Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
charliehall: It is irrelevant in at present all laundry detergents are made with non-animal ingredients, since in the past they clearly were. Therefore many kosher consumers prefer products with a hecksher. And she this is a capitalist system, the manufacturers and kashruth agencies meet the consumer’s demand.
One can often rely on assuming a product uses the common ingredients and you will usually be right, but for many kosher consumers “usually” isn’t good enough, and they want “always”.
If you look around the “web” many people, not just us, are concerned about animal products in non-food items used for cleaning, since the traditional way soap and detergents were made involved animal fats.
Because in the past animal fats (e.g. lard, fat derived from pigs) was used in making soaps and detergents. Many people do not like the idea of washing their clothes or eating on a table cloth that may have been washed with treff soap. Therefore many kosher consumers want laundry detergent to have a hecksher (and overall, many consumer was soaps that do include dead animal parts in them). Since the consumers want detergent with a hecksher, the companies that give hecksherim meet the demand.
zahavasdad: The minhag of having only one person say kaddish at a time was common – which led to rules as to who got which kaddish. It appears that the decline among Ashkenazim began in the mid 17th century (“Tach V’Tat”), and was largely done in by both the holocaust and the fact the East European Jews (from countries affected by Tach v’Tat) became the largest group of Ashkenazi whereas those form countries unaffected (in western Europe) declined demographically. The holocaust further undermined the custom. If you have all the mourners saying kaddish seperately, you might not have enough kaddishes in a all but the smallest shuls (even avoiding the days on which many people lost relatives at the same time).
If you are a regular at the shul, say the kaddish louder and force others to slow down – assuming the shul minhag is to daven slow. Don’t try this is your prefered shul is an “express minyan factory.” Are you also davening for the omedin which case you are setting the overall pace. If you are a non-member or visitor at the shul, tag along with the majority. Be happy you aren’t too “good” at saying kaddish since in the old days people tended to get more practice, and at an earlier age (back when most men ended up saying kaddish for their wives and children, and the siddurim typically indicated the time to say kaddish as “the na’ar says kaddish”).
Trump is more a media person than a business person. He has his role. He is “in role” as an insulting, sarcasting nativist. But an actor can easily adapt and play a different role. The polls show most Repubublicans want a non-politicians (adding up Trump, Carson and Fiorina), and if Trump can’t adapt his character to a more presidential one (i.e. not insulting people, not turning off potential supports, failing to reach beyond his core base), Carson is right behind (and in all fairness, Carson views are more that of a mainstream conservative, and he is preceived as more statesmanlike and more of a “mentch”.
Returning to the original question posed in this thread:
Almost always, gedolim will disapprove of excluding children from a school. Traditionally, Jewish schools always had open admission. This goes back to antiquity. The theoretical basis is that, de facto, that learning Torah is a right not a privilege. When the Baal ha-battim do try to exclude a child, and someone asks the local gadol, the child typically gets unexcluded. The desire of scome schools to be “exclusive” is something we picked up from the goyim in recent years – it is a “hiddush” that should be rejected.
In all fairness, an unvaccinated child is only a threat to other unvaccinated people – so if a parent is worried they should get their child vaccinated. And if you don’t want to keep out the kids of parents you think are nuts – be sure not to ask a shailoh since you probably won’t like the answer.
Wisey: 1) That’s not a crisis – society gets along fine
2) over time, the women will be less fussy;
3) Such a sex disparity is unlikely among Jews (or Mormons) unless something kills off a large number of men (such as a war)
4) To observe a real “shidduch crisis” look at India and China which allow (or at least tolerate) aborting female babies result in a very serious shortage of women – which is already causing serious social disruption
When someone complains about a “shiduch” crisis among a group that has a high birthrate, one should be skeptical. If women were having real trouble finding husbands, the birthrate would immediately start declining.
I suggest the “crisis” is no more than many man acting quite rationally and trying to get established economically during what is apparently, a mild long term depression.
American party lines have always been muddled. It is interesting that many of the leading Republicans started out as Democrats and only switched as the Democrats moved to the left. To win election one needs to appeal to a broad spectrum, however to win a nomination one needs to appeal to a “base”. The traditional Republican party positions were always pro-capitalist, pro-civil rights, but not necessarily supporting a “muscular” foreign policy (Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Reagan and Bush were “hawks”, whereas others such as Hoover and Robert Taft were doves).
