Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It would have to be Jewish, since after the ceremony goyim don’t leave. They have no equivalent of our “heder yichud”.
Ability to instantly translate Aramaic and perfect retention to texts.
1. The secular Jews and the Palestinians would have an overwhelming majority opening up the possibility of fulfilling the zionist dream of a state where Jews could be free from the yoke of Torah (the עם חפשי they sing about in the zionist anthem).
2. Israel could “transfer” the Palestinians elsewhere, presumably the same way the goyim “transfered” the majority of European Jews in the mid-20th century – but that would alienate the countries that support Israel and probably lead to severe sanction or a UN-sponsored military action against Israel. Note that those who wanted to remove Jews from Europe ended up with the country leveled and their leaders swinging from gallows.
3. A single state including most of the Middle East (the plan the zionists and the Arabs agreed to 100 years ago, that was sabotaged by the Brits), with an autonomous Jewish entity would probably work. The key point is the Arabs have to feel secure that they are living in an Arabic Islamic state, even if it includes a Jewish province with its own military force. The secular Israelis would be nervous about Islamic law (similar to halacha on most social matters), and the religious nationalists see a separate state as a halachic requirement. Hareidim who don’t object to things such as banning abortion or gay rights, or giving up having an Israeli team at the Olympics or an Israeli girl at the MIss Universe contest, would support this arrangement – but Hareidim dropped out of politics after Jacob Israel de Haan was murdered and currently only worry about survival and bits of patronage.
Is it fiction or non-fiction?
We Yidden been surviving in Olam Ha-Zeh for a while. We know its the “world of lies” (Olah ha-Sheker). We rely on Torah and Mitsvos. What’s the hiddush?
For the seculars to lose control the following would have to happen. One is an end to the war since with the war going on the religious zionists will stay allied with the secular zionists and alienated from the hareidim. One possibility would be for the hareidim to become more involved politically and to propose a solution acceptable to hareidim and religious zionists as well as the Arabs, but not to secular zionists (e.g. Israel becomes an autonomous non-state in a larger Islamic state, Jews can live anywhere in Eretz Yisrael, Israel agrees that its laws will differ from Islamic law only when halacha differs from Islamic law, Arabic replaces English as the de facto second language). However as long as there is war going on, the alliance of the secular Jews with the religious zionists will continue.
However the entire Israeli economy, military and legal system are controlled by seculars. More importantly, the “kippah” crowd is almost as antagonistic to the hareidim, and the largest growth is among the hareidim. The important number is the relationship of “kippahs” to secular among the non-hareidi crowd. Also remember that in Israeli elections, goyim can vote at present the goyim support the hilonim.
So don’t hold your breath.
All products require checking labels. As a frum Jew, you are obvious used to the idea of needing to check labels. This does discriminate against those who don’t read English but you obviously can read English.
Socks are often made of cotton now (as well as wool and many manufactured fabrics). New socks, feel like, new socks.
Chareidim win.
Bnei Torah (meaning employed by the frum community, though in many cases the word “”Employed” needs to be taken with a grain of salt) win
The deplorables (working class, especially in “red” states) win
Rich Baal ha-battim lose
People with mansion and good incomes (especially two-income families, when both have real jobs), especially in “blue states” lose
Corporations win (but if they distribute the winnings to real humans, those humans will in many cases be losers, see above)
A lot depends on how one defines middle class. In many frum communities, especially in New York City, a large percentage of people rent rather than own. And one has to ask does “middle class” mean both parents are working full time for the goyim at real salaries, as opposed to the working for frum organizations for mediocre salaries (not to mention the possibility of the husband learning at least part time, and the wife being a homemaker). For those who don’t itemize, the doubling of the standard deduction more than makes up for the elimination of exemptions. For home owners with two-incomes (both spouses have advanced academic degress and jobs to match their academic backgrounds), the changes in the tax law may prove quite negative (they don’t benefit from the increase in standard deduction, they may be losing deductions for taxes and mortgages, and such families typically don’t have many children).
To anyone complaining about the new tax law: You should instead be thanking Ha-Shem that you are rich enough to be paying higher taxes under the law. The tax reform (for individuals, I’m not talking about the different question of how corporations are taxed) was designed to benefit the poor and middle classes – families with kids, the 2/3 of the population who don’t have enough to itemize (i.e. who don’t earn enough to be paying $24K in state and local taxes, and mortgage interest).
If one is able to comfortably read Hebrew, the Hebrew is always going to be preferable to English. Torah is in Hebrew (or Aramaic), and those languages do not translate well into English. It has to do with the very substantial differences between Indo-European (Aryan) language and Semitic languages, e.g., verb tenses, sentence structure, etc. While not agreeing with the classic phrases ” Traduttore, traditore” (translators=traitors), there are good reasons why our classic literatures have never been written in an Indo-European languages (of which English and Yiddish are, today, the most important).
