Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is it not the commercial custom that an estimate of repairs, made by the person who will do the repairs, is in fact an offer to make the repairs, which the other party may reject or accept? The estimate, is really a “bid” (or in common parlance, a “free estimate”). If in fact the person is acting as a consultant, then wouldn’t the consultancy fee have to be arranged in advance?
Either halacha or American law will look to the local custom. In my experience, estimates are offers to repair at a certain price, not consultations generating a fee.
The zionists (defined as the majority in the 1947-1949 period, as demonstrated by the vote in the first elections) wanted a place where Jews could live in peace and be as totally goyish as they wanted. For the most part they have been successful. While most of the zionists are disappointed that there are so many shuls and yeshivos (what they were trying to be free of), they find nothing objectionable to “avodah zara” – heck that’s a feature to them, not a bug. How the zionists will react to the “demographic crisis” (frum Jews becoming a majority) is unknown – but remember they control the economy, the military and the criminal justice system
“Jim Crow” (as well as slavery) were the result of state action. Under the English common law (applicable to all states except Louisiana), discrimination was prohibited since someone in business had a duty to serve the entire public. The legislature needed to authorize or mandate discrimination. Similarly slavery was banned in England absent a statute authorizing it (which Parliament refused to pass, which is why in the English quivalent of “Dred Scott”, a slave from America who had been brought to English was declared free by virtue of the fact he was in England). In the United States, the Civil rights law simply preempted the states’ preemption of common law. How important the civil rights law was in ending discrimination against Jews is questionable since by 1964 most (non-Jewish) Americans already regarded anti-semitism as being very un-American (since in all fairness, Hitler gave anti-semitism a bad name among Americans, and religious discrimination was always regarded as un-American going back to the Revolution).
The “Jihadi Terror” people are trying to overthrow the Saudi government. If any of them end up in Saudi hands, they promptly get executed. ISIS is selling oil thorough various middlemen and some might end up in Israel (the Kurds are doing the same thing, and there oil is very likely to end up in Israel, but oil tends to get mixed up since a shipment of ISIS oil is identical to one of Kurdish oil). The US is now largely self-sufficient in energy, largely in spite of the administration’s efforts to cripple the oil industry.
Charliehall:
Hillary may have been intervention-oriented in the past but she won her nomination (if she does) by the narrowest of margins, largely due to the un-democratic (small “d”) inclusion of super-delegates designed to thwart the will of the voters. And the one who almost beat her is super-isolationist, which shows which way the winds are blowing in the Democratic party. And of course, no one knows what Hillary believes since her views seem to switch every new poll (remember the Clintons were originally “conservative” Democrats, at least until they were elected).
While the American Memorial Day was originally honoring only soldiers who died fighting for the United States in the Civil War (important, but we didn’t have a horse in that race), it was expanded to cover additional wars. In more recent wars (World War II, against the Nazis), the Cold War (against the Communists), and the current “War on Terror” (against the Muslims), the Americans were fighting our enemies, and an American defeat would have been very bad for the Jews. While strictly Orthodox Jews are largely excluded (de facto) from serving in the American military (at least in uniform, plenty of frum Jews serve as civilian employees), we have reason to honor those who have died fighting for the United States, since in many ways we are the chief beneficiaries since more than most Americans, we would have fare poorly in a world dominated by the the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Bin Laden.
If you are a zionist, one certainly should honor fallen Israeli soldiers. If you are not a zionist, it is best to keep quiet since it goes without saying that if the zionism is a mistake, those soldiers died fighting for a big lie, but it is rude to remind the families of those who died of that.
With the Democrats and Republicans both moving towards isolationism, the Libertarians isolationism won’t mean much. The neo-cons have lost (good news for Putin, China, ISIS and Iran, bad news for Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Philippines and South Korea, among others). Even if Hilary tried to preserve the policies of the Obama era (which she made as Secretary of State, and were not exactly oriented towards a muscular foreign policy) her own party appears closer to the Sanders isolationism and opposition to Defense spending. It will probably take something shocking such as the destruction of a major ally (Israel, Poland, or Korea are the most likely to be sacrificed) to make American want to be strong again.
