Avram in MD

The Goq,

Avram you did not address what i said about loss of individuality do you want your child to be a individual or a robot is part of the collective?

Your original parable spoke to a safety issue. Then it became about government assistance. Next personal debt. Then unfairness to older/younger siblings, and now individuality. If I respond to individuality, perhaps you will move the goalposts again and talk about living space and how unfair it is that children can’t have their own rooms, etc.

I get it. You think having too many children (which you seem to define as 10+) is bad. You have lots of reasons. My responses to your reasons are largely the same: you are describing poor parenting, poor decision making, and poor planning; factors that are not exclusive to large families.

To respond, individuality comes from within each child and can be encouraged or discouraged by parents, friends, teachers, siblings, and relatives, no matter how many children are at home, school, the park, or anywhere.

Someone can easily start a thread decrying families where both parents work, using many of your same arguments (latchkey kids are not supervised which is dangerous, older siblings must look after younger ones, or in the case of an only child, s/he has to look after her/himself, they are ignored, they frequently have to prepare their own meals which means poorer nutrition, etc. etc.). Is it fair to label all working parents’ families like that?

In my opinion, unpopular as it may be, we have an epidemic of unsupervised, unguided and inadequately parented children in this country, non-Jewish and Jewish, poor and rich, government assisted and tax paying, Borg and Starfleet, 10 kids and 1 kid. Parents are missing out on opportunities to connect with and raise their children or don’t even know how, and instead the kids are raising and learning values from each other in the streets and schools, which has resulted in a horrendously toxic youth culture. Everyone’s going to come to the table with different causes for this, and we all need to work on it.

Family problems are going to manifest themselves differently in different families, so you may see one set of problems more common in large families, and another set of problems more common in small families. But by pigeonholing the problem and stating that all ills are traced to too many children, the core issues risk being missed.

Can you really say that parents neglecting 6 kids would do better with 3? Or that parents raising a great family of 9 should not have a 10th, because that is just simply “too much”? I’m curious to hear your response.

Have a good Shabbos!

oomis,

Many double digit families that are doing an “amazing job,” are doing so because the mother has foisted the care of the younger children on the older one. And before anyone argues with me about that, I witness that personally ALL the time.

I wouldn’t argue with your experience, but I do contend that those families are NOT doing an “amazing job.”

And a very real issue is that the children who are charged with this parenting responsibility are sometimes still in need of strong parental supervision themselves. I see six year olds watching 18 month olds by themselves.

That is irresponsible and dangerous; however, lack of supervision isn’t limited to large families, although it may be more challenging to supervise a larger number of children.

I have personally run across the street (and with my osteoarthritic knees that is no small feat, pun intended), to snap up that baby, as he was about to run into the street

Kol hakavod for not standing idly by!

I am sure there are exceptions to every rule, but on the whole, my observation is that this is what happens in many larger families.

So do you think that this phenomenon is due to the largeness of the family itself, or the ignorance/unwillingness of the parents to do what it takes to be proper parents of their children? Do you think there is an objective limit to the number of children two parents should have? Should we advocate limits on the number of children we have, or bolster parental education and support geared towards larger families?

jewishfeminist02,

You are, so to speak, “arguing with the question” … you should answer to the given premise, not substitute your own

There was no question to answer in the OP. The OP presented a parable written in the omniscient third person that allowed the OP to describe an event and the reason that the event occurred. I do not see how I failed to adequately respond by stating that the event and his reason for it do not match.

My contention is that the parable is not meaningful in the context of families and children, because it does not speak to the motivations of the parents in having children, nor the reason that a child (represented by the egg) would R”L be injured through neglect, but rather posits that lots of children = bad and unsafe, which I don’t think is a true statement.

Admittedly, the parable is a little crude

The parable is not crude at all – actually it was beautifully done. It just didn’t speak to reality in my opinion.

I’ll try to demonstrate more clearly what I am contending through a parable of my own that shows the dissonance between event and cause more clearly. I can’t promise it will be as beautiful as The Goq’s 🙂

Phil was a man who loved cats. He went to animal shelters and adopted cats. He found stray cats and adopted them too. He even bought cats from local pet stores. It was so expensive to buy all of the cat food to feed these cats, and so time consuming to clean all of those litter boxes. One day, Phil was walking through his house while texting on his phone, tripped on a cat, and died. The end.

