Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
dafyomi2711,
I think during the days when the Talmud Yerushalmi was compiled, Aramaic was the common language in Eretz Yisroel as well as in Babylon. As for why the Aramaic might be harder to understand, perhaps the dialects are different?
WolfishMusings,
there are far too many people who depend too much on me (although whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing, I suppose, is debatable)
It’s a good thing. And it goes much deeper than dependence.
Granted, I can be self-critical (perhaps to the extreme), and even further granted that I don’t particularly like myself very much,
Self criticism can be healthy and helpful, just like a baseball coach’s criticisms can help his players improve their game. Don’t let it lead to self-loathing, however. The very fact that you consider the merits of your actions at all demonstrates that you have character and sensitivity. If nothing else, trust your wife’s judgement: she picked well.
but I said I would limit my self-deprecatory comments on this site and, I believe, I’ve adhered to that.
Most of the self deprecating comments I have seen you make here come in response to the extremist blanket statements or judgements of others – not seemingly from an internal dislike for your behavior. On the contrary, you usually seemed to be comfortable with your behaviors and decisions. That’s why I have previously assumed that you were using the self deprecation as a rhetorical device to attack such blanket, extreme statements.
A simplistic example:
ExtremoBob: Pirkei Avos says al tarbe sicha im haisha, therefore anyone who says “good morning” to a woman is going to that hot place!
WolfishMusings: Well, I’d better stock up on sunscreen and fans, because I said good morning to my wife this morning, and I plan to do so tomorrow!
If, however, you are indeed internalizing some of the crazy statements that unthinking people make, please note that what you are doing is not self-criticism. Where would we be had Moshe Rabbeinu internalized the insult hurled at him by a Jew that he was at fault for worsening the Jews’ lot after speaking to Paroh?
jewishfeminist02,
I have no idea if your post is in response to what I wrote, so I apologize if it wasn’t, but here is my response if it was.
Why is it that when people ask halachic questions, everyone responds with “DON’T TRY TO PASKEN FROM THE CR!!!!” even when it’s clear that the person is not actually asking for psak…
I do not believe that I have ever made that statement. I find the halachic discussions on this forum quite thought provoking, with the full knowledge that any questions of practical application must go to my rav.
but on the other hand, we are uber comfortable with making assumptions and jumping to conclusions and offering unsolicited judgments regarding people’s personal lives?
On the contrary. I have thought about writing what I did above for a long time, and I felt unsure about whether it was wise, and I worried about whether I was rushing to judgement about the situation, misjudging things, or whether it was out of line for me to comment about another poster’s [potential] personal situation. I am certainly not “uber” comfortable. I am uncomfortable.
The fact is, unless we know a poster personally, we know nothing about them except what they post. Therefore, to try and judge a poster personally would be silly. That’s why I made as much of an attempt as possible to comment only on what has been posted – without extrapolation.
Ideally I agree with you that it’s best to comment on posts and not the posters; however, when we are talking about depression and suicide I feel there is an exception due to the risk, G-d forbid. I am not trained to handle such situations, and I have no idea whether my words were helpful or would have any impact if my fears were true (and I pray that they weren’t harmful), but I feel strongly that silence would be worse.
Once, I heard one of my children upstairs yell for help, and upon reaching her I saw that she was pretending with dolls in the midst of a game. Even if I thought she was playing, I would still go to her, because there is a possibility that she really needed help. Talking about depression and suicide can be academic, or it can be a call for help.
rebdoniel,
And wallflower, having a paternal grandmother whose parents emigrated here from Aleppo, I can make such claims with full confidence and with full knowledge of the realities at play.
Having a connection to a community does not give you the authority or the right to tar that community as a whole.
DaasYochid wrote:
Wolf, considering that you’ve started at least six threads about suicide (that’s what I found on the first page of your profile), I could understand how someone could think the topic fascinates you.
WolfishMusings responded:
Yes, but that’s over the span of what? Four years?
I don’t think six conversations over four years is a sign of obsession. Heck, I often have more than six conversations about Excel, SQL Server and photography over the course of any given week. Does that make me obsessed with them?
WolfishMusings,
Your response to DaasYochid was not logical. If a person has 100 conversations and 94 of them are normal, but 6 of them discuss assassinating a government official with quite a bit of detail, I would imagine that the secret service would take notice. Also, if a person takes 100 trips driving a car and causes crashes during 6 of those trips, would you feel safe with his driving? We are not looking for a plurality here to diagnose the fascination. Something as extreme as suicide mentioned even once should give us pause.
