Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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!
00646,
do you think that a society that brings women to court and has them whipped for not washing their husbands feet or making his bed etc is a moral society?
Do you think that a woman has ever been brought before a kosher Beis Din and was lashed because she refused to wash his face, hands or feet and make his bed? I doubt it. So you’re really asking a question about an imaginary society, not any real Jewish one, past or present.
But let’s take your question one step further. Do you CV”S consider Hashem to be immoral because He commanded that a man be executed simply because he gathered some sticks on one day of a week as opposed to another?
Popa is Brian Kelley’s top adviser 🙂
000646,
I wrote:
The rest of the halacha that you omitted
I apologize, you did quote the whole thing – I should read things more carefully.
Lior,
Halacha has no concept of the secular-style ongoing alimony other than the one-time kesuba payment.
You are essentially correct, and I may have mistakenly made a spurious analogy. Whereas alimony continues after a civil divorce is finalized, in halacha there is the payment of the kesuba, after which the husband has finalized things. One exception is if the ex-wife is nursing his child; he is obligated to pay her the wages of a nurse maid through 24 months. He is also obligated to pay for his kids’ needs through age 6 when the mother has custody.
My alimony reference was directed at a husbands obligations in certain circumstances before a get is given.
His obligation to support his wife while married does not obligate him to support her out of his home if she decides to separate,
I didn’t say “if she decides to separate”, I said, “in many cases where the couple R”L separates.” Separations don’t just happen when the wife walks out.
and his support obligation is fulfilled by stocking his fridge with food and the closet with clothes and inviting her to live in his home to utilize that support.
Not necessarily.
If he forces her out of the home then that obligation of his would continue wherever she is.
Can you clarify this statement? Do you mean him stocking his own fridges and closets?
His rights to her earnings can only be ended by her agreeing to waive his obligation to support her.
That is almost exactly what I said, except sometimes these waivers are enacted by a Beis Din due to unfortunate circumstances.
000646,
That Rambam does NOT ever give a husband permission to strike his wife. The rest of the halacha that you omitted makes it clear that such issues are brought before a Beis Din, and witnesses are needed.
And yes, the Raavad disagrees and states that a woman is not compelled with lashes. And nowhere does it say that the husband can starve his wife. Look at Ishus 14:8: “she is not like a captive…”
Again, I think you have some pretty big misconceptions about the Torah.
000646,
I think you have some really big misunderstandings about Torah law in regards to marriage.
Nowhere in Rambam or anywhere else does it say that a husband can deprive, starve, or hit his wife!
According to Torah law, a husband has numerous obligations to his wife, including providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. In many cases where the couple R”L separates, the husband continues to be obligated to provide these benefits until he gives a get and kesuba payment. This is somewhat similar to the concept of alimony, except that is is more extensive! In other words, Torah frequently provides greater protections for the wife in case of separation than U.S. law does!
There are other circumstances where a husband’s obligations to provide the funds for food, clothing, shelter, etc. are waived when they separate and before the get is given. Correspondingly in these cases, the husband’s rights to his wife’s earnings and estate also get waived. It is no different than separations in the U.S., where the estranged parties have to find their own way. The wife is free to move into her own home, get a job, etc. This is very different from the “starving” that you are thinking.
WolfishMusings,
You’re not entitled to a chosson Shas – even if it’s “standard.”
Perfectly stated.
anIsraeliYid,
The recent events in DC are quite relevant in that they highlighted and hightened the discomfort that many female potential Gerim (Gerot?) have with being observed by men. Yes, the situations are not identical, but there’s enough of a relationship between them that one does influence the other.
I must disagree. The horrendous events in DC were caused by violations of both halacha and civil law. They did not arise due to correctly following halachic protocols, nor from any fundamental flaws arising due to that halachic observance. To make sure nothing like it happens again, stricter oversight and privacy protocols are needed, not changes to halacha. I think those groups who are abusively taking advantage of this sad situation to promote their own ideas are bringing further harm to the victims by distracting attention from the real changes that must be made and creating uncomfortable tensions surrounding the mikveh.
zahavasdad,
so to say I have a problem with yiddish speakers is just wrong.
I didn’t say that. You said:
For some reason Yiddish Speakers never got this message and do tend to speak Yiddish even though they know everyone around them speaks english
And I am asking why, given that many X-speakers speak X even though they are surrounded by Y-speakers no matter the languages, you singled out Yiddish speakers.
zahavasdad,
When you speak another language besides english people get paranoid and THINK you are talking about them even if its not true.
