Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Neville Chaimberlin Lo Mes,
“Someone who seeks out a public wifi, downloads stuff, then looks at it later has already surrendered to his yetzer hara. He has nobody to blame but himself at that point, not his phone. That’s way too many steps to still blame the phone.”
I don’t think you are being realistic about the nature of temptation. If a device has a capability to do something, there will be times when a temptation exists to use that capability.
Your original argument posited that there was no difference between a glass slab touchscreen and a flip phone, so long as their functionality was the same, and thus the community’s preference for flip phones is a “minhag shtus” if a glass slab was cheaper. My contention is that the flip form factor is an additional “step” – as you put it – to guard against phone addiction or inappropriate usage, and maybe that’s why the form factor is preferred by segments of our community, including the OP’s parents. I made two points to support my contention: 1. the interface of a glass slab touchscreen is designed to promote more usage (yourself excepted), and 2. Extensive filtering and restricting of a device to remove most of what it was designed to do is likely to be a less successful solution than getting a device that was designed to do only a few functions and needs little to no filtering.
I’m struggling to understand your objection to these two points (setting aside the pricing argument) beyond your first statement that you personally find a touchscreen slab hard to use. Some of your arguments seem to echo the anti-filtering MO viewpoint of “smartphones are fine and people should just behave themselves”. But you seem to be pro filtering, and understand its necessity as a guardrail in our ruchniyus to at least some degree. So what exactly are you disagreeing with at this juncture?
Neville Chaimberlin Lo Mes,
“In fact, I would contend that this was always the minhag and it just happened to be that flip phones were traditionally the cheapest. I think paying more for a flip phone that you’ll have to filter anyway instead of just filtering a touch screen down to talk and text for less money would be a minhag shtus. It does seem you’ve done the research and found that buying/filtering flip phones is still cheaper today, so that’s still an academic point.”
This answers just one of my two points about the glass slab smartphone form factor vs a physical keypad/flip/small screen. My other point is about the allure and intuitiveness of the interface itself, which is a big factor even if the phone can only call and text. Texting with a numpad or a tiny touchscreen is a slower process than on a glass slab, which encourages different texting behavior. Young people in the early 2000s on Nokia candybars would text things like “how r u” or “call bk l8r”, whereas kids today on glass slabs are tapping out entire paragraphs to each other. And with MMS vs SMS, detailed pictures and videos can be shared in “texting” apps. Texting has replaced calling as the primary means of communication on a smart phone. And one kid in the group with access to Instagram can forward the Internet on to everyone else in this texting groups.
“If your choshesh for people going to a public restaurant, connecting their flip phone to the wifi, and using it to look at inappropriate material in public, then you you’re living in the dark if you don’t think the same people wouldn’t get past the filters or go buy a new phone.”
You’ve basically made my interface argument for me in this statement, so thanks! But the truth of human nature is that people will push the limits on what they have. Connect to a WiFi network standing outside the Starbucks, download content, walk away and look at it later. Yes, anyone can just go out and buy an unfiltered smartphone if they’re bent on consuming content, and there’s not much we can do about that. But like my BT in McDonalds example, what we’re “choshesh” for in this discussion is the in situ temptations that form the battleground for those actively fighting their yetzer hara, not those who have already surrendered to it.
Neville Chaimberlin Lo Mes,
“I personally would get accomplish a lot more bittul Torah on a smart flip phone than I would on a touch screen since I’m totally hapless with touch screens.”
You may be an exception here. The slab touchscreen interface is extremely intuitive. Babies and toddlers can pick it up in a flash, and most people easily adopt it within a day or two. Many people who are switching to flip/small screen/physical keypad phones for non-religious reasons are doing so in order to curb an addiction to smartphones and reduce screen time. The smartphone interface itself is designed to draw people in.
“For the general case, I guess the question now is: is the problem that it’s possible to do these bad things with your phone, or is the problem that it’s EASY to do them. If the former, then the OP is right that it makes no difference. You seem to be arguing for the latter.”
These are not mutually exclusive. A phone that is capable of accessing the unfiltered internet is not a “kosher” phone, no matter the form factor. But even among kosher phones, some may argue that the glass slab touchscreen smartphone interface is more problematic than a candy bar or flip phone interface, because the former is more addicting.
““(DY: Most people with smartphones, even filtered, use them for much more than just calling and texting. That’s the reality.”) This is true, but there’s really no reason that it needs to be true.”
In theory, but Google, Samsung, Apple, and app developers make little profit if people only call and text on a smartphone, so the smartphone is designed for running apps, consuming content, and shopping. To limit its usage is like digging uphill. If someone were a brand new BT with a huge craving for Big Macs, we certainly wouldn’t tell him that it’s fine to go hungry into a McDonalds with its posters displaying delicious looking food and the smell of burgers and fries in the air to only use the restroom. But for some reason that wisdom flies out the window when the topic is smartphones.
“Once we reach the point where flip phones cost more (if we haven’t already), wouldn’t it just make more sense to just use a smart phone base and filter down to northing outside of calling and texting? Also, whatever happened to just not having a data plan? Is that not a thing anymore?”
Flip phones, etc are for a niche market and not scaled up for mass production, so they are fairly expensive, other than $20 burner phones like Trac phones that have a basic Web browser. Most that I’ve perused seem to fall in the $100-$400 range, which is in line with used or entry level smartphones. More premium smartphones live in the $500-$1500 range easily. Many people buying smartphones don’t realize this cost, because cell phone companies often subsidize or finance the smartphone purchase in exchange for the customer signing up for a 2-year data plan.
