Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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?
Lior,
If they recommend it because they assert that it is “G-d’s will” then of course I would fully encourage him to give it.
This is not the question that I asked. If the rabbis stated that it is G-d’s will, then there would be a ???? or ???? and we’ve already covered that. I asked about a case where the rabbis recommend a get be given based on their “personal experience” informed by their Torah knowledge and experience as dayanim. So assume that there isn’t a provable ???? ????? or ???? ?????, but the rabbis tell the man, “even so, we recommend that you give a get.” What should the man do?
Therefore, say the dayanim, the wife al pi Torah must forthwith move back into her husband’s home, as her having left it had been unjustified and constituted being a moredes, and she should be a good wife.
Would you support the wife in declaring, essentially, that she knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis? Or would you wholeheartedly advocate to the wife to return to her marriage?
In this hypothetical scenario you made, not only would I wholeheartedly advocate that they wife return to the marriage work towards reconciliation, I believe there is a mitzvah for her to return, and if she did not do so there would be grounds for excommunication from the community. Direct enough answer? 🙂
The problem with hypothetical situations is that some of them may never occur in real life.
Lior,
I’m pleased to correct your mistaken impression. If beis din halachicly determines and rules ???? ?????, I 100% advocate the husband give a Get even in the absence of a ???? ?????. No qualifications.
Fine. Good. What about a case where the beis din recommends it? Would you support the husband in declaring, essentially, that he knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis?
Would we agree that someone who would follow a ???? ????? where it isn’t a ???? ????? is someone who should refrain from cholov stam? (I’m just hashing this point of yours out; I’m not yet taking a firm position on this comparison.)
I agree, a G-d fearing Jew who cares about his neshama would rather cause himself a loss than another person pain.
They can’t halachicly sources these boich svaras because halacha says that a Get is only given if the husband “wants” to give it.
I think that the people you are referencing are not having a problem with the halacha, but rather with the husband not wanting to give it.
Lior,
The hypothetical situation I described did not include any cruelty or vindictiveness. It was governed by love, as I stressed.
I love my bicycle, and I love my wife. I am using the same word, but the meanings are extremely different.
I “love” my bicycle because it feels good to ride it, I get exercise, and I save money on my commute. In other words, I love my bicycle because of what it does for me. My bike has no feelings, desires, or goals of its own. It is mine, and I can do with it what I please.
I love my wife because I chose and continue to choose to spend my life with her. I want to gladden her and build a home with her. In other words, I love my wife because of who she is. She is mine because she also chooses me to be hers, and I must appreciate that every day.
I cannot possibly imagine the pain that a divorce R”L would cause, but if, after three years, the husband cannot see past himself to consider his wife’s wishes, even if he disagrees with her reasons, even if he thinks her reasons are stupid, perhaps this hypothetical “love” he has is more suited for a bicycle than for marriage.
That being said, the stress in our generation must be on the salvageable not the unsalvageable.
No, the stress in our generation should be on how to be a good spouse to another, so that more marriages don’t reach the point where a decision needs to be made on whether it is salvageable or not. The problem is not that we are becoming increasingly lenient on allowing divorces, it is that the dominant culture does not foster proper marriage skills, and marriage is becoming increasingly devalued.
I made no such assumption. I described a hypothetical scenario that constitutes that fact.
It’s the hypothetical situation that I am objecting to. A hypothetical situation used in an argument is not really helpful if it’s taken from an extreme, rare case. Perhaps you intended it as a rare example from the outset, but your posts leave open the interpretation that you think it is common.
Declining to divorce for valid reasons and continuing to be ready and available to live in an ongoing marriage is not acting badly.
I think the problem I have with this statement is that you are casting a much larger net with “valid reasons” than I think is valid. And that validity shrinks even more with time. For example, should a man neglect the mitzvah to procreate because he refuses to divorce a spouse who will never return to him?
When all is said and done, I think we would both agree that if the beis din presiding over the situation does not say the man should give a get, he is certainly not obliged to give it. And if the wife cries havoc over this and lets slip the dogs of war rather than working with the beis din, she and her cohorts are in the wrong and potentially committing severe aveiros. I also think we’d agree that in a case where abuse is not alleged and one spouse wants to continue the marriage, time should be given for counseling, discussions, etc.
