V'dibarta Bam

"And speak of them" (Deut. 6:7) This is the main Mi Yodeya com...
Wed 19:01
@IsaacMoses At least. Maybe even more explicitly 'have any modern rabbis commented on the use of such a technique nowadays?'
Wed 18:59
8
Q: Medicinal etc. Sections of Talmud

הנער הזהEvery now and then, then Gemara will go off on a tangent and discuss medical practices (such as towards the end of Gittin and scattered throughout maseches shabbos) or practical safety advice concerning demons or whatnot (such as in the last chapter of Pesachim). Is studying those passages cons...

Wed 18:58
Maybe just using a link to eg judaism.stackexchange.com/q/112119/759 or some other question about medical advice. We don't need to reproduce the whole "why cylor" thread on every post that's at all controversial.
Wed 18:56
As an example this question judaism.stackexchange.com/q/75989/759 is doing fine with its caveat that it may not apply to you, even though some might think it encourages unhealthy behavior. Probably we can find a whole bunch more like that with a comment or caveat saying be careful.
Wed 18:52
RFP is questionable to apply here since it's worded in the third person. Modesty could apply I guess if the community chooses to apply it.
Wed 18:52
@IsaacMoses There's two question there. Permission and recommendation. Permission is a dry halachic question (Al argued it's clearly permitted; maybe someone from the comment chorus will actually present a halachic argument to forbid). Recommendation is much more subjective and could be construed as Opinion based without specifically limiting it to published rabbinic sources, since otherwise we get random people's opinions, like josh provided.
Jul 1 14:27
@Harel13 in general if you see a pattern of people misunderstanding and/or misapplying a close reason, it would be best to propose either a different wording that will lead to less misapplication or a different policy which matches what people are currently expecting. Mi Yodeya Meta is a good place to discuss either option.
May 29 16:36
(though it's really just a language thing. Hebrew allows for (and classically perhaps preferred) ascending order for 20-99 but Aramaic (and English) always do descending.)
May 29 16:36
@msh210 temanim do count palindromically הַאידַּאנָא אַרבְּעִין וְשִׁתָּא יוֹמֵי בְּעֻמרָא, דְּאִנּוּן שִׁתָּא שָׁבוּעֵי וְאַרבְּעָא יוֹמֵי:
May 21 01:03
In general editing posts to improve them is encouraged and post owners don't have a monopoly on the text judaism.stackexchange.com/help/editing It is also generally considered courteous and appropriate to respect the initial author's stylistic choices when reasonable. I haven't dug into the details on your particular post here.
May 21 01:01
@barlop Not really. If someone abuses their edit privileges they can be suspended and if an edit war ensues on a post it can be locked temporarily. Both actions require mod intervention. If you ever feel either is necessary please flag for mod attention.
May 20 23:14
@barlop Note if you want to roll back and edit from there, you can click the "Edit" button on the revision, instead of the "Rollback" button, enter your edits there and click submit. That will enter the roll back and the edit from there at one time in one revision
May 20 21:13
@barlop To roll back changes to a post, go to the revision history of the post, find the revision that you want to go back to, and click the "Rollback" link thereon
May 15 21:16
(Kind of ironic that in the Diaspora, Simchas Torah, the holiday of reading the torah, can only fall on all the days that are not generally leining days (everything but Monday Thursday Saturday).)
May 15 21:14
@msh210 We are also misaligned on שמיני עצרת for about a day no matter what day of the week it is. It's especially notable if שמיני עצרת is on Shabbat and then at Mincha in Israel they read בראשית and in the Diaspora they read וזאת הברכה.
May 6 01:36
@IsaacMoses Happy first palindrome day
Apr 30 03:31
@RabbiK sorry about that
Mar 19 18:44
@Harel13 See Zevachim 9:5-6 and Rambam Meilah 2:12 about when things are "done" burning or need to be put back on. At some point, something could be burnt "enough" to be taken out with the Deshen.
Mar 19 17:54
Any limb to be eaten eventually becomes notar anyway
Mar 19 17:53
Bones in limbs to be burned or bones in limbs to be eaten?
Mar 19 17:52
@Harel13 Which bones?
 
