Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Patur Aval Assur,
What is the value of aligning motivation with ??? if not the good feeling?
This is the fundamental question of humanity, the one that Chava grappled with right after her encounter with the snake.
Assuming we care about our lives, a basic reason to seek deeper purpose is longer term benefit. We have bigger brains, so we can predict further into the future than animals can. Getting a vaccine hurts, which is not a good short term feeling, and small children have to be held down to get a shot, but we adults understand it may protect us from diseases down the road, and most of us would willingly go to the doctor for the shot. For Chava, her conundrum was that eating from the tree would sure taste good and give her a lot of knowledge, but then she’d die (or maybe not, said her rationalizations).
As human beings, while we find avoiding death to be more desirable than ephemeral pleasure, I don’t think we’d be satisfied with just that. We’re not here to just eat and avoid getting eaten for as long as we can. So we seek greater purpose. I am Jewish so I believe that we have a Creator Who has an intended purpose for us and directs us to it via the Torah. What we learn about our purpose, however, may conflict with our existing notions of what makes us feel good, and we then arrive at that same primeval question Chava faced once again.
So it seems that the good feeling is based on the person’s own understanding of his purpose. The terrorist thinks his purpose is to kill people and he feels good; the good samaritan thinks his purpose is to help people and he feels good. At the end of the day what is the difference between them?
Now we’re hitting a fundamental question of humanity post tree. Once upon a time we could clearly see our purpose. Now our desire to feel good beats so loudly within us that we can follow it instead of our true purpose, making up false purposes along the way and convincing ourselves that they’re right in order to shush our existential discontent. Instead of the driver leading the horse, the horse goes where it wants and the driver convinces himself that that is where he’s supposed to be.
Patur Aval Assur,
if there was no good feeling in fulfilling your purpose, why would you want to fulfill your purpose?
The strange thing about humans is that we can make ourselves feel good about pretty much anything. An extreme example is the terrorist, who feels good about killing himself and others. I think the most important thing is aligning motivation with ???, and the good feelings are up to us.
So I guess Patur Aval Assur’s question could be asked about my example of children sharing in this manner:
If both lead to sharing at the end, why is the wise child who does it because it is his purpose any better than the child who does it because his mommy will praise him?
I can think of two possible answers:
1. Reaching the point where we are doing things because it’s our purpose is itself part of our purpose. So even if we’re doing things that we are purposed to do but we have different reasons for doing so, we’re not 100% fulfilling our purpose.
2. Chazal were concerned that fulfilling our purpose for any other reason presented a risk of being led astray. It allows for our yetzer haras to begin rationalizing away at our reasons. Therefore, the reason for ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? is one of safety.
Patur Aval Assur,
Your last paragraph is essentially saying that the value of ??? is that by the very nature of our hardwiring we feel good when doing ???.
Nope, not what I’m saying. Just because we are hardwired to desire our purpose does not mean that we would feel good fulfilling it. We would have to work on ourselves to align our feelings with our purpose in order to feel good. We would also have to learn what our purpose was.
A toddler sees no benefit in sharing a toy whatsoever, because he wants to have the toy and by sharing, he doesn’t have the toy.
An older child begins to see that sharing is valued by his parent. He’ll share his toy because he’ll get praised or rewarded by his parent. This is doing something for the sake of a reward. Some people’s religiosity is in this mode.
The older child may also begin to see the benefit in sharing because it opens the possibilities of trade: if I share my toy that he wants, he’ll share his toy that I want. This is also doing something for the sake of reward, and is the underpinnings of secular “morality”.
An even older child begins to develop empathy: I will share my toy because it will make him feel good (bein adam l’chaveiro), or it will bring closeness with my parent who values sharing (bein adam l’Makom), and that makes me feel good too. I think this begins to transcend doing something for the sake of reward, but I can understand your argument that it does not. Fine.
A wise child realizes that he wasn’t put on Earth to have toys. He was put on Earth to fulfill a purpose. He learns about his purpose, and sees that sharing is part of this purpose. He shares to fulfill his purpose. I think this is a pure form of not doing for the sake of a reward at all, because even if the child ultimately feels good because of acting in this way, it is only because he aligned his feelings with his purpose.
HaLeiVi,
A belated thank you for your post above – you explained the position I was arguing much more clearly than I was explaining it myself.
Patur Aval Assur,
I’ll try to take another stab at this discussion without tying myself up in rhetorical knots like last time.
Would you do something if you received no benefit whatsoever?
I don’t think this is possible. The definition of an action (doing) is something that causes a change – and any change is either beneficial, harmful, or both.