As far as filtering a smartphone down, as Chaim87 in another thread with me argued, there is usually a cost to do that with a filter or an organization like TAG that installs the filter for you. And if you go the free DIY route, using something like Google Family Link, ADB, Android debloater, custom ROMs, etc., most of these solutions can be reversed, which defeats the purpose for many.
Not having a data plan would make most apps non-functional only when not connected to a Wi-Fi network. Walk into a Starbucks and connect to their network, and you have a fully functional smartphone in your hands.
Neville Chaimberlin lo mes,
“If true flip phones were still commercially available then this wouldn’t be the case. There would be real arguments for flip phones, which are still the arguments people are making despite being outdated. The only currently available flip phones are smart phones. Yes, you can have stuff done to them by frum organizations to dumb them down, but you can also do that with touch-screen phones.”
This is not so. Check out Sunbeam Wireless, for a flip phone example. The Greentouch store offers a candy bar kosher phone (Mindphone), and there are other niche options from companies such as Mudita. These phones are significantly more expensive than the $20 burner flip phones you can get that come with a browser, but they are “true” flip phones by your definition. There are other options out there such as the Light Phone II (an e-ink touchscreen phone), but these are more of a concern because smart apps can be sideloaded onto them.
jmn,
“The million-dollar question is: Why does the flip format make it kosher? If the content I am using would be okay on a flip phone, why is the rectangle-shaped phone not allowed? I have never gotten a straight answer to this! All I get is people yelling at me, or my father telling me, “I can’t explain it now. Smartphones are bad…” You might say it has to do with wasting time, but that doesn’t really answer what is wrong with it.”
Most phones come in four form factors:
1. Flip phones – physical number pad, small display that flips closed over the number pad on a hinge
2. Candy bar – physical number pad, very small display. This form factor was prevalent in the early 2000s before flip phones. These phones were usually extremely durable
3. Physical QWERTY keyboard phones, could slide out from or be underneath the display, like Blackberries. This form factor is almost nonexistent today
4. The glass slab touchscreen phone – the most common form factor todayAny phones with these form factors could theoretically run a full version of Android with apps and therefore be a “smart” phone. So the form factor itself doesn’t make a phone kosher. Perhaps the reason your parents avoid the glass slab form factor is that it is, by design, more drawing to one’s attention. Perhaps they are also concerned about maris ayin.
ubiquitin,
“No, with a group of people and checks and balances hope is the stupidy will “even out””
Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out in better groups 🙂
“sure we can quibble on HOW MUCH regulation.”
I don’t see it as a quibble. You’re in the medical field. Is it a quibble on HOW MUCH medication to give a patient? How are those outcomes for ya? But I get it that you’re trying to create a dichotomy with Neville’s philosophy, so fine, have it your way.
“Though doesnt this undermine your problem with my approach. If most people “try to do what is best for themselves and for others” then how did we we get ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus?
People want whats best unless theyre int eh government? seems odd, and even if true ok then lets get a new government”There’s a few reasons for this. One: to quote Lord Acton: “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men, even when they exercise influence and not authority; still more when you superadd the tendency of the certainty of corruption by authority.” It’s not odd, studies have shown that a disproportionate number of sociopaths become business leaders, government leaders, etc. And those who come into politics or other positions of authority face an extreme yetzer hara of corruption. Two, note I also included a category of those ignorant of the effect of their actions. That category is much larger than sociopaths and malevolents, and unfortunately ran rampant during Covid. Part of the problem was a worship of “experts” who may have been trained in a specific area (and sometimes not – why were media outlets seeking medical advice from Bill Gates?), but were asked to inform decision making in arenas far removed from their expertise, or pushed for solutions that personally benefited them. Three: groups are subject to groupthink and herd mentality.
ubiquitin,
“and I’m not sure we are “debating” I don’t think there is a possible winner.”
The definition of a debate is discourse where two opposing opinions are presented, so it seems to me that this is precisely a debate.
“The individual believes he is a great driver even drunk”
So your presumption is, in essence, that individuals are too stupid or selfish to do the right thing, so we need some form of “benevolent” collective that, in addition to providing societal services, also rigorously polices behavior. Maybe that’s how we got ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus. The catch to the collective is that it is really just a bunch of individuals put together, so it follows that they will also be too stupid and selfish to do the right thing. Maybe that’s why the Covid policies enacted were astonishingly ineffective at dealing with Covid and downright toxic to the public well being, but quite good at idolizing certain people while lining the pockets of special interests and pharmaceutical companies.
My presumption is that most individuals try to do what is best for themselves and for others. There is a minority who are anti-social or malevolent, and some who may be ignorant of the effect of an action on others. That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement, but the preservation of individual freedom to act in one’s own interest should be preserved to the highest extent possible, which you do not seem to value. My guess is that you will try to say we agree because we both support regulations in some instances, but that is not the case. Intent is important. A government creating regulations because it distrusts the population will ultimately result in tyranny. When reading the US Constitution, it seems that the biggest concern it attempted to address was the behavior of government, not of individuals.
ubiquitin,
“I propose the perfect system call it a fix or not. Whatever works”
The elephant in the room is that what to you is the “perfect system” and “whatever works” might just be a nightmare system to someone else. A debate on the methods to “get there” is meaningless when the debaters don’t even agree on the destination.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“I am, frankly, for almost any regulations at state level.”
All states in the Union had to ratify the Constitution of the United States, and Article VI states that the Constitution and Federal laws are the supreme law of the land. Therefore, states cannot just do whatever regulations they want. They have to be constitutional.
“If majority becomes too overbearing, people can move away to other states.”
Let them eat cake!
“If the persecuting (sic) minority is a small group, then it is better that they move to another state than continue fighting.”
Nah, probably better if they find commonality with other groups and form alliances.
