Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ToL CTLAWYER and his comments on Ronnie and wife #1— Interesting comparison, both Reagan and Trump cheated on their wives while they were Democrats, and become proper husbands when they became Republicans! Hmm, maybe that’s why the Republicans are a minority party (writing off the “cheating” vote)????
The person writing the headlines seems to be at fault. The articles are much better thought out. For example, someone today referred to the “popular vote” in the Israeli election, unaware that in Israel there is only a “popular vote” (unlike the US which has an electoral college). The really bad articles are ones written by the AP (Associated Press, a news service aiming at the leading left-wing newspapers).
Where did all the liberals go? Most of they stayed in place for the last fifty years, and discovered that positions
the were liberal during the mid-20th century (free trade, support for a color blind society, support for freedom abroad) are now conservative positions. Many if not most of the leading Republicans started off as Democrats, including Trump.And perhaps this discussion hasn’t addressed the question, even assuming the product in question is by and for “gays”, since when does a Jew being “gay” in any way exempt them from keeping kosher (or Shabbos, or any mitsva). Are you going to argue that ding one aveirah is a heter to do more aveirahs????
What is someone wanted to come out “Hitler ice cream”, with a swastika on the box (meaning they couldn’t legally sell it in Germany, but America has no such law) BUT they also wanted a hecksher (to prove that no animal fats were included, as is sometimes done, and to recall that Hitler was a vegetarian)?
While an ice cream made from “gay” people would not necessarily violate the meat-milk rule, it would definitely be non-kosher, and might also violate “ever min ha-hai” (dependeing on whether the person was schedchted before be added to the ice cream). There is also a risk of various diseases. Note that halacha prohibits canibalism in all cases. I suspect the taste would be an abominable.
Seriously, kosher food companies should avoid politics. The fact the people on the “blue side of the spectrum will pay for a hecksher is a good thing. Indeed, many of the non-Jewish firms who produce kosher foods have left-wing views. If kosher certification were limited only to companies that market exclusively to frum Jews , the choice of products would be much less, and the price much higher (as is the case with companies that in fact limit sales to the frum community).
In answer to “Rebbetzin Goldenpick…”:
1. Everyone knows that many baalei tseuvah aren’t Jewish (or more likely, aren’t sure they are Jewish). The line between “Baal Tseuvah” and potential Ger Tzedek will be increasingly fuzzy. The eventual solution will end up being to ask any (and all) Baalei Tseuvah to “convert” to resolve the safek. This is “old news” since among the non-orthodox Jews in the English-speaking countries who had been in their current homes since the mid-19th cenury, the process of assimimlation is already over 200 years old and these problems have been arising for some time. It was an issue among the pre-war (pre-quotas) East European immigrants by the late 20th century, and should now be an issue among post-World War II arrivals. Like it or not, most Jews have been non-frum since the 18th century, and non-frum Jews frequently marry goyim.
2. The majority opinion is that a non-Jewish wedding ceremony (presided over by a judge or a minister), or a common law marriage (whether or not recognized by the government), or a “Reform” wedding, when it is obvious the parties have no intention of being married according to Jewish law, does NOT create a Jewish marriage and therefore subsequent children that the woman has by some other man ARE NOT MAMZERIM. If you hold that two non-religious Jews “living together” constitutes a valid halachic marriage, then at this point in time most non-religious Jews are probably at least safek mamzerim, however it appears that most poskim do not hold this way but rather will invalidate a marriage based on such evidence as treff food at the wedding or the bride not going to mikva or hillus Shabbos (all indicative of lack of intent by the parties to be married “K’daas Moshe ve-Yisrael”).
3. Increasingly most non-Jews we encounter will have some Jewish ancestry. This reduces the chance of a Hitler-like persecution based on ancestry. It also raises a real shailoh about use of a Shabbos-goy or selling matza to a goy on Pesach.
If someone knows the ancestors back to a time when they were frum, yichus isn’t a problem. But for Jews arrived before the Civil War, meaning we are talking about 8-12 generations, it is a serious problem. Intermarriage was very high especially along the “frontier” (Chicago, Denver, Texas, etc.)
The guideline I heard is that Matanos l’Evyonim should be greater than the amount spent on the Seudah and Shlach Manos.
I don’t think that people collecting door to door has a halachic basis, and it certainly isn’t part of the mitsvos of the day.
