profile | register | search
|
|
profile | register | search |
| Forums | Other | | Post Reply | Send Topic To a Friend |
| Author | Topic |
| mo | Posted - 12 October 2005 17:27
**An for the record, theoretically, when we are talking about a unanimous halachah in Shulchan Aruch and Poskim, an apprent opposing act by Rav Klonimus Kalman would not be considered a "source". Rather, we would inquire to know what his source was. In the absence of that, we would not imitate his behavior.** There are some people who would of such maasiyois as "Maaseh Rav" and that from such facts we should know in fact WE are the ones, who DONT understand Shulchan Aruch and Poskim...Can you explain what Maaseh Rav is? |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 12 October 2005 17:41
Those people would be wrong. If it were just your understandign of the hsulchan aruch without any confirmation versus such an incident, we could discuss it. But here, because, for hundreds of years and in countless seforim and poskim, all of klall yisroel - tzadikim, poskim, and others - behaved and understood differntly - there you have tons of maaseh ravs against this one, isolated incident. An accepted halachah for generations is not uprooted because of the seeming act of an individual. What you would say is nyou dont understand the shulchan aruch, but that you dont understand the act of the rav. And thats even from a maaseh rav perspective. But ain lomdin min hammaseh - in a case where a maaseh rav is not comprehensible, meaning, you dont know the reasons behind it, you cannot apply it because you dont know whether the exact reason it was done applies to you. Obvisouly, because the act was so incomprehensible to you, and seems to be in conflict with a clear halachah, you have no idea what the heter is, and sicne you have no idea, you also have no idea whether it applies to you in your circumstances. If you dont know what is needed to create a heter, you cant apply it in other cases. A maaseh rav is useful to you lmaaseh where you can understand why the rav did what he did. Perhaps you did not know whether osmethgin was permitted or not -- maaseh rav helps there; if through the actions of the rav you obtain a new understandign of a halachah - maaseh rav applies htere. But if even after the maaseh rav you still look in shulchan aruch and poskim and nobody at all seems to allow what the rav did, you are not allowed to do anything except what you understood the halachah to be. This does not mean you have to assume the tzadik did something wrong. You say instead, that you do not understand his actions. |
| dasi | Posted - 06 November 2005 15:36
I've done a few searches for "braunstein" "Zahava" etc and am unable to turn up your post. Pls point readers to the forum where this post appears. |
| mo | Posted - 07 November 2005 0:21
**If it were just your understandign of the shulchan aruch without any confirmation versus such an incident, we could discuss it. But here, because, for hundreds of years and in countless seforim and poskim, all of klall yisroel - tzadikim, poskim, and others - behaved and understood differntly - there you have tons of maaseh ravs against this one, isolated incident.** What is it just maase against pshat of Gemore and Shulchan Oruch ? What are the klolim? Can one just say "you dont undersdtand" ? |
| dasi | Posted - 07 November 2005 0:21
Please tell me: Is your position that women should not say bameh madlikin friday night??? That they should not say karbonos as part of davening, which includes both mishnayos and gemara? ( one of the reasons the magen avroham gives that women may say birkas hatorah is that they are mechuyav in karbanos). The line was never as hard and fast as you make it out to be. There is no bright line betweeen tsb"ksav and tsb"p', a position you made clear earlier in this thread when discussing whether women should learn sefer vayikra because they don't "need to know it" |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 07 November 2005 0:39
Learning something and "davening it up" are two different things. Korbonos are Torah shebiksav anyway, which is permitted. I was talking about learning Vayikra in depth. The Mishnayos in the Korbonos, or in Maariv are not an isuse - such davening is not a problem since there is no learning process going on at the time. |
| dasi | Posted - 16 January 2006 1:34
bameh madlikin is mishnayos; they aren't "Davened", they are read. There is no way to ensure that the women don't "understand" what they are reading. According to you, it would be lifnei iver for the siddurim to include it (let alone include meforshim as some siddurim do). |
| dasi | Posted - 16 January 2006 1:34
"I was talking about learning Vayikra in depth." How is learning vayikra in depth more problematic than learning shmos or devarim in depth? No need to pick on sefer vayikra, which at least has the virtue of not leading to halacha l'maase/psak for contemporary issues, when you have parshas mishpatim to insist girls not learn "in depth." |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 16 January 2006 1:48
My point about vayikra being worse is because there is no halacha lammaseh. Bmeh madlikin is davened. The poskim say that when we see b'chush that women do not learn somethgin but merely say it, we do not need to prohibit it. And please note, your quesiton is not "according to me." The prohibition of teaching girls mishnayos is clear and direct in shas and poskim. I am merely broadcasting the news. |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 16 January 2006 1:54
Re Rebitzen Braunstein: http://www.frumteens.com/topic.php?topic_id=7339&forum_id=40&Topic_Title=Shloshin+of+Rebitzen+Zahava+Braunstein+a%26quot%3B&forum_title=Boruch+Dayan+HaEmes |
| matyun | Posted - 05 February 2006 1:39
Would there be a possibility of differentiating between teaching girls mishayos(permitted), which is very surface level, and gemora, which is in depth (forbidden)? |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 05 February 2006 1:48
I thought of that, and to me personally it seems theoretically reasonable - of course depending on how you teach it to them - since the content of the mishna is often halachah lmaaseh, and it has no shakla v'tarya, it could be comparable to learning shulchan aruch (again, depending on how its leanred). However, on the other hand, it is still torah she bal peh, it does have more than halachab lamaaseh - i.e. shitos that are not lalachah, so even though I can hear such a thing, I dont know of anyon who actually says it, and please note that Rav Moshe's prohibitve teshuva is speaking explictly about mishnayos, not Gemora, and he holds clearly that Mishnayos is black and white in teh catagory of what is prohibited under the scope of Torah she bal peh. If you know a qualified shitah that disagrees and distinguishes between Mishna and Gemora, please let me know. The straightforward understanding of the Halachah is like Rav Moshe states. To exclude Mishnayos, youll need a source. |
| Bashert | Posted - 28 March 2006 17:31
If you're claiming that women are not supposed to learn Torah, how do you explain tzidkaniyos like Devorah? Bruriah ? Rashi's daughters? |
| MODERATOR | Posted - 28 March 2006 17:32
They can learn Torah - just not certain parts of it. Tzidkonios are not Lamdonios. |
| Oxymoron | Posted - 18 June 2006 18:08
May a woman learn Rishonei Halacha such as the Rosh, Rashba, Rif, etc. on a topic of halacha that applies to her? On the one hand, it's halacha that applies to her, so it's mutar material. On the other hand, these sefarim are more discursive and they include machlokos and many deos, certainly not all of which are lemaaseh. But on the other hand, they will enable the woman to make very educated shailos, and she will know based on an abstract concept of the material when is a situation to ask a shaila at all. This seems very constructive and practical. Is it muttar? And another question: you say that the Chumash that the Chofetz Chaim permitted women to learn extended no further than the basic pshat of the text. However, there is no single opinion as to what the basic pshat of the text is. Both Rashi and Chazal are loaded with machlokos, and sometimes Rashbam or Ibn Ezra is actually more peshati than either of them. Is there any single underlying principle that determines which meforshim are appropriate and which are not? "Pshat" is an ambiguous standard. |
Click Here To Close Thread, Administrators & Moderators Only.
Show All Forums |
Post Reply