I agree that in most cases, common courtesy dictates that people should avoid conversing in a different language when around others who don’t speak that language. The paranoia you describe, however, is not as much a result of the lack of courtesy as it is a reflection of the listener’s xenophobia.
For some reason Yiddish Speakers never got this message and do tend to speak Yiddish even though they know everyone around them speaks english
I work in an office where a lot of people speak Chinese, and many times in break rooms and meeting rooms I hear people conversing in Chinese around non-Chinese speaking Americans. I have lived in areas with a lot of Spanish speakers, who converse in Spanish around English speakers. Just the other day two women in a store were conversing in Russian in front of me at the checkout line. Everybody does it, so why are you picking on Yiddish speakers?
Isn’t talking badly about other people in any language, whether or not they understand you, a bad thing to do? Am I missing something here?
zahavasdad,
Its demeaning because you didnt like my answer.
Ummm no. I thought your response to ask a shaila because the situation might not be as clear cut as the OP thought in the moment was a good one, and I actually agree with it. There may be some wiggle room in a case where gift giving is a part of the office culture, there may not be depending on where the money is going. We don’t know. What was demeaning about your response was your assumption that the OP and respondents “do not understand that … everyone is equal.”
Like you, I have spent my entire adult life in majority non-Jewish office settings. Just because I may disagree with you does not mean that I lord myself over others, am ignorant of how to be a team player in an office, or anything else like that.
The OP was confronted with an inappropriate question where he felt compelled to give an immediate response without being able to ask a shaila first. Your suggestion to put off the question and then ask a shaila was a good one, but I think such a response doesn’t eliminate the potential to irritate the administrative assistant, who just wants to ship off the card and donation and be done with it.
I also think that the OP erring on the side of caution where there was a potential A”Z issue was also a good spot decision. All of the discussion here is done in hindsight.
A n-jewish -worker dies and the whole office goes to the Funeral
In this case, there is time to ask a shaila. The answer may be no!
A co-worker has a Toeivah Marriage and the entire office buys them a gift and you are expected to give.
A parallel question to the OP’s case, and this one might be less fraught with issues.
A co-worker has a mixed marriage and the entire office buys them a gift
Ditto…
Business Relationships with members of the opposite gender (Issues of Yichud, Travel, Shaking hands)
Business lunches and Dinners
These are more general office issues, and shailos can be asked beforehand – these situations are less likely to be put someone “on the spot” like the OP was.
You have to figure out how to navigate these roadblocks without making yourself look selfish and have to be a team player.
And I think the OP did a good job of this! Why don’t you?
Being a Team player is very important in an office
And being a Jew is more important.
Also, being a team player in the office is a lot more about how you conduct yourself on a daily basis at work than it is about cards, flowers, handshakes, holiday parties, and the like. Help others, get your project contributions done on time, show respect for others in meetings, be nice to your co-workers, and you’ll be a team player even if you don’t go out to dinner with the co-workers after hours or participate in the office “secret santa.”
I think a Rav might be able to figure out a way out like maybe for example the charity is to feed the poor rather than fund the local Hindu Temple.
Maybe, but boundaries do exist in Judaism, and there are cases where you might have to handle a “no” in an office situation gracefully.
zahavasdad,
I am sure most here will congradulate you for what you did, however they do not understand that in an office everyone is equal and it was not a kiddush Hashem and you will be seen as “above others”
Wow, that was demeaning.
I am no Rabbi and you should probably have asked a Shaila before saying no. (Make an Exuse you are busy now and will reply later)
And what does the OP do if the rabbi says it is assur to donate?
I don’t think you caused a chillul Hashem with your explanation.
I’m confused about how the situation came about. If there was a card and envelope on someone’s desk, why couldn’t you just sign the card with your sympathies and put nothing into the envelope? If the envelope was stuffed with a mixture of cash and checks, how could the administrative assistant keep track of who donated or not?
Personally, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of someone going around collecting donations at the office, especially if it’s a manager or someone close to a manager. I think that it was downright inappropriate for the administrative assistant to ask you why you refused to donate. The problem wasn’t with your response, but the fact that you were asked the question.
HaLeiVi,
It is a strange phenomenon how hate is contagious. I still remember getting long speeches from Avram in MD (and others) because a technical issue caused some mods to link me with Joseph.
