akuperma

Based on frequency of publication and the extent it is studied, and the extent it has influenced Hebrew language and Jewish thought, clearly the winner is: Pirkei Avos.

If people waited until they were mature enough to get married, they would be too old to have children. Therefore we must accept that for some reason Ha-Shem wants children to get married while they still are acting like children. If Ha-Shem wanted people to be mature adults when they got married, puberty would be about 40, and childbearing would be at the age we typically are becoming grandparents.

What matters is whether the parties that support learning Torah and exempting yeshiva students, that is to say United Torah Judaism, Shas, and Bayit Yehudi (i.e. the parties who consider learnign Torah something the state should support) either are strong enough to form a government (highly unlikely, though they will have over 30 seats, which is their best performance in history) OR (as is more likely) to convince the secular elites not to go through with their plan to ban 18-21 year olds from learning Torah – convincing as part of the coalition process. Since most of the secular parties are more concerned about matters such as economics and national security, they’ll probably cut a deal to allow Torah in return for getting a free hand in other areas – as has been the case since 1949.

In the 1950s and 1960, the hareidim and religious zionists consistently got about 14 seats. Now they are getting over 30. While they disagree on many issues (Bayit Yehudi is as least as interested in national security as it is yiddishkeit, and Shas is almost as concerned with social and economic issues as with yiddishkeit), they are approaching the point where Israel will have three equal blocks (Nationalist, Left/Socialist, Religious) and it is not inconceivable that if the religious parties get together, they might someday be in a position to form a government.

1. Having a professional army would be a logical solution. Almost all countries have switched to professional armies, including the United States. The days when you could take someone off the street, give him a cram course, and send him out to be cannon foder – are long gone. This would be a “win-win” solution since Hareidim who refuse to serve in the army for religious or political reasons would be free to work in the “official” economy, and the professionalism of the army would be better militarily.

2. However since 1948, the zionists have seen the IDF primarily as a tool for “nation building”. They feel a need to break down religious, cultural and ethnic barriers and create the “modern Israeli” – who happens to be secular. They are very reluctant to give this up.

3. Another serious implication for the Israelis, is that being a veteran is the historic prerequisite for many jobs and for entry into the establishment. Eliminating this barrier who create the possibility of Hareidim expanding beyond the existing ghetto and taking over the country – which given that fact that Hareidim like children, and Hilonim don’t – is a serious threat. Remember that the whole idea of zionism, since the 19th century, was to create a nation free from the yoke of Torah. From the zionist ruling class’s perspective, an Eretz Yisrael whose economy and political systems are dominated by hareidim means that their movement is a total failure.

mdd: ” Israel has the fifth-largest stockpile of nuclear weapons in the world. You can as well discuss abolishing France or UK. It is not 1930 anymore? Do you hear me? “

For Israel to destroy Islam, it would have to destroy close to 30 countries. If it kills a few, they’ll have to answer to the survivors. Unlike the 1930s, when France and the UK can close to destruction, destruction is much easier now. No need to march an army and fight house to house. All you have to do is drop a few bombs and let radiation do the rest. There are plenty of Muslims who can move in afterwards to dispose of the bodies and settle down. “Mutually assured destruction” doesn’t offer protection if one of the sides is a bunch of religious fanatics, or if one side is reasonable certain of surviving. While the zionists wish to believe they have to defeat the Palestinians, and no more, to win – the reality is Israel would need to defeat (or make peace) with the entire Islamic world. No Israel party, except perhaps Neturei Karta, has a program that could lead to peace.

To answer the comment on”hillul ha-shem”, in terms a secular could understand: If someone wants to be a paratrooper, and his friends and family want him to work in kitchen (safer, good chances to steal food for the family, etc.), the friends and family would be outraged (equivalent to hillul ha-shem in our culture) – be really the one who wants to be a paratrooper is praiseworthy (equivalent to kiddush ha-shem among the yidden). It is those who give up their parnassah and the liklihood of a comfortable middle class existence by choosing to learn Torah instead of playing soldier, that are doing a kiddush ha-shem, even if unappreciated by those who don’t understand that Torah is the key to our survival.

benignuman: “Are you seriously suggesting that the IDF is not preventing a wholesale slaughter of the Jews in Eretz Yisroel? “

Actually, yes. In fact, they are guaranteeing one. As nuclear weapons become increasingly common in the Islamic world (Pakistan has them and Iran is getting one and those Arabs who distrust Iran are likely to be next), it is increasingly likely that someone will eventually manage to nuke Israel. While Israel has a second strike capability, revenge is a poor substitute for survival.

