Opinion of the House

שו”ת › Category: general › Opinion of the House

asked 9 years ago

Between the cover and the decade of 2017
Peace and blessings, a good signature!
It is said by Kabbalists and moralists that in the days between the Sabbath and the New Year, one can correct the entire year – on Sunday, one can correct all the Sundays of the previous year, on Monday, the Mondays, and so on. And is it possible that in the ‘Netfi’ between the Sabbath and the Asor, one can also correct all the ‘Netfi’ of the previous year? …
An ironic joke tells of Yankel meeting Berel and telling him: When we meet, after Yom Kippur, I have some juicy gossip for you about so-and-so.
I remembered this because last week I wrote a column criticizing a public issue that is upsetting [to me at least], and after reading it again, I thought it was inappropriate to publish it before the High Holy Days. ‘Let’s postpone it until after,’ I thought to myself. Although the halacha mentions that there is a point in being stricter in matters that are usually relaxed all year round, even if a person does not behave in this strict manner throughout the year, that was not the point…
Indeed, in these days of soul-searching, it is appropriate to re-discuss and share thoughts with readers about what is permissible and what is forbidden, and the duty of caution required in articles criticizing others. I will attempt to do so in the attached ‘Netfi’.
This time I’ll write a few words of criticism about myself too, isn’t it about time? [Wow, what a ‘righteous’ I am!]
May you be signed and sealed in the book of life!
And on ‘Netflix’ this time:

Great stories about ordinary people.
About criticism and critics.
The prayer leader, Rabbi Moshe Portman, late

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 9 years ago

Hello Rabbi David. Strength. Just a note. The opinion in the houses is the opposite of the opinion of Torah. This is not the 16th, but rather, as I believe, the Sama’ah in 3rd. Gmht And just one more comment. I really don’t agree with these words of Sheinfeld. In my opinion, the opinion of the Baalbatim in many cases is much more correct than the opinion of yeshiva students and avrechims, as well as rabbis. And I have always explained to myself that this is the meaning of the halacha that a decree or regulation that has not been widely accepted by the public is null and void. People think that this is a compromise with reality that fails to reach the required spiritual level. But according to the law, this is a mistake. The feedback of the Baalbatim (the people of the fields) is what determines whether there is common sense here or the crooked mind of the disconnected people of the ba’i midrash who make determinations that are very logical in the theoretical scholarly world, but are not correct in the practical world. Therefore, when the law has not been widely accepted, it must be annulled because it is wrong. The Torah was given for the world, and whatever does not suit the people of the fields is presumed to be crooked law and not worthy of being followed. And this will explain why in our day, harshnesses that have no substance are spreading like a cancer in a field of thorns. They are only added and added and not removed. And the explanation of things is that in our day, whoever does not accept these new harshnesses is from the world but not from the underworld and therefore his opinion does not count (he is not a tourist). And what happens is that these decrees do not receive feedback from homeowners with an honest opinion. And thus a positive feedback is created that leads to an explosion. There is no restraint that the halakha requires on new regulations and decrees. And in closing, I will add what I once read from my friend Rabbi Benny Lau. He wrote that one of the disasters of our generation is that its leaders are yeshiva heads and not community or city rabbis. Yeshiva heads are brilliant people who hone themselves in front of brilliant children. They receive feedback on contradictions and are tested according to their intellectual brilliance. But rabbis receive feedback from homeowners who tell them that their words don’t hold water (they don’t make sense). This is what is needed to make decisions. Again, the feedback of a people in the fields. —————————————————————————————— Asks: 1. If I understood you correctly, it’s not that you disagree with Moshe Sheinfeld, but that you disagree with the Sama? I’m not scared, but is that what you meant? 2. I heard a wise comment this week from a mutual friend, the late Yitzhak Baruch Rosenblum, who was already wondering why the ancients chose to open, when the entire Jewish people arrive at the synagogue with great excitement, with the “Breaking Vows” which is a dry and not particularly exciting halacha? – His answer was: Halacha is the framework that has preserved the Jewish people as such throughout the generations, Halacha has endured and smiled in the face of all the ideas that are renewed and enthusiastic for their time as a spiritual need, Hasidism, Kabbalah, Breslov, etc. Dry halacha is the stubborn framework without which all other content passes and passes from the world and new ones come in their place. Is the entire Jewish people here? Great, there’s a startup, we can take advantage of the opportunity to solve a halakhic problem of vows and oaths that the masses have failed to fulfill. After the halakhic solution, we can approach the rest with enthusiasm, regret, and repentance. 3. One of the readers responded to my words and claimed that the rabbinic text explains that even criticism that is appropriate to say [to the Rabbi is permitted, as he says] is prohibited if the narrator enjoys the same pleasure. – I answered him that a distinction must be made between pleasure from the other’s own sorrow, even if he deserves it, and side pleasure, such as showing that I am smart. – Was I right? —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: 1. Indeed. It is true that a distinction must be made between Torah interpretation, where the Baalbatim are certainly prone to error, and reasoning about whether something is true or not on one’s own part. There the Baalbatim have the advantage of common sense. 2. I said the same things at my son’s wedding ( see attached file), especially at the end). I explained there that the reading of the Ketubah comes to bring everyone down from the heavens of Merom with the wings of angels to the ground of reality. To emphasize to us that the consecration and marriage are first and foremost a contract and a mutual halakhic obligation, and only then love and respect and emotional relationships between the couple. I think that without the first it is very difficult to reach the second (except in a lucky case). 3. I disagree with the rabbi (well, after the Sama, it’s already a small amount of money. Our Lord, prepare!), just as I disagree with the Netziv (and more recent ones, such as the Rabbi in the Cohen case) who wrote that in a sin for its own sake, it is forbidden to do it if it is not done for its own sake. In my opinion, this is absurd. After all, the permission to tell the Lahar for the sake of benefit is for the sake of benefit (for example, to tell the bride something problematic about the partner she chose and he did not reveal it to her). So because I enjoy it, I should be careful not to tell it and thus ruin the bride’s life? This sounds completely absurd to me. And that is the case with a sin for its own sake. Think about Yael, the wife of Heber the Kenite. Let’s say she enjoyed bringing Sisera. Was she then forbidden to do this, and should she have left alive our great enemy who could later defeat us in war? In my opinion, permissions that are based on result are not conditional on intentions. And I wrote the following. May you be signed and sealed in the book of life, —————————————————————————————— my father: Hello Rabbi,

