- This topic has 119 replies, 25 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
A person is required to follow 613 mitzvos. If someone is not following lekatchila 1 of the 613 mitzvos (knowing that it’s a mitzva) then that person is not frum.
What counts as “folowing” the mitzvos?
If someone eats non-glatt meat (e.g. Hebrew National) is he following the mitzvah of kashrus?
If a woman doesn’t wear stockings is she no longer following the mitzvah of tznius (and therefore no longer frum)?
How about if a person is a Zionist? Some have labeled that as “Avoda Zara” even on these very boards. Is a Zionist “frum?”
How about someone who doesn’t follow a d’rabannan? Are they frum?
In short, saying “someone who follows the 613 mitzvos” leaves a LOT of “wiggle room” in the definition of frum.
The Wolf
Wolf, have I ever told you how much I enjoy your posts? (your blog too, but you are way too quiet on that front)
SJSinNYC: What I mean by all you need is the will to, is that Hashem credits you for every mitzvah you willed to do, even if you are incapable of doing it.
Thank you for the kind words SJS.
The Wolf
My point was that frum means following taryag mitzvos and not only shabbos kashrus… I’ll let everyone decide each and every mitzva… BTW one of the 613 mitzvos is to follow d’rabannan
BTW one of the 613 mitzvos is to follow d’rabannan
Excellent… so all those people who learn during Chazaras HaShatz instead of following along, they’re not frum, right? They’re *purposely* ignoring a d’rabbanan. 🙂
The Wolf
Who said they’re right? Perhaps they are ignorant of the halacha, and are not knowingly sinful. You should educate them.
Who said they’re right?
They’re not right.
Perhaps they are ignorant of the halacha, and are not knowingly sinful. You should educate them.
If not keeping a mitzvah out of ignorance is enough to keep one in the “frum” community, then there are a lot more “frum” Jews than you think. Heck, a fair portion of the unaffiliated Jews worldwide could be considered “frum.”
The Wolf
TMB, I’m not sure that’s the halachic viewpoint. You don’t get credit for mitzvos you can’t do. All else being equal, you save a man over a woman because he can do more mitzvos.
WolfishMusings: Tinok Shenishba.
SJSinNYC: You most certainly do get credit for Mitzvos you wish to fulfill but are unable to due to circumstances beyond your control. A Yisroel can get the Mitzvos that only a Kohen can fulfill.
Tinok Shenishba.
So what?
You implied that not keeping a mitzvah out of ignorance does not get one kicked out of being frum. So, if that’s the case, there are plenty of unaffiliated Jews who do not keep Shabbos, kashrus or anything else out of ignorance. By your definition, they should be considered frum.
The Wolf
Either you misunderstood me or I wasn’t clear. I didn’t intend to imply a Mechallel Shabbos is considered Frum, just that he may be a Tinok Shenishba.
IOW, you can’t have it both ways.
You can’t say that those who are purposely ignoring the mitzvah of following Chazaras HaShatz are frum because they’re doing it out of ignorance and then turn around and say that other people who fail to keep mitzvos out of ignorance are not frum.
The Wolf
WolfishMusings: Instead of being so philosophical, start educating your mistaken brethren. 🙂
WolfishMusings: Instead of being so philosophical, start educating your mistaken brethren. 🙂
Which translates into “I don’t have an answer so I’m going to ignore your question.”
The Wolf
TMB, so that only works for men? Otherwise, why would you be required to save a man over a woman?
The Me’iri in Chullin differentiates between halachos that unfortunately many aren’t careful about (in his words, gevinas akum etc.) and regular halachos. This is in regard to whether someone is considered a kosher Jew with regard to shechitah. I would postulate that a similar idea applies here; yes, sadly many people talk during davening and many people speak lashon hara (was that just lh?), but while that is a bad thing one isn’t considered ‘not frum’ until they move ‘beyond the pale.’ That I think is the basis for the shabbos, kashrus, and taharas hamishpacha standard.