Until their is actual “lab grown meat” in commercial production, anyone writing an halachic analysis is writing science fiction, not Torah (similar to: if I miss the time for saying Shma and then hop in a “Tardis” and go back a few hours and Shma on time, have I fulfilled the requirement of saying Shma b’Zman).
My prediction, is that Bnei Torah and Bnei Torah wannabees, will consider lab grown meat to be fleishig, and require a heckcher showing that the original cells were taken from a properly slaughtered kosher animal. If the “meat” is created by some sort of 3-D printer, with the material used being inorganic to begin with, it will be parve.
Note that Saturnalia is specifically mention in Mishna Avodah Zarah (as something we can’t get invovled in). No matter what you rename it, it’s still avodah zarah. And then there is the matter how one can be celebrating while Yerusalayim is yet to be rebuilt and restored (this argument only works on hareidim, zionists think otherwise).
Meat from fish is parve (a now rejected view was that chicken was parve).
If one manages to clone meat such that the “steak” was never part of a living animal, it might be considered parve (the question will become answerable in the near future when that technology moves to fruition).
Most Reform “rabbis” know as much about yiddishkeit as frum middle schoolers (i.e. a bit of humash, really can’t do gemara on their own). If they become baal tseuvah they have to do a lot of remedial work before they could learn in a regular yeshiva.
Many of the early ones were frum Jews who needed parnassah, but that was two centuries ago.
When was time created? When was space created? Is time always linear? Is the rate the time progresses constant or variable? Is there only one universe or multiple universes, and are they truely separate or entangled?
Am I discussing science fiction? Am I discussing modern physics? Am I discussing matters addressed in kaballah.
Someone is hung up on the idea of 5778 years, but if time is neither constant nor linear, the concept of a “year” become meaningless.
When you are discussing the age of the universe you are dealing with matters of kaballah, not appropriate for YWN.
But as for the “smartphone”, perhaps it is due to our generation being dumbed down to such an extent that they need mechanical devices to communicate, something previous generations could accomplish unaided.
Moore was stabbed in the back by the Republican “establishment” (aka “Wall Street Republicans” or “Country Club Republicans”). For the Republicans to win, they need to bring together both the “establishment”, the Conservatives wing, and Trump’s “deplorables” base (who like Trump, could switch between parties). If the different wings of the Republicans can’t work together, and insist on opposing the other wing even after losing a primary, we have a socialist government in little more than three years (3 years, 1 month, eight day) with socialized medicine no choice of doctors allowed, the state makes all decisions, persecution of anyone who doesn’t support the LGBT agenda, a national policy of freedom “from” religion, and a deliberately weakened national defense that will help our (meaning the frum community’s ) enemies. Moore is a very typical Christian conservative charged with nothing worse than having dated teenagers when in his 30s (which is respectable in many cultures, including his own), and his betrayal by the Republican establishment suggests the Republicans need to “get their act together” fast.
By validity, do you mean, for example, if they would be considered violating the Mitsvos Bnei Noach if they engage in adultery – OR – by validity, do you mean if one of them converts to Judaism do they need they need a divorce for the non-Jewish spouse before they can marry a Jew .
I believe the answer to the first example is “yes” but Jewish never would have to deal with adultery cases involving non-Jews, and to the second I believe the answer is a female convert does need need any form of divorce from the non-Jewish spouse to marry a Jew (according to halacha, though Dina Malchusa Dina becomes an issue in some cases).
Spiritual? Well, if you think Trump is some sort of High Muckety-muck, or perhaps Eliyahu in disguise????
The issue is whether the United States recognized the 1949 line as an armistice law (temporary) or a permanent border. Most of the world sees it as an armistice line, and arguably so do most Israelis (remember if the 1949 line is a permanent border, then all settlements in the West Bank are clearly illegal). As far as the Muslims are concerned, and if the Israelis want peace they are the only ones whose opinions matter, the last lawful permanent border between Islamic and non-Islamic worlds was in 1914.
Trump’s decision will appeal largely to his political base, and was based on domestic concerns affected by both the Senate election in Alabama and the debate over tax reform.
Joseph: And the Israelis want to argue that the UN partition resolution is void since the Arabs rejected it in 1948, and that what matters is the 1949 armistice. By recognizing Israeli ownership of western Jerusalem, the US is recognizing that the 1949 armistice, i.e. “the green line”, is unquestionably Israeli and not open to renegotiating. The Arabs are arguing that it is no such thing, and therefore the territory within the 1949 line (“the green line”) is still in dispute including western Jerusalem, Jaffa, Akko, Beersheva and large parts of the Galil and Negev – and indeed most Arabs regard the 1947 partition as illegal (as neither the British Empire nor the United Nations had a legal right to control Palestine), and the only border they’ll accept is the 1914 border between Islamic and non-Islamic powers (which leave Palestine/Israel as 100% within the Islamic sphere).