Benefit includes physical reward, getting a good feeling, earning schar, etc.
I think there is an error in this premise that is at fault for creating what may be an artificial conundrum. You seem to assume that ??? encompasses all benefit, and that actions for the sake of ??? are separate from actions for benefit. I do not think Chazal intended those definitions.
I think ??? is a benefit that is not ???. Why is ??? a benefit? Because it reveals our purpose. Why does our purpose have value? Because we are hardwired to desire our purpose.
nolongersingle,
I do think there is a distinction between disputes between, say, MO and Yeshivish and between “meshichists” and the remainder of Orthodox Jewry. Most of the disagreements between the former are over matters of practice or outlook, for example, what to learn or not to learn, what to wear, how separate from secular society to be, etc. When you get down to the nitty gritty of ikkarei emunah, however, these groups fundamentally all agree, and that’s what makes us all Orthodox Jews. When a group begins to change one or more of these ikkarei emunah, however, we run into serious trouble. When Moshiach is declared to have come without any of the signs (ingathering of Jewish exiles, rebuilt Beis Hamikdash, knowledge of G-d fills the earth as water fills the seas, restoration of Malchus Dovid, resurrection, etc.), that represents a big change in one of our ikkarei emunah. We also have a history replete with examples of how dangerous this particular change is.
I personally don’t know enough about the meshichists themselves or the relevant halachos to say whether or not they are still within the boundaries of Torah Judaism, but I do know that the issues are quite different from the ones we typically debate in the CR.
DaasYochid,
Thank you for your kind words.
So all we’re left with is discussion and debate, and that can lead to misunderstanding and hard feelings.
I think this is a great point. The opportunity to discuss and debate issues I care about is a big part of what motivates me to read and post here, but there is a big downside to be aware of.
Sam2,
Meh. I wasn’t even necessarily defending DaMoshe. I was just proving to DY why his point was invalid via reductio ad absurdum.
I think I missed your point because I personally don’t equate not being offered the amud with mistreatment, even if there was some policy in place that precluded me from being shaliach tzibbur. We can discuss whether any such policy is reasonable or not (and you may very well find me in agreement with you regarding some potential policies), but it wasn’t the policy that mistreated DaMoshe, it was what he got told.
ubiquitin,
Sort of, though this case (as I understood it) was about a guy who wears a srugi not being allowed to daven for the amud period. Even with a hat or at by day with a Talis. Perhaps I misunderstood
That’s the thing, nobody truly knows what the shul (or perhaps just the gabbai’s) policy was. We’ve had four speculations on this thread by my count: no srugis because they’re not good enough (DaMoshe), no srugis because it’s assumed they won’t have a hat/jacket (me), no srugis because of perceived hashkafic differences (DaasYochid), no srugis because they pronounce Hebrew differently (HaKatan). There’s been some interesting discussion about whether these such policies are reasonable or not, but in reality with regard to the actual event, we don’t know the policy or its rationale.
DaasYochid (quoting DaMoshe),
This was a very large shul in Lakewood. Is this achdus???
Right, this was another line that made me feel that DaMoshe was encompassing the entire shul or Lakewood community in his lament, not simply the gabbaim involved. Even if it was just the gabbaim, my point that DaMoshe shouldn’t believe (or interpret in such a negative way) what his cousin said stands. The whole story makes me feel sad, because in reality DaMoshe probably wasn’t even expecting the amud when he visited his cousin, so if nothing was said he never would have been hurt, and most people at that shul probably wanted to make him feel welcome, just like his cousin, and he ultimately felt unwelcome.
Syag Lchochma,
“before declaring an entire shul or community to be lacking in ahavas Yisroel based on hearsay.”
another example.
I agree with you that what I wrote was not a direct quotation of DaMoshe per se, but I did feel that it was an accurate summation of the body of his posts in this thread. DaMoshe didn’t refute or object to the take either. Upon rereading his posts carefully, it is possible that he was intending to limit his polemic to the gabbaim themselves and not include the larger shul or Lakewood community. It wasn’t clear, however, particularly after he prefaced a response to Joseph with “If you’re going to tell me that in Lakewood, they think that…”. There could be other interpretations of that response too. I think other posts such as Sam2’s bringing wife beating as an example to support his point further charged the debate.
My question is just about a tendency to make a posters comments more extreme, and then respond to him based on the “updated version”
I thought a lot about this, and I think there are several different things that go on, with different elements at play depending on the thread.
