Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I doubt it has anything to do with genetics.
If frumkeit or midos were a function of genetics (similar to whether one is left handed, or whether one is bald), what zechus would it be to do mitsvos – since if behavior is a matter of DNA rather “free will”, tsadikkim and reshai’im have no choice but to be what they are.
The original posting perhaps understands the matter better than he realizes. In Imperial Russia a prayer was publicly said for the Czar because even though we hated him but because we feared him – our actual prayers were answered and the ??? ended up in front of a firing squad along with the rest of his family.
So does the State of Israel and its army stand in a similar capacity to the Romanov family and their army (which they saw as a personal possession)? By starting a war against the Muslim world the medinah has put not only its soldier but all of klal Yisrael in mortal dangers. However the Zionists don’t rely on terror to win support (they prefer bribery, which works quite nicely – they’ve won massive support from hareidim by handing out lots of goodies), and unlike the Czar, the Zionists dont’ even believe in prayer or religion (so they don’t look at whether frum Yidden say a prayer, or not, as something significant). I’m sure that if the zionists became more czar-like in their approach to the Bnei Torah (e.g. rounding them up for military service), many Jews would pray for the future of the Medinah, and will probably be horrified when they the bloodbath when their prayers and answered as they inevitably will be.
But at present, most of us prefer to hope that the zionists will disappear or even better, do tseuvah and return to Torah. Even Neturei Karta doesn’t want to see the zionist leadership meeting the same fate as the Romanovs.
If a nab wishes to sleep late, all one has to do is pull an all-nighter, daven at the visikin minyan (or earlier in some places at some times of the year), and then go to sleep. You get to sleep until its time to wake up for mincha. Even on the shortest days, that’s a solid eight hours.
1. Clothing. Basketball poses a shailoh since it is usually played in a warm indoors arena and the traditional uniforms are shorts. Track, Tennis, Soccer and swimming pose similar problems. Except for swimming, the sporting costumes while unfashionably short for a frum community tend to be relatively decent.
2. Shabbos conflicts. While all sports are played on Shabbos, College football is almost all on Shabbos Other sports spread their games our during the week.
3. As a participant, all team sports are a problem since there are rarely enough people to have all-Shomer Shabbos teams. Individual sports such as track and field, or bowling, or tennis or gold have a real advantage for s Shomer Shabbos athlete since they can train invidiually (wheras to train for a team support you need a team).
4. Some sports are more dangerous than others (such as American football, or boxing). Any sport taken seriously will have real health benefits (excluding chess, though some suggest it has mental health advantages especially for older people, though the same is probably true for learning Torah).
To : Mashiach Agent
Islam is a religion based on beliefs. It isn’t inherited. As with Christianity, its rather clear that intellectually it was based on Judaism with a lot of other stuff thrown in. Biologically, there is overwhelming evidence they are descended from Adam ha-Rishon by way of Noach, making them our cousins.
The only Muslims who are “Yismaelim” are in the Arabian penninsula. The rest are descended of those who lived there before the Islamic conquest. While some Arabs resettled in the conquered countries and took (not necessarily with their consent) local women as wives, most Muslims are descended from whomever was living their before with at most a small bit of Arab DNA. That many speak Arabic doesn’t mean they are of Arab descent (just as the fact that we write in English doesn’t prove we are of Anglo-Saxon descent – in fact only a small percentage of English-speakers worldwide have biological roots in England).
If one looks at Trump’s personal life and business career, one might suspect that his claims to be a conservative nativist are a bit of an act, since his background suggests anything but antagonism to “furriners” (his own family came thorugh Ellis Island, not the Mayflower, and he’s married foreigners), and that he supports big government (which means high taxes) that supports corporate welfare and bailouts. While other media types have run for office, they get “out of character” whereas Trump is running as the character he developed for his “reality” TV shows. What he actually supports is anyone’s guess.
Being born on American soil guarantees you a right to citizenship. Congress allows other persons to become citizens at birth, particularly children of American citizens born elsewhere. That is why many Jews born in Israel to American parents have American citizenship.Congress could limit citizenship to those born on American soil but has chosen not to do so.
The job as president requires one be a natural-born citizen, menaing a citizen at the moment of birth, as opposed to one who is an alien at birth and has been naturalized.