The military solution won’t work. The Muslims will never accept a non-Muslim country in what they regard as their turf. They will accept, based on past and even current practices, a non-Muslim community that accepts that its the Muslim’s neighborhood and are content to be autonomous, i.e., accept being “second class citizens.”

Hiloni Jews have a western ideal of civil and political rights. They also are very much into being libertines and other behavior that Islam (and not coincidentally, Judaism) can’t put up with. The hilonim dream they can offer bribes and lands and make the Palestinians go away, but the hilonim can’t offer to give up being part of Euro-American secular culture nor can they accept loss of political primacy.

The Hareidim can make meaningful concessions to the Muslims (ban gays, close down the brothels, ban ribit, require modest clothing, etc.), and Hareidim can accept be an autonomous community within someone else’s country. Running the government has never been a priority for us. Only the Hareidim can make peace. Only the Hareidim can prevent the destruction of the Jewish communities of Eretz Yisrael.

Of course, for those less worldly, the survival will be due to our support of Torah and Mitsvos. It certainly won’t be because of the IDF’s skills at schechting goyim.

Whether the IDF is saving Jewish lives is subject to debate. The contrary argument is that by having launched a avoidable war against the Muslims, they have endangered Jewish lives, and it is not a “milhemes mitzvah” but rather a “milhemes stus”. From this perspective, Hareidi Jews would be no worse off under an Islamic regime than under the zionist regime (and if that occured, we wouldn’t be dealing with a government that encourages mass abortion of Jewish babies, or engages on religious coercion on Jews to give up Torah and Mitsvos). Muslims historically tolerated Jews as long as we were content to be “second class citizens” which we usually were and in all fairness what we are in Eretz Yisrael.

For some with the above view, the IDF should regard them as conscientious objectors and should make no attempt at conscription, and the only sanctions for non-service in the army should be those used against Israeli Arabs who don’t serve in the army.

For those who disagree with the above, i.e., support the zionist state in spite of it being non-frum, there are still the issues of the relative importance of learning Torah versus playing soldier, and the issue of non-accomodation of religious practices in the IDF (which varies widely between units). These are separate issues.

yehudayona – However it turns out the increase (compared to last year) in the payroll tax is more significant than the other taxes that were increased (or rather, whose reducations were rolled back). The change as a percentage of disposable income was greater for the middle and lower class, than the affluent. While the affluent tend to fund investment, the less than affluent are the consumer. From a macroeconomic perspective, this was not a good idea.

Indeed, the whole idea of a payroll tax is probably unwise. It penalizes work and encourages people to avoid employment, and at the same time makes it especially expensive to higher poorly paid workers who barely do enough work to justify their employment. The only candidate who addressed this was Herman Cain with his proposal that would abolish payroll taxes and add a federal consumption (sales) tax.

zahavasdad “What did the Charedi population in the US do when there was a draft?”

Even during the war (that tells you my age, since anyone who say “the war” is referring to World War II) – all yeshiva students were exempted. This being a war where the consequences of defeat would be very ominous both for Jews and the country – and remember that the Germans were operating in places like the coast off Long Island and they were building batteries in Brooklyn.

While there weren’t all that many Orthodox Jews in America 70 years ago, and draft boards had discretion in who they drafted, those that did serve in the army has a hard time though one should note that most people who belonged to Orthodox shuls at the time were not Shomer Shabbos and had standards of kashruth we would consider unacceptable (and those with strict standards were likely to be in yeshiva or to have a family). It should be noted that for the most part, military service in the American army correlated with a sharp decline in level of observance (which is probably why the 1950s were the “golden age” of Reform and Conservative).

While it never was an issue for Jews, America historically exempts persons who have a religious objection to serving in the military.

Most western countries consider it to be human rights violation to do otherwise.

A more interesting question would be on service of Jews in World War I, particularly in the Hapsburg’s army, where there was a fairly high level of support for service by, and accomodation of, religious Jews (remember, they were fighting the Czar who was a notorious anti-semite).

Ben Levi: “I think the question is phrased wrong.

The real question is, Why are the Gedolei Yisroel opposed to the Draft?”

Answer: 1) The conscription of yeshiva students is opposed by almost all hareidi gedolim since learning Torah is more important than being a soldier, and learning Torah is the key to Jewish survival, especially in Eretz Yisrael. 2) The conscription of hareidim who are not learning full time is opposed by most gedolim since the army engages in systematic coercion aimed at forcing draftees to be substantially less frum in the hope that they will leave the hareidi community and become part of the mainstream of Israeli society – this leads to many hareidim who want to be baal ha-battim who probably would gladly serve if they felt the army welcomed them staying in yeshiva and working “under the table”. — 3) Anti-zionist gedolim oppose military service since the feel the medinah is treff, regardless of whether an individual is learning and regardless of accomodation of a Torah lifestyle.