1. Sometimes when a poster identifying with one “group” makes a statement about others in a different “group” (e.g., DaMoshe’s story in this thread, or if a Yeshivish person opened a thread to discuss some problem or other he witnessed with individuals in a MO setting – certainly has happened in the CR before!), other posters may interpret this as a blanket statement about that other group. Sometimes this arises from unclear wording by the OP, sometimes it arises from posters taking personal offense. I think DaasYochid alluded to this issue earlier in this thread; such posts usually do not engender positive responses.
2. In most threads as posts get added, the debate evolves into two camps, even though individual posters have a wide range of views. In this thread, for example, several posters have put me, DaasYochid, and Joseph into one “camp” and responded to us as one, even though our statements and positions have differences. Similarly, it’s possible that interpretations of DaMoshe’s posts by those arguing with him have been influenced by Sam2’s and ubiquitin’s posts, for example. I think once this two-sided evolution happens, people start responding to the “camp” rather than the poster, and it’s much easier to misinterpret individual posters based on perceptions of what the greater “camp” holds. I agree with you that posters should be very careful to remember that we are responding to unique individuals, not a camp.
Syag Lchochma,
I realize I didn’t fully answer your question, but I’m almost out of time to post, so iy”H I will try to post more soon.
ubiquitin,
If it were a legitimate case where in Teaneck culture streimels were considered informal attire, then I personally wouldn’t theoretically have a problem with a shul policy stating that the shaliach tzibbur should wear something other than a streimel. In real application, however, I don’t think it’s an apples to apples equivalence, because whereas some have a minhag to wear a streimel (and would be violating their minhag to not wear it), I don’t think there’s a corresponding minhag to not wear a hat and jacket (where wearing a hat and jacket would violate the minhag). Does this make sense?
Syag Lchochma,
Interestingly, you wrote this come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! as your parallel to DaMoshe’s statement. Do you believe that that is what he wrote?
I appreciate your feedback on my posts, especially since you consistently work to see the various perspectives in a thread. I am concerned that I remain as respectful and honest as possible in a debate, without misrepresenting anyone’s position. I don’t always succeed with this, and sometimes I’m not as aware of how my words are read by others as I should be.
When I wrote the sentence you quoted above, I was intending to parallel DaMoshe’s representation: …the fact that there isn’t enough achdus and ahavas Yisrael with Lakewood as an example. I did spin off of the thread title a bit to make it a bit more cheeky. I wasn’t intending to embellish or magnify his position at all, so if that’s how my post came across (maybe it was the exclamation point?), it’s good for me to clarify myself.
For the record, and perhaps this is my OOT mentality, I don’t think it’s a good idea to extrapolate someone’s hashkafa from his headgear. Not a good indicator.
I’ve also seen shuls that are very open with the amud: “hey, you’re new here! Are you visiting? Would you like to daven mincha?” And I’ve also seen shuls that are more closed, only allowing those affiliated with the shul to be shaliach tzibbur. There’s a wide range of policies, cultures and customs among shuls for a wide range of reasons, and I think people owe it to their brethren to give some benefit of the doubt before declaring an entire shul or community to be lacking in ahavas Yisroel based on hearsay.
ubiquitin,
I’m curious what you would say if say in Teaneck there was a rule that a person wearing a shtreimel cant daven for the amud?
If a streimel wearing Jew came to the CR and said, “come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! I visited a friend there once, and he told me that he asked the gabbai if I could daven for the amud, and the gabbai said never because I wear a streimel”, I would say the exact same thing I’ve been saying here. That sounds like rechilus and should not be believed – and there may be a shul policy that’s being misunderstood by someone in the chain.
coffeeroomlover,
first of all, if u can afford to smoke, then you can not have the chutzpah to go round collecting.
second, when the come round while smoking, they have a very negative attitude.
I disagree with these conclusions.
First of all – just because someone is smoking does not mean they can afford cigarettes on top of food and other needs. It’s natural that among the poor there will be a large fraction who do not handle their finances well or exhibit good future planning abilities – they make unwise purchases and then do not have enough left for necessities. That’s partly why they’re poor. Surely Hashem was aware of this yet still commanded us to help all of the poor among our people, not just the ones who budget smartly.
Second of all – it’s natural that among the poor there will be a larger number of people who lack proper social skills – these issues may be holding them back from employment, etc. That’s partly why they’re poor. Surely Hashem was aware of this yet still commanded us to help all of the poor among our people, not just the socially astute.
DaMoshe,
he said it to me while walking to shul for Friday night davening. The fact is they said no to any time because of the kippah I wear.
I feel uncomfortable with this, because based on your story, you learned this via rechilus, and I think it’s forbidden to believe what you heard from your cousin (although you can take precautions to protect yourself based on the information). You may well have been hearing a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of the shul policy.