A major, if not the principle, factor in Jews going “off the derekh” has always been the desire for freedom to engage in sexual behaviors that are prohibited by halacha. If you want to work with non-frum Jews, and Bennett is a politican trying to lead a country in which non-frum Jews are the majority, you have to live with it.
The reality is that sexual deviance (as defined by halacha), is as much part of being frei as eating treff and working on Shabbos.
Homicide is killing of a human. It can be deliberate (in English that is “murder”). It can be accidenta. It can be suicide, or by someone authorized by statute to kill people (soliders killing enemy soldiers in war, exeuctioners working for the government, etc.). Homicide in both Jewish and American law can be justified (e.g. in self-defense or in defnese of another) and therefore lawful.
Abortion in Jewish law is perceived as homicide which may be justifiable homicide. A physician/midwife/surgeon performing an abortion in the rare situation where it is necessary to save the mother’s life, incurs no penalty – similar to how anyone who engages in justifiable homicide incurs no penalty.
The pro-choice advocatges maintain, contrary to all scientific evidence, that the baby from conception until birth is not alive and as an inanimate mass of tissue has no more legal rights than a tumor or an infected appendix or a wart.
There are very few cases of an abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother (in which case, her consent is irrelevant). The halachic approach is that this is still homicide, but it is justifiable homicide (for the same reason that it is lawful to kill someone who is threatening your life). Very few pro-lifers opposed abortions when the issue is saving the mother’s life.
Once you say it is a parent’s right to kill their kid, you then get into questions such as “is it their duty” if the child is defective, what if the child is merely inferior, what about adults who being old and disabled have no potential for further accomplishments and are just “eaters” rather than producers, what about groups of persons who accomplish little in life but consume many resources and may in fact be a burden due to low productivity and high criminality …. (and thus you have the pro-life argument that legalized abortion puts you on the road to gas chambers and ethnic cleansing).
BarryLS1: But even in the past (back when JFK was elected for favoring tax cuts, opposing deficit spending, favoring strong national defense, and supporting traditional social institutions regardless of what he did in private), the Democrats were still into populist pandering whereas the Republicans were into principles.
The Republicans have always focused on principles going back to their origins in the 19th century, and the Democrats have always focuses on being the “populist” party focused on pandering to voters rather than principles. Republicans always made morality a factor in public life.
P.S. Who you vote in America is NOT determined genetically and the correlation between who your grandfather voted for and who you vote for is very weak.
Joseph: Under current law, almost all Jewish immigrants to America would have been illegal. Being in the United States without a “green card” was the norm – there was no “line” to get immigration status. You arrived, wern’t diseased (TB was a big issue back then), or a know criminal, and could sujpport yourself through honest work – you were welcomed. A lot of people complained that American was being overrun by undesirables – but except for the Indians (who were ripped off by illegal aliens), the “huddled masses” (a Yid wrote that) are what built up America. Indeed, the US’s relative economic strength is due to immigration (countries like Japan keep out foreigners, and they’ve been in a deep depression for over 20 years) – especially since the good “old stock” don’t like to have children. America’s strength is from immigration. The reason American is full of Jews, with more freedom than anywhere in the world (just try being hareidi in Europe or Israel if you want to see the comparison), is based on policies reflecting the pro-immigration, pro-diversity bias of the American people.
For several hundred years, undocument immigrants were deported only if they were convicted of a serious crime or ended up as public charges (on welfare as we say today). Most of our ancestors entered America as undocumented aliens under these rules. The reality, if that if current laws were in effect in the past, very few American Jews would have been allowed to immigrate (and the decision back then to let our ancestors come was very controversial). American was built on the assumption that anyone wanting to come here and work hard to build a life for their family was welcome – that’s the American way.
The 14th amendment was intended to be broader than making the ex-slave into full citizens. In the debate, it was asked to the effect, do you really want us to be stuck with Jews and Irish as well – and the answer was “yes”. Since then, “jus soli” has become deeply ingrained in the American psyche – anyone suggesting someone born in the US is a “foreigner” is considered by most people to be un-American.
There always have been “nativists” opposed to “new immigrants” (e.g. anyone whose ancestors came after the revolution). Please note that of the leading Republicans, only Bush and Carson can trace their ancestry back that far. Very few people reading YWN can. The nativists were politically important in the 1840s (too many Jews and Irish coming), but never were close to winning.
