacham
    Participant

    GAON,
    you don’t have to rely on wikipedia, my point is how available the info is.
    Chances have it that the temples management has there own website, which says the same thing, and there are countless other sources.
    but either way what you wrote is such a horrible cop out.
    seriously, a temple that 25 million people visit a year, there is a neemanus, if somebody switches it it will be swiitched back. besides, even if there is no neemanus, do you have a neemanus Farkert??? is it punkt by chance that wikipedia says the same thing Dayan Dunner said??

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1473399

    Chacham
    Participant

    “goan”
    “It is strange that IF it is true indeed, where are ALL the Gedolim? Where is Rav N Kareltz, Rav Chaim K. etc.”

    Rav Nissim Karelitz is not well. however his beis din did indeed write a letter recently, and they too hold it is a vry big cshash now.
    “Again, the main issue are indeed the facts, Rav Belsky and others disputed Rav Dunners version. In fact, to have a clearly understanding you do have to be a “Mumcha” in the facts. You can not decide just by asking a few individuals and the sites.”

    Rav dunner, as well as another shliach sent by Rav Karelitz said that the avoda zara likes hair. Rav Belsky claimed that they are doing it to remove ego and nothing more. Today, as opposed to 2004, if you want to know what a religion believes you can use the internet.
    on wikipedia it says :
    “Many devotees have their head tonsured as “Mokku”, an offering to God. The daily amount of hair collected is over a ton.[26] As per legend, when Lord Venkateswara was hit on his head by a shepherd, a small portion of his scalp became bald. This was noticed by Neela Devi, a Gandharva princess. She felt “such an attractive face should not have a flaw”. Immediately, she cut a portion of her hair and, with her magical power, implanted it on his scalp. Lord Venkateswara noticed her sacrifice. As hair is a beautiful asset of the female form, he promised her that all his devotees who come to his abode would offer their hair to him, and she would be the recipient of all the hair received. Hence, it is believed that hair offered by the devotees is accepted by Neela Devi.”
    that is clear that the getchka wants the hair, not that it is only an avt o fremoving ego.
    you don’t need to be an expert to figure that out

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1472933

    Chacham
    Participant

    BTW, i am aware that there are poskim who may be mattir it, and i have no problem if you do what your rav says, but to disreagrd the view of rav elyashiv rav vosner rav karelitz etc. as a myth to promote the anti sheitel campaign is a bizayon hatorah

    in reply to: Natural-Hair Sheitels Are Assur #1472911

    Chacham
    Participant

    OK mr. goan, you claim that the chshash that sheitels are from avoda zara is baseless.
    which of the following points do you tayne?
    1- Rav Karp Rav A. Auerbach Rav S Rosenberg Rav M. Sternbuch etc. don’t know what they are talking about, and they just want klal yisrael to loose money for no reason.
    2- since there are people involved with an agenda, even if there is no good answer we can disregard anything and we can make believe that thosse who are pro-heitels have absolutely no agenda in making sure they aren’t assur, even though it is a loss of thousands of dollars.
    3- Rav Elyashiv Rav Wosner Rav Karelitz don’t know how to learn a sugya, and really there is no chshash even if the facts are as they claim.
    4- the temples websites and other sources are not neeman to tell us what the goyim believe’ and although they all say precisely what Rav Elyashiv heard from Dayan Dunner, we can disregard what they say and be somech on certain jews who are bigger mumchas than the temples website.
    5- Most hair doesn’t come from India, and The UN comtrade that claims that most does is just anti sheitels

    in reply to: No mention of the huge techailes event in Boro Park on Chol Hamoed?! #1386682

    Chacham
    Participant

    minyan hamitzvos has nothing to do with a=how much a chiyuv it is. shoresh 9 and 11

    in reply to: No mention of the huge techailes event in Boro Park on Chol Hamoed?! #1386683