Why did Phil die? The Goq contends that he had too many cats. I contend that he should have been watching where he was going.

The Goq,

First, for a parable to be meaningful, the symbolism should match the reality. When Dovid Hamelech ensured that Uriya haChiti was killed in battle so that he could marry Bas Sheva his wife, the prophet Nosson came to him with a parable that a rich man who had many sheep wanted to make a party, and took the single, beloved ewe of a poor man to use for the feast. The feelings of the rich man in this parable are a good match for the feelings of Dovid Hamelech. In your parable, however, I don’t think collecting fancy eggs is a good match for children.

First, there is no comparison between the desire for objects and a couple’s desire for children.

Second, there is no chiyuv to collect fancy eggs, wheras there is a chiyuv to have children.

Third, in the lens of Torah, fancy eggs bring no benefit to the world (unless they are used for a mitzvah), whereas a child is a new world brought into being.

Now regarding your conclusion, I disagree strongly that the egg was broken as a result of the couple having too many eggs. The egg broke because the couple was careless with their egg. They could have had one egg and broken it.

I have seen some families struggling to cope with just one child. I have seen others running smoothly with many children. The health and safety of a home has much less to do with the number of children than it does the efforts and quality of the parents.

Git Meshige,

the Halacha is that Sefardim may eat rice on Pesach, is that the Halacha for everyone?

I am not sure what you are trying to convey with this statement. Are you arguing that some hold a choleh sh’ein bo sakana is required to fast on 17 Tammuz? Is there a source for that?

My guess is that your argument is not over the halacha, but an assertion that some place themselves into the category of a choleh sh’ein bo sakana to get out of fasting when they really aren’t that sick. Is this your argument?

playtime,

Thank you truthsharer and jewishfeminist02 for being the only open-minded posters on this thread.

Ouch, you mean someone can only be open minded if they agree with you?

truthsharer,

The kosel is not a shul.

Actually, it is. After taking Yerushalayim in 1967, the Israelis created the Kosel plaza (there was a narrow alley there before) for the purpose of accommodating prayer. They rushed the construction of this plaza ahead of Shavuos. Furthermore, the government appointed R’ Yehuda Meir Getz and then R’ Shmuel Rabinowitz as the Kosel Rav – to oversee the proceedings that take place there. So the plaza was a space created for Jewish prayer, and a rabbi was appointed to oversee it; sounds like a shul to me. Whether you think making it into a shul was a bad idea or not is irrelevant at this point.

It’s a holy place where people daven

That’s the Orthodox perspective. The Reform movement’s theology denies the concepts of a personal Moshiach and a restoration of the Avodah of the Beis Hamikdash (G-d forbid), and furthermore they hold R”L that the Avodah itself was man-made, archaic, and even barbaric. It seems inconsistent, therefore, that they would view the Kosel or Har Habayis as holy ground. The Conservative movement severely limits mentioning the Avodah and a personal Moshiach in its prayer books.

It seems more likely to me that adherents of Reform Judaism view the Kosel as a place of nationalistic (Jewish or Israeli) significance – similar to the way Americans would view the National Mall.

My shul has existed for fewer than 100 years, but if a group of people attempted to force changes to its customs and practices in defiance of the rav, I would feel upset, even if the shul was also a national landmark.

charliehall,

And that is why we need institutions like Yeshivat Maharat […]

This ends justifies the means argument makes no logical sense to me. To aid in these mitzvos does not seem to be the goal of Yeshivat Maharat; at best it is a side effect. The mission statement of Yeshivat Maharat is (from their Web site):

Yeshivat Maharat is changing the communal landscape by actualizing the potential of Orthodox women as rabbinic leaders. Yeshivat Maharat represents a natural evolution towards a pluralistic community, where women and men, from every denomination, can enhance the Jewish world.

Their mission is a political one, to reform the Jewish community and its practices, not out of a stated halachic necessity, but to create a “pluralistic community”, as the Conservative and Reform movements have done.