Cruz’s mother is from a family that immigrated to the United States in the 19th century and she is clearly a citizen, therefore her son is a natural born citizen. Cruz’s father was an alien until he was naturalized recently.
Trump is being an ignorant jerk, which might explain why he appears to have very little chance of winning the election (unless he decides to be an intelligent mentsch, which he could easily do as he is an apparently good actor).
Homburg.
I’m old enough to remember when goyim wore hats, and the fedora was always the weekday hat not the dress hat.
Homburg is also sturdier than the black fedoras.
Such people tend to be very modest so you don’t hear about it.
Trump is rude and likes to insult people. He makes a point of emphasizing that he lacks “Derech eretz” (which perhaps is an act, as he seems to relish being the character he developed for his TV show, which may or may not be what he is really like).
His ideology is well within the mainstream of American politics (he’s somewhat to the left of the Republicans, similar more to Rockefeller, Eisenhower or Theodore Roosevelt). His style and manners are well beyond what is expected of a public figure.
If this is for a child, there are plenty of nostalgic sources. If this is for serious research, stick to primary sources. Yiddish newspapers would be good (note: if you can’t read Yiddish you can’t do serious research in pre-war European Jewish history – ability to read German, Polish and some of the other Eastern European languages is also important). For frum sources, contemporary shailohos ve-tseuvahs might be good. Be concerned about nostalgia and take any secondary sources (including websites) with a grain of salt.
It depends on how rich or how famous one wants to be? A frum Jew would never end up giving away a much higher percentage of his wealth than even someone like Bloomie or Gates (both of whom give large amounts of money). To sit on that much money would be unacceptable in the frum world.
Getting that rich might be a problem as well, since its unlikely a yid with beard and pe’os and keeping Shabbos and kashrus could have pulled it off.
N.B. “Right” and “Left” refer to which side of the French parliament deputies sat during the Revolutionary period, which was BEFORE Jews were allowed to vote or hold political office.
One should try to translate the discussion into Yiddish, not using “modern” words invented since the haskalah (if you need a date, use 1789 – the year everything changed in Europe). You can’t. In Jewish traditions, the vocabulary didn’t exist.
Israeli (zionist) Hebrew uses the word “Dati” as equivalent to the word “religious” in English. When used for a Jew, it would indicate that person is basically frum (at the minimum Shomer Shabbos and Shomer Kashrus). “Hareidi” (what in English is frequently translated as “Ultra-Orthodox”) is a type of “Dati” (all Hareidim are Dati’im, but not the reverse). Defining “Hareidi” is almost impossible (based on clothings or hairstyle?, how one votes?, if one is for or against the Medinah? etc.).
Note that in Yiddish, there are no equivalent words, since the concepts didn’t exist. The distinction is alien to Jewish tradition.
Muslims don’t accept being ruled by non-Muslims, and Zionists insist on ruling the Arabs. While the Israelis can befried the non-Muslim Arabs, e.g. the Christians, the zionists have no hope of ever living at peace with the Muslims of the Middle East.
The only Jews in Eretz Yisrael who can hope to make peace are the Hareidim, since they do not insist on ruling the Arabs, but the Hareidim are unlikely to regain control of the yishuv, at least in the foreseeable future.
Actually the manipulation of pictures goes back a long time. It isn’t new or shocking. Before digital cameras, one could retouch photographys (e.g. the famous story of how the Communists would “delete” pictures of those who fell out of favor, and inset the new “fearless leader” into heroic events he never participated in). Before that, paintings and drawing (e.g. the famous story of King Henry VIII who was furious when an arranged marriage involved a foreign princess who didn’t look at all like her picture).
It may be an interesting subject, but it is hardly a “new and now pervasive phenominon” as the original posting suggested.
All candidates will be equally “good for the Jews” except for Sanders who would be a disaster (he is a socialist, allied in the past with the ultra-secular vehemently anti-Torah factions in Eretz Yisrael, and his policies restricting personal freedom in favor of state control of personal decision making would trample religious minorities).