1, He certainly acted like the “star” – after all, he’s better known as a television celebrity as anything else. “Star” doesn’t mean “winner” – in fact he was the “bad guy” in his TV series.
2. If he turns out not to be as conservative as first believed, his third party threat is more credible in terms of winning, but less of a threat for the Republicans. The reason is that instead of being a “extremist” appealing to “true believers” (cf. Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader in 2000), he would be a moderate running against the “extremists” of the “Tea Party” and the “Occupy Wall Street.”
3. While he is very anti-PC and racist, most of hie other views are not so radical, and he’s been a big advocate of corporate welfare in the past, and a frequent support of liberal Democrats.
We have great experience with such tests. They are typically applied selectively to exclude those whom what dislikes. If there were such tests today, you can bet they would be manipulated to exclude Orthodox Jews (many of whom engage in politically incorrect behavior).
Parents decide most things for kids -what school, what clothes (up to a point), what they eat. If you don’t like it, perhaps you want to convert to being a reptile since baby reptiles usually are allowed to fend for themselves without parental involvement (which is probably why most baby reptiles don’t make it to adulthood). Most reptiles can care for themselves at birth – mammals and birds are dependent on their parents (particularly the mother).
In America, they even decide if the kid will be born. If parents don’t care, that’s a problem. I seriously doubt this is an issue in our community, and parents make very deliberate choices as to what school their children will go to.
By “special ed” do you mean children with conditions such as ADA and Down’s Syndrome or deafness or reading difficulties – or do you mean children who will never attain the intellectual abilities of a toddler. No one would argue that an educatable child in “special ed” is anyting but a normal child under halacha – our law is very broad and who is considered “normal” — under halacha one has to be very subnormal to be exempt from mitsvos in any way (and arguably any child so considered probably would not be included in “special education”). While calling someone a “shoteh” (fool) is a common insult, by halacha a “shoteh” is very serverely developmentally disabiled to the point of being largely uneducatable.
I suspect the original question may have been someone using “special education kids”, politely, to refer to someone incapble of every being able to function at more than the level of an infant — since anyone asking whether the normal sort of kids in special ed. (reading and behavior difficulties,mild develomental disabilities, etc.) would exempt them from mitsvos is obviously a “shoteh” (in the “insult” meaning of the work, not the halachic meaning).
“Rules” implies halacha. This is a matter of “social rules”, i.e., etiquette.
A matanah to tsadakah means very little since one can stick a few coins in a pushka.
Joseph: You wrote “The literacy and history test needs only to be a very basic and minimal threshold to pass. “. Correct. And depending on who writes the test, anyone so politically incorrect and stupid and ignorant, as to believe that the world was created by a superhuman diety, or who denies the clear truths of global warming, evolution and eugenics, or who unwisely disregards the absolute truth of Keynesian economics, or who naively believes in American exceptionalism –
“shouldn’t be deciding who carries the nuclear suitcase. “
????? ???? ???? ?????
I didn’t make this up myself. I claim no rights in the above. It has nothing to do with zionist/hareidi or Democrats/Republican.
But if you do read history, and realize that until recently most people lacked some luxuries as central heat in the winter, air conditioning in the summer, refrigeration for food, food not produced locally, vaccines, antibiotics, surgery, cars and trains, electronic communications, and a government that lets Jews be frum and not to have to worry if each day will be your last, etc. – it is very easy to realize you are well off.
Is this a question on the judicial system?
If the parent gives a kid a horrible name (the boy named “Sue” comes to mind), and he changes the name when he is older, he’ll need both names on the “get”. The parents presumably used the name until the kid was old enough to object, and that’s probably a good many years.
Under halacha and American law, no. Any name is kosher. If a Jewish child with a silly name wants to change it, they’ll still need the original name on the “get” if one should be required.
In many countries with legal systems based on Roman law, there are official lists of acceptable names to choose from (e.g. Yaakov is out, but the local equivalent such as James or Jacob, are allowed).
In practice literacy tests were and are (where they are allowed) targetted against undesirabled. To many Americans, especially the secular Jews who have great influence, we frum Jews are especially undesirable.
Better to have the current rule – everyone gets to vote (except convicted criminals and children).
So who writes the literacy test? Should it require the degree of literacy required by a lawyer or a professional scholar of political science (limit franchise only to the best educated)? Should it test for correct attitudes (we wouldn’t want people who are homophobic or racist voting, would we?). Whose view of American history should we test (if you don’t realize that Barack Obama saved America, can you be trusted to vote).