I think the MK will not disagree with you on a principled level, but will argue that there is no reality in which a person who benefits from something will be able to exercise proper judgment as to whether it is beneficial or not. Ostensibly, his statement is evidence of the prohibition of accepting bribes even when he does not change the ruling. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: So what do you suggest? That he should forbid himself because perhaps he did not decide correctly? And what would be the benefit of it? And in general, we have not found anywhere that a person is forbidden to rule for himself. It depends on knowledge and not on the touch. —————————————————————————————— my father: Sometimes the potential for harm is no less than the potential for benefit. It seems very likely to me that in such a case a decent person would not trust his judgment if he knew he had an interest, certainly when it comes to an “open ticket” like a crime per se (less so in the case of a criminal offense).

Of course, there are cases where a decision has to be made “under fire,” as in the case of Yael and Sisera. I wasn’t talking about cases like that. —————————————————————————————— Rabbi: If you have the time to consult, it’s always good. And yet there is no such halakhic obligation. Consultation is intended for those who do not know for themselves. Whether or not to decide for yourself is a question of policy, not of halakhic law.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

י.ד. replied 9 years ago

Regarding the issue of slander for benefit with a side of touching, I have long been tormented by the issue of whether the problematic side overshadows the kosher side. And in this regard, I was helped by the thought of Rabbi Nachman's good point, that not only in the general matter of the person should the good point be found but in the good deed itself.

After all, from the main point of law, it seems to me that the rabbi's opinion stands. Here it is “You shall not stand on the blood of your neighbor” and even if there is pleasure for a person against his will, he can intend not to enjoy it, as the Gemara says in Pesachim Dvlita Derech Achrina, he will intend not to enjoy it and die. On the other hand, it could be the opinion of the Chah”ch that since he enjoyed the touching, he will not receive a reward for the commandment “You shall not stand on the blood of your neighbor” (perhaps in the case of intending to eat dairy products and getting fat on his hand). And it seems to me that concentrating on the good point reveals in retrospect that his main concern is not the personal touch but the fulfillment of God's commandments.

I wonder if I didn't mix it up.