Given the two “dark horses” have risen to leadership in both parties, any predictions are meaningless. One most issues Trump is a conservative Democrat (think Henry Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, Franklin Roosevelt, John Kennedy, Bill Clinton as he was in 1992) – except for being loud and somewhat bigotted he’s a classic RINO. Sanders is a hard core socialist (note how he honeymooned in the “workers paradise”). In stead of guessing based on polls, one might as well throw dice.
The biggest threat to American Jews come from the ultra-secular non-orthodox Jews. In American they are perhaps 1% of the country, but even where they are important locally their ability to make mischief (e.g. ban bris milah, ban yeshivos, punish Jews for not support “gay rights, etc.”) is limited by America’s constitution and tradition of “rule of law”. In Eretz Yisrael, secular Jews are the majority, and their quasi-constitution as interpreted by the zionist courts is devoted to “freedom from religion”.
Even with Democrats in charge, America is in no danger of being overrun by its enemies or of being destroyed. Medinat Yisrael exists only for so long as the Muslims keep fighting each other – if they unite then Israel would be unlikely to survive. Remember two or three well placed nuclear bombs would wipe out most of the population of Israel.
If you take into account that Israel is 1/40 the size of the US, terrorism and crime in Israel are far more dangerous and disruptive than in America.
The law is very clear that if a man gives a woman a kesubah he has agreed to give her a “get” when the marriage ends. It is no more against the “law” to coerce a man to obey the law and give the “get” than it is to coerce a robber not to take your possessions. It is a tremendous kiddush ha-Shem for people to show that they consider Ha-Shem’s law superior to the law of the goyim. A man who refueses to give a a “get” while divorcing his wife under the goyim’s law is a traitor to klal yisrael, and the coercion against him is justified. Dina Malchusa Dina, which protects such men and encourages such behavior, does not apply for laws that require a clear violation of Torah law and are directged tgowards destroying klal Yisrael.
Re: Dog food
1. You aren’t allowed to serve the pet milk mixed with meat – a hecksher means not having to read the small print
2. It’s easier than having separate utensils for serving the pet
Since you clearly qualify for asylum anywhere you want to go (religious persecution is a “fast track” under international law), I would suggest moving. There are today plenty of places an orthodox Jew can live in relative peace and security. If you are stubborn and patriotic, where a large yarmulke in the national colors and dare anyone to object.
?
People using guns who haven’t learned how to use guns are probably more likely to shoot themselves (hopefully only in the foot) than to shoot a robber or terrorist. What would be interesting to know if those hareidim who are buying guns are the ones who also want to serve in the IDF (in which case, no problem since they learn how to use the guns in the army) as opposed to those who have been trying to tell the Arabs to leave them along since they want to be neutral (which doesn’t seem to work since most Arabs appear unable to tell the difference between a zionist and an anti-zionist).
Avi K: While you (and perhaps myself) would like a Cruz presidency, the reality is that with Cruz we are likely to get Clinton presidency. Cruz has managed to alienate much of the establishment by things such as forcing a shutdown which ends up costing the taxpayers lots of money and accomplished nothing. Cruz isn’t as bed as Trump, but he hasn’t had much success at working with those he disagrees with. — Neither Cruz nor Rubio will impact on the non-Cuban Hispanic vote (by analogy, will Clinton do well among Jews by appealing to the Euro-American vote???). — Carson is current in fourth place, and is the only one of the top candidates who hasn’t alienated anyone. He’s an outsider, a conservative, a religious fanatic (but not from a church with a reputation for disrespecting other religious minorities). Like it or not, the only alternative to Clinton is Carson.
1. Cruz has alienated the “establishment” (“Country Club, a.k.a. Wall Street”) wing. He also is probably unacceptable to “neo-cons” (i.e. to Republicans favoring a strong, muscular national defense and foreign affairs policy). Also a Baptist will “raise more flags” on Church-State issues since while Baptists opposed institutional connections between religion and state, they favor using the state to advance their agenda.
2. Trump has alienated the “establishment” (similar to Cruz, but more so), and as a secularist will have a hard time appealing to “religious” Republicans. Part of the reason he doesn’t mind having a Jewish daughter and grandchildren is that religion isn’t a big part of his life. What Trump believes on issues is unclear since one can argue he’s “playing” the character developed for his TV show, and hasn’t learned to play himself.