Upper class Israel is a first world country. The rest of Israel (the Hareidim and the peripheral areas) are doing very well for a third world country. Israel has a very sharp class divisions, and will probably self-destruct over that if it doesn’t address the matter which would be hard to do as the secular upper class isn’t about to share the wealth.
Since this “Zionist rabbi” really wants the Hareidim to make their own security arrangements. It wouldn’t involve knocking on Palestinian’s doors in the middle of the night to drag people away, or shooting people, or seizing property. It would involve making political concessions – focusing on a Torah-oriented Jewish autonomy in return for recognizing Palestinian sovereignity in matters that don’t affect us. Politically, the “ikar” difference between hareidim and zionists is whether it is necessary for Jews to rule over the goyim (something that is totally unacceptable to Muslims). The last thing a zionist rabbi would ever want is for the hareidim to be encouraged to cut their deal with the Arabs.
1. There was a major change in the American economy just under ten years ago, and many “boys” are reasonably postponing marriage until they are better established financially. Similar behaviors have been observed in the past. Many women probably have similar concerns.
2. Due to changes in medical care over the last century, it isn’t such a big deal. When a woman finds out she is pregnant today, she can assume that she will be marrying off her offspring in 20-30 years. In the past, the liklihood of both her and the child being alive in 30 years was not very good. Indeed, the chances that both the mother and child would be alive a year after conception was troubling (many mothers,and most babies, didn’t make it). The bottom line, relevant to our discussion, is that people who delay marriage until their late 20s or early 30s can still end up producing a “house full of children”. There is no reason to panic.
3. If one looks at the cost of raising a child, even paying tuition, and compares it to the life time income of the child, it is clear that having children is a good investment. It would be tragic if people give up having children since they think it would cost too much. There are some cultures and countries (as a country, Japan is a good example, as a sub-culture, secular Jews are an example) in which people prefer to maximize their enjoyment of life by not having children so they have more money to spend on themselves – which in the long term is disasterous since you end up with a community of old people with no next generation and no future.
1. Gary Johnson (former Republican governor of New Mexico) and his running mate William Weld (former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, who dabbled in New York politics) have respectable records, and the Libertarians might get more votes than ever this year, but they aren’t in any way close enough to win. This means all they will do is draw enough votes away from the Republicans to guarantee that Clinton will win (similar to how Ralph Neder drew enough votes from Gore-Lieberman in 2000 to elect Bush-Cheney, something Nader’s supporters afterwards were quite unhappy about).
2. If you truely believe that Clinton is no better than Trump, fell free to cast a protest vote for the Libertarians.
Depending on one’s commute, it may make more sense to to briefly put on tefillin at the earliest time, say Shma, and then daven without being rushed on the train (works better on a long commuter or intercity train than on a crowded subway) ESPECIALLY IF THE ALTERNATIVE is to quickly daven before rushing out the door. It’s only a minhag, at best, to wear tefillin while davening but it is a halacha to daven with kavanah.
Until recently, many people wre forced to daven be-zman,and put on tefilln whenever they could. Baruch ha-Shem that we live at a time when tefillin are cheap enough, relative to incomes, that everyone can afford one. The mitsvah of tefillin and davening are separate, but its much more convenient to do them together since they come at the same time.
How much is attributable to “anti-vaxxers” and how much is attributable to limited access to adequate primary health care?
Given that Williamsburg’s Jews tend to follow their rebbe, are any rabbanim telling them to avoid vaccines? If not, that would suggest ideology isn’t a factor.
Joseph et al.: There are many people who live modestly, and are also quite poor (meaning they have no choice but live modestly and have trouble making ends meet). If you are on an economic level where any fall in income simply triggers more “social safety net” entitlements (think in terms of WIC, food snaps, medicaid, Section 8, seriously discounted tuition, etc.), you are probably better off spending your money on things such as food, shelter and clothing rather than life insurance.
