Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It is an explicit halacha in Shulchan Aruch that women’s hair dye is not a chatzitza. YD 198:17.
Patur Aval Assur –
First, let’s establish what the Rambam says. He writes (?”? ????? ??”?):
???? ???? ???? ???? ?????? ???”? ????? ???? ?”? ?????? ????
Pashtus he is saying that a non-Jew’s shechita is only forbidden mid’rabbanan where the non-Jew is not an idolater.
The Kesef Mishneh understands this as a machlokes between the Rambam and Tosafos (the key Tosafos is ????? ?: ?”? ????), as he says:
??? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?”? ???? ??? ?????? ????”? ??? ??? ?”? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ?????
To take the Rambam’s words ???? ???? ???? and turn them into a d’oraisa just does not seem accurate.
That established, let’s turn to Tosafos’s question. Tosafos asks how—even if we held like R’ Anan—Eliyahu could have eaten the meat, given that Rav holds ??? ?????? ?? ???? is forbidden because it may have come from a non Jew. Tosafos answers that this much the Gemara assumed he relied on the ?????; it was the leap that the ????? permitted the forbidden that the Gemara was at first unwilling to take.
You’re asking that according to the Rambam, why lemayseh did the Gemara have to answer that the ????? permitted the meat that would have been forbidden, instead of just answering that the ????? revealed to him that it was not shechted ??? ?”?? Here are a some suggestions:
1) Maybe according to the Rambam the Gemara meant just that. As for Tosafos’s problem, maybe the Rambam would say ??”?, the Gemara could have asked ??????, it just didn’t.
2) Even if Eliyahu was positive that the meat was not shechted ??? ????? ???, it could have still been assur mid’rabbanan for him to eat meat from an animal shechted by a non-Jew, depending on when this ??? was enacted. Eliyahu could have required the ????? to permit this issur d’rabbanan.
3) The Rambam could argue that ??? ?????? ?? ???? may not have applied in this case, either because (a) there were no butchers in the vicinity that did not follow hilchos shechita; or (b) the meat was still sealed in the original ?? ???? ????? packaging.
Purple Pear, Yoffee, Ave R, The Challah Fairy (New City)
Evergreen’s is up there. Getty has really good pareve cholent (surprisingly).
Sam2 –
We cannot be M’vatel Chametz before it becomes Assur because we hold that since Chametz is an Issur Mashehu, it’s Chozer V’neor on Pesach and becomes Assur, even if it’s .00001% of the mixture when Pesach starts.
You’re entitled to hold this way, but the mechaber (OC 447:4) cites an opinion that says chametz is batel before Pesach, and the Rema says that the minhag is to rely on this when the dealing with lach. Not only that, but the Mishna Berura says on the spot that if a dry item fell into a mixture 60 times its size, you may cook it l’chatchila before Pesach until it dissolves and thereby becomes lach and batel, and then eat it on Pesach. Therefore, people buying their non-certified yogurt that was manufactured before Pesach are certainly resting on large shoulders.
After three years, I’m pretty confident that my pshat in the Rambam is correct.
I have only actually heard that idea in relation to aluminum FOIL pans.
Well, I have heard it in relation to all kinds of aluminum. It’s in Ohr Yitzchak II YD 17, and the Gra is cited there as well.
Lol 🙂
The opinion is based on the position that only the six metals mentioned in the Torah require tevilah and glass is the only thing they decreed upon to tovel without a bracha.
The six metals are gold, silver, copper, iron, tin, and lead.
Stainless steel, by the way, is included, since steel is made with iron.
A freilichen Purim DY, Thanks Goq 🙂
It’s nice that you glean a positive message from this story.
Question: What do you think when non-Jews come with similar stories, only their experiences somehow causes their faith in religions other than Orthodox Judaism to be reignited?
You know Popa, some people (namely the Gra and Rabbi Abadi) hold aluminum doesn’t have to be tovelled.
popa, gevaldig 😀
Actually, there were magnifying glasses in Talmudic times.
Numbers don’t exist. They are ways of describing things. They are as infinite as the word infinity is.
Another flaw they point out is that historically Easter has been worse for the Jews than any other holiday, yet no such minhag exists on Easter.
Some historians point out a pretty basic flaw in the pogrom theory: if pogroms kept people indoors, why wasn’t davening ma’ariv b’yechidus included in the minhag?