Someone like a Baal Teshuvah who has started doloing mitzvohs and
in most ways is trying to follow Torah and do mitzvohs (not turning on lights on Shabbos, not eating in places that obviously are not kosher studying and learning all they can especially about practical halacha, etc…) but who still might not be doing something because they do not know better,
or because they can’t (like a woman who just decided to follow Torah but has no clothes that are properly tznius, and no money to go out and buy any)
In my opinion, I would still consider them frum (or at least sincerly trying to be), even if they are not yet doing everything so properly.
On the other hand; Someone who knows better and still does things wrong (like one person I knew who was considered to have been the best learner and most knowledgeable about Torah of anyone his age in his neighborhood, but he was also the biggest baal Loshon Hara
I had ever met) in my opinion, is not someone I would call ‘frum’.
WolfishMusings: You are expert at misunderstanding other posters.
SJSinNYC: That works for both genders. I don’t have the answer to your question, but perhaps another poster here does.
Plain and simple: if there’s a kiddish club, then it’s orthodox. extras like herring and chulent (mit kishka) makes it ultraorthodox.
WolfishMusings: You are expert at misunderstanding other posters.
If so, then please enlighten me as to how your response answers my question.
The Wolf
if there’s a kiddish club, then it’s orthodox. extras like herring and chulent (mit kishka) makes it ultraorthodox.
By that definition, the shul I daven in is Catholic. 🙂
The Wolf
WolfishMusings: The post in question wasn’t intended to “answer” your philosophical statement (it wasn’t even in the form of a question.)
I always wondered why taharas hamishpacha is included. That’s not really something you can verify. You can sort of verify shabbos and kashrus.
of course, schmaltz herring is more erlich than in cream sauce (except on shavuos). pickled salmon is also nice.
wolfishMusings: The post in question wasn’t intended to “answer” your philosophical question.
1. My question wasn’t “philisophical” — it was asking you to clarify and explain your position.
2. You’re saying that you don’t intend to answer my question, and yet, when I say that you’re ignoring it I’m mistaken?
The Wolf
(edited to fix “was” to “wasn’t.”)
SJSinNYC: Hashem can verify. That’s all that counts.
TMB, that applies to all mitzvos. Hashem knows intention, level etc. If we are talking about why we consider it part of “the big three” that answer isn’t really an answer.
WolfishMusings: Now edit again to include my edit.
SJS: is this about determining whether a shul is orthodox or about judging others? BH it is enough work to try to improve my own inner and outer Yid that I dont have time to judge others.
SJS:
Adulterous affairs are verifiable. Taharas mishpacha doesn’t mean harchakos etc., it means the basics every 10 year old kid understands.
SJSinNYC and Trying my best –
If I understand SJS’s question correctly, it is if everyone can get schar for everything, why does saving a man come first?
I think the answer is as follows. Yes, everyone can get schar for everything. But the purpose of mitzvos is not only for the reward, it is also to create a certain atmosphere in the world, and that won’t happen unless people actually do the mitzvos. Saving specific lives isn’t about judging who ‘deserves’ to be saved, rather it’s about prioritizing who the world at large needs more. One who actually does the mitzvos is necessary for the betterment of the world more than one who only gets schar for them.
yitayningwut: I like that answer. And to add to it, you need the person who *can* fulfill the Mitzvah in order for those who cannot to get the schar. (As I seem to recall the concept.)
Art, you can’t always verify that.
Eh, that’s a weak reason IMO. You need women to fulfill the mitzvah of peru urevu. If there are ten men and one woman left in the world, the woman can only have one child (for the most part) at a time. One man and ten women could mean ten children born at a time.
SJSinNYC: I believe it has to do with the quantity of available Mitzvos to each.
Trying my best-
Thanx. I would note that do I think one could get schar even if there’s no one who can do the actual mitzva, as the gemara says if one studies the parsha of korbanos he gets schar as if he brought them, and it was talking at a time when it was impossible to bring korbanos. (And if I recall correctly, the Ramban explains that gemara this way in his introduction to Vayikra.)