The irony is that outside of staunch activists, if you were to ask a typical Jew of any denomination who the first female Reform rabbi was, or who the first Conservative rabbi was, s/he would probably not know the answer. If you walk into almost any large bookstore in the nation, however, you would probably find works written by Esther Jungreis and her daughter Slovie Jungreis. Other frum women, such as Tzipporah Heller and her talmida Gila Manolson also have renown within the Jewish world. They have gained their renown the way Jews – men and women – have through the centuries, not by chasing after titles and honors, but by serving Hashem, seeing needs within the Jewish community, and addressing them through writing, learning, and teaching.

Nah, it has to be Quark…

modex,

Toi: In other words, an oisher can buy a seat in Olam Haboah (by giving tzedakah) whereas an oni cannot. That would be the net effect of that understanding.

No it would not. Hashem is in control of the world and knows our intentions. Yes in general a million dollars to tzedaka has a greater impact than a dollar, but we can never truly know the impact of our actions on the world. A single dollar given purely can be the tipping point that saves a life, whereas a million dollars given not so purely can be embezzled and never reach the receiver. Which amount had more impact in that case?

Hashem didn’t give us the mission to become rich or to become poor. He gave us the mission to serve Him as best as we can, and I believe He will sort out the rest.

So, apparently, every Jew should do his utmost to become rich (and as excessively wealthy as attainable), so that he can get many more mitzvos by giving more tzedakah.

That seems to be the yetzer hara’s argument.

zahavasdad,

There was a female Chassidic “Rebbe”

The Maiden of Ludmir (Hannah Rachel Verbermacher)

From a brief look at her Wikipedia entry, her behavior (acting like a chasidic rebbe) provoked a lot of opposition, and she asked a shaila of the Maggid of Chernobyl, who advised her to stop those practices, which she did.

benignuman,

I need to think about it. It does seem somewhat disturbing that we would be held hostage like that by the actions of outsiders.

A unique facet of Torah law is that the intention of a person plays a significant role in the halacha. Maasei Shabbos is an example, where the permissibility of benefiting from the melacha (forbidden labor on Shabbos) may be different depending on whether the melacha was performed b’shogeig (unintentionally) or b’meizid (intentionally).

Charliehall above makes a strong argument based on historical precedents in favor of a sort of ordination of women – and his points seem good; however, it is quite apparent that arguments like these are coming as a result of the push for women’s ordination, rather than as the driver.

In other words, if there was a situation impacting mitzah observance in the Torah community, and some feel that a group of women who are certified to answer specific shailos would increase the ability of the community to observe the mitzvos, then these arguments may hold water to a broader segment of the community. It seems pretty clear, however, that the motivation by the activists pushing for ordination is coming from somewhere outside of the Torah community, and these halachic arguments are coming ex post facto.

Therefore, it is not the halacha that is held hostage by the actions of outsiders, but the motivations of YCT, etc.

yungerman1,

Again, giving birth is sakonos nefashos- which is why you are allowed to be mechalel shabbos to drive to the hospital.

So what? Should I drive my family to the hospital if our furnace goes out on Shabbos in January? Where have I said that melacha should not be done for a woman in labor?

Lets define “preferable”. To the comfort of the mother- maybe for some, and only if they dont want any pain relief medication.

Pain medication dramatically increases the likelihood of cesarean section in the hospital. C-section increases the risk for maternal mortality. U.S. is 41st out of 171 nations in maternal mortality rates, and the rate is increasing dramatically (along with the C-section rate). In fact, it has quadrupled. At some hospitals the C-section rate tops 50%. And if you think, “well, C-sections are better for baby, at any rate!” think again. For a singleton presenting head down at full term, the risk of neonatal death is 0.62 per 1000 when Hashem’s designed delivery is used. That risk jumps to 1.77 with a C-section. Did our Creator really design us so poorly that almost half of women need to be cut open to get the baby out? Also, 66% of “emergency” cesareans are performed during the daytime (e.g., normal business hours – most convenient for the OB). Why?

So a women who decides on a home birth, is most definitely increasing the risk to herself,

The exact opposite seems to be the case.

and exponentially so to the infant.

Exponentially? Really? Not even Health made that claim.

Here’s the results of a study called Outcomes of Intended Home Births in Nurse-Midwifery Practice: A Prospective Descriptive Study, which was published in Volume 92, No. 3 of The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists:

Of 1404 enrolled women intending home births,

6% miscarried, terminated the pregnancy or changed plans.