During the time that I have read and posted on this site, I have seen you discuss feelings of inadequacy (I am a sinner, etc.), sadness (e.g., on Shabbos), and suicide. These are serious warning signs. Unfortunately, we have no way of knowing whether these posts are intended as satire (you claimed they were not) or to make a tongue-in-cheek statement about the reality of extreme views expressed on this site (you have not closed the door on this possibility). Some of your examples, such as claiming you are a sinner for talking during laining when you serve as baal koreh, or taking “rule” type statements and denying the possibility of exceptions, seem to point towards those above interpretations of your posts, but your persistence and denials of satire make your body of posts somewhat unsettling to me.
No matter what is said by keyboard kanoim with multiple usernames on this site, Hashem loves you. Every breath that you take and every beat of your heart is proof of that love. Your family loves you and needs you. I may be way off base here, and I apologize if I cause you any pain or offense, but if you are feeling despair, you owe it to yourself and your family to reach out for assistance.
Joseph
This post discusses Joseph in the context of the CR. For other uses, see Joseph (disambiguation).
Joseph is an epithet used to describe any poster for which Poe’s Law applies. Some apply the label Joseph to any poster exhibiting troll-like behavior, especially posters who create multiple usernames or attempt to elicit personal information from other posters.
Outsider,
How does this statement:
I don’t want to appear like I’m putting anyone down
coexist with this one?
I am absolutely amazed by the lack of scientific, literary, and other academic knowledge possessed by many (most?) Yeshiva guys.
I know it’s not their way to study “worldly” things, but on the Outside, if you argue against the world’s age, you are a total religious anomaly.
If you make the claim that you are an “outsider”, meaning that you haven’t lived within the Orthodox Jewish or “Yeshiva” world, then where did you acquire the data to make the claim that most Yeshiva bochrim are ignorant of scientific, literary, or other academic knowledge? Stereotyping?
Also, why do you single out this specific group, when ignorance of basic literature, history, and science is epidemic in the U.S. as a whole?
Sam2,
Your question in the title of this thread is beyond my pay grade for sure.
I’m not sure if this is just sucking up to the Frum community because it contradicts just about everything he said before this, … Maybe.
I don’t think what you quoted above contradicts anything he said earlier. Rather, it is a very clever but disingenuous attempt to make it look like he upholds the same faith as other Orthodox Jews. Whether he actually does or not remains a mystery. I’ll elaborate below.
I believe in Torah Min Ha-Shamayim, that the Torah is from heaven, and that the entirety of the book is nevua (prophecy) and represents the encounter between God and the people of Israel
We would have to ask him what “from heaven” and “nevua” mean to him, because it is likely he defines these things in a different manner from traditional Jewish understandings. We’ll see one of these strange definitions in the very next quote.
I believe in Torah mi-Sinai, meaning the uniqueness of the Torah as being of a higher order than any other work in its level of divine encounter.
That’s a very convoluted definition of Torah mi-Sinai, since nothing about Sinai is even mentioned. Torah mi-Sinai simply means “Torah from Sinai.” He says nothing about Moshe Rabbeinu or his actual receipt of the Torah as a historical event, which is the only aspect of Torah mi-Sinai that would posit the Torah’s superiority over any other prophecy. Without Moshe Rabbeinu speaking to G-d “face to face” and receiving the Torah directly from Hashem, there can be no argument made for “the uniqueness of the Torah as being of a higher order than any other work in its level of divine encounter.” It would just be a book written by “divinely inspired men” on the shelf with all the other books written by “divinely inspired men”, G-d forbid. A strange omission indeed.
The story of the revelation at Sinai in the Torah I understand as a narrative depiction of a deeper truth
A cloaked way perhaps of saying “not to be taken literally”…
Finally a true statement, but he doesn’t arrive at this result from Torah mi-Sinai, so I honestly can’t say how he does arrive at it, or even whether his definition of “G-d’s book” is the same as mine.
This is perhaps the most disingenuous statement in the quotation you provided. Note “meant to be as it is today” is NOT the same thing as “I believe with perfect faith that the entire Torah that we now have is that which was given to Moses”, and “I believe with perfect faith that this Torah will not be changed, and that there will never be another given by G-d” (quotation of the ikkarim emunah are from the OU). In fact, by utilizing the word “meant”, the implication is very clear that he holds the Torah has changed, G-d forbid.
What on earth does he mean by “develop organically”? It certainly does not seem to equate with the traditional notions of mesora.
The only salient point I could garner from these quotations is that Farber thinks the Torah is spiritually special. We can not derive that he thinks the Torah was authored by G-d and not Man, nor can we say that he believes there was any kind of literal encounter between the Divine and Israel at Har Sinai.
OhTeeDee,
whether the calendar is fixed or not the concept that it may or may not be yuntiff *today* makes it all seem arbitrary.