Increasingly a large percentage of non-frum people with Jewish names are goyim, and many persons with non-Jewish names are Jews. In America, most Jews have not had a frum ancestor for over a century, and unless they are “into” genealogy they have no way to determine if they are actually Jews. Intermarriage has been a major factor in western countries since the early 19th century. This means a movement doing “kiruv” has to understand that someone with a Jewish surname who claims Jewish ancestry probably is goy, and a someone with a non-Jewish name who says they have Jewish ancestors quite possibly is Jewish. The only exception are people whose families went “off the derekh” recently, meaning their halachic status is easy to determine. — This is also an interesting problem if you want to use a Shabbos Goy — On the bright side, if you hold than a non-frum marriage ceremony among Jews creates a valid marriage ( a problem since virtually no non-frum Jews bother with a “get”), meaning children born outside the initial marriage are mamzerim, the fact the non-frum Jews are increasingly goyim, means they probably should be seen as being “safek goy, safek mamzerim” (cf. Ethiopian Jews) which resolves the problem. One should also note that conversion of a person who becomes frum only to realize they aren’t Jewish is NOT a major problem (they already are Shomer Mitsvos) and avoids having to worry about the intimate behavior of long dead ancestors,.
Isn’t the question you are really discussing, “Halachically okay to be Democrat in the21st century?”
Note that “D” is capitalized refering to the “party” not the idea (which increasingly conflict), and is limited by time, and implicitly by place to contemporary United States.
Whether the Democratic party is “liberal” is a different issue. I suspect many of the liberals of the 19th and early 20th century would suggest that are clsoer to socialists and fascists than to liberals.
Define “liberal”. Depending on place and time the term varies. In some countries, the “liberals” are actually the “conservatives”. Whether “liberal” or “conservative” has little to do with abortion (and related policies such as infanticide, population control, etc.).
Whether it is acceptable for a Jew to support a movement the favors abortion other than when necessary to save the mother’s life, e.g. as a means of population control, or for the convenience of the mother, or to prevent inferiors from reproducing, etc., is a different question that support of overall economic and political policies. Whether you support (or oppose) free trade, or capitalism or democracy, has limited correlation to whether you favor killing babies that someone (not necessarily the mother) doesn’t want.
Whether the Democrats in the 21st century are “liberals” is problematic. Certainly 19th century “liberals” in the Anglo-phonic world would be horrified at many of the policies embraced by today’s Democrats.
The city was founded too recently. The previous inhabitants had some small villages, but nothing big (in part since they thought it unwise to build large communities next to a coast that frequently gets hit by hurricanes).
It was very clear in the 1930s that Europe (at least Eastern and Central Europe) were good places for Jews to leave, but the United States, British Empire and French Empire were largely closed to Jewish immigrants, as were most other countries. Some individuals with special connections (relatives, money, job skills) could sometimes get permission to immigrate, but for most Yidden that was not an option. No one was telling people not to flee. Many gedolim who could have fled said clearly that they wer obligated to remain with the communities they led.
Not really news. You do remember Al Sharpton organizing a pogrom in Brooklyn 25 years ago. This movement of the American left towards socialism and anti-Semitism has been going on for some time.
Actually America sounds nothing like prewar Germany. There are no significant anti-democratic (small “d”) movements, and both political extremes are full of Jews (unlike Germany where there were multiple movements on both side of the political spectrum opposed to democracy, and Jews were clustered on the left and center). In addition America has the world’s strongest economy and this is unlikely to change. And America is the leading superpower. And while there is a (Jewish-led) movement against all forms of religion, we have many non-Jews who can be counted on to oppose them.
It might be worthwhile to consider moving to a goy-free planet, but that it isn’t likely for several centuries at the earliest.
Back in the 20th century (lets say 80 years ago), pro-Nazi (not “neo-Nazi”, real honest to goodness pro-Hitler “National Socialists”) political groups were reputable, popular and drew broad support. Many American leaders openly supported anti-Semitism. The major universities had restrictive quotas on Jews (today the only quotas are on Asians, plus affirmative action quotas for Blacks that are too small to affect us, since the “white” quota is very liberal). Jews, even secular assimilated Jews, had serious concerns about their safety and security. Orthodox Jews were generally excluded from employment outside the Jewish community, since the standard work week was six days a week, and no one heard of flexible work schedules. And had a few battles gone the other way (e.g Britain surrenders under terms similar to the Germans) there would have been a serious threat of Nazis winning the war.
Today: a Jew can walk around in public anywhere in the country without fear of being attacked because they are a Jew. We can go to any university and enter almost any profession. Shomer Shabbos Jews have held high public office. Open expressions of anti-Semitism are roundly denounced by all political parties, even the Democrats who have a small anti-Semitic wing.
We have forgotten what it is like to be a marginal community, right-less, living on suffrance – Baruch ha-Shem.