Thinking that the word Nitel comes from anything other than the Latin word for Christmas (Search Wikipedia for the name “Natalia”) is like thinking that an immigrant Mexican couple named their kid Jose out of respect for the American national anthem which begins “Jose can you see”; to paraphrase a well-known critic.
What Sam said. Syag, bottom line is you’re saying Hashem can accurately predict our decisions ahead of time due to how well he knows us. That is just another way of saying “he knows all the exact values perfectly to plug into the machine.” Which is anti free will.
Syag –
There is a major flaw in that approach.
What you are saying sounds very nice, that Hashem knows us so well that he can figure out our next move. Taken to its conclusion, what you are essentially saying is that there is no real “uncertainty” built into the universe; that theoretically, if you had a supercomputer that had all of the values in the universe from the time of creation until now built into it, you would be able to calculate the future with as much accuracy as a basketball player who can “predict” that the ball will hit the backboard. This approach has a name; it is called Laplace’s Demon.
The problem with you advocating this approach is obvious. If free will really exists, then there must be a real uncertainty built into the universe. Otherwise your will is as free as the basketball’s.
I don’t agree. L’maa’lah min hazman explains nothing in regards to this question. If you are trying to say that as human beings we cannot comprehend the nature Hashem, fine, but leave it at that. The statement that he is above time does not do anything for this question, as I demonstrated.
Gamanit –
That point is a red herring; it doesn’t answer the question. If you admit that for as long as time has existed there was never a time that Hashem didn’t know everything that was ever going to occur, then you can’t really think that anyone has free will to change the outcome. Because if anyone had that power, then clearly there was/is a time where Hashem’s knowledge is incomplete.
oomis-
You watch a movie. You know exactly what will happen, and when you watch a second time, that is exactly what happens. Your knowing, does not influence what the characters will choose to do.
That is l’havdil like Hashem’s Knowing what we will do.
Except once upon a time, before the movie was filmed, no one knew what would happen. And it was only at that point in time that the characters had free will. Now, when you’re watching the movie, their free will is obviously long gone.
This mashal doesn’t work, because once you think about it you’re always going to reach a point where you concede that a real awareness of the outcome cannot possibly coexist with a real power to change the outcome.
An internet meme that recently made its way around social media portrayed a subway car circa 1920s filled with people deeply absorbed in their newspapers.
It read something like, “new technology causing people to become antisocial.”
The more things change, the more they stay the same. Self-centeredness is nothing new; it just found a new platform.
I think the problem is less that they don’t teach hashkafa and more that they preach intolerance.
If they would teach a variety of opinions, but with an attitude of “there are lots of opinions precisely because there’s no one path you are obligated to follow,” that would probably confuse people less. Of course, the people preaching intolerance would likely disagree with that statement as a matter of fact. But I’m not arguing that it’s true; I’m pointing out that it’s the cause of a problem. When they analyze the opinions as if they are opinions in halacha, as if one matters more than others, it can be quite stressful, especially when the teachers are not not competent enough to conclusively demonstrate why.
Equally stressful to a student is when a school preaches intolerance of other hashkafos but never bothers to formally outline and substantiate its own.
Say a vort about cast iron pans. They’re very manly and I hear there’s lots of Torah to say about them.
Who said one would?
WIY – But there are plenty of people who enjoy learning Gemara more, so pretending it doesn’t have anything the other limmudim don’t also have is sweeping the matter under the rug. The fact is they are being denied something they just van’t get elsewhere. If you want to claim that such is Hashem’s will, fine. But let’s at least own up to the facts here.
Hehe
No, it isn’t reasonable.
If rationalfrummie wants to come with a cut-and-dry claim that God does not want women to study Gemara b’iyun, that’s one thing. But he didn’t say that. He directly implied that the satisfaction derived from learning Nach and Halacha is the same as from learning Gemara b’iyun and that therefore women shouldn’t complain. That is a disingenuous claim, and it makes a joke of a serious issue.
rationalfrummie –
Yitayningwut: speak for yourself. If you don’t value halacha l’ma’aseh, you have a problem. If you are saying only Gemara b’iyun is valuable, you also have a problem.
Sure I value the study of halacha l’ma’aseh. That’s not the point.
The point is that you are expecting women to be satisfied with something no ben yeshiva would be satisfied with, and you consider that perfectly reasonable.
