Random Posts

[Dan]

+1. This is clearly what CBC was referring to.Now whether or not this line of halachic reasoning is correct, and would cause R' Moshe to reconsider his psak, that's not for you or I to say.

I sure hope nobody is taking anything on DDF as remotely construing a psak halacha.

[meshugener]

+1. This is clearly what CBC was referring to.

That's not what he said though.

[David Smith]

Ok, that was helpful.

Maybe this will be enlightening.

[meshugener]

Here is one possible motive.


" The Romans would have had reason to want to silence Jesus, who had been called by some of his followers “King of the Jews,” and was known as a Jewish upstart miracle-worker. Jews, on the other hand, lacked a motive for killing Jesus."

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-killed-jesus/

Does that collaborat as to how the gemara tells us the story?

[David Smith]

Does that collaborat as to how the gemara tells us the story?

Care to enlighten us?

[meshugener]

Care to enlighten us?

I'm just asking. I have no idea.

[Hershelsdeals]

Does that collaborat as to how the gemara tells us the story?

Why not?

If Yeshu from the Gemara is Jesus of Nazareth, that would put him back almost 200 BC which would contradict the New Testament account and timing.


Read this

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

[luckyluck]

 

Consensus of all the poskim is that financial considerations may not be taken into account for this mitzva.

Rav Moshe wrote many responsa dealing with the pill, and the evolution of his thought on it is a fascinating study. His earliest responsum (Even Haezer 4:74:2) is from 1960, shortly after the pill was approved by the FDA. At that point, he wrote that if there is no danger in taking them and if they do not cause bleeding, they are permitted for financial reasons if the man has fulfilled his mitzvah of procreation.

[aygart]

Who's talking religion? We're discussing morals, irrespective of their roots or source. There is a possible argument to be made that the fact that this edict against stealing is ultimately  beneficial to the potential thief, as it facilitates the functioning of a society he needs, would be rain enough to stop him. However, the consequence deterrent would likely be a much stronger factor, and eliminating that would result in a much higher level of theft.

That is all very good if he is from the haves and detrimental to him if he is from the have nots and is going hungry. According to this reasoning the Soviets were very moral. They killed the previous enforcers and proceeded to enforce that all belongs to them. Same with ISIS. The supreme authority in your world is whoever is most powerful.

[luckyluck]

Death penalty?

If by blasphemy you mean מברך את השם
It's also part of the 7 Noahid laws.

[aygart]

+1. This is clearly what CBC was referring to.Now whether or not this line of halachic reasoning is correct, and would cause R' Moshe to reconsider his psak, that's not for you or I to say.

-1 look at the full context.

I have heard from more than one talmid of his that he never told people to use the pill. R Henkin felt there was sakana in using the pill. Both reasons may not apply to today's pills and many of their talmidim duo tell people to use them

Why don't they apply? An experienced rov told me once that virtually all pills cause staining. Definitely at the beginning. Idk..

First of all, I wrote may and there is definitely significant improvement since the sixties. Also, I have heard from my rabbeim that the issue is not so common with today's pills and even then only at the beginning.

My research on this matter is that the issue is very prevalent, but for other reasons rabbonim are not concerned about these stains (R moshes concern )


And in the medical world mild staining is not considered a concern that needs improvement.

[churnbabychurn]

+1. This is clearly what CBC was referring to.Now whether or not this line of halachic reasoning is correct, and would cause R' Moshe to reconsider his psak, that's not for you or I to say.

Thanks!

I'm not a rambam so y'all shouldnt learn me up as one.
Point was that staining still needs to be considered as part of the equation.

[meshugener]

Why not?

If Yeshu from the Gemara is Jesus of Nazareth, that would put him back almost 200 BC which would contradict the New Testament account and timing.


Read this

http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html

So are saying that Yeshu has nothing to do with Jesus?

[wayfe]

Who's talking religion? We're discussing morals, irrespective of their roots or source. There is a possible argument to be made that the fact that this edict against stealing is ultimately  beneficial to the potential thief, as it facilitates the functioning of a society he needs, would be rain enough to stop him. However, the consequence deterrent would likely be a much stronger factor, and eliminating that would result in a much higher level of theft.

We might just be disagreeing on semantics. If somebody is not committing a crime because he might get caught, that doesn't make him have morals or act morally (or at least intentionally morally)

The point remains that the only reason somebody doesn't do wrong is:

A. He believes in a Higher Being that doesn't allow it = morals. Ideas about equality or human rights fall into this category

B. He's out to serve himself = selfishness, not morals. "Do not do unto others what you wouldn't have done unto you" falls into this category.

[David Smith]

We might just be disagreeing on semantics. If somebody is not committing a crime because he might get caught, that doesn't make him have morals or act morally (or at least intentionally morally)

We might just not be talking about the same thing, which is what I suspect. The question asked was why someone shouldn't steal. I wad just saying that morals don't have to come into play to answer that question. I wasn't talking about how to define moral.

[Hershelsdeals]

So are saying that Yeshu has nothing to do with Jesus?

No, I'm saying that the New Testament account is BS.

[wayfe]

We might just not be talking about the same thing, which is what I suspect. The question asked was why someone shouldn't steal. I wad just saying that morals don't have to come into play to answer that question. I wasn't talking about how to define moral.

Well people refrain from evil for either reasons of morality or of selfishness.
Which goes to prove that all morality stems from religion (or it isn't actual morality, rather selfishness) that brings us back to the point discussed that atheists can't be moral (or they can't be atheists) how that be brings us back to cursing had yet to be answered.

[aygart]

B. He's out to serve himself = selfishness, not morals. "Do not do unto others what you wouldn't have done unto you" falls into this category.

Do unto others etc. Is not morals if and only if it is with the expectation that it will cause other to not do it unto you. If they will do it or not do it regardless of your actions then it is not self serving.

That "selfishness" is not morals is somewhat debatable see "the Virtues of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand. She also discuses what she considers to be rational reasons for her brand of morality.

[wayfe]

Do unto others etc. Is not morals if and only if it is with the expectation that it will cause other to not do it unto you. If they will do it or not do it regardless of your actions then it is not self serving.

It's still self-serving in intent.

[aygart]

It's still self-serving in intent.

How