- This topic has 187 replies, 24 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Battle is the most magnificent competition in which a human being can indulge. It brings out all that is best; it removes all that is base.. The coward is the one who lets his fear overcome his sense of duty.”
“Man is only great when he acts from passion.”
“Perseverance, secret of all triumphs”
“Courage is the greatest of all virtues, because if you haven’t courage, you may not have an opportunity to use any of the others”
The goyim we work with have been more confounded/perturbed by Orthodox meager overt responses to society’s continuous downward spiral-even if they themselves are less than paragons, than they have been to all the financial scandals in the headlines that we handwring about
Furthermore,
There have been several seforim, books and anthologies that have come on the 7 [categories of]Mitzvos in recent years.Should be recommended reading.
IITFT – thank you for finally bringing a source for this.
LU: I agree with you (about non-Jews’ olam haba), and thanks for mentioning the rabbi’s opinion. I think this is one of those things that is not set in stone, and a range of opinions is possible.
Rambam seems to suggest that someone who doesn’t believe in Hashem will have no afterlife whatsoever. But Tehillim says each person is rewarded according to his deeds, which is the principle on which our Olam Haba is based, and it only makes sense that a just and merciful G-d would do the same for non-Jews.
In addition, I don’t know Rambam’s source for his opinion, but it’s important to point out that for many of the statements in our tradition in which a tanna says “Anyone who does X has no share in Olam Haba,” it is impossible to take it literally, because in that case hardly anybody would have a share. (Who hasn’t embarrassed someone in public at some point, even accidentally?)
Of course, it is also possible that there are additional complexities that we don’t understand (for example, perhaps a non-Jew who violates one of the Seven Mitzvos will have to have another gilgul in order to fulfill it before obtaining an eternal afterlife during which they will be rewarded according to their deeds.)
Lilmod, I dispute by citing Rambam Hilchot Melachim 10,2) with statements by Rav Kook and the Chazon Ish regarding the status of non-observant Jews in our time as effectively being anoosim.
Yytz, the way I heard it, if someone does not believe in Hashem then Hashem does not believe in him (see Vayikra 26,21).
Avi – How does that dispute my statement that the terminology “tinok shenishba” can not possibly apply to goyim even if the concept (of being “anusim”) does?
I am not sure if most people are Athiest (Dont belive in god) as opposed to either Agnostic (Dont care) or just anti-religion (Unfortunatly many relgious people of all faiths have caused massive “Chilul Hashem” by their actions) especially the Catholic Church. While we are not catholic, The actions of the church has had a negative reaction to many and caused a sourness on religion
I thought an agnostic is someone who is not sure whether or not G-d exists, as opposed to an atheist who thinks he is sure that kaviyachol, I don’t want to even say the words, but you get the idea.
That is why many say that there can’t really be such a thing as an atheist because no one can say that he knows for sure such a thing (especially since “ther is no atheist in a fox hole”), so people who call themselves atheists are really agnostic.
A fantastic example of change that has occured is this thread:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/home-baked-cookies-in-mm
historically if someone was frum you ate their food. Period. now people have developed all sorts of policies and guidelines not to eat outside their house (one poster wrote even water!).
now there may be many possible reason for this shift. whether it is due to a decline in standards, a proliferation of modern technologies that raise many halachic issues that some may rule differently, or a way to show how frum the person is is completely beside the point.
The point is Yidishkeit as practiced today by any segment, is quite different than practiced years ago. This is but another (admittedly minor) example.
Again and I cant stress this enough, the reasons may not be bad reasons. Their certainly are many who might be lax in their kashrus and this new geder of not trusting anyone’s kashrus isnt necessarily a bad innovation. But an innovation it is.
Ubiq: I believe certain families have always had this custom of not eating outside their own home, with limited exceptions of certain people they do trust. This is not exactly a new phenomenon, and I don’t think there’s been a real increase in the numbers that follow this chumra.
If you read biographies/life stories of many Rabbis or Chasidic Rebbis you’ll find plenty of examples.
Mammele – i was thinking about that, too, but then it got me thinking about the days when everyone brought their families challas and cholent to the communal oven at the local bakery. Ya know what i’m referring to?
Ubiquitin – please keep in mind that I was talking about out-of-town in the 70’s and 80’s where there were many non-Orthodox families in the community.
As I mentioned in that post, I don’t hear of this so much anywhere, and I think that may be the reason why.
That is one major change in the 1900’s from hundreds of years ago – that there are (many) non-Orthodox Jews. Another big change is processed food, which necessitates hashgachos, some of which may not be so reliable. Remember that most foods we eat are made by goyim in factories where many things can go wrong. That was not the case in the past.
So it’s not necessarily about the ideology being different but about the situation being different. The same ideology calls for different responses to different situations. Which is the point I tried making earlier in the thread.
“I believe certain families have always had this custom of not eating outside their own home, with limited exceptions of certain people they do trust.”