3. Rubio may have trouble appealing to the “angry” constituency the loves Trump, but he could get angrier during the campaign.
4. Carson can appeal to the “angry” crowd since he isn’t all that different in positions than Trump or Cruz, but instead of swearing at people he says the same things in a more mentchliche way. As a Seventh Day Adventist (a small religious minority), he’s less threatening on Church-State issues than Cruz. He’ll be easier for the “establishment” to stomach than Trump or Cruz. His specific views are more flexible since he’s more into style and principles. He’ll also give the Republicans hope of getting back to the 20% of the African American vote they were getting before Obama, which would make several “blue” states turn purple.
Conclusion: A Carson-Rubio ticket, with both candidates becoming “angrier” in tone, has the best chance of uniting the Republican party and winning. Cruz or Trump would chase too many Republicans and Republican-leaning independents into the Hillary camp.
Is one arguing that a Jews who is receiving “welfare” is accepting Tsadakkah from goyim (which assumes the government have the din of “goyim” since in most places the majority of the voters are non-Jews)? Does one distinguish between programs designed to be nice to poor people (food stamps, WIC, Section eight, Medicaid) from those with ulterior motives (subsidized college tuition, free roads, subsidized transit systems, free trash pickups)?
Is one arguing for/against the idea that the government (i.e. the voters, who in America control the government) should vote to tax themselves in order to help the poor?
Bt definition, a “Kollel” person who is a person who chooses to give up most of their parnasah to learn all day. If they were less into ruchnios, they would be more concerned with parnasah.
The fact that we are so rich today that we can provide a tolerable level of support for people learning all day is nice.
One is assuming the term “kollel” is used in the current meaning of a program to support people learnign all day. In the past, “kollel” was a community in which some members might be learning all day, and others working (with all receiving assistance based on need).
Lack of economies of scale. Small stores have higher costs relative to sales.
A Jewish equivalent of Sears or Walmart would result in lower prices, but eena place like Brookklyn would have trouble providing enough business.
Bison are not a shailoh as they had them in Europe and we ate them. The problem is they are hard to domesticate, whereas Aurochs were tamed into our type of easy to raise cattle.
Turkeys were more of an issue but the tame domestic turkeys are so similar to chickens that they decided to treat them similarly, though the wild ones were usually regarded as dubious.
I question the wisdom of asserting that two critters that can breed are of different species just because they look different. If you hold that way you would conclude the humans include multiple different species (well some people held that way, but the Allies hung a lot of them 70 years ago). Also, we have mesorah that humans are all one species, which suggests that physical appearance isn’t a factor in deciding what a species is. Bison and Cattle produce fertile offspring, whereas horses and donkeys don’t (which has halachic signficance).
Archeologists have founds remnants of tefillin going back to ancient times. Neither Rashi nor Rabeinu Tam invented anything.
Their names are attached to a debate on tefillin that probably goes back to antiquity as well, and refers to their advocacy of particular opinions, not the creation of anything new.
Carson since:
1. He’s running on a platform of being a mentsch unlike his opponents who are politicians, except for Trump who is campaigning on the platform of being a jerk (which is probably an act).
2. His views on social and economic issues are most compatible to our own, and he will favor a muscular foreign policy (as will most conservatives) but with caution (his background is mildly pacifistic, just enough that he can be trusted not to go crazy). Unlike the professional politicians, he is focused on principles rather than specific policies, and is open to working to get things accomplished.
3. If any of the other Republicans run, Hilary will win comfortably (it might be close with Rubio, with Trump, Cruz or Bush it will be a major Democratic landslide).
charliehall:
1. Climate varies. You just admitted it. All the “panic” is based on the assumption that the climate in the early modern period was the “normal” when in fact it was unusually cold. The climate alarmists are similar to someone who notices that temperatures in July are higher than Feburary and expect the increase will continue indefinitely.
2. Global warming will lead to less intensive storms since the difference between regions will be less. Bad zoning is what caused the damage from Sandy and Katrina. If one builds in a flood plain or on the coast, one has to expect floods and storms.
3. Think about all the people living in the area between Long Island and Connecticut when it flooded (it used to be a plain). And the poor people in Alaska who could no longer visit their family in Siberia. And look how disruptive it was when the land between Dover and Calais flooded. Do you believe that was caused by cavemen buring too much carbon?