I don’t see it as arbitrary at all. The date of Yom Tov was set by the Sanhedrin once the length of the previous month was determined (either 29 or 30 days). Therefore each festival had a fixed date. Whether people observed one or both possible days depending on where they lived makes no difference to the actual date and length of the festival.
Unlike Shabbos, whose dates are fixed by Hashem, the festivals were given to us to set within a framework (briefly, the first month must come in spring time, the Pesach is offered on the 14th of that month, the festival of matzos then follows from the 15th to 21st, Shavuous is 50 days after the morrow of the rest of that festival, Rosh Hashana on the 1st of the 7th month, Y”K on the 10th, Sukkos on the 15-21st, Shemini Atzeres on the 22nd. Other than that (and telling us in last week’s parsha that we should use the sun, moon, and stars to set our calendar), we have a say in how it’s done. It may seem a bit disconcerting, but Hashem bestowed our people with holiness through these festivals, and we actually have the ability to make the days holy. That’s why the Yom Tov bracha days “mikadesh Yisroel v’hazmanim” – Hashem makes Yisroel holy, and Yisroel makes the zmanim holy.
The fact specifically that today there is no safeik at all (and when there was did people really fast 2 days for yom kippur) AND no mechanism in place to acknowledge that the 2 day yuntiff “doesn’t apply” anymore.
You seem to be assuming that the reason we still observe both possible Yom Yov days in the diaspora is because there was no mechanism to overturn the previous ruling. I don’t think that is the case. The later sages chose to continue the practice because they didn’t see the problem in simply utilitarian terms. In other words, the uncertainty of when Tom Tov fell was caused because of a deficiency (living in the diaspora), so even though the calendar is fixed, at the end of the day, living in the diaspora is still a deficiency.
In terms of the moment in time when it did apply, the sages who created an “8th day” even for those in diaspora who cannot get the news of rosh chodesh – i believe were doing so in direct objection to the (perfect) Torah.
Nobody created an 8th day. We observe the last date of Pesach on 21 Nissan due to the 7 day festival that started on the 15th – we just assume that the 1st of the month could have been either 30 or 31 days after the start of the previous month. If you are considering yourself to be observing an 8th day of Pesach, then you are not looking at the halacha correctly. In Sukkos mussaf, we recite the offerings for the first day of the festival on both the first two days of observed Yom Tov, because we treat each day as if it could be Yom Tov. In the diaspora on the “3rd” day (after the two day Yom Tov), we recite the offerings for both the 2nd and 3rd days of the festival. Nothing new is being added.
In the simplest form, you cannot say that due to logistics Hashem really wants X even though he said Y! If anything it proves that the Torah, in its time wasn’t scalable to a global world.
The Torah is perfect, but it was never intended to be scalable to the globe. Hashem gave us the Torah and intended for us to live in Eretz Yisroel. Therefore, the halachos are designed for that area. Outside of Eretz Yisroel, many mitzvos lose their applicability. In Eretz Yisroel, grain harvesting is possible at Pesach time, and Jews are obligated to bring an omer offering. In Russia, however, crops are barely out of dormancy. The Torah was not written with Russia in mind. On Shemini Atzeres we daven for rain, but for Jews in Florida, the onset of the dry season begins a month or two later. The Torah was not written with Florida in mind. Hashem wants us to live in Eretz Yisroel, but due to our aveiros, we were exiled and now live in lands “out of sync” with our holy Torah. Having to observe both possible days that Yom Tov can fall out is just one manifestation of this imbalance in the system. Don’t blame the Torah, blame the exile.
The idea that “we would all be amish” is something I chuckle about, since essentially we ARE amish on shabbos and yuntiff.
Huh? I suddenly use no electricity (no lights left on, no timers, no A/C, no Shabbos alarm clock, no blech on an electric stove, no electric urn) on Shabbos, and trade my car in for a horse and buggy (which we don’t use on Shabbos either)? Your comment makes no sense to me. I think a hard-core Amish person witnessing Shabbos observance would say it looked and felt very different from his lifestyle.
There was never anything prohibiting the use of technology as the amish did
That wasn’t quite my point. You implied that halacha freeze-framed in the 19th Century. If that was the case, then there would have been no way for halacha to deal with technology on Shabbos.
but there is a certain resistance to using it, within the confines of halacha, on shabbos. For example putting a light on, which i believe falls under the av of boneh but couldnt possibly be anything close to what boneh IS (or was in the mishkan). This is the understanding and application of a halacha that let’s face it, has NO precedent in jewish history/law (how could it. times change and not everything could be covered). so has halacha “dealt” with this or just outlawed it for lack of understanding?
I think you may have it backwards. Early treatment of electric devices tended to permit them, but once greater knowledge of how those devices worked, then they became forbidden. It actually was the increased understanding that led to the restrictions, not a lack.