The conservative base has supported recognizing Israeli ownership of Jerusalem for some time. Remember that by not recognizing Israeli control of western part of Jerusalem, the Americans are saying that the 1949 armistice line does not convey Israeli ownerships, thereby encouraging the Palestinians to feel the US is supporting their demands for Jaffa, Akko, and all the other places that were Arab before 1947.
Of course Ashkenazim tend to be lighter skinned that Jews in the Middle East. Most converts in Europe were quite pale, whereas most converts in the Middle East looked like the Jews in ancient times (who were from the same reason). An added factor might be that Jews with lighter skin and blond hair had a better chance surviving pogroms that darker European Jews.
The reason there are more Ashkenazim is that during the last few centuries the areas where Ashkenazim lived had a good economy and improvements in medicine, triggering a population explosion. Four hundred years ago the numbers were roughly equal. A thousand years ago, Ashkenazim were a small minority.
But in all fairness, people in the Middle East don’t look all that different than ones from Europe, and in general humans are pretty much similar. There is about as much genetic diversity among humans as among poodles (some dark, some light, some big, some small, but all poodles). This tends to support our view that humanity has only been around a short time.
Based on DNA, it appears most Ashkenazim originated in the Middle East. There were many converts in ancient times, but apparently more female than male converts (that might be due to the loss of civil rights a male would have in converting, as well as bris), but not all that many converts since the rise of Christianity (which made conversion to Judaism a capital offense). We have enough Middle Eastern ancestry that Europeans have always perceived Jews as looking like people from the middle east (suggesting the rate of conversion wasn’t very high once we arrived in Europe). The Sefardim also had some converts (again , before the rise of Chiristianity and Islam), but they would have been largely middle eastern looking.
CT Lawyers: Those little people in Antartica with kapotes aren’t Jewish.
But with global warming, Antarctica will become prime real estate.
If you name is pronounced different that what people in your area assume from how it is written, you can consider changing your name, resigning yourself to the pronounciation changing to reflect where you live, or go around constantly telling people a preferred pronounciation. It is very common when people move, and especially when they move to a place where the language, or at least the dialect, is different.
Biological weapons, if effective, need to “suicide” weapons (the only exception was the not totally intentional use of smallpox to enable the Europeans to defeat the American Indians). A biological weapon that would work against Jews would also work against Germans, and the Germans were out to “win” not to “take everyone with us.” A novel with such a plot would sound ridiculous.
Biking on an urban street, even with a helmet, is extremely dangerous. WHAT IS A “fender bender” if you in a car, is probably hospitalization (or worse) if you are on a bicycle. If a city has true dedicated bike lanes (meaning bikes only, with a barrier between bikes and cars) it would be fine – but those typically are “bike trails”.
if the “other traffic” are solely bikes and people on foot, it can be done. If you share the road with automobiles, buses, etc., well – it is possible to survive (if you are a married male, perhaps you can arrange for a “get al tanai” in case you end up in a coma).
The original posting suggests an Israeli response to being destroyed.
The response would probably use weapons capable of destroying all countries that are attacking Israel. Nukes wouldn’t do that. To be effect such a weapon must we a weapon of “mutually assured destruction” and the only weapon that would do this would be a bio-chemical weapon (such as a biological weapon to spread highly fatal, easy to spread diseases for which there are no cures). Such weapons are “suicide” weapons and to be effective need to have global impact – meaning there can be no where to hide.
Anyone for a discussion of extra-terrestial colonization?
An emergency is unlikely. More likely is American becoming increasingly secular and turning to a “freedom from religion” regime. Since Israel is already run by anti-religious and will move more towards secular extremism to follow the Americans, there is obviously a problem.
if the Arab-Israeli conflict were settled, migration back to Islamic countries becomes possible. There are conservative religious countries in some parts of Africa and Asia. One should not rule out the possibility of moving to another planet should that become technologically workable.
Note that the conditions that cause frum Jews to feel a need to leave the United States are likely to affect many other religious groups who exist at the margins of American society.
Conditions under which Israelis would need to flee would probably involve serious use of weapons of mass destruction (also known as “doomsday” weapons). There would be no where to flee. There is a reasonable chance Americans would also have to flee. While it is unknown if the Israelis developed effective bio-chemical weapons, there is a saying each country bases strategy on the last war, and the worst case secenario, which leads one to suspect the Israeli “model” was how to survive if World War II went the other way, which suggests the Israelis would have developed weapons of mutually assured destruction.
Perhaps this is an argument to develop interplanetary travel.