Bais yaakovs teach Chumash, tanach, meforshim, Halacha, and machshava- right? All those areas are more than enough to learn.
Ah, so that’s why the general frum world values the study of Chumash, Tanach, Halacha, and Machshava as much as Gemara b’iyun. Wait, what?
???? ???? ?????? ????
I wonder how many people know that in context, the word ??? is referring to womankind.
SecularFrummy – this supports my hypothesis that everyone here is actually a student at a top law school.
You may want to modify that to “the person here is actually a student a top law school.”
New Jersey Transit
Torah613Torah –
Mistama there were oisvorfs who told the bachur that it is completely mutar, but he was machmir anyway because of his great yiras shomayim.
The Mechaber says all kinds of beer are asur to drink with goyim, and the Rema says that people in his country were lenient on drinking alcoholic beevrages of honey and grains.
If you look up the source of this opinion and how they understand the Gemara in Avodah Zarah you will see that they hold the only thing that was assered was date beer. And possibly fig beer.
However, the Rema says that people in Poland/Ashkenaz were decidedly lenient on this matter. They’d drink non-alcoholic beer among goyim, and if we thus accept the Rema, then social activities involving drinks (such as coffee, etc.) should be ok.
That is misleading. The Rema does not distinguish between alcoholic beverages and non-alcoholic beverages; he distinguishes between date beer and everything else.
According to the Rema, everything that is kosher is okay, except for date beer.
If someone were to claim l’halacha that a bar is assur, but hide the fact that according to the same reasoning Starbucks is assur, they would be arguing disingenuously, since they know full well that it is likely their audience would not accept their argument knowing it pertains to coffee shops as well.
Source?
There is nothing inherently halachically objectionable about going into a bar.
Obviously if going in means that you are required to bow down to an idol or commit other issurim, the halacha will not allow it. But we are talking about just a bar.
Drinking is not a problem, though Sephardim have to deal with the fact that the Mechaber rules (contrary to the minhag accepted by the Rema) that one may not drink at a non-Jewish establishment.
Obviously when I say drinking is not a problem, I am not referring to non-kosher wine or anything else one would not drink outside of the bar. I am talking about a beer, a coke, a shot of Bourbon, etc.
The glasses are all kosher.
Torah is the eternal truth given to us by G-d. So how could it have stories like the creation account and the Flood if scientists claim it did not happen that way?
Who says there is a contradiction?
One thing doesn’t necessarily follow the other.
Weren’t you ever taught, as I was, that “the Torah is not [just] a history book”?
Is the phrase “the finger of God” a falsehood in the opinion of those who say Hashem doesn’t have a finger? Do you disagree with them? Are Chazal saying the Torah is telling a lie when it writes “an eye for an eye,” which in their opinion is not to be taken literally?
Who says something has to be true in every sense for it to be called true?
That sounds ridiculous to me.
If something is true in at least one possible sense, it can reasonably be called true.
??? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????
Simple ‘curse words’ are not nivul peh. They are not lashon nekiyah, but they aren’t nivul peh.
Why do you feel guilty if you know they aren’t saying the truth?
Yapchik
harri –
No one really agrees with him, but the Shach in Nekudos Hakesef in YD 198 taynahs that cutting nails is generally a melacha she-eina tzricha legufa, and that theoretically biting nails should be permitted.
lol
Spoken with a French accent:
Hungry man is angry man.
??? ??? ?????, ???? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????, ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ???????? ????? ????? ??????? ?????…
??? ????? ????, ????, ??? ?? ????.
??? ????? ????, ?????? ??????.
?????? ??????, ?? ???? ??? ????, ??? ????? ???? ?????, ????? (????? ?) ??? ???? ??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???’ ????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????.
-Mishna Eduyos 8:7
WIY –
What is some belief?! I believe in G-d 60%? Or only on Mondays and Fridays? You either believe or you dont.
I don’t think she meant that. It sounded to me that she accepts the basic tenets but has issues accepting more peripheral “beliefs” that aren’t universally agreed upon and certainly not fundamental.
1) Yes.
2) Sometimes they are elevated, but sometimes the opposite happens. If the idea of the song remains secular, sticking in pesukim is degrading to the pesukim.
3) Yes.
Everyone struggles with different things. Just do your best, and if you get up there and they bother you too much about it, scream for the Shach, and when he comes, tell him he should explain to them that what you did was a ????? ????? ????? ?????.