However, what it seems to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that you are arguing that if a beis din rules ???? ????? and the husband disagrees because he really wants to stay married, he doesn’t have to listen to the beis din, because who is the beis din to tell him to divorce when the halacha doesn’t explicitly… It’s hard for me to define this behavior as acting in the interests of Torah and not personal interests or spite. If we were talking about any issue other than divorce (e.g., kashrus, tznius), I think you’d agree with me.
DaasYochid,
there’s no point in making diyukim and speculating on a poster’s sinister intentions
Stepping back a bit, I think I agree with you. I should not have included that sentence. Obviously I have strong feelings about the arguments made in this thread, but I shouldn’t make speculations beyond the arguments themselves.
I also agree that there could be underlying issues which can be difficult to articulate. However, this could go either way, it’s not husband or wife specific.
Absolutely, and especially in cases of abuse or domestic violence, where men frequently do not speak up because of embarrassment, fear of not being believed, or because the support systems out there (e.g., shelters, hotlines) are not geared towards men. Misandry is just as wrong as misogyny, and both are prevalent in secular American culture.
Lior,
It isn’t a Torah value to unwarrantedly break up a family.
Also take into consideration that she is sinning
Your assumption that a woman wanting a divorce is acting capriciously, unless she can provide you with clear-cut evidence of abuse, is fundamentally misogynistic. Sometimes valid reasons are difficult or terrifying to articulate, and some abuse can be hidden from all but the victim. There may also be other valid reasons not involving abuse, such as an irreparable loss of trust.
Also, two wrongs don’t make a right. One spouse acting badly does not validate the other spouse acting badly.
If a couple is going to beis din for divorce proceedings, the home is R”L already broken, and it would take both of them to rebuild it. This cannot be forced on one of them.
It is both callous and maleficent to unwillingly force a person out of a marriage he put his life into building and put him into a situation of being divorced when it is unreasonable and all other options have not been exhausted.
Your attempts but failures to make statements like this gender-neutral (writing spouse or person, but then exclusively using he and him) are revealing.
In a marriage, do you think it is only the husband who puts his life into building it?
Now it is two or three years later. Literally nothing changed. She still didn’t return and wants the Get – and he sincerely still wants the marriage.
I think this is an unrealistic scenario.
BTW, misogyny is not a Torah value.
Why would our Bais Yaakov & Yeshiva educated parents be unable to teach elementary school topics? Doesn’t that say something about our Mosdos?
We’re getting pretty far down into the weeds here, but no, it does not.
1.) Not all parents sending their children to Yeshivos or Bais Yaakov schools themselves went to such schools (e.g., BTs, converts). These parents might have a harder time teaching some limudei kodesh subjects to their children that they want them to learn.
2.) Even if a parent has great knowledge of the subject material, the ability to effectively impart this knowledge to children (e.g., curriculum development, teaching strategies, etc.) is another skill entirely.
Also, with terribly inflated housing costs, many families struggle with a single income even when sending no children to private school. Moving to a suburban or rural environment would possibly bring those housing costs down, but would also potentially bring the available income down as well.
I don’t mean to say with these responses that I disagree with you regarding homeschooling or other alternatives/supplements such as part-time/co-ops, on the contrary, I think it’s a great idea. I just don’t think that, given the current state of affairs, it is feasible to go on a Khmer Rouge style social re-engineering kick by forcing children whose parents cannot pay the full tuition out of the schools. A better infrastructure to support homeschooling needs to be put into place. American culture in general is not geared towards homeschooling (or parental attachment to their children in general), but hopefully as more and more parents home school, there will be some favorable cultural changes (e.g., more flexible work schedules, better part time jobs).
WolfishMusings,
I’m curious how remaining silent in shul is a zechus for these things [PARNASSAH, SHIDDUCHIM, REFUOS & YESHUOS] any more than keeping any other mitzvah.
I don’t know. My only guess is that many people request those things when davening, and staying quiet in shul enhances the davening.
gavra_at_work,
It is no different than the “structural issue” that occurs when someone makes 30K a year with 12 children and can’t afford food. Does that person have the right to go into Yankel’s grocery and demand food (or start taking it from the shelves) without having to pay for it?
An invalid comparison. How about the “structural issue” of a man who has lost his job (or perhaps even the ability to work due to disability) and cannot afford food. Does he deserve to die?
Food is a necessity. That’s why the Farm Bills include agricultural subsidies that keep the price of staple foods down and encourage farms to produce large crops that otherwise may not make sense economically. That’s why WIC/food stamps exist. That’s why public schools have reduced price/free lunch and breakfast programs. That’s why we have soup kitchens and pantries.