“This approach is way better than a small majority imposing their will at federal level.”
What’s the difference between your argument and telling people if they don’t like it they can just move to another country?
Always_Ask_Questions,
“But, in reality, not everyone achieves the right behavior”
But we shouldn’t throw out what helps most just because there’s an exception or two.
“I can confirm that I personally react differently … very inconsiderate person who dresses like a hoshuve Yid. I tend to disappear into the wall pretending I am not of the same religion every time he parks blocking someone or grabs something first in front of non-observant Yidden. You never had such a feeling?”
I’m not exactly sure what you’re expressing here. If a guy in a t-shirt and a srugi or a little suede kippa with clips blocked cars and grabbed food before it was time, you wouldn’t feel ashamed to be of the same religion? I don’t feel ashamed to be of the same religion. One can be both a Yid and a jerk, no matter what he chooses to wear. And yes it is a chillul Hashem, but why is it worse than when the srugi wearer does it? You’re arguing that it’s worse when the black hat wearer does it because he looks more erliche, but that seems to be a latent prejudice against the MO. One could argue that it’s worse for the Jew who says clothing doesn’t matter, only behavior, because then he only has his behavior to rely on!
“in the first couple of weeks of Covid, when our town was under strict mask orders”
Wow, you must live in a super conservative area if your town’s mask mandate only lasted the first couple weeks of Covid. Our mandate here lasted years. And in such a conservative area where you are, perhaps the Yid standing up for his right to breathe the free air again was making a kiddush Hashem, per this seeming definition of kiddush Hashem as doing what makes the gentiles happy.
“The other way to look at this is that it is “lo lishma”. You should want to behave appropriately fpr better reasons. Now, we do a lot of “lo lishma” starting with honey on a sefer Torah, and upping it from there as the kid grows up … But, here you are suggesting that whole communities operate on this premise, being protected and encouraged from the cheder to the kever. At some point, an Yid needs to stand on his own and be an erliche Yid.”
Absolutely, whole communites do and should operate on this premise! I am not so haughty that I can say that I do all my mitzvos lishma. Only our greatest tzadikim reached that level. Why stop at clothes? Why not do away with anything that helps us overcome the yetzer hara? Coffee in the shul lobby and beis medrash, pairing community shiurim with food, making a public siyum when finishing a masechta, chazzanus, etc.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“is not to give an impression of a t ch when you’re not behaving like one.”
This strikes me as one of the most powerful arguments to wear a hat and jacket that I have ever read. If the behavior doesn’t match the clothes, change the behavior, not the clothes!
“I don’t think any outsider makes a difference between brims.”
It also doesn’t make a difference to an outsider how much Torah knowledge you have or not. A non-Jew on the street is not going to ask you a complicated shaila on ribbis or kashrus. And if they did you could let them know you’re not a “T Ch”. Many who don’t have any experience with frum Jews think that anyone in a kippa is a rabbi, so you’re not really solving anything unless you completely hide your Jewishness.
Chaim87,
“Incorrect I need it for my parnsa and wouldn’t have food without it.”
I already addressed work requirements in my last post. And it’s a red herring as you wrote above that you have “other reasons” for using these devices in addition to work.
“Its also pretty much a necessity in the modern world … Society is kind of past that. Go outside the frum world and you’ll see just how much people use it. But I am not here to debate this issue so much.”
I do see how much smartphones are used, and it’s horrific. I’m not immune from it either. I had a smartphone until around a year ago, and I thought my usage of it was low and careful. During a trip my toddler smashed it and broke the screen in a hotel room. My older son then told me he was glad it broke, because I was always on it and not paying attention to what he was saying to me. They are destructive, and I call them cocaine slabs.
“You are telling me from a religious point of view that i need one. OK but then offer it for free because I am just not such a deep believer in the cause. Unless you don’t care about getting us less believers to filter.”
You’ve taught me a new life hack! Food costs have been a real challenge, but those rabbis keep harping about keeping kosher, so I’m going to head over to the kosher grocery store and demand free food, because I’m “not such a deep believer” in kashrus (chas veshalom), and my ruchniyus is their responsibility, not mine. They’re sure to see the truth in this, unless of course they don’t care about getting us “less believers” (chas veshalom) to eat kosher.
“Yes I feel resentment when an organization thats a tzedaka and here to help the klal charges”
They are here to help the klal, but where do you get that they are a tzedaka? I don’t think of them as such, and nowhere on their Web site do they claim to be. They refer to their work as community service, and openly state on their Web site that any charges incurred go to the filter providers. In contrast, bikur cholim is a tzedaka, and they state that their assistance is free.
“Bottom line, I have a hunch you work for TAG”
Nope, I don’t work for them, volunteer for them, nor have I ever even walked into one of their facilities.
“We think its a chutzpah to call yourslef a “non profit” when all you do is charge us money.”
I’m not sure you understand what a non-profit is. The Smithsonian Institution is a non-profit, but you still have to pay for parking at many of their facilities. The Educational Testing Service is a non-profit, but there’s still a fee to take the SAT. Most shuls are non-profit, but they charge membership dues. Just because they’re not making profit for shareholders doesn’t mean there are operational costs that have to be covered.
Always_Ask_Questions,
Lots of great suggestions. The whitelist filter is a particularly good idea for kids – Google Family Link can do that on a Chromebook, for example. Just make sure to disable guest browsing and restrict logins to preset authorized accounts only. I would also add rules that devices should be used only in public spaces (dining room, living room) and not in bedrooms. And yes, if the child is defeating your filters, then an escalating tit for tat battle that requires the parent to become more seasoned than a NSA network engineer is not the solution.