I did not remember tangling with you in that way, but after some digging, I found a thread from over 3 years ago where I mistakenly assumed that a poster (not your current username) was Joseph, because the moderators linked it with another username that I did think was a Joseph sock puppet (also not your current username). The latter username was blocked.
My response to what I thought was a Joseph sock puppet was strong, and admittedly lecturing, but certainly wasn’t intended to be hateful CV”S towards Joseph, you, or anyone. I apologize for causing you hurt, and I will be more careful to consider the potential tone of my posts before submitting them.
I have subsequently largely avoided posting in these types of threads after it became known that the moderators were mis-identifying users as sock puppets. I still feel very strongly that the use of unethical tactics (e.g., sock puppetry, insults, information gathering, stalking and real life threats to posters) to “defend” Torah is very harmful to Torah itself. I have also read some scary, invasive stuff here, but threads like these don’t really address those issues in a helpful way, and have resulted in hurt feelings, e.g., you, AYC, Jothar.
Patur Aval Assur,
It’s not loftier in the sense that either way you are really doing it for your own benefit.
This supposed “conundrum” has been answered numerous times in this thread. The difficulty only arises because you are creating an artificial catch-22.
You ask why a person would have any motivation to do something that G-d asks of him/her if it has no personal benefit to him. The only solution you’ll accept to this question is to come up with such a scenario and demonstrate why a person would do it. This is impossible, however, because you have broadened the definition of personal benefit so much that there is no such thing as a scenario where G-d asks something of someone and it has no personal benefit for that person. Therefore, you say, “aha! He’s doing it for the personal benefit! My question stands!”
I think your question is a fallacy designed to be a trap rather than a reflection of reality, and I think that what the sages are saying, that it’s better for our relationship with Hashem to motivate us to perform mitzvos than expectations of rewards, makes perfect sense.
Patur Aval Assur,
My question on that is that it makes it that ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? is not in fact loftier than ?? ??? ???? ???; it’s just a different form of reward that you’re seeking.
I disagree. Suppose Billy works hard at school because his parents will pay him $10 for each “A” that he gets on his report card, and Bobby works hard at school because he wants to get into a good college and get a good job. Both are motivated by “reward”, but I would argue that Bobby’s motive is loftier. Also, from Billy’s more immature perspective, he might not even view Bobby’s goals as a reward at all.
The other way of explaining it is that (even if) there is absolutely nothing to be gained, there is an intrinsic value in doing Hashem’s will. To that I asked why.
Let’s try this route: Because we believe that G-d is not capricious and would not ask us to do things that have no real benefit. Therefore, even if we personally can see no benefit of a mitzvah, we believe that it is beneficial simply because G-d told us to do it. So at the end of the day, given absolutely no benefits for doing something G-d asked him/her to do, besides even the benefit of a relationship with Hashem, a person would do it anyway because s/he believes there is an unknown benefit to it.
Patur Aval Assur,
It seems that the answer to everything is that intellectually speaking it doesn’t make sense, but you just feel it (which I’ll admit, I do).
What do you mean by intellectually?
I would say:
It seems that the answer to everything is that animalistically speaking it doesn’t make sense, but humans innately perceive it.
But that means that if someone doesn’t feel it, or if he has other feelings drawing him in the opposite direction, there shouldn’t be anything wrong with that.
If humans were just another animal, I would agree with you. But we’re not.
But why is there something wrong with not having the proper feeling.
Using your definition of “intellectually” above, can you intellectually define any behavior as wrong?
Patur Aval Assur,
To that I ask that if you are serving Hashem ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? in order to get the “reward” of the relationship than that is no less self-centered/selfish than doing it ?? ??? ???? ???, and if you are doing it purely for Hashem’s sake, then why are you doing it? Why do you care what Hashem wants?
To do something for the sake of a relationship is not inherently self-centered.
I’ll was the dishes so that my wife will make me some yummy barbecue: ?? ??? ???? ???
I’ll wash the dishes so that my wife can have a stress free evening: ??? ?? ??? ???? ???
The challenge in using this marital model to describe our relationship with Hashem is, as you seem to be hinting at, that in reality, what we do has no “impact” on Hashem. He is eternal and possesses everything – we cannot benefit Him or harm Him in any way. So how can we do anything “for His sake”?
Despite that reality, Hashem desires to have a relationship with us, so He has provided a means for us to do things “for His sake” (the mitzvos). We, therefore, now have the ability to conduct that relationship in a more or less selfish manner. And that does have a real impact, because Hashem desires a relationship with us.