Im not sure what you mean by “Always” There is a halacha of eid echad neeman beyisurin there is no asterisk that not everybody has this minhag. BTW, Almost By definition all customs didint always exist but rather developed over time.
” This is not exactly a new phenomenon,”
Depending on how you define “new” Im fairly certain it is. I would absolutely love if you can provide reference to such a hanhaga more than a century or 2 ago.
See Syag’s accurate comment.
” and I don’t think there’s been a real increase in the numbers that follow this chumra.”
On this I know for certain you are mistaken as I know people who have adopted this “minhag”
LU
you correctly point out changes that led tio this shift. both of which I mentioend as well.
However this is the case for All of the shifts.
For example Zionism, I assume you view that as a change. however it can (and is) easily be argued that it is a change due to shifts in the world that allowed for it.
Or as you put it (And I whole heartedly agree)
So it’s not necessarily about the ideology being different but about the situation being different. The same ideology calls for different responses to different situations.
This is true for every change that takes place including mass kollel, maintaing a certain levush, Zionism etc
Which is why it is silly to say charedisim is the “default” and all other streams are changes.
There have been Non-Orthodox Jews for about 200 years now.
There are not many Non-orthodox jews anymore in Orthodox neighborhoods. How many non-frum jews live in Borough park or Monsey anymore
Mammele, Rashi disagrees with that chumra (Yevamot 88a d”h v’amar). It certainly is no way to keep a community intact, not to mention families. In fact, Rav Moshe ate at a simcha given by a baal bayit. when asked he said “A single witness is believed for prohibitions. the Halacha allows me to eat. On the other hand, embarrassing someone is a Torah prohibition” (see Shailot Yaavetz 2,15). In fact, there are some opinions that a person who does not go by that rule is a heretic – he disputes Chazal (Pitchei Teshuva YD 116,10). The Ran says that even if the food is not kosher he does not get any aveira. However, if he decides that he is smarter than Chazal and he slips he is responsible.
Of course, some people feel the need to say “Mirror, mirror on the wall. Who is the frummest of them all?”
“Or as you put it (And I whole heartedly agree)
So it’s not necessarily about the ideology being different but about the situation being different. The same ideology calls for different responses to different situations.
This is true for every change that takes place including mass kollel, maintaing a certain levush, Zionism etc
Which is why it is silly to say charedisim is the “default” and all other streams are changes.”
The point is that Chareidim are called Chareidim because of the ideology, and the ideology is not new. Those that wish to say that Chareidi’ism is a new thing are trying to say that the ideology is new.
“There have been Non-Orthodox Jews for about 200 years now.”
I was refering to the time period before that – that is why I wrote “hundreds of years ago”.
“There are not many Non-orthodox jews anymore in Orthodox neighborhoods. How many non-frum jews live in Borough park or Monsey anymore”
I specifically wrote that I was talking about out-of-town in the 70’s and 80’s.
Avi k.,
How Convenient without context
Chazon Ish put his hand over his face when BenGurion came to converse with him because he said ‘Assur L’histakel b’nei Rasha’
So How does that fit?
There is a big difference those leading the kulturkampf ,leading movements, pushing agendas as opposed to the avg. Joe and Jane on the street
I did a quick google about the meeting between Ben Gurion and the Chazon Ish. Only one other person was in the room with them, Yitzchak Navon.
So its very possible the fact that the Chazon ish put his hand over his head is false
I’m not sure that google is a very reliable source for this..
In any case, even if that is true, chances are that the Chazon Ish told people about it. Ben Gurion may have as well. So could have Yitzchak Navon.
Although the Chazon Ish is the most likely and most reliable possibility.
It wasnt google, it was from a Newstory.
If you are going to make a statement about the Chazon ish, You should make sure its the truth.
Its like so many other stories about Gedolim, Just because someone said it or heard it, doesnt mean it actually happend
How about a source where the Chazon Ish refused to look at Ben Gurion?
The news source quoted, said they had a very amicable meeting. You dont have to like the source quoted, but it is a source and they have no reason to lie for this story, In fact they would likely lie against the Chazon ish , if anything
“Its like so many other stories about Gedolim, Just because someone said it or heard it, doesnt mean it actually happend”
100%. That is exactly my point. The fact that the newstory said it that way doesn’t mean it’s accurate.
We have to find out what IITFT’s source is so we can determine which source is more likely to be accurate. But I suspect that IITFT’s source is more reliable.
IITFT – what is your source?
“The news source quoted, said they had a very amicable meeting. You dont have to like the source quoted, but it is a source and they have no reason to lie for this story, In fact they would likely lie against the Chazon ish , if anything”
That sounds like it could possibly be a lie against the Chazon Ish, especially if his followers claim that he refused to look at Ben Gurion.
I don’t know what happened – I’m just pointing out that the newsstory isnt a reliable source, & its reasonable to assume that it may be true he didn’t look at him, since he did consider him a rasha & that is the halacha.
Obviously not all news stories are accurate, However this one was talking about when Ben Gurion met the Chazon Ish about drafing women into the IDF.