It depends on one’s economic situations? Are you in a country with a generous safety net or not? If you die, what benefits will you get and from whom, and how will it affect expenses. In the United States, survivors’ benefits from the government can be very liberal in some cases, or non-existent in others. In the US, renters may need life insurance more than home owners since often a mortgage includes (i.e. mandates) a term insurance to pay off the loan. Major employers usually offer liberal death benefits, but not a self-employed businessman or a family in hinukh. If you are poor to begin with, your family will still be poor without you, and may actually be better off since they will gain benefits – in which case spending money for life insurance that might better be spent on food and shelter and hinukh is a questionable deal. The higher one’s standard of living, the more you many need insurance (are you a family that assumes each wedding will cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, or are you content with getting married in the shul basement at minimal cost – the wedding in each case is halachicly the same, but the socio-economic differences are great).
We’ve been sitting and studying Torah for centuries (really millenia) without soldiers, and doing quite well. The decision of the zionists to start a war with the goyim has hurt, not helped, those who want to learn Torah in Eretz Yisrael (not to mention the devastating effect it had on Jews in many countries elsewhere).
If Israel manages to survive and over time evolves into a Jewish state, this period will be remember as the beginnings of a Jewish state. This isn’t impossible since once the hilonim realize they are dying out they might agree to be a tolerated minority in a frum state – and once you have the medinah run by people interested in prioritizing Torah and Mitsvos rather than seeking fulfillment by ruling over others, peace will become possible.
More likely it will collapse, given the overwhelming long term prospects of the Islamic countries becoming more developed and military competent, and given the tensions between the secular ruling caste and the the growing hareidi population – in which case it will be remembered along with Shabati Zvi, and will be something we don’t talk about.
Will the ruling class in Tel Aviv tolerate Israel being turned into a Jewish state? What happens if the hareidi majority gets to pick judges, and laws start getting overturned from a Torah’dik public policy perspective (n.b. Tel Aviv is world reknown for the sorts of tourism we can’t even talk about on YWN)? “Start-Up” Israel is largely secular, and militantly so – will they tolerate the change. If Chareidim have jobs, ask how many hareidim hold senior positions in the army, government, or private sector other than those dished out as patronage to the frum parties?
It is unlikely that the Israeli ruling class will give up power, suggesting they will try to coerce the hareidim to leave or perhaps will try to change the political system to minimize hareidi influence (e.g. limit voting to veterans of the army, etc.). If push comes to shove, remember who has the guns and who controls the economy. If the typical Palestinian was secular the zionists could ally with them, but most secular Palestinians are already Israeli citizens and vote for zionist parties, and what’s left would never ally with the zionists.
The demographics suggest that Israel’s future is fairly grim unless the secular zionists can reconcile themselves to living in a Jewish state, and unless the hareidim can “get their act together” and get prepared to take over and run a 21st century state.
In the American system, a third party votes is usually the same as abstaining. If you are a conservative that would be dumb since Trump (who is basically a middle of the road, centrist Republican with a loud mouth) is clearly preferable to Clinton (who is very far to the left, and whose party is even further to the left).
The only time a third party candidate won was in 1860 but that year both parties split so there was a four way race (won by a candidate with under 40% of the popular vote, and BTW a civil war ensued).
and what if the hedge fund you are working for is doing something crooked, or part of the agreement is to rip off other investors (and while big investors are probably ripping your off if they can, even hedge funds end up selling to small investors who may not be able to realize they are being defrauded)
There are plenty of people in prison who used to work on Wall Street, and all of them had lots of lawyers helping them
popa bar abba: An attorney’s duty is to assist the client. If you restrict yourself to clients who are tsadikim, you will have no ethical issues. But most clients are normal people, who often get into all sorts of mischief. How often does a client tell an attorney: Figure out how much I injured the other person in the accident and I’ll pay? How about, negotiate a fair price (not the best price)? Many people who need a lawyer have real problems, sometimes of their own making – and the lawyer’s duty is to provide them all lawful assistance. Justice and fairness and morality are all good, as long as they benefit the client. — Halacha avoided this problem by not allowing lawyers (in the “barrister/litigator” sense) and requiring judges to protect the legal rights of all parties (rather than requiring each party to know the law and assert their rights, and to lose them if they don’t understand the law).