These are three separate issues. Even if the army were glatt kosher (meaning all units were strictly Shomer Shabbos, strict in kashruth, no pritsus, no sexual harassment or sexual exploitation, no issues with immodest dress, etc.), and even if there were no shailohs about the halachic status of the medinah – the gedolim would want the professional students to learn full time. And as long as the medinah is not replaced by a Malchus Beis Dovid with a Sanhedrin with smicha and a Kohen Gadol with Urim V’Tumin to decide matters of war and peace- the anti-zionist gedolim will oppose army service.

popa_bar_abba: You found a solution. Quick, phone Jack Lew. He’s the designated scapegoat this year. Having Dr. Seuss replace Lord Keynes as the source of economic policy – brilliant. Perhaps they could have a platinum klurg. Then they could get the Cat in the Hat to clean up the mess (something he is very good at). Horton hearing the Who is definitely preferable to hearing the President and Congress trash talking instead of negotiating. But avoid the “Oobleck” since we all know where unwise government policies lead when they get out of control.

The payroll tax is not officially a tax since it is officially considered a premium towards social security, which is officially not a government program but is a type of insurance annuity (okay, if it was a real insurance program, it would be closed down immediately as a ponzi scheme, but that’s a different matter). Even though the tax is highly regressive, the Congress didn’t object since after all, it isn’t a “tax”.

Remember, being a politician is to learn how to put your hands in someones pocket without calling it theft. They’re really quite clever at it.

Depending on definition, one can argue that real Hareidim don’t accept money from the government, and are learning in yeshivos that depend on private donations (often from abroad, as has been the case for centuries). Those who don’t accept zionist money will object the most forcefully to conscription, and their protests will seriously hurt Israel’s international standing, and undermine those hareidim, who for ideological or economic reasons, which to serve in the IDF. One solution might be for the government to stop funding yeshivos directly, allow anyone with any sort of “religious” objection to be exempt from military service (no questions asked), and rely on economic incentives to serve in the army (which for hareidim may be offering to pay for veterans, opening hesder-style programs, etc.). Raiding the yeshivos to drag away talmidim will be a disasterous policy. One should remember that as it is, many benefits of the Israeli welfare state are tied to military service, and this could be expanded. Such a policy suggests the army’s willingness to increase accomodation of hareidim, and in effect to “recruit” rather than conscript.

For a large party, and he usually travels with a large party, a private or charter would probably be cost efficient.

1. The survival of the Jewish people is at stake. Learning Torah is more important. Even if Israel were “driven into the sea”, we would survive because there are Jews throughout the world learning Torah. We’ve been through a lot a tight situations, and the single theme in Jewish history is that Torah and Mitsvos is the key to survival.

2. The IDF is very hostile to Orthodox Jews. In fact, a large percentage of Shomer Shabbos Jews who serve do so only in segregated units where their frumkeit is tolerated, but where they are discriminated against in terms of job assignments and promotions. In general, it is very hard for Orthodox Jews to function in a secular environment in which Shabbos and Kashruth are at best tolerated, and where pritzus is a social norm (which is why some rabbanim poskened the army has a din of a Beis Busha – a view supported by widespread complaints among hiloniiot of sexual harassment). There is also the fact that the IDF has historically seen its job as “modernizing” (a polite way of saying “secularizing”) people in creating a modern secular state – which has great significance by halacha since if you are in a situation where non-observance is being coerced for reasons of undermining yiddishkeit, one is required to have mesiras nefesh even over trivial things (the traditional example is over how one ties one shoes). That means a frum soldier will end up being in a situation of having to give up on mitsvos, or openly oppose orders in an institution where there is seriously “frowned upon”.

3. Some frum Jews question the legitimacy of the State of Israel. If one bases the Jews’ claim to Eretz Yisrael on Torah, you have the problem that it was clearly given for the purpose of doing mitsvos. If there is no halachic basic for the state founded by Hertzl and Ben Gurioun, how it is mutar to kill (or be killed) in defense of that state, noting that in “modern” warfare a soldier often has no control over who he kills. In most western countries, someone with such views would be a conscientious objector and would be exempt from military service – but for Israel to accept such a view as legitimate would be admit that it is a question whether the State of Israel has a valid claim to the Jewish legacy pertaining to Eretz Yisrael (and perhaps it is, as the Arabs claim, an Euro-American ultra-secular colonial regime, and no more).

Perhaps. Everyone’s historical traditions (their’s and our’s) say they are not, but the similarities in religious doctrines suggest some connection or influence. Absent a “time machine” no one can know for sure (not that it matters all that much, unless you are into arguing fine points of history).