Another 7.4% became ineligible for home birth prior to the

onset of labor at term due to the development of perinatal

problems and were referred for planned hospital birth. Of

those women beginning labor with the intention of delivering

at home, 102 (8.3%) were transferred to the hospital

during labor. Ten mothers (0.8%) were transferred to the

hospital after delivery, and 14 infants (1.1%) were transferred

after birth. Overall intrapartal fetal and neonatal

mortality for women beginning labor with the intention of

delivering at home was 2.5 per 1000. For women actually

delivering at home, intrapartal fetal and neonatal mortality

was 1.8 per 1000.

By comparison, the overall neonatal mortality rate for whites (the rate is significantly higher for blacks) in New York in 2007 was 3.27 per 1000 births. In Maryland it was 3.54, New Jersey 2.86. For women intending to deliver at home under the care of certified nurse midwives, including those who were transferred to hospitals for delivery due to problems with either mother or baby, the rate was 2.5.

Not sure where this tripling (or exponential increase) of the infant mortality rate is coming from. Probably home births that are not properly supervised, which we all agree is a bad idea.

Naysberg,

How far below the knee should a skirt be?

At least 4 to 6 feet. Stilts are recommended to avoid having the skirt drag on the floor. 🙂

I hope this answer is serious enough for your serious question.

Logician,

Avram – The Halacha remains that it is Sakanos Nefashos

I didn’t dispute the halacha in my response. I’m not even sure why we are bringing sakanos nefashos into this conversation, because childbirth is a sakanos nefashos whether the woman is in the hospital or at home. Therefore, if you object to my use of the term “safe” for home birth on the grounds of sakanos nefashos, then you must also object to calling a hospital birth safe.

I see the debate here as not about whether birth is a sakanos nefashos, which is a constant yes, but whether a planned home birth is preferable to a hospital birth.

All,

Let’s deconstruct this thread a little bit.

First, popa_bar_abba signed his OP as “the little red hen.” In that story, the little red hen asked some other barnyard critters for help planting wheat, then tending to it, reaping it, threshing it, milling it, baking, etc. At each stage, the other critters refused to help. When it came time to eat the bread, however, all of the critters jumped up to “help”, but the little red hen refused them, and ate the whole loaf herself.

In the blood donation case, the “little red hen” (the OP) can bake the bread but cannot eat it, while the “barnyard critters” (the other posters) can eat or bake the bread but cannot bake any for the little red hen. So, the hen is asking (in popa_bar_abba’s classically inflammatory way), “why should I go through the trouble to bake bread for all you critters???”

I cannot guess what popa_bar_abba wanted as a response. We could thank him for his baking, or mock him for his blood type I suppose:-) I think he was expecting to be attacked for his anti-Semitic tone, but I don’t think he was expecting a wave of “who cares whether you can eat our bread or not… keep baking bread for us anyway because we’re hungry!”

Unlike popa, however, I don’t interpret those responses as a sign of “entitlement.” To be in a position of need is difficult emotionally, so for a giver to act scornfully towards the receiver is cruel. People are responding negatively to this cruelty, but are missing the mark on what exactly about popa’s post is bothering them.

nitpicker,

you seem to be arguing with me, but there is not much difference in what you said and what I said.

I certainly didn’t intend to bother you with an argument. Convenience (the term you used) indicates something that eases difficulty, but does not imply requirement. I contend that the order of operations are a requirement, not a convenience or “best practice.” To perform the calculation above “in sequence”, therefore in my view, is incorrect. That’s all I was trying to say. Sorry for nitpicking:-)

longarekel,

well, here’s what I think. For most people, daf yomi is a waste of time.

I would be very careful about bashing other people’s learning like this. If my toddler gives me a picture of me and her holding hands, and in the typical toddler style they are two heads with long stick legs sticking out and the arms coming out of the sides of the head, and I know it took her only 5 minutes to draw it, I would be delighted by her attempt to connect with me in her own way. If an older sibling insulted the picture in front of her – after all, there are much better ways to draw a picture – I would feel upset with this sibling.