No, a person does not have the right to go into Yankel’s grocery and demand free food because he cannot afford it. However, due to the way our nation is structured, it is unlikely that a family making $30,000 will starve to death, even with 12 kids.
At the end of the day, I think that we both would agree that, given a case of hunger, there is an obligation on the community (religious, local government, state, Federal) to provide a means to survive. I think we’d also agree that if a person cannot pay his Verizon bill, then Verizon has no obligation to provide him with free phone/internet service just because it is important for him to have phone and internet service. Where we disagree, perhaps, is how close to the former or latter the idea of a Jewish education falls.
The little I know – The solution is home schooling.
I agree strongly with you here. I think a shift towards homeschooling as an option would be ideal. Due to our current societal setup, however, with high housing costs, etc. the limiting factor is that many parents who are in a two-income situation may not be able to homeschool. Also, some parents may feel that they do not have adequate knowledge of some subjects in order to teach them effectively to their children. Perhaps a solution to this could be a co-op network, e.g., rebbes teaching a small group of students in his home, other parents with time perhaps teaching math/other subjects. This would be much less expensive for parents, while still yielding the teachers a decent income.
gavra_at_work,
The community to which the children belong should…
In that sort of situation, I would hope people would help. I would also hope divorcees & widows are the exception, not the rule
Should and hope are dangerous words when trying to find solutions to real-world problems. An ideology may please the mind because it presents a nice, neat package, but human beings cannot fit in nice, neat packages without some getting hurt.
That is a structural issue. Unfortunately, 75-100K may not be enough to support a Jewish family of 7. What to do about it is really not the decision of the school who can choose to either provide or not provide the service.
It may be a “structural issue”, but you cannot just sweep it under the rug with an unfortunately and a not-the-school’s-problem. Are you really advocating that a married couple who make less than $100,000 per year income should be forbidden from having children?
nishtdayngesheft,
Although I agree with you that zahavasdad is misunderstanding the concept of ruach hakodesh, I think your words are excessively harsh, and the insults are not ok.
zahavasdad,
If someone really had ruach HaKodesh today, dont you think it would be unethical of them not to tell someone they were in immediate danger from someone or to tell us where the missing are
Ruach hakodesh does not make a person an all-knowing deity. No human has the capacity to know everything in the world, all of the details and interweaving threads of billions of souls. Even to Moshe Rabbeinu, the greatest prophet who ever lived, Hashem said that His face could not be seen, but He would show him His back.
Sam2,
DY: I laid a trap. He didn’t fall in. Hence, he’s not from Austin.
Yes, I’d say you did “hook em”!
What about tomato sauce and mozzarella?
For the first question, the standard AYLOR applies 🙂 I would imagine that, given the need, you may be able to ask a non-Jew for assistance, but that’s not a question for me to answer.
For the second question, one helpful thing may be to make an Erev Shabbos checklist, and review it every week before heading off to shul or lighting candles. Put all of those easy-to-forget-in-the-rush items on the list, e.g., stuff you need out of the car, turn ringers off on phones, turn off fridge light, set up blech, turn off the oven, etc.
akuperma,
The customs about not telling (among Jews, and others) dates back to the time when most babies didn’t make it, and you were almost as likely to be planning on attending a funeral (for the mother) rather than a bris. That is now history, ???? ???.
I’m not sure there was ever a time in history that the majority of babies didn’t make it past a week, or that a majority of mothers died during childbirth. Certainly there have been periods where these rates were too high, due to disease, malnutrition, poor hygiene, or dangerous practices. Hashem created the human body with wisdom, it is surely capable of giving birth!
dial427436,
Many of you state “I don’t really know or am sure that I don’t have all the info on the topic” then you give very harsh criticism. With the little info you do know, why the hard words for this young man. you can’t rebuke unless you have the whole story.
In this case I disagree. Usually the difficulty in assessing threads is because we only hear one side of the story, and we can’t really judge the other side without hearing it too. In this case, however, the side that we are hearing is offensive by itself, and there is very little new information that could change that.
For example,
whether she has good points or not I don’t really care
is an extremely toxic thing to say or feel in a relationship.
The fact that she wants me to change my Rabbi for her shows that she doesn’t value Daat Torah. Don’t you think so?
No, it doesn’t show that. There is no indication from your posts that she doesn’t respect rabbis.
Also, how is your question even relevant to the discussion? You wrote:
She said that she doesn’t mind if I stay in touch with him and ask him for his advice
and
she said again that she doesn’t mind it if I talk to him
so she’s not even asking you to change your rav; she would just prefer that her own questions be taken to a different rav.