Chaim87,
“Sorry but I need a smart phone and computer. Its 2024 and we just have needs. I work and have other reasons.”
I did not write need. Need is a relative term, and no, you do not “need” a smartphone in the same sense that you need food or need to fulfill Torah obligations. If you purchase a problematic device, then it’s up to you to make it safer. It wasn’t TAG’s fault you bought that device. And as I wrote above, there are kosher devices available, including with smart apps such as banking, parking, and maps, that do not require filtering at all. Filtering is an after-market attempt to make a smartphone with Web browsing or other potentially unkosher content delivering apps safer to use.
Work is a different story. Most workplaces that require the use of a smartphone or other device to perform duties must supply one to employees, unless the work contract directed the employee to furnish his or her own. These employer furnished devices are almost always managed and monitored by the employer, so only work related activities should be done on them. Employers may even require monitoring software to be installed on personal devices that are used for work purposes or connect to the employer’s IT infrastructure.
“yes they will and I am one of those people. People just don’t like paying for things.”
Then I think you are rather unique. I’ve met people who are opposed to the idea of filtering, and they’re not going to install a filter on their device just because it’s free. Or they’ll grudgingly install a filter because their kid’s yeshiva requires it, and they’ll grumble about TAG charging money for the filter, but it’s a red herring because their real objection is that they have to filter in the first place. And I’ve met people who believe filtering is important or required, and they do not think that it’s someone else’s responsibility to take care of that filtering for them at no cost just because they chose to buy a problematic device. And in a financially challenging circumstance, a person could ask for assistance without grumbling.
“Just like i know people driving around in $800 a month leased cars kvetching about high eggs prices.”
They kvetch, but they still buy eggs.
“But I still ressent that they charge. Its just not what someone promoting filters should be doing. It makes me look down on them. People like freebies.”
Of course people like freebies! I like them, you like them, and I bet even ujm likes them. But to feel resentment when an entity charges you for a good or service? That doesn’t seem reasonable to me. Even if the good or service is a good thing that is being promoted.
“I also don’t apprecaite that its $20 to block texts on my flip phone. Stop nicling and dimming. Its very off put.”
Time is money. I wish it wasn’t $80 just to get the plumber to come to my house to lay eyes on my leaking faucet, but the guy’s got to get into the company truck and drive over to me when he could be upselling aquapex lines in some other house across town. And if you hold that texting is assur, you can purchase a flip phone that comes with talk only. The fact that you bought one with texting and now need to de-textinate it is on you.
Regarding the security risks of filters – note that a filter in this sense is only needed on a device that has a Web browser. You can purchase phones, even smartphones, without a browser. There are various Android AOSP based “kosher” phone operating systems that only allow a specific set of apps to be installed on the phone, blocking sideloading and put on phones with locked bootloaders. For laptop and desktop systems, filtering can be done at the DNS or even router level, similar to AAQ’s suggestion above with openDNS. This should be done with an admin account, with the user accounts not having elevated privileges to change the settings. This is not a foolproof solution.
Chaim87,
“Sorry but you can’t compare TAG to yeshivas and shuls … most shuls and yeshivas indeed have a system where people who totally ca’t afford it get off easy or a discounted price. Why can’t TAG offer that?”
Correct, they cannot be compared. We are obligated to educate our children and to daven. And we have to eat to live. But there’s no obligation to have a phone. And if the cost of installing a filter is so distasteful to you, you can purchase a kosher phone or a dumbphone and skip the trip to TAG altogether.
“Its a poor analogy for many reasons. For starters, whether you like it or not people aren’t yet convinced that you need filters.”
And these people are not going to be convinced to shlep over to TAG to make their $1000 iPhone less convenient whether or not you waive the $60 filtering fee. Probably not even if you pay them $60 to do it.
Gadolhadorah,
“although they were too quick to blame IDF for the Hamas rocket that hit the hospital.”
It goes far beyond that. Major outlets deliberately obfuscated the sources of the claims, calling them “Palestinian officials” or even “health authorities”, when in fact, it was Hamas making the claims. Even days later, many outlets continue to cover it as a “he said, she said” situation, with a tepid, if any, acknowledgement that US officials corroborated Israel’s lack of responsibility for the explosion. Or that Israeli officials have provided abundant evidence, while Hamas has provided zero evidence to support their accusation.
“If you tune in to NewsMax, they were covering the “news” about Natalie Holoway murder and One America News was covering another election denial story in Arizona and the announcement of Kari Lake (the loser last time) that she is now running for the Senate.”
Whataboutism. HuffPost’s lead headline is crowing about Jim Jordan’s disgrace, even as two American citizen hostages are b’chasdei Hashem released. A ctrl-f on MSNBC’s home page shows 16 matches for “Trump” and only 3 for “Biden”, despite the former being out of office for years now, and it also has Natalie Holloway at the top of the page.
“I think the mainstream media, especially the cable news networks, have saturated their coverage over the past 12 days with horrific pictures of the Hamas butchery to an extent I would not have expected”
Unfortunately, I think this has more to do with voyeurism than true sympathy or balanced coverage. As the old media adage goes, “if it bleeds, it leads.”
Shimon Nodel,
“You brought a very complex and serious halacha question to a forum that’s almost exclusively for schmoozing purposes”
How is it a complex and serious shaila? If a man properly does erusin and kiddushin and gives the woman a kesuba and she accepts them from him, they are married. These are not light things, even if done lightly or for ulterior purposes.
Trump20242028,
Check out www dot kosherorlando dot org for information about Orlando. There’s a growing community there that provides resources and information for tourists, and helps set up tourist minyanim and kosher rentals.