My issue is their assuming that someone with a kippah srugah is at a level that isn’t good enough for them.
This seems to be an extrapolation beyond even what you heard. At worst it is only a reflection of the gabbai’s own prejudices. Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?
I’m not so obtuse that I believe that there are no people out there who look down on others because of what kippa they wear, or what shul they go to, etc. I cannot confirm or deny whether this was the case with this particular gabbai. What I’m addressing with my responses is a) that you accepted/believed this potential rechilus and b) that you’re using it to cast aspersions on an entire shul/community.
DaMoshe,
A person shouldn’t be judged on clothes. They should be judged on whether they are a good, frum Jew, with yiras shamayim.
I absolutely agree with every word you wrote.
I don’t think that a shul having a policy that anyone davening for the amud should wear a hat and jacket violates the above statements, however. You yourself provided the best reason by writing:
Remember, however, that the halachah is that a person should dress respectfully when davening, as they are speaking to Hashem
Different communities and shuls will have different definitions for dressing respectfully. You may disagree with their definition, and that is fine, but they have a right to their own definitions, and they have a right for their customs to be respected. Would you go to Japan and take offense from an innkeeper who won’t let you walk on his tatami floors because you have your shoes on? Or would you just take your shoes off and go in? I understand that this situation feels different because of the perception that your own culture is being degraded, but I honestly think that that unfortunate circumstance arose due to mistakes made by the people you interacted with, not the policy itself. Would it cause you harm to don a hat and jacket (or even a black velvet kippa) if you really wanted to daven for the amud at this shul?
The Baal Tefillah took off his hat and put the talis over his head. Shabbos morning, married men usually don’t wear hats, as they have a talis on.
I thought this story was regarding Friday mincha/Kabbalos Shabbos? Perhaps the shul would have no problem with you davening for the amud if you covered your head with a tallis too?
Syag Lchochma,
i agree. That was why I said ‘blog’, not ‘thread’. Maybe I misused the word.
Ok, that makes sense. The misunderstanding was on my end, not yours. Fortunately, it’s been my experience that most “real world” interactions among Jews have little acrimony. I think some of what goes on in the CR is a function of anonymity and Internet culture and the fact that this forum is geared towards debating.
I asked why DaMoshe received abrasive-ish responses to his story, which was very nice.
I agree that his story was nice, but I felt somewhat pained by his takeaway. I also didn’t detect any abrasiveness in the responses, just disagreement about the nature of relationships among Jews.
DaMoshe,
he said to me, “I would love to hear you daven for the amud. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. I asked the gabbaim this morning and they won’t allow it, because you wear a kippah srugah.”
This is very unfortunate, and must have made you feel very excluded from your cousin’s community. On its face, it seems to me that your cousin spoke rechilus. I cannot see any possible good reason for him to repeat to you what the gabbai said. You apparently did not ask to daven from the amud at his shul, and you in all likelihood would have been content simply to go and daven with your cousin. In his attempt to compliment you, your cousin ultimately drove a wedge between you and his shul and community.
This was a very large shul in Lakewood. Is this achdus???
To address the shul’s policy and achdus – I would imagine that the shul has a policy that any shaliach tzibbur wear a hat and jacket, and the gabbai (assuming he said exactly what your cousin repeated to you) erroneously and insensitively extrapolated that kippa sruga wearers don’t wear hats and jackets, so they cannot daven for the amud.
Syag Lchochma,
DaMoshe is saying we are usually apart but we come together at times. Your comment implies we are usually together but come apart at times. You can’t possibly believe that is true. Even among this one blog it isn’t true.
Can you provide your working definition of achdus so I understand where you are coming from? I’m not weighing in on the debate between DaMoshe and Gamanit at this point, but I am surprised that you perceive the discussion above as proof of a lack of achdus. Both sides stated their points respectfully as far as I can see, and I believe there is a difference between achdus and lockstep agreement on all issues.
I thought it was a really nice story and Im a bit confused about why it brought him abrasive-ish responses
What was abrasive?
You forgot to write lol at the bottom of your post.
This did seem a bit abrasive to me.
Francorachel3,
Are we not creating a generation of spoiled children?
I see it in almost the exact opposite way. If a family has the means to pay for a lavish vacation that their kids will love, why not use those funds to elevate their joy of Yom Tov?
Just for the record, we stay home for Pesach every year.
gavra_at_work,
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills. If you feel that I have missed your point by a mile, then it’s highly likely that your point can be more articulately stated.
gavra_at_work,
Do you think that the Torah should be updated for a non-agrarian society. Hm….. No. If I did, I would (rightfully) be called a Reform Jew.
