%CE%E5%CA%AE%C2%B7+D%2EC%2E%D9Y%D3%8D%BD%BB%C1%F7%BEW 1 1 Chick Swimsuit

Ge Chickswimsuit Fr Orgasms Denied Chick Swimsuit On This And On That - על דא ועל הא: Sociological Changes and Halakhah

Ge Chickswimsuit Fr Orgasms Denied Chick Swimsuit

Reply
  • Chickswimsuit e Orgasms dsearchee Denied search,D.C.%D7%CA%D1%B6%BD%BB%C1%F7%CD%F8-%5B%D7%DB%BA%CF%C2%DB%CC%B3%5D-%B9%D8%B1%D5%D7%A2%B2%E1%20-%20Powered%20by%20Discuz%212yourlust.com1search Orgasms 11search Denied M
    Wow, Dov, thanks for the references! Never heard of that Ritva before. I would say that from what Bruriah said to R. Yossi Haglili (איזה ללוד) it seems that Bruriah too, understood the Mishana like Rambam and Rabbeinu Yonah. But, as a matter of fact, most Rishonim (Bartenura, Rabbeinu Bachya, Rashbatz, Sforno and Rabbeinu Yaakov Bar Shimshon) do not understand the Mishnah the way Rabeinu Yonah understood it.

    Bar Uryan, thanks for the interesting link!
    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure. One change in the application of halacha based on a sociological change, which is extremely common, is the practice to rely on the heter of the Aruch Hashulchan (in OC 75:67) to allow reciting devarim shebikedusha in the presence of a woman's uncovered hair. This heter is predicated upon a Mordechai in Berachos (80) and a few other rishonim there.

      As for Beruriah, it's a good question, but only because that's how people say over the story. Who says she wasn't reprimanding him simply for his usage of extra words - and al derech the Me'iri? Or bitul Torah for those two extra seconds? Or perhaps she took the נלך as a bit inappropriate?
      Delete
  • OvadyaFeb 1, 2012 06:56 PM
    "[10] בסעודת חתונה?"

    Either it stands for Sefer Chasidim (siman 393), or it's a typo and supposed to read: Ba"ch, since that's where the Ba"sh is qouting from.

    "[12] I haven't found it."

    Well you should of looked harder :) here it is (the last os) pdfpager.aspx?sits=1&req=14585&st=%u05e9%u05d4%u05e9%u05de%u05d7%u05d4+%u05d1%u05de%u05e2%u05d5%u05e0%u05d5

    "Such conflation of verses and passages is actually quite common in Hasidic sources."

    Puleez, I can show many examples of Litvish, Sefardic (l'havdil ben ha'tamei v'hatahor, maybe even scholarly priests who knew Tanach) who are "guilty" of the same. That was uncalled for. See this, very important, and im sure youll enjoy it emensley

    pdfpager.aspx?req=34446&st=%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%A2%D7%95%D7%92+%D7%A2%D7%9C%D7%99%D7%95&pgnum=37
    ReplyDelete
  • YeedleFeb 2, 2012 10:01 AM
    "Well you should of looked harder :)"
    "That was uncalled for."

    Ouch.

    I updated the post. Thanks!
    ReplyDelete
  • JrFeb 2, 2012 12:22 PM
    Actually, he is not as openminded as you think. You are citing from אות ח. You MUST now look at אות יג and in the הגה there. Amongst other things, take notice of what he says there about the היתר of the לבוש. And he apparently was not aware of the ritva either. ( which btw, is quoted in many achronim and is used to explain some other difficult gemorras).
    ReplyDelete
  • Add comment
    Load more...

    Older Post Home
    Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)