In practice, America has 100% literacy. It should be noted, that literacy was never a required to die fighting for America. Literacy isn’t a requirement to pay taxes.
pcoz: MUDs and Telnet are all internet applications. As is voice mail and telephonic communications.
to several people: If you buy a computer and choose not to have a wi-fi card included, and you do not plug anything into the ethernet port, you can not access the internet. At some point someone (perhaps the vendor who sold you the computer) had to take explicit stepts to get internet access.
No need to remove anything. You have to do something to get internet access, even if you have a modem/wi-fi card installed. You have to connect to the internet, or you have no internet access.
You can still run programs, but for example, you won’t be able send documents unless you print them off. You can still find some software which can be loaded from CD or DVD, assuming you have one installed in the computer. YOu probably can get by fine with an older, used, computer and buying very inexpensive second hand software.
And if you aren’t connected to the internet, you won’t have to worry about computer security.
Read about life in the not too distant past. No refrigeration for food, no air conditioning except in winter, no heating except in summer, no anesthethics (if they couldn’t operate after giving you some shots of whiskey and holding you down, they didn’t operate and you probably died), no antibiotics (strep was life threatening), for Jews getting killed in a pogrom was often a problem.
Now whine.
Mashiach Agent:
It isn’t that bad. It’s bad relative to ten years ago, for many if not most people.
Compared to the 1930s and 1940s, or the century or two before that – it is paradise. Our poorest people in many ways live better than our not very distant ancestors (fresh fruit year round, antibiotics, anesthetics for surgery, central heating, air conditioning in the summer, etc.).
The lion was NOT hefker – he was owned. He was property, and not that of the hunter. He had a permit to kill a wild lion, not a privately owned one. Unless he was drunk, he should have noticed the lion was not acting like a wild savage beast but like a tamed domesticted one that was used as a tourist attraction (normal wild lions go to great lengths to avoid humans – which is why the goyim consider it a test of skill to catch one).
If an American had gone to Zimbabwe, or anywhere else for that matter, and shot some person for sport he would have been confronted by much than outrage. In the US, had he show someones pet or livestock for “sport” he would have caused outrage, and would have been sued and perhaps arrested.
because many people are not buying lots of new stuff
which is since many people are underemployed or unemployed (or rather out of the work force so they have less money even though they are not counted in unemployment figures)
with the result that wage and price levels are stagnant, or falling, which is not inherently bad but is disturbing since it hadn’t happened in the US in over 70 years
He goes to a foreign country as a tourist. Breaks the laws. Destroys a local tourist attraction (a tame lion that was used to attract tourists in a country in which tourism is a big industry). Claims it was a “sport” to kill what was basically a pet (as sporting as if he bought a domesticated cow in order to shoot it with his bow and arrow). And apparently he already has a conviction in the United States for doing the same thing.
Be very quiet about it.
If you totally want to avoid undressed women during the summer months in most western countries, spend the entire summer in the mountains (to be really safe, consider camping in a remote area). Avoid needing to shop, Certainly avoid stores, public streets, mass transit, etc.
If you want to hire an undressed goy to work in your house, that is a problem. Of course you can do your own housework, or hire someone with clothes. Air conditioning helps (no one wants to run around in your house in their bikini if its 65 degrees inside). In all fairness, most blue collar workers dress a lot more modestly than beach “swimmers”.
The beaches during the summer are especially problematic since even by the goyim’s standards they run around excessively undressed – which is something many of the goyim also complain about. Avoid going to the beach – which is not a big problem.
They were written to be said, not studied. They are poetic, not scholarly prose. They convey the general idea, and are something to be recited.
1. What happens in Korea doesn’t affect us. It is probably in everyone’s interest to get North Korea put out of business as that will promote regional stabillity (a unified Korea as a balance to China, and no danger of war in that region). The US should follow the South Korea’s lead, as they have the most to lose or gain on the matter.
2.Islamic State is a serious threat to Israel in the short run, and the US in the long run. However opposing them means allying with the other enemies of Islamic State, including and especially Iran. If the goal is long term American and Israeli survival, and alliance of Israel, the Iranians, the Turks and the Sunni Arabs is in our interest – but the US doesn’t understand the region and the Israelis prefer to go it alone against all comers (unwise, but it does reflect their zionist background).