Ashifromrockland,
“who is responsible to get the entire Kehila to join in for the singing of Lecha Dodi. Is it the Baal Tefila or is it each person’s personal responsibility to sing?”
It’s nobody’s responsibility. Singing is nice, but it’s not some sort of requirement.
“The reason why I’m asking you this is because last week I saw three people in my Shul making fun between themselves of the Chazan and his lackluster performance.”
We can hope that, though it looked like they were making fun of him, perhaps they were discussing something else. If they were indeed making fun, it’d probably be better for their olam haba to daven at home. The shaliach tzibbur was appointed by the kehilla to be their representative. It’s a good idea for someone who is well liked and has a sweet voice to be sent to the amud for Shabbos davening, but to make fun of him is lashon hara and public embarrassment.
“As an aside, as one of the Gabbaim of the Minyan I know how many people it took to finally find one person to agree to lead the congregation, our eventual Baal Tefila only went up to the Amud because no one else would.”
Could it be nobody wants to go up because of the mocking? What a shame if so.
DaMoshe,
“I think that a baal tefillah should choose tunes that are known by most people, so that this doesn’t happen. If there’s a tune that is familiar to you, then there’s not really a reason to not sing along, and the kehillah should join in.”
In some kehillos, lecha dodi is done responsively, with the tzibur repeating each stanza. Agreed that it’s a must for the shaliach tzibbur to be aware of what’s commonly done in the shul.
RBZS,
“Today I am 76 years old and NOT EVEN ONCE have I had to dissect a single sentence!”
But you know how to write them. And I bet you know how to understand them.
Pekak,
“OP’s English needs a lot of help. I’m referring to basic spelling and using nonexistent words.”
That was part of the joke.
Always_Ask_Questions,
“We have found ways to deal with these issues already”
I wish it were so.
GadolHadorah,
“Now that we have gotten beyond Covid and masks”
I wish it were so.
n0mesorah,
Thank you for the thoughtful reply.
Regarding exclusivity:
“I made this point before. Also, you can find Chabad speakers all over the internet. Other groups are not as public. Maybe you mean something more specific.”
I agree that Chabad’s outreach puts their exclusivity on a bigger display. That’s a big part of it. I do feel however that there’s a difference in degree that goes beyond visibility. The only thing more specific I can say is that the villainizing of other groups makes me particularly uncomfortable due to their broad outreach. It doesn’t seem like a good idea for animosity to be spread along with the Chabad-style chassidus. I’m in a community where Chabad is particularly well integrated with the rest of the frum structure, and I’m in some Chabad focused groups for community info, etc. There’s a lot of MO and BT types who have gravitated towards the local Chabad, sometimes not even because they originally wanted Chabad teachings, but they liked that nobody gives death glares if their kid accidentally breathes in shul, they liked the people, the rabbi, etc. And yet they like to share memes that put down the Litvish or “misnagdim”. I get the desire to identify with your chosen group, and I know there’s some reciprocity, but Chabad’s outreach hits a huge audience, with an exploding number of non-Jews in the mix, and this animosity seems to have a quick uptake. Are we ok with Noahides hating on the “snags”?
“You don’t seem to have a problem with either point other than the debate here is playing both sides. Am I right about that, or do you have an objection to one or both of these points?”
I don’t have a problem with people holding either the idea that kabbalistic mysticism is abstruse or that it can be straightforward. You’re right that it’s the playing both sides that I object to, particularly because the tactic denigrates those with different viewpoints and can shut down discussion.
“Since their knowledge is based on integration as opposed to foundations, they assume we are just lacking in all the confirming information. They do not understand that we are questioning the fundamental concepts.”
“But without accepting the simple form of it, it can’t be understood without really studying it.”
These points are really insightful. I think I agree with you.
n0mesorah,
“A”Z is not the same as minus.”
Ok, so ctrl-H A”Z to minus in my previous post. It doesn’t really affect the point I was trying to make.
“There is no A”Z here because there is no worship other than going to the ohel … Saying yechi, even including divine identifactions for the rebbe, is never A”Z. It would only be minus with an overall context of a new order. (Order as in teaching, belief, dogma.)”
This seems like pigeonholing to me. Limit the definitions enough and nobody is over! Maybe it’s true, but I don’t know that the other posters agree with your definitions. As far as a group forming a “new order”, I think whether that’s occurring is one of the focuses of this debate. I’ve not really jumped deep into the A”Z/minus/halachos/customs side of the debate. Most of that is beyond my ability to judge. My points (mostly ignored) have been more focused on where Chabad is forming dividing lines with the rest of frum Jewry. The example I’ve brought up a few times is that other frum Jews serve as archtypical villains in their worldview. And yes, you’ve repeatedly advocated a laissez-faire approach, but I disagree. Chabad’s actions and attitudes do have an impact on the rest of Judaism. I’m not ordering them to do or not do anything, nor am I telling them what to think or believe. But I’m interested in having a discussion. Why is that so scary and wicked?
“The easiest way to test the boundaries of klal yisroel is to become a mumar.”
I don’t think this is true at all. It’s another pigeonhole. Frum Jews have always had theological debates.
“Every poster here seems more interested in piling on Chabad for the sillies things, than responding to how they understand these basic concepts. I have come to accept that pettiness is their highest dogma.”
Every poster here? This seems like an unfair exaggeration, with an insult to boot. Maybe I’m misunderstanding something, but Chabad seems to claim that their teachings bring mysticism from the realm of the esoteric to the reach of every Jew. E.g., they’ll preferentially learn Tanya with new BTs who don’t know any gemara, barely any halacha, and have no experience living a frum lifestyle. But when faced with any questions or challenges on these supposedly mystical topics (or whether people are misunderstanding them to great risk), they seem to argue that the concepts are just too esoteric and holy for our stunted little Litvish souls to grasp. It can’t be both ways. If something is truly esoteric, than a simplified explanation to someone unprepared to learn it can lead to misunderstanding. If it’s truly simple to explain, then explain it!