    Chacham
    Participant

    about safek deroaysa here is the psak of the mishna berura in 34 places not like the so called reb chaim that yekke brought.
    1. כ”ז, סעי’ י”א בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק מ”ג.
    2. ל”ב סעי’ ה’ בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק יח וי”ט כתב שהטעם משום סד”א לחומרא- וכ”מ בביאור הגר”א שם ובפרמ”ג, וכ”כ הב”ש בהל’ גיטין.
    3. ל”ב ס”ק קע”ג (ואולי יש לחלק).
    4. ל”ב ס”ק קע”א ועי”ש בביה”ל.
    5. ל”ב ס”ק קפ”ד.
    6. ל”ב סעי’ ל”ח בביה”ל ד”ה היכא.
    7. ל”ב סעי’ נ’ ס”ק רכ”ז [דלהחולקים [ובראשם בעל העיטור] על הנוב”י אמרינן סד”א, רק הנוב”י ס”ל שאין כאן ספק אלא הם ודאי פסולים].
    8. ל”ג ס”ק ט”ו ועי”ש בביה”ל ד”ה לחוש.
    9. ל”ג בביה”ל ד”ה ומיהו.
    10. ל”ג ס”ק כ”ט.
    11. ל”ד סע’ ה’ ובמ”’ב ס”ק כ”ט
    12. ל”ט ס”ק כ”ו [ומקורו מהפרמ”ג]
    13. ל”ט סעי’ י’ ברמ”א ועי’ מ”ב שם ס”ק כ”ח
    14. קצ”ד ס”ק י”ג [שכתב שם המ”ב דלא כהפרמ”ג המפורסם {ואף שהפרמ”ג עצמו סתר דבריו בכ”מ, ויש דרך אחרת ליישב דבריו, ואכמ”ל}, ומלבד המ”ב הרבה אחרונים נמי נקטו דלא כהפרמ”ג ואלו הם: הגר”ז, אבן העוזר, מחצה”ש, דגול מרבבה, בגדי ישע, ערה”ש]
    15. תקפ”ו ס”ק י”ח
    16. תקפ”ו סעי’ ז’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל”ד ומקורו מהפרמ”ג
    17. תקפ”ו ס”ק ל”ו [וכ’ שהוא מטעם ספק, ומקורו מהריטב”א]
    18. תקפ”ו בביה”ל ד”ה ויש אומרים דוקא
    19. תקפ”ו ס”ק מ”ג ועי’ שעה”צ שם בשם הברכי יוסף
    20. תקפ”ו ”ק מ”ז ושעה”צ שם ודו”ק
    21. תקפ”ו שער הציון אות צ”ב
    22. תקצ”ג סעי’ ב’, ועי”ש בביה”ל שעכ”ז א”א לברך (כלומר שלא קי”ל כרב האי) ועי’ ס”ק ג’ וע”ע תוס’ בר”ה ל”ג:
    23. תקצ”ה א’- והוא באמת גמ’ מפורשת בר”ה לד:, ועי’ מג”א א’, ובפרמ”ג שם, ומ”ב ס”ק ג’ וע”ע פרמ”ג פתיחה כוללת סוף שער ד’
    24. תרל”א ס”ק ל”ג מהפרמ”ג
    25. תרל”ב ס”ק י”ט
    26. תרמ”ה בסעי’ ו’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל’ שכל הנידון אינו אלא לענין ברכה ודו”ק
    27. תרמ”ט ס”ק נ”ח
    28. תרמ”ו ס”ק ט”ו ועי’ היטב בשעה”צ ט”ו
    29. תרמ”ו סעי’ י”א ועי”ש במ”ב ל”ו
    30. תרמ”ח בביה”ל ד”ה שהוא, ובמ”ב ס”ק ס”ב
    31. תרנ”א ס”ק מהפרמ”ג.
    32. תרצ”א ש”צ אות ד’.
    33. תרצ”א סעי’ י’ ובמ”ב ס”ק כ”ז מהפרמ”ג מבואר שהוא מטעם ספק, והדבר ק”ו
    34. תרצ”א ס”ק י”ג-י”ד ובשעה”צ שם אות ט’ וחידוש הוא שהוא כנגד דבריו בכ”מ.

    in reply to: No mention of the huge techailes event in Boro Park on Chol Hamoed?! #1384927