Your response is a red herring; you didn’t answer my question.
And no, the Torah does not need to be updated so that it deals with a non-agrarian society. Your assertion that my question can only be answered with Torah reform indicates that perhaps you believe Hashem cannot predict the future or write the Torah in such a way that it can deal with multiple societies. You kofer. 🙂
That is the same “your Cheshbon” point DY brought. Asked and answered.
And countered successfully by DaasYochid. If someone asks you for money, it gives you the right to tell him yes or no. It perhaps gives you the right to investigate his situation to inform your subsequent yes or no. It does not give you the right to throw Chazals at him in his pain and dictate to him what you think is best for his learning.
Since you are missing the point, (and DY is a Kofer anyway, so no-one will listen to him :), I’ll explain.
I understand your point, but if all you are trying to do is state that since Chazal say aniyus is good for Torah learning, a society that values Torah learning above all else should ergo embrace aniyus, I’ll respond that it is a rather strange point to make in a thread about tzedaka, in response to a poster noting the dire living conditions for Chareidim in E”Y.
If I came across a man about to hand $50 to a beggar, and pointed out to him that each and every dollar given to tzedaka is holy, and that even a dollar given is a great mitzvah, what I said was absolutely true, but was I doing a good thing or a bad thing in context?
Your point was not made in a vacuum, and it is valid for us to make inferences and ask questions based on juxtaposition.
gavra_at_work,
Hate to do this, but Chazal say that Aniyus is a necessary quality for Kinyan HaTorah (I don’t think anyone is at the point where they are beyond eating only bread, salt & water, and sleeping on the floor of the Bais Medrash).
Two points:
1. Do you think poverty can or should be defined in this way for a non-agrarian society? Are you asserting that there is no food or housing insecurity among Chareidim in Eretz Yisroel?
2. You are quick to mention what the gemara says about the sacrifices that should be made for Torah, but what does the gemara say about supporting limud Torah? Does the concept of tzedaka end once you think that everyone has some bread, salt, and water and there are enough batei midrash to provide sufficient floor space for all to sleep?
If the end goal is to learn as much as possible, you (and other Charaidim) should embrace Aniyus.
While this may be proper for someone to hold this for himself, I do not think it is proper to say it to someone else.
Good one, The Goq!
Lior,
“old man” also vouched for the letter’s bonafides.
He did not; he stated that the letter satisfied his opinion of the Israeli Chareidi mindset. Your googling suggestion was much more helpful.
Most of the dangers mentioned by the RY are equally applicable in the U.S.
You and I are in basic agreement here. I’m not disputing the portion of the letter discussing college education. The dangers discussed are real. What raised red flags for me was the dichotomy between the first portion of the letter, which alluded to food insecurity, and the latter portion, which implied that kollel families made ostentatious purchases. Old man is right, I am not inside the Israeli Chareidi world, but among all the kollel families I know in my area, I don’t see any luxurious wasteful spending.
The RY may have been concerned about the perception you mention (i.e. ivory towers) due to the illegitimate external criticism made on these topics which inevitably filters back into our communities.
This is possible, and perhaps the R”Y would have a very different response to an individual than what he wrote in this letter which was targeted to a community as a whole. I guess I read it from the perspective of an individual.
“Rabbi, we don’t have enough money for food. Can I go to Kefira State University to get a degree in computer science?”
“No, for X, Y, and Z, reasons.”
“OK Rabbi, but what should I do about feeding my family?”
“Stop spending 4 bucks on Starbucks every weekday, that’ll save you $1252 a year.”
“But I don’t buy Starbucks…”
About the Borsalino thing, maybe there’s some kind of mishegas going around the more well-to-do families in EY about frequently getting a new hat. Who knows; there are certainly far worse bad habits in the secular world.
Maybe.
Lior: What do you think about an expansion of distance (e.g., online, or even through correspondence) courses and accelerated degree programs that allow people to attain a degree without having to go to a campus or take unrelated liberal arts coursework?
Woah, your kiddush sponsors must’ve already traded in the salads for better scotch.
DaasYochid,
I don’t know if this letter exists or not, nor can I comment on the status of the various educational institutions being referred to. However, I think most who have commented here have missed the point.
The letter isn’t saying that because Hashem provides, we therefore do not need to do hishtadlus. It is saying that a certain type of hishtadlus is unacceptable, and as a result, we must avoid it, and use other means of hishtadlus, and even if it seems difficult, we must trust in Hashem to provide.