What’s interesting to me is that the sages forbade the use of electrical devices on Shabbos – which seems silly to you because the melachos deal with things like hammering and sewing. But Hashem tells me to not work on Shabbos, and in my job I do not hammer or sew – I use electronic devices. Through remote connectivity, I can stay home and work a full day without doing anything but interact with electronic devices – so thank G-d they are forbidden on Shabbos!
Re: fridges, I honestly do not know how it is muttar to open one on shabbos. It is 40 degrees in there and 72 degrees in the room. you open the fridge, 20 seconds later the thing kicks on. You walk into a room with central air. by definition your presence warms the air, miniscule as that may be. the AC kicks on. Is this any better than turning on a light?
Discuss this with a rabbi. It’s not like they didn’t think of any of this!
OhTeeDee,
The fact that there is no mechanism in place to change things (that seemingly no longer apply/make sense
To you?
) doesn’t seem like a problem with the system?
Observing Yom Tov over two days in the diaspora makes sense to me. So why should I believe that it should be changed?
for 2500 years there were tannaim/amoraim/rishonim tweaking halacha, most of which applies halacha li’mayseh today. Weren’t they “reforming” (i know…a very bad word 🙂 the direction of the torah.
No, not reforming. When the U.S. Supreme Court makes a ruling, in an ideal sense we do not say that they are reforming the U.S. Constitution (e.g., “hey, lets throw this clause out”). Rather, they are applying the Constitution to their case at hand. This is similar to what the sages do – they apply Torah principles to a situation in order to figure out what to do. Different sages may make different applications, but it is not reformation.
I am not saying rejecting torah she’bal peh, all i’m saying is that if halacha is a living, breathing idea why did it stop changing (except to make life HARDER) 150 years ago?
This is a false argument. Blechs on electric stovetops, hearing aids, timers, air conditioners, refrigerators, etc. did not exist 150 years ago, yet our living halacha has dealt with all of these things (mostly to make life EASIER, by the way). If halacha stopped changing 150 years ago, then we’d still be living as people did 150 years ago, like the Amish. But we don’t, because halacha does deal with changes in the world. It seems possible that your perception of a lack of halachic adaptation is not due to an actual lack of adaptation, but to your dislike of how it has adapted.
OhTeeDee,
I mean, there is no safek yom anymore, this we know.
So from this statement, it seems that your problem with 2 day Yom Tovs is that we now utilize a fixed calendar, so it follows that when Rosh Chodesh was declared by the Sanhedrin, you wouldn’t have objections, right?
For example, the torah specifically says that succos is an 8 day holiday
<nitpick>Actually, by the Torah Sukkos is 7 days, as we are commanded to sit in Sukkos for 7 days. The 8th day is a new Yom Tov.</nitpick>
so next friday A. why aren’t you oiver on baal toisif?
Your argument here doesn’t make sense to me, because it would also apply to the times before our calendar was fixed, and from your initial statement, you only seem to have a problem with this after the fixed calendar. Back when Rosh Chodesh was declared by the Sanhedrin, and word of the declaration may not have reached the far flung communities in time for Yom Tov, keeping “eight” days of Pesach still would have been problematic according to your argument, because the Torah commanded seven!
Pesach and Sukkos are seven day festivals. Rosh Hashana, Shavuos, and Shemini Atzeres are one day festivals. This remains true to this day, in the diaspora as well as in Eretz Yisroel. The sages who declared the months also decreed that in the diaspora, both possible days that Yom Tov could fall out based on the synodic month should be observed as Yom Tov, even though one of those days is not Yom Tov.
and B. Shouldn’t you be putting on tfillin? C. Shouldn’t you be doing hakafos (the real ones) on Thursday
The same sages who told us when to lay tefillin and to do hakafos also told us how to observe Yom Tov in the diaspora. Where’s the contradiction?
Toi,
most important thing(s) to do are to observe the 5 inuyim and not be chayiv karress.
My guess is that Rav Miller ZT”L and the OP took it as a given that the restrictions of Yom Kippur would be observed, and were addressing what ideas and thoughts of the day were the most important.
Yungerman from Lakewood,
so I can’t bring myself to do tshuva for aveiros that I do not believe in.
What do I do?
Your problem is not isolated to people with doubts – it is a universal issue. When a person sins, most of the time he is not thinking “heh heh heh, I know I’m doing wrong but I’m doing it anyway!” Usually there are two conflicting desires within a person (I should give the $5 in my pocket to that poor person, but I really want to use it to buy some french fries later), a noble desire and a base desire, and the person rationalizes a way to fulfill the base desire, sometimes even convincing himself that he’s doing the right thing (the poor person will just probably buy alcohol with it anyway). So, in a way, at the time of the commission of the aveira, the person “does not believe in the aveira” as you said.