I solved this problem decades ago. I found a job that requires a law degree but doesn’t involve practising law, and lived happily ever after. I explain to people that I went law school, passed the bar, and then did tsuvah. No clients to rip off, no clients in need assistance in ripping off other people, no letting criminals go free, no locking up innocent people – and I haven’t missed a meal except for taanisim.
If you aspire to be a licensed (by the government) social workers, a BTL isn’t all that useful, and might be worthless. What you probably want is an bachelors degree in social work, meaning you want to find a school giving such a degree that gives you credits for yeshiva study. A BTL won’t meet the requirements for licensing as they require specific courses. You need to check the licensing rules in the state you want to work in, and also check the website of the National Council on Social Work Education. There are “distance education” programs for both a bachelors and masters in social work.
The school/camp gives a hecksher to itself, based on whomever they say they follow in matters of halacha. If the school/camp is not associated with someone well known, or is run by people not consider all that frum, they will need to pay for hecksher.
Consider, does the OU or Star-K need a hecksher for their own activities?
What’s the difference between a sweater for a male and a sweater for female? The same goes for a sweatshirt.
1. The Babli covers more interesting stuff, and covers it more thoroughly. This is largely a function of the fact that the Yerusalami’s development was interrupted whereas the Babli’s continued longer (goyim can be a nuisance at times, can’t they).
2. Since the Babli is more respected and more widely studied, it was printed more often. There isn’t even a universal structure to a Yerusalami page, whereas the Babli has had a set “Tsuras ha-Daf” for 500 years.
On the contrary, the spies thought that Eretz Yisrael could only be conquered by having a superior military (they probably favored a policy of focusing national spending on the military and taking people away from learning Torah to play soldier). Yehoshua trusted that Ha-Shem would hand over Eretz Yisrael to us with minimal effort on our part – no need to replace Torah and Mitsvos with military training. The spies lacked faith that Ha-SHem would deliver Eretz Yisrael to us in spite of military inability to do so by force.
Of course, the zionists aren’t so dumb. They know that Ha-Shem never told to conquer Eretz Yisrael from the Yishmaelim, and by many shitahs told us not to start the war and seize the government from the goyim, and since the zionist war isn’t a mitsvah they can expect no help from Ha-Shem, and are forced to rely on their own efforts.
“Potato bread” includes wheat flour (check the ingredients). “Corn bread” traditionally did not include wheat, and no one has managed to produce a bread usually coco or coffee beans.
Chocolate (similar to corn and potatoes) are American in origin, and while coffee is African in origin, it didn’t become widespread in Europe until the period of the achronim.
Quinoa is American in origin and didn’t become common on North America until recently, and reasonable aruge whether to treat it like corn or like potatoes (though if one looks, there are online bread recipes for it).
If you held that you eat only foods with a mesorah going back to ancient times, none of the American foods would be allowed, and neither would coffee or sugar, which entered our cuisine post-biblically.
Can one make bread or pastry out of coffee. They can be added to flour, but one can’t make them into anything that one could confuse with bread. Corn and rice (and quinoa) can be turned into bread or cakes. Coffee and cocoa are just flavorings.
Of course then you into a discussion of why potatos are allowed, though when you make a flour from it, it is only “bedievad” that it can be turned into bread of cakes, whereas corn can be used to make passable bread and cakes.
Natural cocoa is largely inedible and is virtually unobtainable retail. If someone is claim their product is “natural” they are lying. Cocoa beans are largely inedible unless you doing something unnatural to them.
Furthermore, there is nothing special about Netherlands when it comes to cocoa (there might have been 400 years ago, but not today). The leading cocoa producers are in West Africa (even though the product is indigenous to Central America), and it is processed globally.