“Maybe you can forgive me for having the opinion that yidden don’t care at all about what it really means to accept the Kingdom of Hashem. They prattle about it a bit for Rosh Hashana and can’t make sense of it. So they move on to the rest of their year.”
I don’t have the authority forgive or not forgive you for writing this, but these cynical words coming from someone seemingly so young is distressing. Perhaps you are used to being the smartest guy in the room all the time, but don’t think for a minute that you can guess or interpret what’s in the hearts of other people, or know what they’re all about. Just like you don’t want others judging the souls and commitment of kids with noses in smartphones all the time.
n0mesorah,
“Maybe Chabad’s concept of a rebbe is on par with your version of a god. It is not on par with their understanding of Hashem ch”v.”
That seems irrelevant to me. The issue is not with Mdd or Chabad’s conception of G-d, or how powerful or perfect the Lubavitcher Rebbe was, but whether Chabad’s veneration of the Lubavitcher Rebbe is on par with avoda zara or not.
Suppose there was a “Coffeeroomer Rebbe” who knew the future, picked all the Powerball numbers correctly, and kept the posters who listened to him from boarding planes that crashed. And he could zap people with eye lasers. And when he gave someone directions that differed from the actual route, the roads would jump up and realign to what he said. And even after he died, if someone insulted him, an invisible hand would smack that person on the back of the head. We’d still be forbidden from serving or worshipping this Coffeeroomer Rebbe in any way. Because all of his power came from Hashem, and the Torah says we only worship Hashem.
ubiquitin,
“Would you agree that when used as an attributive form of a noun * as in “Jew Lawyer” or “jew bakery” in Avira’s example”
Hmm, have AviraDeArah and I ever been seen in the same room at the same time?
“Jew” is a noun. “Jewish” is an adjective. When “Jew” is used as an adjective or occasionally a verb, it is almost always meant as a negative epithet. Therefore:
How many Jews live in this town? Not offensive sounding.
That new place is a Jew bakery. Offensive sounding.Other than that, whether it sounds offensive or not depends on the context.
Zaphod Beeblebrox,
“Stupid planes that get delayed on the tarmac and stick me between two incredibly obese mammals”
Yeah! Next time you should just walk, or take a horse-drawn cart on bumpy or muddy rutted wagon roads with bandits in the woods 😀
Neville ChaimBerlin and Menachem Shmei,
““This is the true story.”
Yet there is seemingly no record of it. I’m not saying you’re in the wrong, but I’ve looked into this before and can’t find a reliable account.”I had never heard of this story until this thread. I don’t know how to access police records, but I did find several contemporaneous records of the incident in print media. First, there was absolutely no justification for violence, so don’t misconstrue anything I write as support for what these attackers did. It does seem that Rabbi Korf was teaching a Satmar kid in a store, rather than a shiur to interested adults. Whether or not he was a hired tutor, or was warned, or whatever, there is no evidence. The issue according to these articles was clearly about an accusation of proselytizing, not anger due to Zionism. The articles all mention that there was feuding between the groups for years. I didn’t see anything about Rabbi Korf getting beaten, but a second younger Chabad Rabbi about a month later, R’ Mendel Wechter, was pulled into a van, also had his beard cut, and was thrown out of the van, requiring hospitalization with a broken ankle and neck lacerations.
sechel83,
“i figured why not keep litvaks busy about there own “minhagim””
Though I may have missed stuff, the debates here have largely not been about “minhagim”. The closest I’ve seen was on another thread with AviraDeArah regarding sleeping in the sukkah. Even that debate wasn’t about actual practice, however, as many Litvaks and other Jews also do not sleep in the sukkah because of discomfort. That debate was about Chabad’s removing the idea of sleeping in the sukkah completely. Rather the debates are more about hashkafa and beliefs, some of which may manifest themselves into certain practices.
“(i know some will answer, that thats “our minhag/ mesora”, ok so why do you guys criticize chabad (for just believing in gemaras, tzadikim) “
I hope you noticed that, despite the insulting premise of your questions, you received unequivocal and non-defensive answers. Challenges and debates are not the same thing as hatred and persecution.
Menachem Shmei,
“Really? Is it the Ashkenazi mesorah for over 200 years ago to shave their beards? When Reb Moshe … rules a chidush, you accept this as Ashkenazi mesorah for generations.”
The Ashkenazi mesora is that trimming beards is ok. Rav Moshe ruled that electric “shavers” are equivalent to very short trimming, not shaving/destroying the beard. So yes, we feel the “chidush” is in line with our mesora. It’s not like electric shavers existed 200 years ago, and Rav Moshe upended generations of rulings on electric shavers. And even if he did, he would have provided his reasoning in a manner so well explained that one could follow the chain of the mesora up to the chidush.
“Yet you mock (in disgusting fashion) the psakim and minhagim of 200 years of the holy Chabad rebbes.”
I do not know what Neville ChaimBerlin was referring to with his comment, but I didn’t feel like he was “mocking”. And honestly that statement was not nice, but it pales in comparison to having fellow Jews serve as the boogeymen of your stories – to ingest enmity as a part of your movement’s hashkafa.
Menachem Shmei,
“It depends. This may be the approach of the more openminded and respectful-of-other-opinions guys. While the more hotblooded my-opinion-is-the-only-opinion guys will rant and rave about the stupidity of those with that opinion, and constantly call them out as crazies.”