3. From a Jewish perspective, we have no “horse” in the race. Ukraine is just as friendly/hostile to us as the Russians. The US however needs to opposed Russian expansionism and to protect pro-western countries in Eastern Europe (which are still effectively Judenrein, though the locals seem to have realized they miss us).
I suspect that many politicians monitor list serves such as this one, and probably the American and Israeli intelligence and criminal investigation services. Some marketing companies might do so as well.
Especially in America, we have become an affluent community, and there are a lot of merchants trying to sell us goods and service, and who value our patronage enough to make a serious effort to advertise their products to us. It is a sign of prosperity.
In the good old days, we weren’t a market worth competing for.
The cliche’s meaning would be lost on most Orthodox Jews since we rarely go to opera. An equivalent tha tmight be more familiar (since it can be traced to a former manager and players for both New York ball teams) is “it ain’t over till it’s over”.
In democracies, protests help as well.
It is hard to know what to pray for (Iran to have a devastating earthquake that destroys its nuclear facilities, Iran to get into a hot war with the Americans so the US destroys it, Iran to be so scared of Islamic State that they (along with the Arab states) decide to make peace with Israel so they can concentrate on Islamic State, etc.).
Disclaimer: I have nothing to do with running YWN and have no “inside” knowledge of its finances.
The reputable new sites such as the New York Times (if you want politically correct news) or the Wall Street Journal (if you want objective news with conservative opinions on the side), all charge money for any sort of online access. YWN appears to be on a tight budget. If it did a better job, it might not be profitable, and unprofitable news sources tend to disappear. And that doesn’t even address the problem of a hot link to news sources, many of whose articles may be considered offensive by many users of YWN.
What’s wrong with cats? Would you rather have rodents? You really side with the rats and mice over the cats?
If in ten years, Israel has signed a peace treaty with the Palestinians, then Obama will be considered a genius.
If by September 1939 the British and French military has been built up such that the European War that began over the German invasion of Poland ended in a quick Allied victory, Chamberlain would be fondly remembered for his Czech gambit that defeated Hitler.
By agreeing that Iran will get nuclear weapons in the foreseeable future, Obama is assuming that the next US president will see the peaceful end of the Arab-Israeli conflict, which will render Iran’s agreesive program moot.
Remember that in America, you need over 50% of the votes to win – and America doesn’t consists of 50% nativist conservatives supporting corporate welfare. To win Trump, or anyone, of either party, has to appeal to his entire base and the independents and try to get some support from the other party — and insulting people doesn’t help.
mimzee (who asked why he doesn’t have a chance):
1. Being #2 in the polls is less important than the fact he is apparently is no one’s #2 choice. His position on immigration (and his personal life) alienates the religious right. His views on economics alienate the Tea Party. His nativism alienates most non-WASPs (if you look who is running, they are mainly non-WASP). Based on his positions, it doesn’t like he’ll pick up many votes as candidate drop out – and their really isn’t anyone like him running – so the 20% he now has is the best he’ll ever have.
2. He’s basically an actor. The last actor to run was Ronald Reagan who learned how to “act” like a serious candidate – Trump hasn’t done that, yet. You win don’t win elections in an American style system by insulting people since unlike Israel with its proportional system, to win an American election you to get the support from the majority of the votes, not just a loyal base.
While he has alienated a great many people since announcing he was running, he shouldn’t be totally ignored since:
1. He is the only one appealing to the “red meat” (secular right) Republicans (even though he has alienated the Tea Party and the Religious Right and the Country Clubbers)
2. He is in many ways more of a media celebrity who personna is a tough bully, but as a good actor, he may adjust to a new role, in this case, acting like a politiican. For example, without contradicting himself, he could come out for liberal immigration of law abiding Hispanics as long as they stay out of jail and don’t become a public charge. It depends who writes his lines. Good actors are very adaptable, and he is the only candidate with professional acting experience.
1. Define upstate. Rockland and Orange County (which most people in upstate consider to be downstate since they are in commuting distance of New York City). Albany, Rochester, Buffalo, etc. They are all different markets.
2. What level hinuch do you want? Do you need a suitable school or do you plan to home school?
3. Unlike Brooklyn, one must have a car upstate, and if both adults are working, you probably need two cars. This somewhat off sets the cheaper housing. However kosher food can cost substantially more and some items might be hard to find.