I got the overall point of the letter, and I agree with its descriptions of the dangers. I think the issue may be even more pronounced in Israel, because whereas in the U.S. most college instructors are non-Jewish and generally ignorant of and supportive of Orthodox Judaism, that is not the case in Israel.
What bothers me is that this letter, which was introduced by a poster whose OP is the sole post on the account, and then “confirmed” by the second post ever made by another user (can anyone else confirm it, btw?), are two things:
1. The writer goes out of his way to try and dispel a notion that rabbis are locked in ivory towers and unconcerned about the plight of kollel families. No, they are in the trenches with these families and feel their pain. My question: why would he assume that kollel families felt this way about their rabbis? I don’t think that they by-and-large do. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the letter is not directed at kollel families, but that’s the way it reads to me.
2. Then, as an almost perfect foil for this earlier point, the writer’s sole example supporting the notion that the primary cause of the sense of poverty among kollel families is that they are living overindulgent lives is a claim that families must buy a new borsalino hat for each son at the start of every zman! Is that really a thing in Bnei Brak?? I don’t think so.
Lior,
So MO shuls charge so much more because they pay their rabbi so much more than chareidi shuls and they have larger shul staffs?
Not sure you can pin it to MO vs. non-MO shuls, but your reasoning is basically correct. Different shuls have different needs or philosophies about what services a shul will provide to its community. A shul with the sole purpose of providing a small space for men to daven will have the lowest overhead costs. That setup is feasible in areas where a frum infrastructure is already well established. Other shuls require the full time participation of one or more rabbis and other staff to provide additional services that the community wants or needs, and they may have a larger or more expensive building.
Get another shul or sue them under the ADA. In secular court.
lol, a trollish response to a trollish thread.
So where was this letter published originally? It’s simply, uh, fascinating how closely it parallels recent CR discussions right down to the frequency of Borsalino hat purchasing. Hmm…
DaMoshe,
My wife once asked her, “Doesn’t it get hard? Don’t you sometimes want your husband to help out financially?”
I feel like your wife’s question to your cousin was somewhat inappropriate, and her “strange” response had more to do with discomfort at the personal intrusion than brainwashing.
Salt becomes largely ineffective at melting ice once temperatures drop below 20 degrees. At those temperatures, sand is a better bet to provide some traction for walkers and vehicles, but it won’t make things perfect.
Someone must have heard somewhere about knitting on Motzei Shabbos and dedcided this was the halacha and told someone else.
I didn’t get that from the OP. The OP heard from somewhere that knitting was assur motzai Shabbos and asked the CR for a source.
Someone heard it was assur to eat Pizza on Motzei Shabbos and told someone else and now they think they are doing wrong by eating Pizza on Motzei Shabbos.
If a hurricane were bearing down on my city and I stayed in my beachfront house because I heard from my neighbor Bob who heard from his pal Joe that the storm was turning away from the coast and I didn’t need to worry, and I failed to check the latest information from the National Weather Service, or whether an evacuation order was given, wouldn’t I be stupid? Honestly, if halacha is important to me, why would I change what I do towards either stricture or leniency based on what someone heard from someone else who heard from someone else? Or even a non-halachic book? I have a rabbi and a brain, and if I fail to use them properly and do something wrong or unnecessary as a result, then it would be my own fault!
Rema711,
Only when I visit popa_bar_abba…
zahavasdad,
When you write a book, you need to know who your audience is.
So if I want to publish a book, I should refrain, because Heaven forbid someone outside of my intended audience may find it, read it, and get offended? Sorry, it’s a free country, and R’ Meisels can publish whatever he wants. Nobody commanded you to buy it and adhere to every letter.
Perhaps this book should have been written in Yiddish and not english.
Guess what? R’ Meisels did not write the book in English. It was translated into English by R’ Avraham Finkel.
The Anglo crowd is different than the Yiddish crowd and this book did not seem to be aimed at Yeshivish Anglos either.
I sometimes eat pizza on motzai Shabbos. For some reason, when I read a passage like what WolfishMusings quoted, I don’t take offense and think some rabbi is trying to pry pizza out of my Saturday night hands. I am comfortable enough in my own skin and close enough to my rav to know that it is perfectly fine for me to eat pizza on motzai Shabbos. I can also learn from the passage some tidbits about the importance of the minhag of melava malka, and perhaps incorporate some of the spirit that he described – slowly letting go of the Shabbos atmosphere – into what I do on motzai Shabbos.
Chicago metro area’s population: 9.5 million.
BosWash corridor’s population: 45-50 million.
That’s why the latter region’s storm potential made the media go bonkers 🙂
Uh oh, better hide this thread before Popa finds it!