Is the literally alive in the flesh really considered a legitimate shita in Chabad? Who then is interred in the ohel? Regarding live and let live, when I was younger, a Chabad synagogue in my area got kicked out of the main organization over a dispute on opening a new Chabad house. The existence of this place was scrubbed from Chabad dot org. Other Chabad houses/rabbis have been ousted over the years for all sorts of reasons, e.g., inviting Yitzchak Rabin to speak, opposing Covid policies, what have you. It seems that Chabad has no qualms about enforcing its preferences up to the point of putting its own shluchim, who have sacrificed much to go into remote locales, into cherem. Why then, when it comes to this issue, does Chabad suddenly become squeamish and “let’s respect everyone’s opinion here”?
“>>>Maybe it’s not so much “denying” the beliefs so much as concealing.
Well said.”
What is the purpose of the concealment?
“Mainly the latter.”
What, in your opinion, is the boundary line between “ridiculous” and avoda zara?
Always_Ask_Questions,
“Not eating kitniyos is a minhag, but wearing a hat?! This just got out of hand.”
Lol, black hats are really a stick in your craw, aren’t they? Anyway it was amiricanyeshivish who brought the hats up, and I suspect he feels like you do and was going for irony.
“So, would a person born into a black hat wearing community need a hatara nedarim if he decides to wear his grandfather’s white or gray hat?”
No more than he’d need to if he wanted to wear a blue Union Civil War era jacket instead of a black suit jacket, or a hat with a big feather, or a Napoleon hat, or anything else that differs from the common sartorial choices of the community. If he’s always davened with a hat, however, it may be more of a shaila if he wants to forego a hat completely.
“As to confusion between midrabanan and Torah, isn’t it how we read the story of Adam and Hava making a takono not to _touch_ the grape?”
Off topic – I notice that your transliterated ח’s go from ch to h when you’re in a more trollish mood, I wonder what it means.
On topic – yes and no. Chava’s addition of “we cannot touch it” gave the snake the opportunity to increase the confusion that he started when he initially opened the conversation with the incorrect, “so Hashem said you cannot eat from any of the trees in the garden?” And that’s not the only inaccuracy/addition she had. She also added the term “fruit” to the command, and she said the tree of knowledge was in the center of the garden, whereas we were told previously only that the tree of life was in the center. She desired the fruit both physically and intellectually, and her changes to the description of the tree and the command seem to reflect that desire. When the snake pushed her against the tree and she did not instantly die, she could have thought many things. Hashem didn’t punish me because my touching it was unintentional. Maybe the punishment isn’t instantaneous. Whatever. But instead, she used the confusion as a means to rationalize, and she ate the fruit. Just like someone stealing from a store may rationalize that it’s a victimless crime, they have insurance, whatever. Maybe she was “confused” about some things, but she wasn’t confused about the eating being forbidden. She knew Hashem did not want that.
Neville Chaim Berlin,
“Untrue. He admitted on one of these threads to the belief that Moshiach will be the Rebbe.”
I don’t recall that, but it’s possible. I haven’t been following the ins and outs of all the threads too closely.
“He [seemingly] defended those who believe the Rebbe is alive at the front of 770 after another poster explicitly defended it.”
I didn’t read the “so what” as a defense, but more of a “I’m not responsible for what others believe and do”, which I disagree with. Many people here are arguing that belief in the Rebbe being the Moshiach with deity-like powers or even a deity mamash is a mainstream belief within Chabad, and that some Lubavitchers only make a feint of objection because they know the beliefs are unacceptable to other frum Jews and therefore try to hide the beliefs. I prefer to take what Menachem Shmei is writing at face value, and if I wanted to dive into the theological debates, what I’d wonder is – if indeed the mainstream majority of Chabad thinks these “crazies” are wrong, and even falling into avoda zara, at what point do they make a real break and clearly define their shita? And Menachem’s other point that our disagreement is mainly on understanding the terminology of chassidus… if so, the crazies are also seemingly “misunderstanding” the lingo and hence falling into kefira. How then does Chabad insure that things are taught correctly?
Perhaps more in support of your position, Menachem Shmei tried to draw a distinction between “meshichism” and “elokism” by noting that the “yechi” litany does not contain “boreinu”. I don’t think this helps, because avoda zara is not limited to just thinking that something other than Hashem created us. In fact, the original avoda zara acknowledged Hashem as the original Creator, but held that Hashem gave power and control to other beings, who could then be petitioned or praised independently. That and ascribing powers to people or things that do not have such powers.
“If Lubavitchers put Rebbe pictures on all house walls, and the house serves as the shul, then there’s going to be one on the eastern wall.” … That wasn’t Yserbius’ point, clearly.” … “In any case, people seem to be meikel when davening in their own homes (i.e. I’ve never seen anyone leave their eastern wall undecorated on purpose)”
Even in smaller Chabad houses, it’s not like davening in someone’s living room. They set up a room as a functional shul, with an aron kodesh, bima, amud, mechitza, etc. So no, I would not expect pictures to be on the wall at the front of that room. If a picture of the Lubavitcher Rebbe was placed there at the front, with the aron kodesh and amud, it would be a deliberate act and a statement with clear theological ramifications. Yserbius123 obviously thought that, because he brought it up with hyperbolic flair. I thought that, and Menachem Shmei obviously thought that based on his responses. So I’m not sure that it’s me who’s missing the point.
Yes in a normal living room setup there’s likely pictures on the wall, but the room was not intentionally set up for davening. When I daven at home I stand close to the wall and davka not directly in front of a picture or mirror. When I’m at someone else’s house, it’s harder, but I try to not be directly in front of pictures.
Neville ChaimBerlin,
“It’s going to pretty much be guaranteed to happen in any Chabad that’s a house-shul like I mentioned.”
