Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps a DAF, a Donor Advised Fund, is an idea for you to consider. Any money put into a DAF is considered as given to a 501c3, and you can disperse to other non-profits through the DAF. You only need the single receipt from giving the DAF. I would recommend sticking to those run by the large brokerages such as Fidelity, Schwab, and Vanguard. There are many details one should clarify if one wishes to use a DAF, but that is beyond the scope of what one should rely upon a forum for.
Look at the rate of spontaneous abortion prior to the vaccine. It is close to 15%, which is basically the same numbers.
One can always ask if someone is trying to help and save lives or make money. One could ask about hydroxychloroquine the same question. Was it promoted to make money or save lives? I know that line may upset some. Asking the question about YWN may upset some also. I will point out one thing. People think and do what they think and do, and almost nothing will change and impact that. Enjoy trying.
Just to add fuel to the fire, I will refer the following work. I know, I can’t post the link, so I will just refer. Professor William Helmreich, a professor of sociology, wrote a book The World of The Yeshiva. He himself, a Ner Yisroel graduate, spent years researching Yeshivos, by spending time in a great number of them in the late 70’s and early 80’s. He also conducted interviews with many of the Roshei Yeshivos. What I am now quoting can be found by googling William Helmreich interviews Roshei Yeshiva. For me, the paper of interviews is the first result. A question he asks most of them is about the rising rate of divorce in orthodox circles (that was in the late 70’s, not to even mention today). Rav Ruderman attributed this to 3 comments about women today being different. The 3rd is that they get married at a young age. Perhaps, there is reason for girls to wait to get married, not just to solve the age gap.
The almost exclusive belief in Lakewood is that Covid is in the past, and there are basically no precautions actually being done in Shuls and Batie Medrashim. Some stores have a sign saying masks required, but that is rarely followed, and only done to comply with law.
I must object; the most prestigious and hardest to come by privilege of the yeshiva world is to be a true Talmid Chacham.
I did not see the article, but I know his brother Rav Binyamin, has a son Rav Mordechai, has a son Shmuel who I believe is still in his 20’s, who writes for Yated. In Yated they call him Rabbi Shmuel Kaminetzky, as opposed to his great-uncle who is Rav Shmuel Kaminetzky. That would be my guess.
I understand the problem. The OU’s daf yomi app is so good that people are constantly chazering the daf and don’t have time to schmooz with you. Maybe you should try the daf. In all seriousness, speak to R’ Eli Wolbe, and R’ Yisroel Gluestein.
Several people commented that the Agudah isn’t making money off the Siyum. You don’t have to take my word for this, but that is false. They get sponsors to cover everything, and the event itself becomes profit. As another poster commented, when was the last time you sent the Agudah a check? This is their main fundraiser. BTW, this is why DIrshu siyum is so far from the actual date, they were pressured into it so as to not be competition and mess us the Agudah’s fundraiser.
The way this is going, I am curious; what does everyone have to say about the Yam Shel Shlomo’s hakdama to Baba Kama, I would quote it, but I don’t know if it would make it through moderation.
I haven’t seen it in a couple of years, but unless I am mistaken in Kovetz Halachos from Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky he actually says that women are obligated, yet it is not proper for them to get drunk, therefore they should do the Rama, drink a little wine and go to sleep.
One always should play towards the demographics one wishes to work with. If you want to keep to a frum crowd, you should open an anti-vaccine web-site. With the number of hits you will get, you can make a fortune on ads. Plus you can get the endorsement of some Rosh Yeshivas, for it is a life saving endeavor.
The Nefesh Hachaim I believe is shar gimel perek aleph, and there is no contradiction to the concept of a constant chiddush ha’olam, rather as I elucidated above the chidush ha’olam is made in a way which practically in our existence is only perceived as sustaining what was, this is not to say that it is a perpetuation, there is only a reality put into the context the was. It is brand new, not dependent on what was, just made anew like what was in the general existence. Take a look at the Maharal in hakdama to gevros hashem, I believe it may be hakdama shlishi where he discusses the methods Hashems perpetuates existence with. Further clarification is probably better to be done with a Rabbi well versed in haskafa, for it appears a lot of the dialect is lost in the medium of the coffee room and the contest to answer the question, and leave the questioner unsatisfied.
Perhaps the easiest way to address this is merely to cite the nefesh hachaim which explains the constant renewal of existence is a continuous plane, the previous second does not in the slightest hint towards a continuance, yet Hashem acts like a table holding an object which sustains the object further. If the table ceases for a moment to hold the object it shall fall, yet the object is the same as long as it is held. Yes, due to the object not holding itself, nothing must stay the same; however it remains as is until the change occurs. To understand any purpose within the limits of causality that we are confined by, we need the context of the temporal continuum of past, present, and future; for without, what is created by Hashem in creating us to constantly cease existing to the new existence? With this understanding that the renewal of existence is in continuum with the past, not that it is obligatory; rather it is for there to be meaning to existence, the norm (however exceptions can occur) has to come with context which allow us to choose with free will (and with the understanding we work with of the purpose of creation which is contingent of doing something which necessitates a past). Hence in the new existence this second there is a relation to the previous second, so the new existence even if new by definition is different; to say it is different from the past also, is the plurality of change mentioned above. When existence is new, while remaining within the context of the past which there for purpose has to be a concept of, this is a single change. Only something not contingent upon the past, yet in the context of the past. If there were to be a change from the context too in the renewal of existence, that would be a plurality of change. Chazaka d’meikara states that when we have a context, we remain within the context until the context is removed. Constant newness is with the old when there is a new cause. This is applicable within daily living that even the same routine for decades can remain new when the cause of yesterday is applied anew today. I know I have been redundant, yet I hope it helps clarify the gray. If I have been vague, or failed to hit the crux of the question, please elucidate in length what doesn’t properly correlate; in other words a definitive equation asking to be solved. Half the Beauty and all of the wastefulness of philosophy is that unless every term if perfectly defined nothing was said, so for my sake please define all terms that you have in the difficulty, and that I failed to define in my response. I hope I am the only one getting a headache from the cumbersome wording here.