Yes, I understand and even agree with your concerns. One should not stand in place, doing nothing to rise higher. One who CAN learn on a deeper level should. The 15 year old shouldn’t think that a 5 minute stick figure drawing fulfills his obligations towards his parents. Still, the way you worded things was hurtful and derogatory towards those engaged in the study of Hashem’s Torah, and I don’t think that’s what Hashem wants us to do. There is a reason, after all, that the rebbeim you know are discreet about their concerns.

For people who don’t spend all day learning the daf-in depth and until halacha l’ma’aseh(and that’s the vast majority of people) it is an illusion created by he yetzer hara.

These are pretty strong words. Are you implying that the gemara should be closed to those who don’t have all day to learn it?

A person thinks he is ‘finishing’ masechtos when in truth he knows almost no Torah at all.

This may be true for some. It may not be for others.

How many people making the ‘siyum’ on shas will actually know shas, or even one masechta, or I dare say-even one perek?

I think that to put siyum in quotation marks is quite derogatory and uncalled for.

Instead, the precious time spent daily on Torah study should be focused on aquiring knowledge of halacha l’ma’ase like shabbos ribbis issur v’heter ona’ah yichud tahara brachos etc.

This is a valid argument, and I’m sure that a person serious about his learning discusses his learning with his rav.

Slowly, day after day, with a serious commitment, one can become a very real talmid chacham.

This is also a goal that can be corrupted by the yetzer hara. The ultimate goal of Torah learning is to come closer to Hashem, whether or not you have the ability to become a talmid chacham.

The yetzer hara knows this and therefore gets people to ‘learn’ daf yomi, make siyumim, and provide the illusion of knowing vast amounts of Torah, when in truth one remains more or less the same am ha’aretz he was 7 and a-half years ago.

It’s not the daf yomi that causes this, but rather a person who doesn’t grow from his learning. Some may grow learning the daf, others may need to use a different approach. Interestingly, there was a thread here in the CR a while back where the OP complained of the exact opposite: of yeshiva classes that “kvetched” over a single sugya for the whole semester, leaving the rest of the gemara a closed book.

I personally lean towards the more in depth approach. For me, I find it more important to make a piece of gemara mine, to get it down and understand it, then to cover a lot of ground. I certainly wouldn’t bash other people’s learning, however.

We are not fooled or impressed by grand ‘siyumim’ at big stadiums or ‘frum’ newspapers and magazines and organizations telling us what a big kiddush hashem it is.

I think this comment risks being an insult to the gedolim who attend the siyum, and who consider it a big kiddush Hashem. Are you smarter than them?

Instead I suggest we start having shiurim on halacha topics that matter, mixed with words of aggada and yiras shamayim

I think this is a great idea, and there are such shiurim in my community (and they don’t compete with or have rivalries with the daf yomi shiur, either).

as all jewish communities did from time immemorial until recently when this was all substituted for the daily daf.

Gemara wasn’t studied in previous Jewish communities?

It is time we stood up for the honor of Hashem and the honor of his Torah.

These are nice words, but make sure to not stand up for your ideas of honor while stomping on others’ honors to Hashem and His Torah.

gabie,

Avram: Have you often seen topics of discussion here be used externally from this site as fodder to attack the frum or make us seem backwards?

Often, no. Sometimes, yes. I’ve also seen it here.

WolfishMusings,

The only reason that the siddur (in your case) is special, is because it has sentimental value *to you*.

Actually, the OP made no mention of emotional attachment. He provided two examples of why he thought a siddur was a “davar kedusha.” The first example implied an emotional connection. The second (using a shul siddur that others have prayed in) did not. I don’t think he intended his two examples to be exclusive to others as to why a siddur is a “davar kedusha.”

However, based on your argument, I should only daven from sidduring in which I have an emotional attachment and not any old siddur “off the shelf.”

Can you really show that from the OP? Seems like you are drawing inferences from the OP based on projections of your own bias. Especially since the siddur “off the shelf” was his second example.

In fact, the siddur I use was one I bought new in my teens. I still use it today because about 17 years ago, my son got a hold of it and scribbled on some of the pages. Now, whenever I use it, I have a very visible reminder of what I need to daven for.

Very nice.

However, according to your theory, I should not have this because when I bought the siddur it was new and did not have the emotional attachment equating to one that my grandmother cried in.

Again, creating an argument based on a theory that didn’t exist in the OP.