So how should you “deal” with Yom Kippur? The same way that all Jews should. Take some time to examine your actions (and the motivations for your actions) during the past year and decide whether all of those actions reflect the type of person you would like to be. Usually when we pare down our rationalizations, the true, base motivations for a lot of our actions can make us feel embarrassed. Feel regret for these failures, but tell yourself and Hashem that they do not reflect who you are. Think of something realistic you can do during the upcoming year that will help you to come closer to being the person you truly want to be. Pray for the time, health, and ability to do this work.
Please G-d I should be able to do all of this myself as well and that we will all have a year of sweet goodness.
This name is already taken,
Assuming you have downloaded the file from the Web and saved it somewhere, perhaps you can open a blank OpenOffice spreadsheet, then choose insert -> sheet from file, then choose your CSV file? You might have to play with the formatting to get it right.
Good luck!
jewishfeminist02,
I have heard that there are people in minyanim
People are people, and I’m sure that every minyan of every stripe has its share of interesting characters!
who will correct the way others wear their tefillin, either by verbally advising them or even physically reaching over to adjust the person’s straps. Does this actually happen? And if so, what do you think– is it appropriate or not?
If my tefillin were pushed askew, I would ultimately appreciate someone quietly telling me – though I would also feel a bit embarrassed. I probably wouldn’t mind him adjusting it for me if he asked first, since it would save me the extra seconds to get my mirror. If he didn’t ask first before touching them, however, I would feel very uncomfortable (and probably wonder if he were mentally stable).
If the issue the person had was with my custom, I would just say, “thanks for the advice, but this is how I learned to put them on” and move on. If it were an issue like what LevAryehBoy described, I would hopefully just say “thank you.”
I personally wouldn’t correct somebody else. With the tallis going on and off the head, standing, sitting, etc., tefillin are likely to shift during davening. I’m sure most people periodically check to make sure they are still in their proper place. Therefore it’s very likely that the man with his tefillin askew will correct the issue himself in short order.
assurnet wrote:
Actually the Gemara in Sukkot discusses different human actions that bring about eclipses… I’m not quite sure I would describe Chazal as “arbitrary.” And as a disclaimer, just because we can now map the schedule of such astrological events in advance isn’t a stirah to the Gemara…
lakewood001,
How is it not a Stira? I’m asking sincerely.
I can think of several possible answers.
First, I think for the purposes of the Gemara, it’s not the occurrence of the eclipse that is important, but the observation of it. Just because an eclipse occurs does not mean that people in a given location will see it. Cloud cover, for example, can render a lunar eclipse and most solar eclipses invisible. A total solar eclipse would be viewed quite differently under cloud cover than on a clear day.
Second, if G-d created and controls the universe, including all of the physical laws, and He knows the future and the hearts of Man, then it would follow that the laws of physics and history would work together such that eclipses occur and are observed over regions where such behavior occurs.
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!
jewishfeminist02
There is no one-size-fits-all magic number of children. It depends on…
I don’t think we are significantly disagreeing here – we are just focusing on the opposite sides of the coin. We seem to agree that it is not ok for parents to become so overwhelmed that they do not properly care for their children. The Goq seems to be suggesting that there is an objective limit to the number of children a family should have before it becomes unfair to the children, however, and that I disagree with. That number is a personal decision between husband and wife.
The Goq,
You cant tell me that children part of a 12 child family get the same personal parental attention as children of a 6 child family
I can tell you that I know people who were an only child who felt neglected and ignored by their parents. I also know families of two children where one sibling is obviously favored over the other, leading to feelings of neglect. Parenting a larger number of children may be more challenging than parenting fewer (and perhaps not feasible for some families as jewishfeminist02 said), but the efforts and quality of the parents plays the crucial role. I think you certainly have the right to observe and express concern that some parents do not seem to be doing a good job, but I don’t think you have the right to tell parents that they have too many children. Which one(s) should they give back?
Also, your views on the appropriate number of children to have are deeply affected by your cultural viewpoint. In the eyes of many in secular America, having 6 children is considered grossly irresponsible.
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?
The Goq,
i urge you to look at the tragedies from this summer alone and find out what the average amount of children are in these families I don’t know but i suspect that these types of tragedies are more prevalent in families with double digit children.
If you take a sample from the frum community alone, then yes, you will find a lot of large families, but these types of tragedies happen across all communities, not just ours. They happen to families with one child, or two or three. That is not to excuse the occurrence of even one such tragedy.
My point is that just because you have A and B does not mean that A caused B.
