A] the pashtut in YD 157 is that barring shaat hashmad there are only 3 averot which are yehareig veal yaavor , all others p/n is doche them
meaning that p/n is doche the shavu�ot as they are not one of the three
you have not yet furnished an answer in any of your posts �
– A1] the language of SH’A YD is clear – only 3 averot are yehareig ve’al yaavor
– A2] ktsot hachoshen [think in CM 87 ] clearly says that hashmata of SH’A is proof that he disagrees
– A3] there is no proof nor logic offered that breaking the shavu’ot is somehow avoda zara
– A4] breaking the shavu’ot has no connection with shat shmad . shat shmad is a condition which aggravates the halacha of an issur which is done .
there is no shat shmad forcing someone to beak the shavu’ot . there is pikuach nefesh which is matir the shavu’ot [if applicable]
.
.
B] You claimed that the current situation in EY without an active IDF is not p/n , because the people can run away �
you have not brought any reasonable practical plan how �running away� is going to preclude the p/n resulting from the IDF being inactive �.
– B1] your position is not only illogical to the extreme , it is disingenuous . you attempt to prove that since no one is running away now , that there is
no chashash p/n .
the point was that WITHOUT IDF there is p/n . how does the lack of running away now , WITH THE IDF , prove anything re the situation without
the idf ? ?
.
.
.
C] Sure you insinuated that rav chaim is a zuken mamre � rav chaim clearly said in public that fallen IDF soldiers are begeder harugei lud
this appellation � zuken mamre � , was used by you so as to not accept rav chaims statement �
D] you repeatedly claim that we should ignore p/n issues in EY because everything and anything wrong in the entire middle east is the exclusive fault of the zionists � if only they would have not �invaded� [using your crooked language] there would be no p/n �.
therefore we somehow should ignore this supposedly zionist manufactured p/n �
– D1 ] that’s not straw manning al all . this is an accurate description of your repeated comments on these pages
– D2 ] zionists never ‘invaded’ …. they immigrated ……. like the shevet halevi with his rabbanit …. .
if someone ‘invaded’ … it was the seven arab armies who invaded in ’48 with their militaries to push the jews into the sea …
and to surpass the mongol massacres [language from the SC general of the arab league] ….
.
.
even if the facts and your portrayal do align � even then �. you have not at all explained why this is relevant to the way we are obligated to respond �
does hatsala not respond with hilul shabat to address avoidable emergencies ?
does hatsala not respond with hilul shabat to address self created emergencies ?
you simply keep on skirting the real issues �.
– D2] you totally ignored this point . — is the source of the p/n relevant when deciding to be docheh issurei torah [non hamurot] ?
yes or no ?
if your answer is yes , why is that different to hatsalah being mechalel shabat to save someone who knowingly created his own p/n ?
.
.
.
E] No , you did not admit to the clear words of avnei nezer
you did not admit that someone transgressing the oaths did not transgress a halacha
– E1] am not sure whether you yourself understand what you wrote ….
the question was – does avnei nezer write those words …. that the shavu’ot are not lehalacha …. yes or no
do you have enough of bikush emet to agree to this simple fact ….. ? ?
.
.
.
F] Steipler clearly limits the halachik illegality of the medina to its ESTABLISHMENT .
this is in the letter re the obligation to vote
you have never admitted to this , although this is the clear meaning of his words
– F1] ‘the steipler clearly writes that the mere existence of the medina is not against the shavu�ot’
thats what I wrote before
now I write that —- ‘Steipler clearly limits the halachik illegality of the medina to its ESTABLISHMENT’
Is there a contradiction between those two statements … ??
where is your bikush ha’emet ? ?
.
.
.
G] somejew should answer the following:
somejew never owned up to point that halacha everywhere is not decided by what would , could or should have been � only by what is �
this is extremely simple — whenever the p/n question comes up , somejew’s automatic response is —- its the fault of the zionists ….
if they would not ….. than there would be no p/n ….
can somejew , once and for all admit , that this type of reasoning is NEVER used in any other halachik deliberation re p/n …. ? ? ?
.
.
.
H] somejew has never owned up to the fact that avnei nezer clearly writes that haskamat ha�umot will negate the shavu�ot
I do not have avnei nezer handy now .
he definitely says it at the end of his tshuvot in YD . I saw it with my own eyes .
.
.
.