The Wolf (who is *sure* that someone’s going to tell him that he’s disrespecting HKBH by using a siddur with a child’s scribbles in it.)

Unwarranted assumption from bias. What makes you so sure?

WolfishMusings,

Here’s what my personal translator/ellucidator came up with:

I am a [untranslatable] Jewish and religious teenager in a Jewish and religious high school. [Due to the fact that I attend this high school,] I feel that I’m not accomplishing [as much] chessed as a girl [my age] should be accomplishing. [This lack of accomplishment is because] I’m too busy with my studies. not quite sure whether I should [accept this and] focus [most of my time] on my studies now and [make up for lost chessed time by] focusing on chessed after my [graduation from] seminary, [or whether I should decrease my focus on my high school studies to make more time for chessed now]. I’m not sure if [the readers of this Web site] understand [my] question [above], but let me know [through responses on this thread] what you think.

Let me know if that is helpful to you 🙂

Feif Un,

Would you wear your pajamas to work? They’re quite comfortable…

These are just my opinions:

1.) The hotel provides soap and shampoo for its customers to use while they stay in the hotel. The cost to provide these amenities is NOT trivial.

2.) For sanitary reasons, once a bottle of soap or container of shampoo is opened, it cannot be reused and will be thrown out.

Therefore, one should only use the amount of shampoo and soap needed to shower. I think it is petty theft to hide or pack unused shampoo or soap each day (whether opened or not) so that the staff provides new bottles that they otherwise would not have provided. On the last day of the stay, however, any remaining unused shampoo or soap is ok to take, since it is effectively garbage to the hotel. If you are unsure about this, ask the front desk. I think the same principle applies for condiment packages in restaurants (e.g., ketchup packets). The condiments cost a lot of money, and are provided with the intention of use with the food you are buying right then from the restaurant – not to stock your kitchen.

As for the magnetic key cards, the hotel can reuse these and they should be returned unless you are told otherwise by the staff. I once accidentally took a magnetic key with me. I called the hotel from the road (wife was driving, don’t worry) to ask for their mailing address, and they said not to worry and to keep it.

Ctrl Alt Del,

Avram, my point is valid either way.

I’m not sure about that. You posited that our sages brought the 18 vertebrae of the spine as a motivator to the stupid masses for davening Shemoneh Esrei – but it was not meant as a motivator at all, just a connection (or an explanation of bowing during the Shemoneh Esrei). Nothing was said to the effect of, “you should daven all 18 brachos because they represent your spine…” That’s a straw man you made up.

Iss shver tzuzein a yid back then too.

Actually, I disagree with this premise too. Literacy rates for Jews was quite high, certainly much higher than in the surrounding populace. In places like Vilna even the simple Jews were engaged in learning. This is not to say that there have been periods and places where education suffered tremendously, but I would think that someone learning Gemara (where you would come across this vertebrae reference) was not a “schlep”, especially since, a few pages before the vertebrae reference, the Gemara discusses the very reasons for our tefillos (in place of the korbonos) that you claim the schlep couldn’t understand.

Yes, they didn’t have x-rays back then so they did the best they could.

I think it’s incorrect to assume that the slope of technological and scientific advancement with time was always positive (e.g., the further back in time, the more ignorant). During the time of the Gemara, batteries were in use across the Middle East. The Romans had indoor plumbing. Egyptians practiced surgery. The period right after the Middle Ages was called the Renaissance, meaning a revival, because a lot of the advancements came through rediscovery of things the ancients knew but were subsequently forgotten. I think it’s quite reasonable to assume that the sages of the gemara knew what a human spine looked like – and that we are simply unfamiliar with their particular method of categorization.

WolfishMusings,

My belief in Judaism is quite strong.

according to that opinion

there were some people who felt

I’m sure that someone will tell me that I’m transgressing

I doubted a story about a woman being in a coma for 73 years and was called a Kofer for it

Because I’ve been told that all of those are violations of halacha in one way or another

This may come as a surprise to you, but Judaism is not defined as:

if(someone’s opinion is different from WolfishMusings’ opinion) {

WolfishMusings is doomed.

}

if(someone is an internet troll on YWN yelling “apikorus”) {

someone is a spokesman for authentic Judaism

see above

}