What’s the connection between eruv and sports. Even in a no-eruv place, most sports take place in enclosed facilities, and many sports people might engage in on Shabbos don’t raise questions of carrying (e.g. basketball, ping pong, chess). THe halachic issues of sports on Shabbos pertain to bitul Torah, and occasinally doing something that risks digging or smoothing the ground, or creating an injury that draws blood.
smerel: There are several differences. First, programs that benefit American hareidim are programs that benefit all Americans (but it happens that many hareidim qualify), whereas many of the Zionist programs are targetted towards hareidim (e.g. the government doesn’t offer to fund all relgious institutions, including Muslim and Christians ones, only Jewish ones). This leads to a second factor, the American government isn’t offering money in order to induce Chareidim to support government policies, and it doesn’t turn around and point to Chareidim recipients and say “see, the Chareidim support the American government”. The zionists use Chareidim acceptance of money as a “hecksher” to argue that all of zionism (including many things we aren’t allowed to discuss on YWN) are acceptable to the Torah world.
If the “erliche chareidishe Yid” sees no problem with serving in the IDF, and is willing to obey government laws even if they conflict with what his Rav/Rebbe holds – why would there be a shailoh?
1. As contracts go, the fact that the Europeans had canons and muskets renders such contract voidable due to duress (cf. if a mugger points his gun at you and asks for a gift of your wallet). The management in Europe was strongly against stealing from the Indians, but that had minimal impact on the people on the ground in the New World. The Indians knew they lacked the ability to work iron or make gunpowder, and took whatever they could.
2. Most Indians did not have a European concept of “title” but rather a non-exclusive right to use the land. Buying access didn’t mean you owned the place. They weren’t “selling Manhattan” – at most they were granting an easement to build a trading post.
We have often used non-Jewish names for girls to a greater extent than boys (consider such common names as Gittel, Glickel, Fruma, Tziril, Faigie, Liba etc.). It probably has to do with the fact that in Taanach there are a lot more males names than female names.
Yiddish is a “Klutz Kasha” (a question asked by a fool)
A lawyer is called for.
Let’s settle this. Find someone who is 200% Litvish – Yeshivish – Misnagdid to the core – stuck in a 19th century world view. Then ask him if someone is “Chasidish”.
The answer will be that Satmar, Lubavitch, Breslov and all the others are clearly “Hasidisch” (even if Chabad is also “Litvish).
Of course with increased standard deduction and increased child allowances, many rebbes will end up in the “zero” backet.
CT Lawyer – actually it is settled that Camillia would be queen consort if Charles becomes king (i.e.outlives is mother, which isn’t certain since women live longer than men and the queen was relatively young when Charles was born). A problem with her using the title of “Dutchess of Cornwall” is that Charles daughter in law inherits that title. Of course parliament can juggle the line of succession , and change titles, and has done so quite often since the 15th century.
Also, note that adultery by a male member of the royal family has never been a problem. Indeed, many have suggested the real reason Edward VIII (Duke of Windsor) was forced from the throne was his sympathy with the Nazis (which is also why he was “stashed” in America during the war, to make sure he didn’t try to become the Quisling of occupied England).
One can’t define “Chasidic” based on language or fashion in clothes. While one can choose to dress like other hasidim, that is constantly changing, as are all fashions. Chasidim are more likely to speak Yiddish than other Jews, but it is a correlation not a hard and fast rule.
For Ashkenazim, using Nusach Sfard (a.k.a. Nusach Ari’zel) is a good indication, but many people daven their family’s nusach, so all this may indicate that an ancestor was chasidic, or not. Regarding kabalah as something important that should affect daily life is a good sign, except that unless a Chasid is a Ben Torah he won’t know the sources of his minhagim, and non-hasidim also have many minhagim based on kaballah only they don’t emphasize it. Favorably regarding the Baal Shem Tov (and other early Hasidim) is a strong indicator, since the yeshiva world traditionally had a negative view of them. Regarding a “Rebbe” as the Gadol ha-Dor is a big factor, but some such as the Satmar Rebbe were leaders of a broader community that including Misnagdim who shared his political views. Having a “rebbe” is very hasidic, but many yeshivish people treat their Rosh Yeshiva in the same way.
And one could argue that the difference between Hasidic and non-Hasidic is largely historical, and in the future the major “line” within the frum community will be based on zionist/non-zionist or perhaps American/Israeli, and that Hasidic/Misnagdid distinctions are really a relic from the 19th century.
Perhaps because the person asking the questions has better things to do than to read up on British royal family.
Satmar and Lubavitch are both hasidic, along with a good many others. This is rather obvious based on nusach, sefarim they learn, attitudes towards kabblah, respect for the Baal Shem Tov, halachic interpretations, etc.
A “legal” principle going back to antiquity: any law, especially pertaining to taxation, that attempts to tax someone will inspire clever minds to come up with a way around (I like the idea of since the yeshivos underpay their teachers, the teachers are unable to afford tuition and therefore their children get scholarships).