Parenting multiple children brings new and different challenges, and parents must grow, adapt and address these challenges. If they do not, they are being irresponsible parents, just as first time parents would be if they didn’t adapt to care adequately for their first child. This does not mean that parents of double-digit children are irresponsible simply for having so many children. Each couple has its own limits and dynamics, and parents with 10 children may do better than parents of one or two. If parents do not feel like (or realize) they can adequately care for 10 children given their current lifestyle, yet have them anyway without first addressing their issues, then that makes them irresponsible parents.
The Torah commands us to be fruitful and multiply but i feel having a family with a dozen or so children is unfair to those children,
Why would it be, if the parents are properly caring for each child?
the older girls of the family are forced to play mommy when they themselves are still kids and deserve to have a childhood, the younger children do not get the kind of attention they deserve
You are describing symptoms of bad parenting here, not something that is a bygone result of having many siblings.
A parent should never establish a situation where they rely on their children to act as surrogate parents. The older siblings are not parents, and doing so not only creates an unfair burden as you suggested, but is unsafe and increases the risk of the tragedies you alluded to in your OP.
At the same time, children should be taught responsibility. If an 8 year old child gets herself or himself a cup of water, s/he should be taught to offer water to others in the family at the same time (including the parents!). This is good chinuch and though it has the side benefit of aiding in smoothing the house workload, it is not the same thing as becoming a surrogate parent.
Also, parents should continuously assess and monitor their children’s needs and how they are relating to each child. A lot of parents (including me) trend towards being goal-oriented (get them all up and out on time, get them to bed on time, get them fed, etc.), which is good, but carries the danger of going into auto-pilot mode (no news is good news). This must be overcome. Parents must connect with each child every day. This may take more creativity and effort with a lot of children, but I believe it can be done.
again this is my opinion and I may be wrong but I am entitled to my opinion no matter how unpopular it may be.
I think you are seeing an unfortunate situation and you are grappling with it, which is a good thing. I just disagree with you about the cause, which would also affect the discussed solutions.
In the Western world, frum Jews are pretty alone in having large families. We do not have as many guides and role models for how to effectively parent these types of families. Perhaps this is a place to begin making changes.
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,
there are so many tragedies happening to small children of large families being left in a hot car, unsupervised near a pool or body of water there are other examples.
G-d forbid, G-d forbid that this should ever happen to anyone. Unfortunately, it does happen, but I don’t see any correlation between the occurrence of these types of tragedies and the number of children a family has. A child is R”L left in a car usually due to a change in pattern, e.g., a father intending to bring his child to day care when he usually doesn’t, and not being mindful and going into autopilot. Parents must always check their cars whenever they exit, even if they know there are no kids inside. A drowning R”L happens if a location is not properly secured and supervised, which can happen whether there is one child or 20.
I know back in the 60s and 70s when it first became popular to have very large families the common reason given was to repopulate the Jewish souls we lost in the holocaust,
I think the secular American/European practice of having very few children is anomalous, not having a large number of children.
but now it seems that every couple is expected to have many children,
How many children to have is a decision that is solely between husband and wife, with a goal of serving Hashem as best as they can. It is not a decision to be taken lightly, but at the same time people outside of the marriage should not get involved unless asked.
not to mention the fact that many of these families are on public assistance is it really fair for the government to pay for someone who has more children than they can afford?
Personally I think feeding and caring for children is money well spent no matter where it is coming from, but this point really has no relation to the ones above about child safety. If you don’t like how your government’s money is being spent, then campaign for people who advocate changing the laws to something you like better.
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.
The Goq,
I’m thinking that your post is a parable, and that collecting “Faberge” eggs represents having children. I have a response for that interpretation, but I don’t want to write it out if I am misunderstanding the parable. Am I understanding it correctly?
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?
popa_bar_abba,
darling
You are a wicked, wicked troll, aren’t you? 🙂
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?
Uri Bakay,
I personally am makpid on not talking during davening, and I am bothered by talking, especially during chazaras hashatz, kaddish, and leining. I completely fail to understand why someone would do this, when not only is it a clear cut aveirah, but there is ample opportunity to talk after davening, especially on Shabbos when there is a kiddush. So I sympathize with your feelings on the issue.
That said, it is also a clear cut aveirah to speak lashon hara about the Jewish people, or a Jewish community as a whole. Drawing negative comparisons with other religions, painting all Orthodox Jews with a single brush stroke, and derisively stating “Mi Kaamch (sic) Yisrael” may just be as bad in the eyes of halacha as talking during davening.
I truly understand the frustration that you are feeling, but please don’t let another’s aveirah cause you to commit your own.
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.