1. The yeshivos are in a hopeless find since in effect they are paying for two schools and only can charge once. Two-hundred years ago the goyim’s school focused on a “classical” education, which they totally abandonned for a “modern” curriculum, and today they are totally ignorant of their own culture’s history and traditions and have become totally secular. We wisely refused to do so in our schools, but it means having to do a secular curriculum as well as a Jewish curriculum, which is expensive.
2. Compared to private schools (i.e. “prep schools”) most of our yeshivos are quite cheap, both in terms of “list”price and what people pay.
3. In big cities, one can shop around. If you are a zionist, you should probably be considering aliyah.
4. In America, home school is an option, but remember that the “opportunity cost” of one spouse (the wife) staying home, as well as the other spouse taking off time for work to be involved, will end up costing as much or more than tuition (especially if both spouses are college educated and have the option of gainful employment).
5. If the parents have the ability to homeschool in Torah subjects, public schools would be an option, however the problems of being “different” in a public school should not be underestimated. For all their rhetoric about diversity, American schools tend to prefer all students to act in the same predictable ways and the nails that stand out get hammered.
charliehall: 1) Do you have a reason to believe he didn’t have his kids vaccinated? 2) If he’s an anti-Semite, how does he get along with his son-in-law; 3) If he’s a nativist, he’s self-hating since he’s definitely a descendant of Ellis Island, rather than “old stock”; 4) Most Americans are opposed to castrating the world’s economy in the hope that it will reverse a global warming trend that has been going on consistently since prehistoric times, and will probably continue regardless of what the American taxpayers do, and frankly isn’t such a bad thing (warmer weather means less snow and ice, less floods in the spring, milder hurricane seasons due to a decrease in temperature differentials between tropics and temperate climates, less need for people to flee south for the winter, longer growing seasons);5) Why should the Federal government have a special program for 9-11 responders since they are covered under their employer’s health care and workers’ compensation programs. — Enjoy being mad at Trump for being politically incorrect, as he might become less entertaining as the election approaches based on what polls tell him to say and what his scrip writers give him to work with.
Hilary is a professional politician. That is all she has known for her entire adult life. While one might argue that all professional politicians are “jerks”, she is no worse than the others (whom we keep electing, year in and year out).
He is reprising his role as a “jerk” from his television show. His “character” was good for ratings, and is good for ratings now. Whether that will get him elected president is a different issue. Other actors who have gone into politics, e.g. Al Franken, gave up their role when they went into politics (Ronald Reagan for the most part didn’t, but one should note that Reagan had been typecast as a “nice guy” so he didn’t really need to change). Whether Mr. Trump is a “jerk” in real life is questionable, since jerks rarely are successful in business relationships.
It is quite possible that over the course of the election Trump will change his character to be more “presidential” (nice guy, thoughtful, etc.) – for him it is only a matter of acting and writing. It’s also possible the one of the other three candidate who appear to be serious at this point (based on preliminary polling), Cruz, Rubio and Carson, might become more “out spoken” and angry, in otherwords Trump-like.
One should note that based on polling, Cruz, Rubio and Carson are running even with Clinton, whereas Trump would lose by a landslide, and as the primaries get closer that may prove to be a deciding factor (why channel yhour anger in a way that elects Hillary, if there are other almost as angry alternatives).
1. The printing press had a bigger impact(producing easier to use gemaras and a radically lower price)
2. Given that most frum Jews like to learn on Shabbos, the new technologies will have a limited impact (unlike the printing press which was very compatible with Shabbos learning)
Warmer weather means less snow, meaning fewer floods when the snow melts – but less runoff replenishing reservoirs. Warmer weather is good for animals who suffer high mortality over the winter (but more fawns making it to be yearlings means more pesty deer), and a lot of annoying small pests thrive with the warmer winters.
Of course, a warm December doesn’t prove we’ll have a warm March.
If you think it is bad today, you should study history. This is a time of relative peace and prosperity. The past was much worse. For example, note the many schnorrers coming around looking for money to marry off their daughters – not to feed them, not to redeem them from slavery, etc. When we worry about physical security in America, we turn to the police rather than (as in the good old days) hide from the police.