Be happy these are boring times. Read some history books if you want to learn what it is like to live in an era that is not boring. And remember the saying that “May you live in interesting times” is a curse, not a bracha.
Fedoras are coming back in style for goyim, and the current “in style” is the small brim.
How goyim wearing hats will impact on the frum community is an interesting question. Hats has been out of style among goyim (at least among white goyim) since th early 1960.
I am old enough to remember back when fedoras were “in” among the goyim (in the 1950’s) and they always struck me as an un-dress hat, which is why I prefer a homburg (stiffer, small to moderate brim, brim is fixed and does not get squeezed down, no pinch in the crown)
Among goyim that is the last time anyone sees them for a week or more as they go off to some place else for a “honeymoon”. Halacha doesn’t allow for a “honeymoon”, so their friends see them frequently the next week at “Sheva Brachos”. The limosine is tied to their custom of the couple departing the community, and has no relevance in our’s. It’s arguably in the class of “two ring ceremonies” or raunchy “bachelor parties”, that is not merely alien to our traditions, but contrary to halacha.
I have a museum-quality phone that cost nothing (free minutes were worth more than the phone), that fits in my pocket easily, texts and does voice though the quality is poor (which might be the fault of my ears, which are long past warranty). The phone is identical to a model on display in the Smithsonian (apparently it was used to introduce online banking in East Africa back in the 20th century, revolutionizing their economy),so at the very least its as antiquated as I am. It works fine.
Ler’s see, World War II started in 1931 (Pacific Theatre) and 1939 (European Theatre), though you can aruge it was one World War that started in 1914, and after a “between rounds” break fnished in 1945 (leaving assorted unfinished business such as Korea and the Middle East to fight about). The current war the US is in started in 2001, and shows no sign of ending, and has grown to include the entire Middle East and much of Africa.
So maybe if you are good at calculus (which deals with infinities and the like), you could tell us when there will be global peace?
Most major Jewish books have been translated into English, though the quality of translations is poor, even if the translators didn’t deliberately leave things out on the theory that non-Hebrew readers are too simple to understand certain concepts, and assuming the translator had a solid command of both language (otherwise one gets a translation into Yeshivish or Brooklynese, not standard English). A major problem is that Hebrew had totally different syntax than English, and only two tenses (what we call the “present” in modern/zionist Hebrew is a gerund being used as a verb). As an example, if you say in Hebrew that Ha-Shem created the world, you are saying he not only did it at some point in the past, but he is still doing so. That has a profound difference in meaning, and can’t be translated. While translations are helplful tools, if you think you are getting “the whole story” you are deceiving yourself.
note to “Anonymous Jew” — The “five towns” are one of the richest Jewish community in the world. For most Jewish communities in America, the people who can’t pay are living off food stamps, WIC and section eight.
Our schools have never been solvent and they never will be. Teachers in our community will always be underpaid. The minhag going back millenia is to be inclusive meaning poor kids get an education. We don’t have special schools for the rich kids, unlike the goyim and arguably, the modern Orthodox as well. Given that most frum Jews will be poor relative to the goyim (and to the modern Orthodox), and that we choose not to exclude people from our institutions due to poverty, we will always been in a perpetual “chapter 11” (American reorganization under the bankruptcy law). It’s inevitable. That we survive is a נס.
Response to “Yeshivos are no different from any other business or mosdos”
Yeshivos are radically different. If Torah education were a for profit business it would have gone bankrupty millenia ago. The connection of Jews to Torah is not similar to consuming goods, but is more like eating, breathing and reproducing – things you do because it is in your nature regardless of economic theory. Based on the incredible demand for learnign Torah, it should by a hyper-expensive luxury limited to the very rich, yet it is the broad-cased “glue” that holds the Jewish people together regardless of income level. You may disregard Adam Smith or Lord Keynes or Milton Freedman or Alan Greenspan – the real world economics to not apply to learning Torah.
Because they lack money since tuition is kept low compared to private schools where tuition (actually collected, after “scholarships” are figured in) is tpically around $30K per year, and they have a huge number of subjects involving almost twice as much time on instruction than in public schools. From the perspective of economics, out education system is not viable. Fortunately, we work from the perspective to Torah, not economics, and it seems to work out (we are here after several thousands years of ignoring the realities the social sciences scholars claims to preclude our existence),
It makes you are fashionable. One can argue there is a halacha basis to trying to blend it (be fashionable) with the local Bnei Torah, but that is hardly a halacha nor does it make you more frum.
Mrs. Plony: Jules Verne was associated with anti-semitic political movements in France. While it doesn’t figure into his books, can you fail to take that into account in reading his works?