I mostly agree with DaasYochid’s position here.
1. It is absolutely ok for a frum publication to have a policy of not publishing pictures of women.
2. The editors of Hamevaser were either unaware or uncaring of the reaction the doctored photo received. I don’t think they did this for attention, shock, or an “in your face” gesture.
3. The negative reaction was primarily engendered by anti-Chareidi Jews in Israel, and was subsequently magnified by global media outlets that seek to equate Israelis and Islamic fanatics in order to maintain their ideas of moral relativism in the Middle East conflict. I don’t think Hamevaser should be totally blamed for this.
All that said, while Hamevaser had no bad intentions and their edits did not change the substance of the photo, I think doctoring photographs for any reason would be regarded as dishonest by most, since there is an expectation that photographs are accurate representations of what the photographer saw through his/her lens. Even if it is not intended to be dishonest, therefore, I think that frum outlets should avoid altering photos based on darchei noam. Especially in the current atmosphere. There surely were other photographs available that suited the magazine’s needs without needing to photoshop.
DaasYochid and Lior,
Wouldn’t the difference be between people who follow Rav Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that chalav stam certified by USDA in the U.S. is kosher, but it’s still good to be makpid on chalav Yisroel (thus they eat chalav Yisroel, but aren’t so concerned about the keilim) vs. people who don’t hold by Rav Feinstein regarding chalav stam (thus they would be concerned about keilim since they consider chalav stam to be non-kosher)?
Lior,
Avram: Which Rambam are you claiming that the Mechaber paskens against?
I was referring to the method of compulsion. The Shulchan Aruch does not state a method, but I believe the Rema favors the non-lashing methods.
000646,
The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan: the exact words are “??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”.
I think when the Rambam say that the matter should be clarified according to the way the dayan sees fit, that is referring to the method used for confirmation (e.g., unrelated woman in home or neighbors, etc.), not that the Beis Din can do whatever they want with or without confirmation.
I do not think whatever the woman brought into the marriage is hers if she arbitrarily walks out on her husband. Doesn’t that only happen in the case of divorce? (I know I may be wrong here, please correct me if I am)
I am by no means an expert myself, but my understanding is that the principal of what a woman brings into a marriage remains hers, but profits go to the husband while he supports her. For example, if the woman owns property, that property remains hers, but the husband is entitled to the rent income while he is supporting his wife. If they separate and the husband is no longer obligated to provide for his wife, she keeps the property and takes control of the profits.
000646 wrote:
Are you claiming that if a Husband went to B”D these days and said that he is not mochel these obligations the B”D would force her? We both know that wouldn’t happen, and no one would even claim that it should.
Lior responded:
It’s an issue if it’s brought before Beis Din. If it’s brought before Beis Din, it’s enforceable. Today like previously.
I agree with 000646 on this point. Since our custom is to be mochel on these particular obligations since today they are considered degrading, then unless there was a clear stipulation between chosson and kallah beforehand that they were going to ignore this custom and she would consider herself obligated to wash his face, I don’t believe a Beis Din would rule in favor of the husband.
And we don’t hold like the Rambam in this case, either!
000646,
The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan
Not if it’s unestablished whether any violations have taken place. A kosher beis din was not lash-happy. And there are opinions that the court did not lash in this circumstance at all.
change it to something that would be considered common courtesy today and my point would still stand.
I think one reason this concept (punishment for refusal to do something) seems strange to Americanized sensibilities is that civil law rarely regulates what people do for others, whereas Torah law does. Being rude in the U.S. is not against the law, but in some cases, it could be against the law in a Torah based society.
U.S. law forbids lashing, but does imprison people, which I think can be more damaging to a person than lashes (e.g., long-term separation from family and friends, inability to develop as a person, risk of prison assaults, declines in health due to confinement, etc.). An overwhelming majority of Americans polled whether they would hypothetically prefer 10 lashes or 5 years imprisonment chose the lashes. It may very well be that in 200 years, an “enlightened” society that lashes will look back at this era in U.S. history with its 2.3 million imprisoned and say, “gosh were they immoral!” And a large number of imprisoned people are confined simply because they bought and ingested some plant that the government happens to dislike.
Torah law metes out lashes in some circumstances, we cannot get around that fact. If you think they are never right, fine, you disagree with Torah law. It seems like you are trying to limit your argument against lashes to this single case involving a wife, why? I think courts ordering lashes in any case (and especially this one) was very rare, you think they did it like candy, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
However even if he said what you say he says, throwing a woman into the street with no money, food or personal belongings is practically the same thing, especially hundreds of years ago
Conjecture. Also, any principal the wife owned before the marriage is still completely hers. And this whole argument is getting silly. Who would get themselves thrown out (or throw someone out) over washing a face?