I really doubt the Chazon Ish when meeting Ben Gurion to discuss drafing women, Would refuse to look at him and call him a Rasha. That is not a way to convince someone of anyting
The source I believe, although I could be wrong on this was Shlomo Lorentz, the member of Knesset who had arranged the details of the historic meeting.
Furthermore,
I was personally told by a gentle, old widower who had learned in Novardok, that he had asked the Chazon Ish whether it is proper/appropriate to say yemach sh’mo on Herzl.The Chazon Ish told him yes, albeit inadvisable in most public settings
Do you doubt the gentle Chofetz Chaim stated that Amalek also included the bolsheviksas per the kovetz ma’amarim?First and foremost Leon Trotsky?
The same Leon Trotsky who upon being expelled from the Soviet Union was beseeched by the socialist labour movement of Palestine (including the younger Ben Gurion)to come and lead them.
(He regarded their petition with derision)
IN a city in the Midwest , R’ Shmuel Berenbaum was invited to stay at the home of certain professional . There was a portrait of Theodor Herzl hanging on the wall. He requested that it be removed prior to his stay.
These men of great stature were positive/tolerant,and far from being regarded as firebrands .
R’ Shmuel Berenbaum was buried in his plot in the largely Mizrach’ish Sanhedria cemetery
However they were of iron unyielding convictions towards any who they felt led the public astray!
Time, what context? to what are you referring? So far as not looking at someone, usually that is reserved for internecine conflicts, which are the worst kind. For example, when Rav Arye Levine went to visit Amram Bloi in jail the latter turned away and declared that it was prohibited to look in the face of a “rasha” (because Rav Arye was close to Zionists and a talmid chaver of Rav Kook). One of Rav Kapach’s sons said that when he walked into a shul the gabbai recognized him and announced that he could not be counted for a minyan as he is a Darda’i (a group founded by Rav Kapach’s grandfather that strictly adheres to Rambam’s rulings and does not hold by the Zohar and Kabbala).
I think we can all agree that Leon Trotsky, Theordore Hertzl and David Ben Gurion were not the same people. They also had different idiologies, that they were all secular doesnt mean they were the same.
Herzl BTW angered alot of people when Palestine was unavailble and Uganda was suggested as a jewish home instead.
Early Zionism, Bolshivism and Bundism are also not the same ideologies. Bolshevism and Bundism were anti-zionist and said jews should get rights in their own countries.
So whatever the Chofetz Chaim said about Trotsky is irrelevant to the Chazon Ish and Ben Gurion and if the Chazon Ish said it was OK to say Ymach Shmo about Herzel, doesnt mean he said the same thing about Ben Gurion.
“I did a quick google about the meeting between Ben Gurion and the Chazon Ish. Only one other person was in the room with them, Yitzchak Navon.”
That is not true, and it obvious to anyone who bothers to read the articles you reference. (Unless you are referring to a recent article in Haaretz, which any intelligent individual knows to dismiss as made up bunk)
All the articles say that at the time these articles were written (in 2011-2012) Navon was the only attendee STILL ALIVE, it is clear that there were additional attendees. The supposition that Novon was the only other attendee makes no sense.
Regarding the Chafetz Chaim and Trotsky, there is a story about a melamed in Russia who threw out a kid because his parents couldn’t pay the tuition. After the revolution he managed to sneak across the border into Poland. He went to see the CC but he refused to see him. When he asked the shamash why he said “Because of what you did to the Bronstein boy”. However, there is another story that the CC put a pulsa d’nura on Trotsky. Interestingly, Trotsky’s great-grandson, David Axelrod, is frum, a Kahanist and lives in a settlement.
You can dismiss any source you want, However a source in print is likely a better source than hearsay, which is all he had
ZD,
The story with the Chazon Ish not looking at Ben-Gurion (taking off his glasses) is printed in a number of places.
Even your so called “printed source” which is just something on the internet by a completely unreliable source is conflicted by other reports on the internet.
I think what you really mean to say is that you would trust a secular, even anti religious source, apparently no matter how often that source has be shown to print gross inaccuracies and blatant lies, over Orthodox sources.
That is your prerogative. As it is our prerogative to decide how to interpret your reliance on those sources.
Please tell us which printed sources, If they are in a printed source. You should have no problem sourcing it
ZD,
You are a funny asking for sources. You have never provided sources for any of the statements you have asserted are in the Gemara or in Halacha. Never.
Rutledge Jewish Studies Series, Rabbis of Our Times.
Pe’er Hador.
Bmichtzasom
“Trotsky’s great-grandson, David Axelrod, is frum, a Kahanist and lives in a settlement.”
And another great grandson who leads a kollel at the edge of Bnei Brak
And a great granddaughter who is a very secular doctor in NY
“Herzl BTW angered alot of people when Palestine was unavailble and Uganda was suggested as a jewish home instead”
The british were building the Uganda Railway through there.It was actually modern day Kenya .
(Just a happenstance,some of the worst man-eating lions the Tsavo Lions inhabit the region)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.