    Chacham
    Participant

    the mishna berura in 34 places not like the made up reb chaim (which does not appear in sefer)
    1. כ”ז, סעי’ י”א בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק מ”ג.
    2. ל”ב סעי’ ה’ בשו”ע, ובמ”ב ס”ק יח וי”ט כתב שהטעם משום סד”א לחומרא- וכ”מ בביאור הגר”א שם ובפרמ”ג, וכ”כ הב”ש בהל’ גיטין.
    3. ל”ב ס”ק קע”ג (ואולי יש לחלק).
    4. ל”ב ס”ק קע”א ועי”ש בביה”ל.
    5. ל”ב ס”ק קפ”ד.
    6. ל”ב סעי’ ל”ח בביה”ל ד”ה היכא.
    7. ל”ב סעי’ נ’ ס”ק רכ”ז [דלהחולקים [ובראשם בעל העיטור] על הנוב”י אמרינן סד”א, רק הנוב”י ס”ל שאין כאן ספק אלא הם ודאי פסולים].
    8. ל”ג ס”ק ט”ו ועי”ש בביה”ל ד”ה לחוש.
    9. ל”ג בביה”ל ד”ה ומיהו.
    10. ל”ג ס”ק כ”ט.
    11. ל”ד סע’ ה’ ובמ”’ב ס”ק כ”ט
    12. ל”ט ס”ק כ”ו [ומקורו מהפרמ”ג]
    13. ל”ט סעי’ י’ ברמ”א ועי’ מ”ב שם ס”ק כ”ח
    14. קצ”ד ס”ק י”ג [שכתב שם המ”ב דלא כהפרמ”ג המפורסם {ואף שהפרמ”ג עצמו סתר דבריו בכ”מ, ויש דרך אחרת ליישב דבריו, ואכמ”ל}, ומלבד המ”ב הרבה אחרונים נמי נקטו דלא כהפרמ”ג ואלו הם: הגר”ז, אבן העוזר, מחצה”ש, דגול מרבבה, בגדי ישע, ערה”ש]
    15. תקפ”ו ס”ק י”ח
    16. תקפ”ו סעי’ ז’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל”ד ומקורו מהפרמ”ג
    17. תקפ”ו ס”ק ל”ו [וכ’ שהוא מטעם ספק, ומקורו מהריטב”א]
    18. תקפ”ו בביה”ל ד”ה ויש אומרים דוקא
    19. תקפ”ו ס”ק מ”ג ועי’ שעה”צ שם בשם הברכי יוסף
    20. תקפ”ו ”ק מ”ז ושעה”צ שם ודו”ק
    21. תקפ”ו שער הציון אות צ”ב
    22. תקצ”ג סעי’ ב’, ועי”ש בביה”ל שעכ”ז א”א לברך (כלומר שלא קי”ל כרב האי) ועי’ ס”ק ג’ וע”ע תוס’ בר”ה ל”ג:
    23. תקצ”ה א’- והוא באמת גמ’ מפורשת בר”ה לד:, ועי’ מג”א א’, ובפרמ”ג שם, ומ”ב ס”ק ג’ וע”ע פרמ”ג פתיחה כוללת סוף שער ד’
    24. תרל”א ס”ק ל”ג מהפרמ”ג
    25. תרל”ב ס”ק י”ט
    26. תרמ”ה בסעי’ ו’ ועי’ מ”ב ס”ק ל’ שכל הנידון אינו אלא לענין ברכה ודו”ק
    27. תרמ”ט ס”ק נ”ח
    28. תרמ”ו ס”ק ט”ו ועי’ היטב בשעה”צ ט”ו
    29. תרמ”ו סעי’ י”א ועי”ש במ”ב ל”ו
    30. תרמ”ח בביה”ל ד”ה שהוא, ובמ”ב ס”ק ס”ב
    31. תרנ”א ס”ק מהפרמ”ג.
    32. תרצ”א ש”צ אות ד’.
    33. תרצ”א סעי’ י’ ובמ”ב ס”ק כ”ז מהפרמ”ג מבואר שהוא מטעם ספק, והדבר ק”ו
    34. תרצ”א ס”ק י”ג-י”ד ובשעה”צ שם אות ט’ וחידוש הוא שהוא כנגד דבריו בכ”מ.

    in reply to: Har HaBayis Revisited #1112289

    Chacham
    Participant

    see minchas yitzchok vol. 5 siman 1, tzitz eliezer 10,1, yabia omer 5 27

    in reply to: Replacement idiom for "when the fat lady sings" #1134841

    Chacham
    Participant

    It ain’t over till the food truck pulls away

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132718

    Chacham
    Participant

    ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ??

    although he is talking about a school he continues to say “????? ???? ???? ??????” meaning that bnei torah should be machmir even if it costs more.

    I don’t know of any psak halacha that is in igros that was written after a teshuva was already written. once a teshuva was written there is nothing to be moisif in a short letter

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132716

    Chacham
    Participant

    lgros is a sefer of teshuvos, this letter is not a teshuva, rather it is merely a psak halacha therefore there is no reason for it to be in igros.

    it IS in igros that reb moshe himself was machmir, and it Is in igros that one should spend more to be machmir, ???? ?? ????? ??? ????.