Define a racist.
Any Jews who holds there are different biological “races” is adopting the theory of there having been multiple creations, and is clearly an apikores. Any human being can convert. In America, “racist” usually means believing that some people belong to an “inferior” race based on physical characteristics (such as skin color).
If you define racism more broadly as including a belief that your own ethnic, religious or cultural group is superior (reflecting how racism is defined elsewhere), most people have pride in their own. All nationalism, by definition, is racist.
Charliehall: For Americans the political theory that is all important is the idea that government governs with the consent of the governed based on the concept of a social contract. Americans saw the conventions by which the independent states joined the United States as similar to Sinai. The founding fathers were all very religious (if non-denominational and wary of the concept of a government controlled official church – imagine if we had one in the US and the minister of religious affairs sent out notices to all clergy telling them to preach in favor of Obamacare, gun control, gay rights, and abortion – which is what a “state church” would do). Also the Roman “Imperators” were “republicans” who rejected the idea of a monarchy and if you called them a “rex” you would probably die in some horrible way.
as if something is this world isn’t hashgacha pratis?
But everything that happens is because Ha-Shem has caused it to happen (cf. Hagacha pratis). So if everyone hates you, it means you need to do tseuvah.
We are loyal to Ha-Shem. Centuries and millenia ago, before there were Americans or Zionists, we were Yidden and Ha-Shem was our king. Centuries and millenia from now, when only historians know what an American or a Zionist were, we will still be Yidden and Ha-SHem will still be our king.
In countries such as the United States, where the nation exists be virtue of a contract between the government and the governed, being adherents to such a contract poses no halachic issue, and if the government ever goes off the derekh, then the contract is batul. In other countries (most of them) where the government is based on a concept of loyalty based on birth or ancestry, it is more of a problem since such countries expect loyalty based soley on where you were born or your ancestry.
A fascist believes in a strong government. Trump is more of an anarchist who likes to toss verbal bombs.
There is also the element that is personal life doesn’t match his media persona, suggesting he is “in character” when he campaigns (not that other media people such as Franken and Reagan were able to transition, whereas Trump is still playing the character he developed for his TV show).
If the Israeli goverment (a.k.a. “the zionists”) were to attempt to ban Torah education, conscript women, require all students to attend government school, ban Bris Milah, etc., actions that are advocated by many secular Jews in Eretz Yisrael and elsewhere, and were also implemented by the Misyavanim who were running the government in Eretz Yisrael as clients for the Greek regime based in what is now Syria – then it would clearly a a Milhemes Mitzvah to oppose them and the Hareidim would be ready to put down their sefarim and go to war (as opposed to the current political and real estate dispute with the Yismaelim, which isn’t about Torah or Mitsvos, and should be treated as any other dispute about dinei mamonos with a submission to arbitration).
I believe some archeologists have dug up some unusually thick pots in the earliest post-conquest Jewish settlements. The non-frum archeologists couldn’t see what they were for, their frum colleagues immediately realized the value of a pot designed to keep something hot for an unusually long time.
Nothing new under the sun.
Hopefully it will never come to that. The chareidi gedolim are all opposed to killing Jews, even if they are non-religious and/or zionists. It would take an extreme provocation (banning bris milah, closing down yeshivos, perhaps conscription of boys and girls) to cause the hareidim to follow the route of the Hasmoneaim and go to war against the modern day Misyavanim (who currently run the government in Eretz Yisrael).
Another factor is that after the Misyavanim (in control of the government in Eretz Yisrael) lost, they were able to call in the local Greek army from Syria. The zionists have no outside help they can count on as most of the world considers them to be criminals. Indeed, if the haredim were willing and able to take up arms against the zionists, it would be the frum insurgents who most likely could find outside allies from the many countries at war with the zionists.
While in an Israel in which Lapid was Prime Minister and Avidgdor Lieberman was the principle opposition, it could create a situation in which instead of throwing dirty diaper or lighting trash can the hareidim would be forced to armed rebellion – that is an unlikely scenario.
Halachically, I believe the meeting in New York is a Sheva Brachos (the luncheon is the wedding meal), so the question is about inviting someone to a gala Seva Brachos but not to the wedding.