I suggest buy whatever chocolate products in your home country have a good hecksher, and ignore puff talk about “natural” or “Dutch” or “Swiss”.
zahavasdad: Actually, a great many American Christians believe that the ancient Jews were all blond, blue-eyed, pale complexion and spoke perfect English. They are shocked when told that their “King James version” is a translation (some woujld argue, adaptation, but why rub it in).
1. There aren’t any movies. The “cool” is in Tanach is largely in the agados, and even if we don’t talk about kaballah when the goyim are interesting, we also don’t teach them about the Torah she baal peh.
2. Jews do not use the term “Old Testament”, so I question the background of the person who started this thread.
3. Most movies goyim make of the ancient world tend to dress the ancient people like modern secular liberals. While the ancient Egyptians were underdressed (at least in summer), most ancient people were quite modest. Running around underdressed is largely a modern invention (at least of the peoples we “associated” with in the Middle East and the Mediterranean region. Apparently being civilized usually involves clothing (which makes one wonder about our secular cousins).
edited
We do look similar. If we were any more alike it would be impossible to tell people apart by sight (and Ha-Shem didn’t give us a strong sense of smell, unlike dogs). If you compare humans to the nearest non-human based on genetics and anatomy (various types of apes), you should have no trouble telling them apart. Difference such as height, skin color, etc, and actually trivial and change quickly whenever people move to new regions (i.e. after a few thousand years, people who migrated to high mountains developed better lungs to handle the thin air). You should note that when humans who look “different” live in close proximity, they produce children with characteristics from both parents, which further supports my argument that physical differences are negligible.
Many people have “offshore” accounts, including anyone who spends time in both Eretz Yisrael and Golus, since a bank account in one is an offshore account in another. For Americans, this requires filing one simple tax form per year.
The term “offshore” means “not in your home country”, and isn’t a big deal UNLESS you are doing in secretly (usually to avoid taxes, sometimes to avoid the local equivalent of the “Shin Bet”, the “FBI” or the KGB)
If Ha-Shem wanted babies to be able to care for themselves, he would have designed things so that women would lay eggs and leave (as turtles do), and babies would be born with sufficient intelligence to carry on by themselves (just as baby turtles are born with sufficient intelligence to carry them through turtlehood).
It should be noted that many secular scientists have decided that it is a good thing for babies to be born a bit dumb since it allows time for the parents to educate them (and of course, the scientists never give Ha-Shem credit for this feature).
Siberia
Why not list the ones that are a problem? Most jobs can be done by a frum person, but there are some exceptions, such as: professional athlete (at least in team sports, some individual sports might be possible), hitman (hired assassin working for other than the government), thief, etc. Really, the world isn’t that restricted, though in almost all fields you give up a lot economically to be frum.
Joseph:
1. While frum Jews rarely sue each other in a non-Jewish court, it does happen when a third party is involved (e.g. the insurance company in a state with “fault” insurance, or in bankruptcy when a third party assumes a claim);
2. The American rules of evidence are very narrow, whereas in halacha the Beis Din can use any information at their disposal (we don’t have “exclusionary rules” as even when a type of evidence is not formally allowed the court can still consider it). On a jury, you are legally free to consider facts that are excluded – a good example is most jurors know that when a defendant “please the fifth” it is because he is guilty of something he doesn’t want the jury to know about, and all the “curative” instructions from the judge don’t help.
3. If frum Jews avoid serving on juries, you can count on people we don’t like taking our places. It similar to voting – you can argue against it, but the bottom line is that’s its in our interest to serve as jurors.
Joseph: In many if not most matters in which a jury is likely to be involved, Jewish law follows the local goyim’s law under the doctrine of “Dina di-malchusa dina”. Furthermore, a jury never determines the law but only the facts (thus being a judge is a more serious shailoh, since judges actually decided cases and rule on the law).
Jurors have a right to ignore the law and acquit a person. If a teacher doesn’t know that, it suggests serious incompetence of your school district in recruiting teachers. The law used to be different (jurors would be arrested for not convicting someone), but it was changed well before American independence. While judges and lawyers often want jurors who will follow the judges instructions, it is well known that they can ignore the judge as a matter of law. If a jury wrongfully convicts, the judge can ignore the jury and acquit, but not the other way around.