    Is there a confirmed report that reb dovid HOLDS BSHEIM HIS FATHER that it is muttar lechatchila. and does anyone know how he explains what it says in igros?

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132710

    Chacham
    Participant

    jt-

    vadai reb moshe himself was makpid, and he vadai wrote that only bshaas hadchak to be meikil. ??? ?? ????

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132704

    Chacham
    Participant

    on pg. 39 there is a picture of the actual handwritten letter of reb moshe.

    as far as reb moshe’s personal hanhaga he writes mefurosh “??? ??? ???? ?????? ?????”

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132694

    Chacham
    Participant

    in weinfeld letter he writes to be machmir to get cholov shel yisrael, not like the magiah of igros moshe chelek 8.

    edited

    in reply to: Lying about games involving cholov stam #1132692

    Chacham
    Participant

    The view of Reb Moshe regarding the Milk of the companies:

    ?. ?”? ???? ???”?, ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ?”?:

    “… ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??”? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?”? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?????? ????????

    ?. ?”? ??”? ???”?, ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ?”?:

    “…???? ?????? ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??????? ??”

    ?. ?’ ???? ???”?, ??”? ?”? ??’ ?”?:

    “…???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ?????????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?????? ??????”

    ?. ?? ????? ???? ??????, ???? ??? ????? ????????, ?????? ????? ?? ?? ????

    “??? ???? ??? ?????????? ?????????? ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ???, ??? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ??? ?? ?????”

    ?. ?? ??”? ??”?, ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ?”?:

    “…???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??”? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????????? ???? ???? ??? ???”? ??? ?”? ???? ?????? ???”? ???? ??????? ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???”? ????? ??? ?????? ??????”

    ?. ?”? ???? ??? ???”?, ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?”? ??’ ?”?, ??? ???”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ?’

    “??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???”? ??? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????? ??”? ???? ????? ???????? ???? ????? ?”? ????? ????? ??? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?”? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???, ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ??? ????? ???? ???.

    ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ?????? ?? ???????.

    ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???”? ??????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????? ???????? ????? ???”? ?????? ??”? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????”

    ?. ?’ ??”? ??”?, ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ??:

    ” ???? ??? ?????????? ????????? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?”? ????”? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???”? ???? ????? ????? ??? ?”? ?? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ????? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ?????????? ???????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ?”? ???? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? ??????? ???? ?? ????????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ??????? ??? ??? ?????? “

    ?. ?”? ??? ???”?, ??”? ??”? ?”? ??’ ??:

    “… ????? ?????????? ????????? ?? ????? ???????? ??”? ???”? ?’ ???? ?”? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ?????? …. ????? ?? ?????????? ???????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ???… “

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058158

    Chacham
    Participant

    Rabeinu Yona is a raya farkert since he could have easly answered his question and didn’t.

    So basically your entire point is that we don’t know why the rishonim thought techeles was blue, and really it would make sense to say it is green, so why were they madche to say it is blue. However, you agree that they punkt happened to be right. If so, maybe the makor of the rishonim was a mesora, (just like the tiferes yisrael, and the radzyner write)

    Anyways i dont think there is that much to be mosif, however please check out the article on the color in that kuntris.

    as far as the raavad agreeing with rambam, it is more mistaber the raavad disagrees since he holds the chulyos are lavan and techeiles together. the rambam who holds all chulyos from techeiles pashtus learns ????? ?? ????? ???? ?”? to mean on the tzitzis (lavan) there is techeiles and the tachlis of the mitzvah is to wrap (therefore it is on the lavan) and to wrap you don’t need more that half a string.

    the emek bracha says it very nicely:

    ????? ??? ????”? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ??? ?????”? ?????”? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????”? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ????? ?? ?????? ??”? ??? ?? ????”? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ???? ???”? ???? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??”? ????? ?? ??? ??? ????”? ???’ ?’ ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??”? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ?”? ?????? ??? ?? ????? ?’ ?????? ??????? ?????? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????”? ??????’ ????? ?? ?? ????”? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ?????? ??”? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?????????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???’ ??????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?? ????”? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????”? ?????? ??”? ?”? ??????? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ?’ ?????? ?????? ??????