What if there was no relational reward either? Would you still serve Hashem?
The only way to not have a relational reward would be to not have the Torah – at which point we wouldn’t even know how to serve Hashem anyway and would render the question moot. This would essentially be a Deistic model.
YW Moderator-29,
I am considering making a mark of some kind, such as an asterisk or a smiley face, near thread titles of threads that have been infested by trolls
Is this why “Q–>” is appended to several thread titles?
Yup, thank you for asking.
Enter at your own risk.
Please use the hand sanitizer on the way out.
yekke2,
This thread is dedicated to try work out WHAT PERSONAL MOTIVATION ONE WOULD HAVE TO DO THIS.
And my answer has been that, stripping everything else away, there is an innate motivation built into human beings by the fact that they became living beings through the breath of G-d. I’m not sure what I am missing in this supposed paradox.
Which is paradoxical, because if there is personal motivation then it is automatically not ?? ??? ??? ???? ???.
I think it’s possible that you and Patur Aval Assur may be broadening the definition of pras beyond the context in which our Sages used it, thereby creating an artificial paradox.
I think the sages intended pras to refer to primarily un-relational rewards (e.g., long life, wealth, olam haba) as opposed to relational ones (a relationship with Hashem).
If Patur Aval Assur is really asking what possible “reward” there could be in a relationship with Hashem stripped of any of the non-relational pras as described above, I’ll repeat what I already said above – we were created to want and need a relationship with Hashem. If he or you disagree with that, then I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on the nature of human beings (and continue the conversation in parseltongue – not being a Harry Potter fan myself, I had to look that reference up!)
Patur Aval Assur,
If Hashem would give you the Torah and command you to fulfill it but He tells you that whether o not you fulfill it has nothing to do with anything, i.e. there is no reward/punishment and no ramifications of any sort. Would you do it?
This is not much different than the test Avraham Aveinu faced at the Akeida. Avraham and Sarah were barren, yet Hashem promised them that they would have offspring. Miraculously, they have a son at an old age. 30 years go by, it’s pretty obvious that this son is it. Then Hashem tells Avraham to travel to some mountain 3 days away and make an offering of this only son. No reward is promised, no threat of punishment is given. Hashem created everything and is infinitely greater than we are, so He has no need for our offerings. Seems totally needless, right? What did Avraham do?
Patur Aval Assur,
Please note that while I related the theological questions you posed to the questions posed by the snake in Gan Eden (e.g., the theological position of the chayos hasadeh), I had no intention to imply that that was where you were coming from personally. I understand that you are likely asking the questions in a dispassionate manner for the sake of discussion, and I was responding to the questions themselves, without making any assumptions about your personal beliefs or ideas. I apologize for not making that clearer. I intended no offense or strong statements towards you whatsoever.
Still, if you wish, you can add:
you’re missing the entire point of what it means to be a human being
and
…you’re an animal…I cannot answer you
and
…an evil bad guy!
to your list of awesome quotes for fun 🙂
Patur Aval Assur,
Ok. Thank you everyone for your responses, even though I still think no one actually answered my questions.
Your questions are not new ones. In fact, they were asked long ago in Gan Eden by the snake. I think you have received answers to your question, but you don’t feel like you did because the answers you got were human answers, but you want snake answers.
The point is that if the only reason to serve Hashem out of love is that you feel good about it, then that means that it is completely up to you to decide how to serve Hashem,
If you think that doing things for others out of love only has value because it makes you feel good, then you’re missing the entire point of what it means to be a human being.
and if you don’t want to serve Him out of love
This is where I think we diverge at the human-snake interface. I believe that it is intrinsic to the nature of human beings to want to serve Hashem and to be eternal. This is why Hashem would bother speaking to us at all, as opposed to animals who obey only their bodily instincts. Also, when humans have a yearning, they usually associate the yearning with love. Therefore, your statement that a person would not want to serve Hashem out of love is an impossibility.
So why are we not all perfect servants of Hashem? Because we also have animalistic instincts and desires that confuse us and compete with our eternal aspect. Also, due to this more base type of interaction with the world, Hashem’s presence is hidden, so many people mistakenly express their desire to connect with the eternal through ephemeral things like idolatry, legacy building, etc. Even if a person has never heard of Hashem, they still have a desire to connect with the eternal. The realizations that all of these efforts are ultimately futile is a source of angst and depression. So when Hashem gave us the Torah and showed us how to do it in the real, correct way, it was a source of joy and love.