Jun 18 19:46
Note many kabbalistic tricks are far from intuitive (as noted, requesting forgiveness at night) so picking on this "mentioning mercy when asking for mercy" may be making it hard to see a possible methodological difference since that one, prima facie, doesn't stand out as all that controversial.
Jun 18 19:46
@ba 1. It seems right there to me, but neither of us is working out of the original anyway so this may be silly to argue about. It says it's more natural and effective for humans and "similarly" for working in God's system, meaning God's system also has the same limitation as human ones. 2. I attempt not to append any belief without basis. If kabbalists are actually just saying none of this metaphysics is ontologically real and the tips and tricks they offer are logical suggestions that work using more basic axioms (base packages vs imports), I'd be open to reading that source.
Jun 18 19:46
@ba 1) Kavanot do not ipso facto imply that. I pointed out the suggested explanation in this answer by Tzemach Tzedek that I referenced seems to assume it. 2) one explanation I mentioned above is that it's not the mentioning that drives the success but the commitment to act in consonance with those attributes, and another I mentioned is that it isn't the mentioning of the words but the reminder to God of His promise that is the relevant factor. It doesn't matter how God chooses to emanate blessings to the world. You make the best argument you can for your case and let Him figure out the rest.
Jun 18 19:46
@ba no neither of those things is true.
Jun 18 19:46
@ba Hold on here, that's a lot of conflations. I didn't say hacks are heretical nor that 'use of attributes' is a hack. What does "use of attributes" mean anyway? Very hard to respond to you
Jun 18 19:46
(Also ironically, the gemara says that always works and the kabbalists say doing it at night before midnight is dangerous. Even known exploits can have more efficient hacks I guess ;) )
Jun 18 19:46
Also @ba you omitted the opening sentence of that gemara אמר רבי יוחנן: אלמלא מקרא כתוב אי אפשר לאומרו
Jun 18 19:46
But anyway @ba I think you are misrepresenting how that works. From even wikipedia: והדבר קשה שהרי אנו רואים כמה פעמים אנו מזכירים י"ג מידות ואינם נענים? אלא אומרים הגאונים כי כוונת "יעשו לפני כסדר הזה" אין הכוונה לבד על עטיפת הטלית והאמירה לחוד אלא שיעשו סדר המידות שלמד הקב"ה את משה שהוא "אל רחום וחנון" דהיינו מה הוא רחום אף אתה תהיה רחום, מה הוא חנון אף אתה תיהיה חנון וכו' וכן לכל י"ג מידות". That is indeed saying davke merit is what matters! That is not the same as recommending God channel blessing X through port 2,3 and a combination of 4&5. We at best are reminding God of his covenant
Jun 18 19:46
@ba Reductio ad absurdum. They also always assumed you had to say Shema correctly and that the Torah needed to be copied exactly. No one is denying that there are mitzvot with details. I didn't mean to imply that religion is a free for all hippie fest.
Jun 18 19:46
I was referring not to nusach as in words in the siddur (though probably there are some good examples in that vein) but "kavanot" which is effectively part of the nusach in the sense of the programmatic way to hack the system. But anyway you should know it's far from agreed upon that anshei KG picked all those details. That's largely a kabbalistic influenced view of the history which many rishonim (pre-spread of kabbala) did not share (see, though somewhat dated, archive.org/details/…)
Jun 18 19:46
"natural and effective to work through the appropriate channels He established" This would be true if God found it more difficult to process things in different or ad hoc ways, though that's seemingly heretical. "it does help to mention that Hashem is kind, when we are asking for His kindness" This is a pretty clever hack if true that it's a shame most Jews were unaware of it for most of history. Traditionally, Jews assumed you got answered based on your merit and if you asked sincerely (not even always politely!) not based on if you had the right keywords in your search.
 
May 12 01:15
@Loani It sounds like you're just saying that since the reason doesn't apply we should just nullify the prohibition. That rarely happens in halacha and here it's even more farfetched since someone will invariably end up not bothering to get checked. If anything the reason doesn't apply since we have dna paternity testing, not ultrasounds.
May 12 00:54
@Loani I don't follow your distinction. Her being 8 months pregnant also proves it 100%. Why does it matter how we prove she's pregnant or not
May 12 00:54
@Loani the case is she's 8 months pregnant at his death. That's an even better proof than an ultrasound that she is definitely pregnant.
May 12 00:54
@Loani is any circumstantial proof sufficient? Once we're not talking about a status of pregnancy but just circumstantial evidence for adultery, then we can just discuss general circumstantial evidence for adultery and forget this particular case
May 12 00:54
@LoAni even if she is 8 months pregnant and her husband dies she has to wait 3 months even if she miscarries during shiva. Your latter example isn't about proof that she's pregnant but proof that she was an adulterer
May 12 00:54
Neither of those things is true. Women wait 90 days always even if they are old or infertile or a virgin (eg. kiddushin no nissuin). Pregnant women can become niddah (it's not even that uncommon)
May 12 00:54
@Heshy after conversion they can't sleep together for 90 days so that doesn't happen
May 12 00:54
@Heshy I don't follow
May 12 00:54
@Heshy what nafka mina is there before we'd discover that ourselves within 90 days anyway
May 12 00:54
@Loani Can you provide examples where it has a halachik ramification to be pregnant? Pregnant women are obligated in all mitzvot too. Maybe categorical exemption from minor fasts? Even that is just a custom really so doesn't need formal proof.
May 12 00:54
I don't really understand the question. A woman is pregnant or not.
 
Mar 25 00:37
@MoriaHise Maybe he was in his mid-fifties in the 1950s. Now he's in his mid-decomposition
 
Mar 6 08:41
Why doesn't the reasoning from the first serious question apply here too? @ba
Mar 6 08:41
@ba You keep asserting that it is irrelevant. I don't understand why. Jewish texts are our topic. They are quintessentially relevant.
Mar 6 08:41
@ba again then the wording of Tanach is not irrelevant to Judaism. An irrelevant application would be why doesn't Lincoln's name show up in the Gettysburg address
Mar 6 08:41
@ba But the point doesn't remain after 2016. I'd close those now too as not purim if asked today. The "distinctly Purim" requirement for questions only started in 2016, those are 2012. See revision 19 to the PTIJ policy post inspired by this meta post judaism.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/3836/…
Mar 6 08:41
@MichoelR Dumb is kinda the name of the game
Mar 6 08:41
@ba Which? Were they asked under the current PTIJ policy?