SecularFrummy,
I think your original OP question belies a false dilemma fallacy. You are attempting to force a choice between two options: either the Rishonim were infallible (i.e., superhuman or deity) or we must find a means to determine their errors, and question their rulings. This is fundamentally not logical.
When I was in high school, I once solved a long mathematical problem and came up with a different solution than the textbook’s. I brought the problem to the teacher, who took a look and realized that there was an error in the textbook. I was praised for my work and for not being satisfied with blindly accepting the textbook’s solution as correct by default.
Looking back, I think that ultimately this incident had a more negative effect on my future learning than a positive one. For a long time afterwards, if I solved a problem and arrived at a different answer from the textbook or the teacher, I would be more inclined to stick to my guns and argue that my solution was correct. After all, textbooks are not perfect and can have errors! It turns out that errors in high school math textbooks are exceedingly rare, and errors in high school student math homework are common.
Rather than coming up with my own solution, and dismissing the textbook’s solution as wrong and ending my thoughts there, I would have been much better served by digging deeper into what I viewed as the wrong solution, working backwards and discovering my own mistakes.
Yes, the acharonim, rishonim, tannaim, amoraim, the sages of the Sanhedrin, the prophets, judges, and our forefathers were all human beings. Human beings are not infallible and can make mistakes. It is much more likely, however, for me to make a mistake in my Torah learning than our sages, so ultimately it is much more productive to look for my own mistakes than it is to look for theirs if the answers don’t line up.
It is also most likely that if there was a mistake, it has already been addressed by another sage.
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.
charliehall,
YCT has an all male student body.
My mistake – perhaps saying “groups such as Yeshivat Maharat, Hebrew Institute of Riverdale, etc.” would have been more accurate.
Nah, it has to be Quark…
WolfishMusings,
* Yes, I know some of you will take me to task for being on a recipe site that has non-kosher recipes. I don’t care.
It’s funny, because nobody ever seems to actually take you to task on the issues where you claim they will.
So I’ll have to think of something to take you to task for… hmmm… you used OIL to sautee your vegetables?? How could you?? 😉
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.
interjection,
if I knew of a female who was qualified to deal with those shailos, I would feel way more comfortable than going to a man.
I think you definitely have a valid point, and this is what I was thinking when I wrote:
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
I don’t see how there would be a problem with a woman trained in these halachos answering shailos for other women, and such a system may have a lot of benefit for the mitzvah of taharas hamishpacha. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the aim of groups such as YCT.
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 am not coming from some sort of feminist, “lets be egalitarian” position and I am not coming to validate anything ex post facto.
I’m not sure how you derived from my post that I was ascribing any motivations onto you, although perhaps I did so indirectly to charliehall, and definitely directly to YCT. I should have been more careful in my wording, so I apologize.
I value honest clear positions based on honest clear arguments.
I agree with you there.
There is no categoric rule in halacha that women cannot be rabbis, so why pretend as if there is.
I’m not sure that the absence from halacha is so clear cut. People who have much more Torah knowledge than I do seem to think that it is not permissible.
If I had a minhag that for some reason I wanted to change, or if I wanted to do something that wasn’t commonly (or ever) done in the frum community, I would go to my rav and ask a shaila. I think the first thing he would ask me is, “why do you want to do this”? Whether he ultimately permits it or not would depend highly on my motivation for doing it. A different person in a different situation might get a completely different answer.
The first change made by the Reform movement in Germany that brought huge condemnation from the rabbis of the time was something that seems tiny; they moved the Torah leining up to the bima. If a shul had done this because it was difficult for everyone to hear the leining, perhaps there would have been some disagreement, but not a full fledged outcry. The outcry happened because of the motivation of the reformers – to make their synagogues look more like churches.
I cannot myself answer the question of whether ordaining a woman using the smicha system we have today is forbidden or not, but it does seem clear that the way YCT is going about it is not the proper Jewish way.
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.
This is B”N my last post on the matter.
big deal,
Do you think it is possible to take a minute and think for yourself without quoting statistics or medical journals who are trying to push an agenda? Your logic is so twisted it would be laughable if not so serious a subject.
I’m guessing you tuned in at my last post. I encourage you to read the rest if interested. It’s fair to say that I am wrong – there are two legitimate sides to this debate – but I have not twisted my logic. Also, you think I haven’t thought about this? I used to be firmly on the opposite side of the issue!
By the way, the Green Journal quoted in my post above is the official journal of the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. If they had an “agenda”, it would actually tilt against home births! If a research paper in their journal establishes that monitored and screened home births are a safe option (which was the conclusion of the paper), then I think that can be taken as an unbiased source. And mothers choosing that option should not be shamed by people like you any more than mothers who opt for C-sections out of convenience or fear of pain, based on evidence that that procedure increases both fetal and maternal risks.