Some states (New York) have a ridiculous “voir dire” with heavy involvement by the lawyers, as opposed to others (Maryland) where the lawyers don’t get to ask any questions of prospective jurors. That could be changed easily by statute, but its up to each state.
Every “mesorah” has a mekor (origin, source), only you may not know it. What makes a “mesorah” (tradition, custom, practice), halachically significant is that over time it has become widely accepted. From a halachic perspective, the relevant “fact” is not an origin that might be unknown (and is of interest to anthropologists and social historians), but the current status of its acceptance.
1. There is no question that stealing from the government should be a crime, and that the government (“malchus”) can criminalize such behavior. In a democratic country, one’s fellow citizens are also much annoyed when one steals from the government since that means you are stealing from your fellow taxpayers, who in a democracy, elect the government.
2. Many financial crimes involve disrupting markets, such as through cartels, insider trading, spreading misinformation, etc. These involve getting rich at the expense of others.
3. Whether prison is a useful penalty is questionable, but that’s a different issue.
4. It usually seems that being politically connected to those in charge helps one get away with all sorts of outrageous stuff – no hiddush in this matter.
Donald Trump is a successful actor who is taking his character from “The apprentice” to new heights. Imagine if Leonard Nimoy (who created the character “Spock” in the Star Trek series) ran for president claiming he was highly logical and had superior intelligence? What happens if Trump goes back to playing himself is anyone’s guess, however his personal life suggests that he is a reasonable businessman, not a nativist (n.b. his two foreign wives and Jewish son-in-law), and not opposed to international trade – and his positions and past actions suggest he is a liberal Republican (cf. Rockefeller, Eisenhower, Nixon, Ford) or a conservative Democrat (though they have been kicked out of the party).
rabbiofberlin: If Trump is such a nativist, why did he marry two foreign women, and why did he not disown his daughter for converting to Judaism – unless his nativism is an part of the act. Trump claims to be against foreign trade, yet he’s an international businessman whose global businesses depend on free trade. Most politicians will “say” what their listeners want hear, and most politicians tend to be highly narcissistic (honestly, humility in a politican would be a severe handciap). We can tell from his record, in areas where his past actions match his rhetoric, that Trump is for big government, not worries about debts, and has no problem with government confiscating people’s property – positions that would make him into a liberal Republican or a Democrat (think Rockefeller or Nixon – not Goldwater or Reagan). While we can be certain of Hillary’s mediocrity, we can’t be certain what we would be getting with Trump, which may or may not be good.
A beckishe (a.k.a. a “frock) is a style. It’s popular with a lot of frum Jews since we tend to follow our own “sense of fashion” and aren’t influenced by what the goyim wear, at least not all that much. The region modern Orthodox stopped wearing long coats (of various sizes) was that King George V stopped wearing them in public (about 90 years ago), and that set the fashion for the modern world – almost immediately “short jackets” were “in” and long jackets were “out” for weekday and “Shabbos/Sunday/Holiday” dress. Something similar happened to hats about 50 years ago (by then the American president set fashion standards).
Since we don’t give a hoot what the goyim are wearing, we never get the message that long jackets were “out”, though a lot of the more modern have picked up on over the last 90 years.
mdd: Wars are declared for, and paid for, by Congress. The same goes for walls.
Trump is a media personality based on the character he developed for his shul. What he’ll be like when he decides to “get real” is anyone’s guess, but its unlikely that its as bad as the loudmouth bully he played on TV.
takahmamash:
Moshe rabbeinu probably did not wear pants or shoes with laces. It is highly unlikely he used a zipper or velcro. He also wore only natural fabrics (no polyester, etc.). It is also unlikely he ever worse warm or waterproof clothing.
Fashion has many elements, including family tradition (and even if not by design, most people imitate their parents) – but we are hardly trying to be biblical reinactors.