My typical response to this type of thread would be that there is not enough information provided to be able to properly assess what is going on and provide good advice. You provided us with the information that you chose to provide, however, and asked us to comment, so here you go.
My advice to you: this girl deserves better. And the next time you go on a date, please wear a sign that says, “Hello, my name is _____, and I will be abusive to you after we are married!”
She has done nothing wrong by you. She went to your rabbi and acted politely to him. She is putting no limitations on your contact with him. She has shared her feelings with you honestly and openly, and made a very reasonable request of you.
Your response? You’ve questioned her good middos. Accused her of being judgmental, ungrateful, and unappreciative. Dismissed her feelings and concerns. If this is how you plan to conduct yourself in marriage, then your “hours of dating coaching” by this rabbi have been a complete waste. You are not ready for marriage.
Imagine that after you are married, you perceive that your father-in-law is acting rudely towards you when they are visiting. It hurts your feelings, and makes you uncomfortable enough to tell your wife. Would you want your wife to respond, “that’s ridiculous! He’s been nothing but polite to you, and you are so ungrateful to even say that after all he’s done to help us!” I don’t think so.
zahavasdad,
You organize the asifa, I’ll bring the food… >:)
Pff, the Joseph list is larger than the “official” list by an order of magnitude.
zahavasdad,
In my Shul Kiddushes, the Baal Simcha somestimes brings the Schmaltz Herring. It is never eaten.
I see the opposite at my shul; the herring is usually eaten up.
rebyidd23,
it baffles me that some people like disgusting things
To those who like it, it’s not disgusting. And there are probably foods you think are delicious that others with different cultural backgrounds would find disgusting.
ukguyinEY,
Thank you einov beroishoi for the only one who managed to stay on topic.
It’s the minhag hamakom of the CR to go off topic, especially when you open controversial topics like schmaltz herring. If you want threads that don’t run the gamut, you should stick to less controversial matters, like tznius, working vs. learning, etc. 🙂
zahavasdad,
It might come as a surprise to you, but the fact that you don’t like a certain food doesn’t preclude others from liking it. Other human beings are separate from you, and have their own ideas and tastes.
The Goq,
I would do A). The dime in case B) would likely not make it back into the register. For C), it may not mean anything to the corporation, but it could potentially get the cashier into trouble at the end of the day when his/her register doesn’t balance correctly.
My thinking is that the ground opening demonstrated that Korach’s actions were wrong, e.g., rebelling against Moshe’s authority, but didn’t conclusively demonstrate that it was Hashem who chose Aharon to be kohen gadol rather than Moshe. The budding staff conclusively demonstrated that Hashem chose Aharon.
I also agree with WolfishMusings that the staff served as a permanent reminder that Hashem set the laws of priestly succession to ward off future disputes.
WolfishMusings,
How’s the larger knitted black yarmulke been treating you these past two years?
🙂
Patur Aval Assur,
Thank you for your response.
1)Hashem is in reality either A (corporeal) or B (incorporeal)
We can’t really say that – A and B are within our framework of understanding, and Hashem is completely beyond that understanding. He interacts with us through our framework, and that we can talk about.
2)There is a machlokes in this matter
3)It is not possible to KNOW which opinion is correct
4)It is not possible to absolutely believe that a certain side is correct because the other side might actually be right
5a)Either everyone who ever held the wrong belief is a kofer including Roshonim and including us
5b)Or everyone who held the wrong belief BECAUSE they had no way of definitively determining the truth is excused
There was a machlokes in the Gemara about the date of Yom Kippur, but now the date of Yom Kippur is completely settled across all Jewish communities. If Bob came along and said that he believed Yom Kippur was the other date and ate and drank on Yom Kippur, how would we treat him?
6)The Rambam obviously holds that these things are pashut enough that there are no excuses, but for us once there is a machlokes, it is not pashut
I know this has been around the block on this thread, but why is it not pashut if it has been settled by the Jewish people at large?
7)Some people say that whichever side became accepted must be right because H’ wouldn’t let kefira become accepted
This is consistent with our belief that Hashem guides and protects our people, and brings us close to Him.