Note that for recessive traits (such as Tay Sachs and Cystic fibrosis), genetic testing which is widely down in the frum community can prevent a shidduch in which both parents have the trait (which is what is required for a possibility of having a child with the condition), and that even if both parents are carriers, there is only a 25% chance that any given child will have the trace. Due to genetic testing (and arranged marriages), these diseases are increasingly rare in our community. While it is possible, the odds of having 7 out of 10 children display a recessive genetic trait are quite small (it can happen, but is extremely unlikely).

It should also be noted that Cystic fibrosis is treatable, and most people with the disease live until middle age, and in the US, most graduate from university. I’ld question whether killing a kid for having the disease is worth discussing even if allowed. Downs syndrome results in a variety of developmental disabilities, but kids with the disease (which is not a genetic disease) often live to adult hood. The boys get bar mitzvas. They often can be self-supporting with adult but do need family support. Tay Sachs is currently incurable, but that is liable to change. Any psak halacha from more than a few years ago should be considered meaningless since conditions are changing, and the psak should come from a rav who is keeping up on current medical developments.

It involves numerous problems, and I seriously doubt an Orthodox rabbi of any flavor would say it is mutar. If you are looking for a heter, look for one who is not familiar with American goyish customs so he might not be aware of the halachic objections. It is probable that a “modern Orthodox” rabbi, being better informed, would object more strongly.

1. Many things have never been translated.

2. Most translations are poor.

3. The goyim has a saying that “translators are traitors”. Translations inherently distort.

4. A good analogy would be to someone who studies a subject on a college level (the person who uses the real text), very someone studying the same subject on a middle school level (the person using a translation).

5. Translations between Hebrew and either Arabic or Aramaic are not necessarily so bad, since those languages are close. Translations to English are especially problematic since English is totally unrelated (English having as much in common with Hebrew as it does with Chinese or Zulu, whereas Hebrew’s relationship to Arabic and Aramaic is similar to English’s relationships with French and German).

Unlikely there would be an emergency. Secretaries of Treasury normally work more regular hours, so it won’t be a problem. He primary a budget maven not a banker, and he’ll probably have fewer problems than as the president’s “chief of staff” who might get woken up whenever there is a presidential crisis.

He is the first Shomer Shabbos cabinet secretary (under the Republicans Dov Zackheim was an under-secretary, albeit with a yarmulke in public). In Israel, Orthodox Jews have held cabinet positions, but they got them as patronage rather than based on merit.

“MO” means “Modern ORTHODOX” – he davens at a frum shul, keeps Shabbos and kashruth – that’s pretty much the basic definition of frum.

Agudath Israel was one of the original parties in 1949, and they got the “gimel” which has passed on to Yahudus HaTorah. Back then the religious parties were much more unified (okay, the fact that the Communists were the second largest party and threatened to win was a factor in encouraging religious unity – when it finally became apparent that Israel wasn’t going to ally with Stalin, that unity started to break down).

If the woman had a valid conversion, followed by a valid halachic marriage to a Jew, and subsequently bore a child to a non-Jewish male without have received a “get”, that child would arugably be a “mamzer”. In practice, if the putative mamzer (or his/her descendant)then became a Baal Tseuvah, a Beis Din would look at the validity of the mother’s initial marriage, and the validity of the conversion – since Beitei Din “bend over backwards” to avoid deciding that someone is a mamzer.

Those who said that the status of the non-Jewish father is irrelevant were addressing a situation where the mother is an unmarried Jews whereas in the “question” here she is said to be a woman married according to halacha.

1. The Rishonim obviously thought they themselves were Achronim. Rashi and Rambam thought they were utterly contemporary, modern authors .

2. There is no strict rule. As with all historical classifications, it is subjective.

3. A border of around 1500 seems logical. Before you had a big kehillah and Spain, and afterwards Sefardim were those who had left Spain. Among the Christians, this was the end of the medieval period and the start of the modern period (rise of nation states, Preotestants, etc.). Among the Muslims this was the period where the Turks (rather than the Arabs) rules the Middle East. It was the period in which printing became widespread – and that was a major technological change that affected us more than most, since most goyim were illiterate.

4. Over time such definitions would likely change. If you wait long enough, we’ll probably be considered Rishonim. Playing with the dates that periods began and ended in history is something historians love to do, especially with sufficently strong beverages to encourage discussion (meaning it is about convenience, not substance). I would argue that the period of the 1940s is a major “watershed” in Jewish history, and everything before 1940 is the “past”, and post 1950 is the “present” – and maybe in a few centuries people will see it that way.

If the conversion was valid, it is always valid. All the children of the woman (subsequent to the conversion) are Jewish. The children of the non-Jewish second husband are Jewish but are also probably mamzerim.