I doubt it.
“I’ve never jumped to the assumption that anyone’s kavana was to bow down to the picture as a replacement for Hashem; Chabad just likes putting Rebbe pictures everywhere.”
There’s many steps before literally bowing down and replacing.
“Seems like a strange thing for either side of this conversation to make a big deal of.”
It’s forbidden to daven in front of a picture (or even a mirror), so Yserbius123 was making a pretty big accusation.
“What more are you looking for? If the neutral parties reading this thread still have no objections to Chabad even with those things out in the open, then they never will, no matter how many Litvish gedolim you bring in who say they should.”
So my goal in participating in this thread wasn’t to get people to object to Chabad, but rather to have a discussion and debate, with the possibility that we could understand each other better.
Yserbius123,
“You’ve already admitted to multiple beliefs”
What’s it like to be completely unencumbered by the concepts of truthfulness and accuracy? Menachem Shmei didn’t “admit” to having these beliefs; he acknowledged that there may be “crazies” who hold these beliefs. To ask how pervasive the beliefs are, why Chabad seems to tolerate them, and at what point it crosses the boundary from “tipshus” to “apikorsus” seem to be legitimate questions.
The Frumguy,
“What can be done?”
Forbid your kids from getting drivers licenses.
Menachem Shmei,
“I honestly request that you name the Chabad Houses that you’ve seen with a picture of the Rebbe on mizrach vant, because something like this is a huge issue that must be addressed”
In this era where so many people are carrying a camera with them at all times, I doubt such a place actually exists.
DaMoshe,
“I’ve always been fascinated by life underwater.”
If it rains much more, we’ll be able to whale watch from the comfort of our living room windows!
amirican yeshivish,
“Of course not. But if someone finds he “can’t” keep Shabbos anymore he is by defenition not frum. But if he “can’t” eat cholov yisroel that is not the case. The same would be about the Yeshiva guy who “can’t” wear a hat and jacket or the Satmar guy who starts eating OU.”
In the majority of circumstances, one who “can’t” wear a hat and jacket anymore is not due to contact rashes, sensory issues, or the like. Because in those cases the guy would speak with his rav and figure out what to do. No, we’re talking about a person who’s likely developed a deep distaste for a certain segment of klal Yisroel, and is rebelling against it or trying to distance himself from it. By chalav stam or hechshers, perhaps there’s financial or dietary issues at play, but again, a connected Jew would speak with his rav, and what we’re talking about here is most likely also a rebellion. The fact that such a person might land in a place that is nominally acceptable by some other segments of frumkeit is fortunate, but the spiritual situation that leads to the change is not much different than the guy who just “can’t” keep Shabbos anymore.
“I was told of someone who was looking desperatly erev Yom Kippur for a chicken for kapporres and wouldn’t hear the tzad to use money, but was saying he doesn’t plan on fasting because “Hashem loves me and for sure doesn’t care if I fast or not””
Whatever.
amirican yeshivish,
“I say this because i find it important to diffrenciate. I know of a Chabad person who went OTD because she ate Cholov Stam and then threw in the towel (nebach) because anyways she did an aveirah…”
This is a common polemic against minhagim or chumros, but it’s rather silly. If someone “throws in the towel” because they believe they did an aveira, ate chalav stam, or flipped a switch on Shabbos, or slept past the zman, or whatnot, their problems are way beyond whether they are aware of what’s a derabbanan or a deoraisa. If someone goes ballistic and burns down a hotel because the scrambled eggs at the breakfast buffet were cold at 10am, would your main takeaway from the incident be how important it is for hotels to keep their eggs hot?
WolfishMusings,
I’m a BT, which means unfortunately that I used to eat non-kosher. I have occasional dreams where I find myself suddenly in a non-kosher restaurant or cafeteria, having just eaten or being in the middle of eating. I then realize what I’m doing or did, and feel horrified, and I’m relieved when I wake up.
May you have a refuah shleima and a wonderful Shabbos!
Menachem Shmei,
“The vast majority of shuls I’ve been to don’t have a picture of the Rebbe in shul at all (they will often have one in the hallway or lobby).”
This has been my observation as well, though I’m sure my sample size is much smaller than yours.
AviraDeArah,
“So because i don’t accept their accounts as a given, i chose not to passel a yid who I know nothing about, who for all i know could have been a very good jew.”
Sounds like a good policy to have, thanks.
Menachem Shmei,
“I must say, this is not a very honest comparison.”
Curious as to why you chose to describe the point as not honest as opposed to incorrect or mistaken.
“In this case, the Alter Rebbe was just released from prison, where he was arrested for treason (death sentence r”l) because of a libel by the misnagdim”
Of the misnagdim? Collective blame? Did they get 30 pieces of silver? Did they declare his blood be on us and our children forever?
“of which Reb Noteh Notkin was very outspoken and instrumental.”
Guilt by association?
AviraDeArah,
“Chabad .org calls nota notkin a leader of misnagdim….he wasn’t a rov according to articles online about him; definitely wasn’t a gadol or rov of a community…”
I couldn’t find much information about him, but it seems he was more of a maskil than a misnagid. He did a lot of advocating for Jews to the Russian government, but he also sought to open schools where Russian language and other secular subjects would be taught, and to try and bring Jews into civil service (and hence out of the Pale of Settlement).
mentsch1,
“Any one self identifying as a misnagid is doing so bc he doesn’t respect the chassidik philosophy.”
Not so. Exhibit A: CTLAWYER.
“Do you really see a major difference between the word snag and telling someone his practices are akin to avodeh zara?”
Yup. And I’ve already explained it above. Let me know if you need all-caps.