8)I object to step 7 because if you hold like 5b then it wouldn’t matter if kefira became accepted because we would be excused anyway
The goal of Judaism isn’t to be excused, but to become close to Hashem.
and if you hold like 5a then the same way that H’ allowed earlier generations to be kofrim, he can allow us to be kofrim
Isn’t the status of a kofer something that we confer, not Hashem? If someone keeps the Torah and mitzvos but harbors private doubts, he is not treated like a kofer. The kofer is the person who publicly rejects settled beliefs. Since this status is in our hands, I don’t think your step 8 works.
DaasYochid,
Avram, why do you think “??? ???? ?????” means created and/or modifiable?
It’s very likely that I lack the knowledge necessary to mix into this conversation meaningfully. I’ve understood the Rambam’s position to be against idolatrous religions such as Christianity, that believe their deities can be born, transformed, married, injured, or killed. Or analyzed to determine what they’re made up of, etc. Also, if the universe was created ex nihilo, it would follow that all “corporeality” was created.
Regarding images – if we were to say that Hashem had an image, we would be saying that He was on a level that we could comprehend, which is clearly false.
And if you are sure that even those who, according to the Ra”avad, didn’t mean that, why didn’t the Ramba”m realize that?
I don’t understand the question, I am sorry.
(also, R’ Hillel’s statement was regarding Moshiach)
R’ Hillel wasn’t denying the concept of the coming of Moshiach, just that Chizkiyahu was the Moshiach, right? My understanding of the Rambam is that denying the idea of Moshiach is the kefira, not perhaps mistakenly identifying who it is (although deifying a man as the Christians have done certainly falls into that category).
Patur Aval Assur,
I understand your argument this way:
1. Hashem in “reality” is A (corporeal) or B (non-corporeal).
2. We do not know what Hashem is in “reality”.
3. Rambam holds that we must believe B is correct, and that anyone who professes A to be correct is a kofer.
4. There were sages before Rambam who argued a type of A, and were not considered to be kofrim.
5. Therefore, how can we consider someone who truly believes A to be correct to be a kofer, when we don’t know “reality” and he has those earlier sages to rely on?
My problem with this argument is with points 1 and 2. Reality, A, and B are things only on our level. We perceive the universe to be corporeal (A), and the opposite is non-corporeal (B), but who’s to say that our perceptions are reality? Hashem is completely beyond our conceptions and conventions, so how can we make any statements using our limited terminology about the nature of Hashem Himself?
The way I understand the Rambam is that our conception of corporeality is linked to creation and modification. In other words, if something is corporeal, than it was created by something (or someone) else and has the potential to be altered by created things. Therefore, to say that Hashem is corporeal is to argue that He Himself has a creator or could be affected by creations. Would you agree that such a statement is kefira? And if we went back and asked R’ Hillel if he thought Hashem was a creation or could be changed, do you think he’d agree or disagree?
kedushaskohen,
There was nothing in WolfishMusings’ post indicating that he felt any hatred towards anyone at all. On the contrary, I think it is correct to feel upset or annoyed by talking in shul. It is wrong, and it harms the tefillos of everyone there.
That said, I think your point that it isn’t best to sit and stew about the talking in silence is a good one. There is a large spectrum of choices available, however, between confronting the talkers directly (which WolfishMusings has stated he does not want to do) and davening alone at home. While it doesn’t solve the problem of talking, perhaps the easiest way to solve the issue of stewing is to change where one sits in the shul. Two people’s experiences at the same minyan could be quite different, with one in the back suffering from numerous talkers and another in front hearing nothing but the tefillos.
zahavasdad,
The longer the davening and the more breaks , like between aliyot the more likely there is going to be talking.
I have been to an early minyan where efficiency is the rule – davening is at a fast, “keep it moving!” clip, breaks are minimized, and there is no speech. Shabbos morning davening is usually completed in an hour and a half, and there is a nice kiddush afterwards with plenty of time to catch up with friends. Yet people still talk during the davening!
I think those talking in shul believe in Hashem, and they know what the tefillos are. I think it’s possible that they don’t fully understand how important their tefillos are – that they mean something and have an effect. That, plus a lack of situational awareness and sensitivity to others.
DaMoshe,
PBA: I find it interesting that the anti-Zionists (like HaKatan) will claim … Yet in this case, you’re claiming
I understand that you don’t like it when all Modern Orthodox are painted as YCT style open Orthodox. In the same respect, you should avoid painting everyone who has a different perception of events in E”Y than you as NK style anti-Zionists. What bearing does HaKatan’s arguments have on what popa_bar_abba is saying in this thread, which isn’t about Zionism per se but rather activities and behaviors near and on Har Habayis?