Unless you use the Ratzon Haborei argument. But no one has yet explained why you should do the ratzon haborei (assuming it won’t affect reward/punishment). Because that’s why you were created? So what – why should that make you have to or even want to do the ratzon Hashem?
If you’re an animal, then I cannot answer you. But that’s ok, because Hashem doesn’t speak to you anyway. If you’re a human, look deep down and you’ll understand that having to explain why you should have to or want to do the ratzon haBorei is superfluous. You just want to do it.
But why shouldn’t you be a bad person?
Isn’t it strange that even the most evil people convince themselves that they are not evil? Bad guys who say, “mwaa hahahaaa, I’m an evil bad guy!” only exist in cartoons.
Git Meshige,
I have always wondered why Kiruv Organizations only started 30-40 years ago. There were Non Frum Yidden throughout the ages, why did the Gedolim of those generations not find it necessary to be mekarev them and bring as many yidden back to Yiddishkeit?
I’m not sure that the present day situation is fully analogous to previous generations. Large numbers of Jews went off the derech for ideological reasons due to the haskala, replacing Torah with Reform, secular nationalism, socialism, or many other things ending in “ism.” This was a change from previous generations, where ignorance and Christian/Muslim coercion were the primary spiritual dangers. Unlike the older dangers, which generally resulted in a rapid loss of Jewish identity and hostility towards Judaism, the haskala has left behind a large population of great grandchildren who are identifiably Jewish but possess little knowledge of Judaism are are not hostile towards it.
gavra_at_work,
In your example I would argue that while the card allows one to avoid punishment, the Chiyuv mammon still exists.
I agree with you, but Patur Aval Assur seems to be asking why we should care about a chiyuv anyway if not for reward/avoiding punishment or “feeling good”. So I presented a scenario where there was a chiyuv but no punishment attached, and doing it certainly wouldn’t lead to “feeling good.” Apparently he is also questioning the value of doing the right thing for its own sake.
gavra_at_work,
No harm no foul = Muttar?
I was thinking assur, but the card yields instant atonement without having to do teshuva, compensation, Yom Kippur, etc. It’s a highly contrived scenario just to make a point, and I thought it up on the spot, so it might be rough around the edges. Most people have an instinctual moral compass even without religious sensibilities, e.g, I wouldn’t want someone to do X to me, so I shouldn’t do X to someone else. So the crash scenario means that “doing the right thing” would cause a headache (and hence there’s a strong natural inclination to not do the right thing) but my application here removes the fear of divine retribution that might provide counter-motivation to a believer.
Patur Aval Assur,
Consider the following scenario (loosely based on a work by R’ David Fohrman, with some of my own details added):
Shimon just received the most amazing gift from Hashem while at the store – a “get out of jail free one time” card! This means that if Shimon commits a sin, he can turn in that card and have the punishment wiped away, no harm, no foul. The card will evaporate in five minutes.
Shimon starts to back his giant SUV out of his parking space, and crunch!! he bangs into a fancy BMW. Nobody was around to see it. No paint or any other evidence was left on the bashed up BMW. Shimon knows for certain that if he drives away, there is no way for anyone to know that he did it. His SUV doesn’t even have a scratch after all. Only one problem: Hashem knows what he did, and leaving without taking responsibility would be a sin. But wait! He’s got that get out of jail free one time card! And it’s about to evaporate, so he’s gotta use it or lose it!
Here’s the question: Does Shimon leave a note on the BMW, or just drive away, no harm no foul? Answering this would help describe what it means to serve Hashem ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.
Patur Aval Assur,
Is there any benefit to serving H’ ??? ?? ??? ???? ???? If no then why do it?
Must there be a benefit to something for a person to do it? How about, “it’s just the right thing to do”? This is the type of question that would make no sense in the world before Adam ate from the etz hadaas.
If yes then it would come out that ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? is more ?? ??? ???? ??? than ?? ??? ???? ??? is, which kind of defeats the whole purpose of ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.
Only if you assume that the person is doing it only for the benefit. In which case the person would not be acting ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? at all. This seems like a false conundrum to me.
When we love a person, we can do things for him/her based on two motivations: out of fear that we will lose the person we love if we don’t do those things (selfish motivation), or because we want to bring pleasure to the person we love (selfless motivation). Let’s pretend that the person we love cannot tell the difference (i.e., no “benefit” from loving selflessly – though in real life there would be a noticeable difference). Would you therefore conclude that the latter is no better than the former?
popa_bar_abba,
I was demonstrating what it looks like from the outside.