Can you figure out any reason why they might be screening candidates for a planned home birth? Because they know that there is a significant risk with delivering at home so they try to minimize the casualties.
I actually agree with the vast majority of this statement, though not the wording. It’s apparent that you are not following my position on the issue, either because of a preconceived notion of my position, or because you’ve just arrived to the thread. Screening and fetal monitoring are a vital part of a planned home birth, IMO. It would be unwise to not undergo such screening. Home birth is definitely not for everyone. By the way, “they” try to minimize casualties in hospitals too:-)
The reasonable argument here is whether the medical mitigation of risk available at an established LOW RISK home birth attended by certified nurse midwives with a transfer plan to a nearby hospital is as good as being on site at the hospital from the start of active labor. My contention is yes. Others contend no. The only way to find out is through research – the statistics and medical journals you disapproved of my citing.
I know that our upbringing in this country is to automatically assume that risks in hospital < risks at home. But these assumptions can be verified through studies. To this point, nobody has offered clear evidence that the very specific form of home birth I am describing has greater risk than a hospital birth.
In the Netherlands, home birth is the norm. Hospital births are utilized in higher risk situations. Their neonatal mortality rate puts the U.S. to shame. This wouldn’t be the case if home birth “tripled” or “exponentially increased” the risk to the baby.
I don’t know what your experience with birth is. But I can tell you that anyone that is semi educated or responsible that was in a delivery room knows about the many surprises that come about.
A not-so implicit insult – which was uncalled for.
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.
yungerman1,
I’ve never heard of a great delivery. Deliveries are extremely painful even with an epidural- which a midwife cannot administer.
Not all labors and deliveries are painful.
And to both of you- Please respond to Health’s post- he make a very important point.
I have no interest in responding to Health. What I will say to you is this: the snippets of what sounds like a news article he quoted made no mention of the maternal mortality rate in U.S. hospitals, which is significantly higher when interventions are utilized, and higher in comparison to other developed nations that promote home births for healthy pregnancies. While he framed his argument as pitting a mother’s convenience and comfort vs. infant’s life, if anything it really is a question of mother’s life and infants life. Whose blood is redder?
By the way, the ACOG probably lumps all “planned home births” together, including those who have little to no screening or monitoring, which I have certainly never advocated. And I wonder what definitions the ACOG used to attribute an infant’s death to the birth itself.
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.
2good2btrue,
I know of ppl who gave birth at home the babies lacked oxygen at birth and are NOT healthy today.
This is not the type of home birth I am referring to. In a birth center or home birth attended by certified nurse midwives, oxygen and IVs are readily available, and the nurse is trained in infant resuscitation.
Also, just as Hashem created women to give birth “naturally” Hashem gave doctors the knowledge to heal.
Absolutely.
It is our Hishtadlus to go to doctors and hospitals.
Absolutely, when there is a problem.
If your husband is having a heart attack, you wouldn’t call an ambulance?
For sure, but should we all live in the hospital because, heaven forbid, we might have a heart attack?
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.
smartcookie,
Zahavasdad- you do know that it was far more common for mothers to die in childbirth before all the hospital and medical intervention.
Many (even most?) of the complications that arise during pregnancy and childbirth, e.g., eclampsia, breech, gestational diabetes, do not come up suddenly and without warning. In the past, there was no knowledge or ability to deal with these issues. That is not the case today, so it is an error to equate today’s home births to births two hundred years ago.
I think that a home birth managed by medical professionals, such as certified nurse-midwives, is a safe, dignified option. These professionals bring equipment to the home and can provide oxygen, IV fluids and medications, and resuscitation if needed, heaven forbid.
yungerman1,
SupportSurvivors- “Out in 4 hours after delivery which was great”??? Hard to believe. Did you head straight to the pizza shop for lunch too?
I would suggest obtaining some knowledge about birth centers and childbirth before ridiculing and doubting people. She most likely went home to rest, where she could bond with her newborn in the peace and familiarity of home, rather than in a hospital, where the janitor wakes people up at 3am to take out the trash (happened to my wife).
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.
popa_bar_abba,
Thank you so much for your donations of blood. B”H I have never needed to receive a blood transfusion, but if I ever did, I know my life would have been saved thanks to generous people like you, who took the time and felt the discomfort to donate.
I don’t think very many people in this thread are “getting” it.
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:-)
The answer is 14.
but those are a convention for convenience.
Not really, they’re a convention so that anyone else looking at the equation can be clear what it means. Otherwise, what’s to say we can’t interpret the above as:
(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1) – (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1*0) = 4
or
(1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1) – (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1)*0 = 10
or 0, as several people above said, etc…
Without a common set of rules and definitions, we can’t have symbolic math!