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058155

    Chacham
    Participant

    You always said it is impossible for a machlokes in metzious between the different people who saw techeiles. So if Historians say so, and that is also the pashtus of bavli, we must be docheh yerushalmi. But once you agree there can be machlokes, than we have no reason to be madcheh the pashtus of the bavli to agree with yerushalmi.

    from rabeinu yone is no raya, since the mordechai learns like rashi and elsewhere writes meforush that it is blue. and anyways green is domeh to blue lfi the yerushalmi that says yam doeh lasavim

    the mishna achrona clearly understood the Ras”h on the color of techeiles therefore the mishna achrona brought the Ibn ezra. the chazon nochum disagrees with pshat in ras”h. The rash himself doesn’t bring the ibn ezra. the cahzon nochum is obviously not the pashut pshat, but obviously it was very clear to him that techeiles was blue so he had to be madcheh.

    there is more to be maarich, did you see the new kuntris with the article from reb binyamin horowitz?

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058153

    Chacham
    Participant

    I do Tosfos. Most Rishonim, Achronim, incuding Mishna Berura who goes LKULA like tosfos (see siman 9, s”k 14 very well vdoik) I happen to think that tos. is the pashtus of the sugya, and most likely the correct girsa in the sifri.

    Rav Belskey and Rav Shachter both pasken to do like tosfos.

    on tekehlet.net (a mirror of the old ptil website) in the “hot off the press” section there is a very good article on this, pro tosfos.

    however, the majority of people who wear techeiles do raavad but Their reasons all vary. Some think that we look at psukim and if we think it makes sense that “psil” means only one, than that is the halacha (even if 30+ rishonim say there is two strings). Some people are convinced that the gra holds like the raavad (even though in biur hagra to shulchan aruch the gra paskens very strongly that there is 2 strings).

    Basically it is a complicated subject, and much has been written in every direction. take a look at the library on techeiles.org for many articles.

    in reply to: Shmuly Yanklowitz, Novominsker and OO theology #1095110

    Chacham
    Participant

    sam2, why do you have to come onto Korbon Pesach? Whtat about all the mitzvos hatluyos baaretz that was not noheg for hundreds of years?

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058142

    Chacham
    Participant

    The Raavad holds the ?????? were done from techeiles and lavan together, whereas the Rambam holds all of the ?????? were from techeiles except for first and last. So the pashtus is they disagree id the mitzva of techeiles is to wrap or if it is a din in the strings. See Emek Bracha Tzitzis 1

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058140

    Chacham
    Participant

    By R’ Sternbuch’s chiluk, do you mean the one in chelek 4? I don’t understand why Matan Damim is more like tzitzis, as opposed to Lulav. The mitzva is to do the nesina, a din on a gavra.

    As for Bal tigra, see Moadim Uzmanim 1, 25 in footnote and you will see R’ Sternbuch is Lshitaso, however it is clear from what he wrote there that he does not know of the Bais Halevi.

    Rav Tavgar’s point is only in the Rambam and it won’t help for the Raavad. And also it is very debatable, because the Mishkenos Yaakov and others learn the rambam 1,4 that all techeiles is passul. If the mitzva is only the wrapping, how is it possible to make all techeiles? [But there are many strong reason not to learn the rambam like that]

    And yes, I am curious to see your paper, and hope something can be arranged

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058135

    Chacham
    Participant

    I am b’ikur willing to argue against bal tosif when wearing wrong techeiles, kneged the entire shtikel tora in teshuvos vhanhagos chelek 6. But i have what to say about extra chutim too.

    [And I really don’t understand how Reb Moshe Shternbuch uses Bal tosif of extra chutim as a tziruf not to be choshesh a tzad rachok of techeiles, he writes :

    ???? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???? ????, ????? ????”? ?? ????? ??? ???, ?????”? ??? ???, ?????’ ??? ?????, ???????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ???’ ????”?, ????? ????’ ????’ ?????”? ???? ??? ????, ????? ???? ??? ???? ??????. ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ?????’ ?? ?????”? ?? ?????”?, ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????? , ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ????.

    Mima nafshach, if it isn’t techeiles and there is no chiyuv to wear (like he writes in that teshuva) that means there can’t be b”t since you were not mosif on chutei techeiles. The only way it is shayich to be b”t if it IS techeiles and if so there is no reason not to wear. lchoira he is being poseach al shnei si’ifim.

    Patur, I do not usually have internet access, but i randomly checked this site and saw this topic was live again.

    did you ever see the new techeiles.org?

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058121

    Chacham
    Participant

    PAA- the shitei giborim prob. only knew of murex based on the sifrei umos haolam. Therefore he must have translated that hyacynth, which is recorded to have been dyed from the murex, to be techeiles.

    Holymoe- I can confirm the story. I heard it from one of the avreichim involved.