WolfishMusings: The post in question wasn’t intended to “answer” your philosophical statement (it wasn’t even in the form of a question.)
OK, let’s try this again.
Back on page 1, you agreed with “says who” when (s)he said that the definition of frum is keeping the 613 mitzvos. Purposely not keeping one of them causes a person to cease being frum.
You also indicated that keeping the mitzvos d’rabbanan is included in the 613 mitzvos.
I then responded pointing out that people who learn during Chazaras HaShatz are *purposely* ignoring a d’rabbanan. As such they should no longer be considered frum by your definition.
Your response was that perhaps they are doing it out of ignorance and hence should still be considered frum.
My rejoinder to that is that if failing to keep a mitzvah (or mitzvos) out of ignorance is enough to keep one in the “frum” community, then there are millions of Jews worldwide who should be considered frum, according to your definition, since their failure to keep the mitzvos is out of ignorance.
Obviously (or perhaps not — correct me on this if I’m wrong) you wouldn’t consider them frum.
If that’s the case, why do people who purposely learn during Chazaras HaShatz get a “pass” because it’s out of ignorance, but millions of unaffiliated Jews do not when their ignorance is probably much greater?
The Wolf
I realize its a quantity thing. But women are patur from time bound mitzvos because they are raising children. So halacha exempts them and then saves them last?
Eh, its ok. I’ve never been given a good answer to this from any rabbonim I’ve asked, so I don’t expect to get a great one from random people in the CR.
SJSinNYC-
That’s a faulty argument. When that’s the case, you’ll have a good question. But in any other scenario, the fact remains that a man will have the capacity to do more for the world at large than a woman.
WolfishMusings: Like “says who” said, if someone b’shitto says I fully keep 612 Mitzvos with all chumros, but there is one Mitzvah I don’t agree with, he is a rasha and apikorus who has forfeited his chelek in Olam Haboah plain and simple.
If someone fails to keep Shabbos because he was never educated and doesn’t know Shabbos, or if someone doesn’t act as halacha requires during Chazaras HaShatz as a result of not being educated on what halacha requires during Chazaras HaShatz, they are both a tinok shenishba in each of those areas respectively.
As far as the label “frum”, it is just a label. Discard it, as it has no intrinsic value.
As far as the label “frum”, it is just a label. Discard it, as it has no intrinsic value.
Agreed. But that’s what the thread is about isn’t it? Deciding what is “frum” (or Orhtodox)? 🙂
The Wolf
I don’t think its faulty. Halacha doesn’t give women the capacity to do as many mitzvos and then says “save men first because they have more mitzvos.” That’s like saying to my son “I’m not going to feed you because you didn’t earn any money to contribute” after refusing to allow him to get an after school job.
Like I said, it’s not about deserving more. If you are in middle of a war and you can save the general or the great philosopher, you save the general, not because he’s a better person or deserves more, but because in the current situation you need him more. Men may not deserve anything more than women, and that doesn’t contradict a halacha that says save them first, because the halacha determined that a man is more necessary for the general survival of our culture/social standard than a women.
you can save the general or the great philosopher, you save the general
Perhaps not if he got you into the position where you and he need saving. 🙂
The Wolf
man is more necessary for the general survival of our culture/social standard than a women.
If I understand the halacha correctly, that’s not what its saying. Its saying that because men can do more mitzvos,you save them. Not because they are more necessary for survival, because you need more women than men for that.
[Now AZ should chime in that not in the current climate because there is a glut of older women so its EXTRA important to save a man for the age gap]
off topic, but cute 😉
SJS, That’s exactly my point, I understand the halacha differently, and I’ve stated my understanding of it.
I’m not talking about survival in the physical sense, but rather about the survival of our halacha, culture, social norms, etc.
Refer back to my first response to you on the thread.
Again, how many Chabad shuls in yehupitz have 10 Shomer Shabbos men? All you need is 10 males over the age of 13 to make a quorum.
- The topic ‘What defines an Orthodox shul?’ is closed to new replies.