Aside from Lior’s response, which I think we all would agree with, I see another difference between Christian proselytizing efforts and kiruv efforts.
Kiruv is not deceptive. A Jew is invited to a Shabbos meal, or given the opportunity to perform a mitzvah. Discussions about Jewish belief are conducted honestly, without attempting to cloak our beliefs as something they are not.
Christian missionaries, however, dress up their efforts to look Jewish. They wear kippas and say Hebrew words. Elements of their beliefs that directly conflict with Judaism are minimized or cloaked.
If you told me that a shul put up a huge sign saying, “BEST TAILGATING PARTY EVER! COME INSIDE FOR SOME GREAT COLLEGE FOOTBALL!” and a non-frum Jew walks in to see a kehilla davening while wearing football jerseys, pads, and helmets (with perhaps the rav saying, “psukei d’zimra, shacharis, leining, mussaf – best four quarters ever!”) then I might agree with you.
mdd,
Note that in the Dallas case, none of the family members caring for Mr. Duncan became infected, nor did the emergency responders. Although your scenarios are not impossible, they are improbable.
1. I don’t think that coughing and sneezing are primary symptoms of Ebola. Someone hacking away behind you on the bus probably doesn’t have Ebola, but may give you a cold or the flu.
2. It seems that Ebola becomes increasingly contagious as the infected person becomes sicker. Except for Mr. Duncan, every Ebola patient in the U.S. so far has been isolated very quickly following the onset of symptoms.
3. Nurses are much more likely to come into contact with bodily fluids during the course of their work than others. Taking specimens or cleaning up after an Ebola patient is much, much riskier than simply being near him/her.
I’m not meaning to say that there is no cause for concern, there certainly is, but I don’t think it’s accurate or a good idea to proclaim that our “health officials” are lying to us.
zahavasdad,
You can and should ask politely, but if the person says No, dont call them a Secular Frum hating anti-semite.
You want a favor from someone who wont give it to you and then you call them an Charedi hating Chiloni.
If you read notasheep’s story, she didn’t consider the man to be anti-Chareidi simply because he said no to her request, but rather because of his subsequent contemptuous attitude and passive aggressive behaviors towards her.
I don’t see any evidence that the Chareidim mentioned by the OP or notasheep acted rudely towards anyone.
I also find it interesting that many here are automatically assuming that those requesting seat changes are men.
I did not witness the story lesschumras mentioned, nor could I read the article he cited, so I cannot really comment on that incident specifically. Perhaps the requesting passengers were rude and unyielding. Perhaps the person(s) requested to change seats were rude and unyielding. Perhaps the flight attendants were rude and overreacted. Maybe everyone was rude and in the wrong. Maybe it was all a misunderstanding. I don’t know, and neither does anyone else in this thread. Therefore, my comments aren’t intended to address the specific incident on the Delta flight, but rather the more general discussion of the propriety of requesting seat changes due to gender.
charliehall,
If it really is a religious requirement not to sit by a woman, buy yourself an extra ticket.
I think this statement is a red herring. Even if it’s not a religious requirement, it’s a legitimate sensitivity nonetheless. Do you object to a person asking to switch seats because of a sensitivity? Would you oppose a woman who is sensitive to certain scents asking to switch seats on a plane because the woman next to her is wearing perfume? She knew before buying the ticket that many women wear perfume. Perhaps she should have bought out an entire row? What about a woman sitting next to a man who makes her uneasy, even though he has not done anything wrong?
DaMoshe,
here’s a big difference between a preference and a demand.
There’s also a big difference between demanding someone give up their seat for you and requesting to deplane because you feel a situation is unacceptable. You are equating the two.
gavra_at_work,
I agree that they should not be judged negatively that they don’t want to sit next to a woman, but rather that they did not realize this may come up and buy a second seat for this purpose
Your statement assumes that making seat changes is generally not a viable option. If the passenger boarded with the thought (e.g., based on previous experience) that s/he could make a seat change if the arrangements were uncomfortable to her/him, would you really hold her/him responsible for not thinking to purchase a second seat?
Syag Lchochma,
And it doesn’t change the point that you can’t get on a plane and expect that your religious beliefs should be accommodated through possibly inconveniencing others.
I have seen non-Jews request seating changes on flights for all sorts of reasons, important and trivial. Would you tell them all to just deal with it because it may possibly inconvenience another passenger?