Under the traditional American definitions (somewhat modified from the British), the “militia” consists of all free persons. In 1789, that excluded women and slaves. In 1775, in England, it additionally excluded members of religious and political minorities, including Jews (though in the American colonies, most of which were populated by dissidents and undesirables from Britain, they were less fussy).
If you believe the government is inherently benign and that we can always trust our security to state, there is no logical arguement to support private ownership of weapons. American Blacks certainly don’t trust the government, and while the current government under Donald Trump is one we can certainly trust, there is no guarantee what the future holds. We should remember that it took only a generation for German Jews to go to highly assimilated, well respected citizens of the Second Reich, to pariahs and outcasts under the Third Reich – and disarming Jews was among Hitler’s first anti-Semitic laws.
In considering Tolkien’s works, consider the following:
1) No hidden “Christian” messages (unlike many of the author’s discussed by others above, e.g. C.S. Lewis)
2) While it’s based on European folklore, all theological aspects are deleted, and it has become the pattern for a significant genre of secular fiction. If one rejects Tolkien, one pretty much has to reject a large amount of western literature. Whether one should reject literature is a different issue – one could argue against all fiction, but that would mean the issue of which fiction doesn’t arise at all.
3) Tolkien was very clearly anti-Nazi, well before the war, and at a time that the British establishment had yet to decide what it thought of Hitler (his correspondence with a would-be German publisher as whether he was “Aryan” make that very clear). For some authors, such as Jules Verne, even if the book has no “Jewish aspect”, one probably needs to remember that the author was involved in anti-Semitism movements of this time, and these movements eventually led to the Holocaust (or at least to decision of many in France to collaborate with the Nazis).
My Hiddush: The government should enact a law prohibiting criminals from owning guns and to make it illegal to use a gun in commission of a crime.
1. Should the question be “is entertainment okay?”. Perhaps is having “fun” okay? Are you arguing the relative merits of watching a baseball game versus learning gemara, or perhaps as opposed to going to a concert, or perhaps compared to reading a book (as opposed to learning a sefer).
2. Certain sports have specific halachic issues (swiming and “beach volleyball” come to mind very easily). While the ancient Roman “sports” were clearly avoadah zarah (yes, gladiators were a human sacrifice – not an athletic contest), one might find certain aspects of modern sports questionable as well (boxing, dog fighting, etc.).
3. If a sport is permissable to participate in, is it also permissable to watch?
Up until the invention of printing, books were expensive (e.g. a humash would cost as much as a SEFER TOTAH does today), and “shokling” facilitates book sharing since several peole can use a book.
Up until the invention of printing, books were expensive (e.g. a humash would cost as much as a sefer does today), and it facilitates book sharing.
1. Most illegal immigrants are coming from places with functioning health system, and that lack idiots who don’t believe in vaccines.
2. The health problems are largely related to conditions immediately before arriving at the US border and are easily treatable.
1. Britain is hardly going to give up its unique monarchy and constitution. A more like future change would be Britain (or pehaps just England, if Scotland and Northern Ireland want to stay European) joining NAFTA (USMC trade group).
2. Politically, the British are significantly to the left of the Americans, at least on economic and social matters. They also have far fewer civil rights. Also note that if the whole the UK joined the USA, they would get 1 in 6 House seats and radically tip the country to the left. Their Tories are for the most part similar to Democrats, with their Labor party significantly to the left for the USA Democrats.
Matters of child custody are never final until the child is an adult. This would be true even if the parents agreed the Beis Din decision was “final” and the local government agreed to it. It’s the nature of parent-child relationships to be dynamic and since facts are constantly changing decisions are continuously changeable.
The rich pay most of the taxes. When their incomes fall, the government revenue takes a hit. Remember that taxation is basically a form of theft, and as any smart thief will tell you, it makes a lot more sense to rob from the rich than from the poor.
Politically, the problem is that the Democrats consider anyone not living “hand to mouth” to be rich, whereas the Republicans perceive “rich” as someone who really doesn’t have to worry about money. So to the Democrats, most of the middle class is “rich” and fit for heavy taxation.
The problem goes back to the invention of electric lights. Before them almost everyone went to sleep when it got dark out. Worldwide, it appears the sleep deprivation is a public health problem.
Healthy yes. The print is quite large and won’t strain his eyes.
Intellectually, using a translation will probably prevent him from developing the ability to read the original. While artscroll is a good source for looking up a word in context, it is a very dubious translation. Many words are ambiguous and artscroll claims there is only one meaning. Out of necessity, it murders the grammar (which is inevitable in translating between a Semitic and an Aryan language). Many gemara terms are in “legalese” and artscroll is inconsistent in translating them into “street” English rather than into “legal” English.