That is a BELIEF.
NOW it is because we are in golus and don’t have a Torah society at all, but when there is a Torah society, it won’t be, since knowledge of G-d will fill the earth as waters fill the sea.
000646,
I wrote:
You’re interpreting the halacha as “if he doesn’t wash my face, he can chain her in the basement and starve her until she does!!” That is NOT right.
Indeed not only is that not right, it is not even written right. It should read: “You’re interpreting the halacha as “if she [the wife] doesn’t wash his [the husband’s] face, he can…”
Sorry for the typos.
Lior,
I believe you can cook something pareve in a clean dairy utensil and then eat it right after a fleshig meal; however, you cannot cook something in a clean non-kosher utensil. People who hold that they cannot cook with chalav stam utensils (e.g., they are not kosher), therefore, would have a problem.
000646,
1.) I believe that if a Government that was faithful to Halacha ever ruled E”Y (I think there was) and the Rambam was correct on his assessment of Torah law in the case above (I would err on the side of saying he was correct.) Then yes women were brought in front of Batei Din and lashed for not washing their husbands feet.
I disagree. The conditions required to come together for such an event are so unlikely, that I find it exceptionally improbable that a woman was ever lashed by a kosher Beis Din for such a reason.
1. You are projecting ethnocentric notions of our society where we have sinks and showers into other societies that lacked those amenities. Today it is easy for people to wash their own face, hands, and feet, and thus it would be insulting to demand that someone else do so for you. This was not so in the past. Helping someone to wash most likely was considered a basic courtesy.
2. To even get to the point where the Beis Din would take action to “compel” the woman to fulfill her obligations, we would have to have a scenario where a woman understands that there is a halachic requirement that she is expected to meet and an understanding before the marriage that she was expected to do it (and in this era these requirements were not degrading – they were a basic courtesy, and halacha states that the wife should help partly because it would be a breach of tznius to have a maidservant help, and it would be strange to have a manservant help), she then openly refuses to fulfill the halacha during the marriage, witnesses observed this, and the husband dragged the wife and witnesses to Beis Din. That’s a lot of extreme and unusual actions. Even if we do get this far, the woman can just say she finds her husband to be repulsive to her and leave! And given the sequence of extraordinary events that led to this Beis Din appearance, that’s likely what she’s saying.
As an aside it seems from a simple reading of the text that the only time that is a judicial matter is where she says she is washing his feet or whatever and he is saying she isn’t
If your “simple reading” of the text leads you to believe that Rambam is advocating for the husband to hit, then you are indeed misunderstanding a lot of these halachos. These halachos are not written for a husband and wife to read so that they know how to relate to each other. They are being presented so that a Beis Din knows how to act in case CV”S there are legal disputes between husband and wife.
Husband wants to go from being a tailor to a sailor? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the wife. Husband wants to go from splendor to scholar? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the husband. These are what the halachos are about.
One more question, How do you understand what the Raavid says? (I don’t have the exact text in front of me, if you do and could post it that would be great)
I don’t have the text either, but it’s pretty clear that it’s talking about his obligations to provide food, clothing, and shelter. You’re interpreting the halacha as “if he doesn’t wash my face, he can chain her in the basement and starve her until she does!!” That is NOT right. At most the Raavad is saying, “if she doesn’t wash his face (e.g., do what is halachically required for a wife to do), he is within his rights to ask her to leave without necessarily beginning divorce proceedings.” And if the wife then declares that she finds her husband repulsive and wants a divorce, the Beis Din usually orders the husband to divorce after a 12 month extension.
2.) Believing that Hashem is immoral makes no sense.
Why not? You are already CV”S basically declaring that His Torah is immoral (though it’s apparent that you are severely misunderstanding it), so why not just take it the next logical step?
I do happen to believe that PEOPLE killing other people for violating a tenet of any religion is definitely immoral. I doubt anyone would really disagree with me on that one. (unless obviously it is a tenet like “do not kill” which besides for being a religious rule is one that is made for the good of society. In a case like that killing someone becomes somewhat debatable)
That is an arbitrary line you are drawing. If Jews in Eretz Yisroel began violating halachos (e.g., shmitta, Shabbos, forbidden relationships), then they would lose Hashem’s protection and become vulnerable to attack from the nations around them. Therefore, violating these mere “tenets” could very well get innocents killed.
Also, who’s to say anyone has a right to kill another human, even if that human also killed? Exile him to an island where he can no longer harm anyone!