    As for bal tosif which was brought up in the other thread, i am willing to argue that point

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058090

    Chacham
    Participant

    RI HAKODESH-

    1. The discussion of the color of the strings was never said on the strings in place of techeiles; it was only said on the strings of lavan. See Mishna Brura 9,14, Yam Shel Shlomo Yevamos 3, Artzos Chaim 9, 5, Chazon Ish 3, 25 and others.

    2. You claim there is Bal Tosif if I try to do a mitzvah and it turns out to not be one. So you are suggesting not to do it even misafek.

    Can you explain to me why this is different than tefillin that there is a safek if they are kasher, or esrog safek murkav, and every other safek mitzvah where the poskim say you are chayav to do it misafek deoraysa lchumra and aren’t choshesh for Bal tosif if it is passul?

    the sefer hachinuch doesn’t seem to agree. He writes in mitzvah 454

    ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ???, ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????

    The Riaz brought in Shiltei Giborim 4b of dafei hariph in Rosh Hashona says the same thing that there is no bal tosif if you put tefilin in the wrong place.

    Do you have any source that there is Bal tosif on a pasul Mitzvah?

    It could be you are oiver bal tosef if you make up a new issur of Bal tosef that the torah never assured.

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058089

    Chacham
    Participant

    PAA- I hear your tayne from the gemara in menachos.

    my point about bais halevi is that all he needed was a sibah why it stopped and to this the ramban is an answer since he says there were gezeiros.

    ???? ??”? ????? ???? ????? “???? ????????” (?’ ??) “…??? ??? ????? ??????”? ???? ????? ??????? ?? ?????

    ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? 1612 ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”? ??? ????? ?????? ???? ??”? ????? ????. ??? ???????? ???”? (??”? ?) ?????”? (??”? ???”?) ????”? (????? ?.).

    ?????”? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????

    as for not using expensive things as a ziyuf, what about hamotzi bashuk, because al kol ponim murex was heavily used, so you have to be choshesh that it is murex. besides if it isn’t kla ilan, rav achai should still be choshesh for it

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058085

    Chacham
    Participant

    Sam2, there are snails that jump. So it is no raya to say that tosfos thought it is a fish.

    I am asuming The bais halevi you are referring to is

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058079

    Chacham
    Participant

    “Reading onward in the kesef mishna only shows that ???? is not included in ??? ????. Which makes sense because ???? can basically mean any dark color whereas ??? ???? is exactly like Techeiles”

    the question you quoted from the kesef mishna is

    ??? ????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ?? ?????, ?????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ??????

    so his question is based on hanacha that shachar in the rambam is included in kla ilan and he has it shver because it shouldn’t be. So the only hechrech kla ilan is kolel more than one min is based on the lashon shachor

    The teirutz I quoted says

    ?”? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????

    meaning that shachar is NOT nichlal in kla ilan, meaning there is no makor that kla ilan is more than one min. vdoi”k

    about the gemara in menachos, there is definitely a chemical difference and Levush Haaron and others say the gemaras test was indeed done and it differentiated, and there is pictures backing this up. But forgetting about the Murex, the lashon hagmara is surely mashma that not everything that color is nichlal, because what was the raya when it got darker, maybe he discovered a new type of kla ilan

    my point with the shiltei hagiborim is that he writes bfeirush techeiles is blue and writes elsewhere it is from murex. Meaning the shiltei giborim knew murex made blue, so who said rishonim didn”t know?

    in reply to: Techeiles 🔵❎🐌☑️🐟 #1058077

    Chacham
    Participant

    read on. kesef mishna is mefurosh

    ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ????????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ?????? ???? ?”? ???? ??? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?”? ????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ??”? ???? ????

    “Ant the gemara in menachos is only muchach that kala ilan is a specific thing if you make the hanacha that murex trunculus is not kala ilan”

    no. gemara is muchach that vadai a testthat will reveal kla ilan will reveal all kla ilans, meaning al karchach they are identical. murex and indigo are not.

    “And correct me if I’m wrong but I think the nimulei yosef did not say “plant indigo”, he just said indigo”

    yeah but what does kla ILLAN mean, either referring to plant, or it is a take-off of a name of the min, mmeaning only that min. Either way plenty of rishonim say ISatis, name of plant.

    “And anyway the fact that the rishonim don’t mention murex trunculus as part of kala ilan is very reasonable considering they didn’t know of any blue dye from it”

    well the shiltei giborim knew techeiles was from murex and still said it was blue.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 594 total)