The all-Hebrew artscroll gemaras (or the Steinsaltz all Hebrew) are excellent provided one is already able to read modern (Israeli, zionist) Hebrew, Posing gemara language into modern Hebrew poses few of the problems of translating into English.
If you asked the question, it means your school seriously skipped the History curriculum.
“The Little I Know” — Think of the Plaintiff’s lawyer. He might end up spending tens of thousands of dollars out of his own pocket to hire expert witnesses, and litigates, and he ends up a judgement against a yeshiva that turns out to have no endowments, no assets, rents its building, and has more debts than assets. The best he can hope for is to be at the head on the queue when the yeshiva files Chapter 7 (and probably the faculty would get their back pay before the lawyer). The landlord then rents to a new yeshiva (which perhaps bought the trademark to the old yeshiva’s name, and hired the same teachers).
With Catholics or Episcopalians (Anglicans), there is a large corporate body with endownments and oodles of real estate (church buildings) to seize when executing a judgement,but with Yidden the lawyer is confronted with yeshivos that are perpetually one step away from filing for bankruptcy.
Have pity for the lawyer. A third of nothing, is nothing, which is what he’ll get suing Jewish schools.
zahavasdad: But the important thing to note in this case, is that the Rosh Yeshiva is probably judgement proof, as is the yeshiva. The statute is about allowing civil cases, and is very important for the lawyers who earn their parnassah from the “cut” they get, but in these cases, the only lawyer getting paid will be the bankruptcy lawyer, and they work relatively cheap. The statute in question was designed to improve the profitabililty of the “tort bar” (who in return generously contribute to the Democrats in the legislature), but that is of little interest to us since suing frum Jews is not a way to get rich.
There will be many disappointed lawyers (they typically get a third of any judgements, and often more). The Catholic Church is a single legal entity, so that the assets of the whole can be used to pay for damages committed by any part. Their clergy are employees of the Church, meaning the Church as a whole is liable for misconduct by indviduals, even if they had no control over them, Also the Catholic Church has large endowments and large amounts of tangible assets. In legalese, they have “deep pockets”. This attracts lawyers looking to make money.
Jews, along with most Protestant and Muslim organizations, are highly decentralized. Even if one corporation (e.g. one school, one shul, one yeshiva, etc.) incurs massive debts, the judgement creditor can only look to that entity. While a given organization might be forced to file for bankruptcy, it will generate minimal payouts for the lawyers. And frum organizations tend to live “hand to mouth”, so there are no large endownents to attach. For all purposes, our community is “judgement-proof”.
One should remember that the first thing a lawyer looks into when considering a lawsuit is not “justice” or “facts” but “will I get paid”, and suing Jewish schools is not potentially lucrative enough to attract tort lawyers. Frei Jews may spend their own money to sue as a form of harassment, but that is hardly an existential threat.
In the “good old days” most Jews lived in villages (with no more people that the typical shul, and often far fewer), and the nearest village was often hours away. Consider if one had to find a shidduch from a single shtiebel in Brooklyn, and the next shtiebel over was in New Jersey – and cities such as Baltimore and Boston were a week away. The role of the shaddchan was very different back then, and people were probably a lot less fussier. Oh,did I mention than most women died from complications of child birth, and most men (and childless women) rarely survived to middle age, and few children lived long enough to become parents.
What about American, British and French cars.? It isn’t like there government’s were blameless.
Should we boycott goods from the European Union on the theory that it is a successor to Rome?
Mind you, virtually no one now owning stock in, or employed by, any of those corporations was a Nazi.
Did you ever compare notes with African Americans who blame all whites for things that happened in North America in the 17th through mid-19th centuries? You would find you have a lot in common.
All civil servants get paid in the end, including those who were on “vacation” the whole time. If one was planning to do overtime (e.g. to build up hours for upcoming yuntufs) you do lose that. Contractors in most cases don’t get paid.
This is a ridiculous, but largely harmless way, for the Democrats and Republicans to prove their ideological purity. Holding your breath until you turn blue is childish. Giving your employees a paid vacation is an insane from of protest.
The only beneficiaries are the non-essential employees, who get paid without having to come to work. It is a mild inconvenience to miss some paychecks, but they get the money in the end, and they end up having received large amounts of time off without having to use up leave.
The leaders of both parties (Trump and Schumer/Pelosi) benefit by showing their “base” they stood up for their principles, but they alienate the rest of the country which isn’t amused by the idea of giving a chunk of the tolerably well paid service a “no show” job at public expense.