The question is a creative view, yet I believe in that in and of itself is the answer; that nothing is to be taken for granted is more applicable to say that a new occurrence will not happen. One may ask if we understand that the world is continuously being sustained, is that not a new occurrence itself? Yes, that is valid, however when we have a prior which shall through a new occurrence happen in accordance to the prior it is only a singularity in the new occurrence; as opposed to a change from the prior status, which is also a new occurrence in the change, for a plurality of change. Now, if one asks in change is there a distinction between the amount of change, that is the original concept, that within a context one should not assume a change. Or one could merely address the issue more simply, that there are two prisms, the world Hashem runs for us to live in with a set code of laws of nature and how we are to interact with that world; and that in and of itself, it is Hashem constantly renewing that world. If one asks how can such a duality exist; that is by definition Hashem’s will in the creation for there to be a concept of occurrence for us to live and accomplish the purpose of creation. Please pardon the (overbearing) philosophical overtone (and semicolons and or run on sentences), yet the question mandates such a response.
I once heard from a famous rebbetzin that she is מכוין by שעשני כרצונו that she doesn’t have to go to shalom zachars, so if that is part of being a women, then we can’t make one for a girl.
I only thought of this because there is a thread now about why we don’t learn Talmud Yerushalmi, but since we learn Bavli over Yerushalmi it isn’t what you do for learning, and it is a most individual pursuit even today with artscroll putting out their yerushalmi, so maybe Talmud Yerushalmi is an option. I hope my chiluk as to why it isn’t a called learning torah and that isn’t a hobby because if you would be learning because you need to learn you would learn Bavli isn’t to nit picking.
I rarely post but once in a while when a controversial topic is being discussed, it is fun to add to the controversy. The ???? in ??????? on 100b lists the 10 ????? women got because ??? ate from the ?? ????. One of them is ?????? ???? ??????? and ??”? comments and says only one thing ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????. That is listed according to ??”? as one of the ?????. Now what where all those explanations?
Here is a link to the ???? (we”re allowed to quote hebrew books right?) http://hebrewbooks.org/shas.aspx?mesechta=3&daf=100b&format=pdf
I hope no one minds me quoting the classic title How to Win Friends & Influence People by Dale Carnegie. Next, how to convince a 18 year old that he is too young for marriage.
I would recommend to listen to Rav Aharon Lopiansky’s shuirim Da Ma Sheteysav which are available with many others at the Yeshiva Gedolah of Greater Washingotn’s web site. He adds a unique depth to the Hashkafic issues and deals with everything from a scientific perspective. I hear your want for gemara and maybe it is a solution; but as you mentioned you lack the education for gemara from BY whether it is right or wrong, but here is an option to appreciate depth without having to learn a plethora of new skills. Chazal say that Torah has 49/70 approaches, and that is in every aspect of Torah. Perhaps another approach to what you already know may suffice to quench your thirst. I wish you much success in finding a greater fulfillment from Judaism which is synonymous with the Torah.
On the whole basis for this thread; if the girls have the shidduch crisis why don’t all girls wait to 22-3 to get married, and there will not be younger options for boys. Why is it the boys responsibility to make the change more than the girls?
I am not attempting to be controversial , however if strikes me from this thread that the MO have no definition. The Chareidim define themselves as those who listen to their Gedolie Hador and that is true across the board. We respect what Rav Ovadiah Yosef says, and even if it doesn’t sit well with us; we understand his Daas is the manifestation of all of his Torah, and there is no argument to be made that anyone has more knowledge of Torah than him. However, the MO base themselves on their own understanding of the situation, hence it reflects the prejudice of the era. 100 years ago there was not a single thought by anyone that a woman had an active role in the Shul, now that varies based upon opinion.
I have no opinion of Rabbi Stav, and I don’t need to. Rav Ovadiah Yosef only commented on him when the potential that he would hold a position that would affect others. That isn’t a personal attack, it is defending what Rav Ovadiah holds dear. An attack on the person of Rav Ovadiah isn’t a defense, for a defense would state the RCA backing Rabbi Stav. Only a defense of one who is trying to stop an opposing force from entering must attack, therefore Rav Ovadiah had to attack. The defense of the RCA should have only dealt with Rabbi Stav himself. In regards to Rabbi Shachter and Rabbi Willig, I will not say in their name what I have no source for.
The Mishkanos Yaakov here http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=37575&st=&pgnum=294 in 37 says that there is no issur yet one should refrain from such a thing
A Rebbe of mine once said “If a Bais Yaakov girl is going to go against what her Morah’s taught her and say Good Shobbos one shouldn’t respond.” Of course as commented above this may not always be what everyone was taught.