Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Joseph,
I have, thankfully, never been to a non-Jewish wedding. I suspect that what they do is substantially different than what happens at frum weddings. At frum weddings, the couple comes in together usually at a door that opens to both sides of the mechitza, and then they immediately go to their respective gender’s side. I can’t imagine anything like that happening at a non-Jewish wedding. Maybe ask a non-Jew who has been to a frum wedding if this it is similar to what they do.I am also skeptical that they do the “now for the very first time” shtick. Because for them, after the wedding ceremony they are fully married, so when they come to the dance hall it isn’t the very first time.
Joseph,
Why are you assuming the coming on to the dance floor thing is a non-Jewish custom? Have you been to non-Jewish weddings where they did this?
I assume it happens at Jewish weddings because the Chosson and Kallah separate from everyone else in the Yichud room and then come back and rejoin the wedding. But at non-Jewish weddings the bride and groom don’t leave the wedding party and then return, they are there the whole time.
The answer to the OP is מפני דרכי שלום
To Joseph, see Gittin 59b (at the end of the Mishna). Chazal do not operate in your modern American left-right spectrum.
This is a very interesting question. It is certainly theoretically possible. We can imagine a humanoid robot that is not consciously self-aware and that has no free-will. It is humanoid without a soul but would appear to us (at least superficially) as a human.
Whether such a being actually exists or has ever existed is something we cannot know.
I think neshtaneh hatevah is the only way to explain these gemaras. The Gemara talks about 7 month pregnancies as if they were a miut hamotzui, i.e. a common minority. And the children born from a 7 month pregnancy were not pre-mature. They were full term on a shorter gestation.
But today, every 7 month baby (or at least almost every 7 month baby) is premature, requiring a few weeks of hospitalization.
Ubiquitin,
I used the airplane example because it has a clear line between the two bits of evidence (the habits of businesses and the absence). Your elephant case is really the same thing. We know that an elephant ought to be visible in the room because we have a tremendous amount of evidence that elephants are very large creatures that take up lots of space. But because this is so obviously true we don’t think of it as a piece of evidence.My point is that absence of evidence as evidence of absence will (logically) always require additional information, i.e. evidence of why we should expect to see the evidence that we do not see.
K-cup,
That is true and consistent with what I wrote earlier. Absence of evidence can become actual evidence when combined with other evidence demonstrating what we would expect to find (e.g. a lack of a business record can be evidence that a transaction did not happen if you can show that such transactions are normally recorded). But that is not what you wrote above.
k-cup and Non Political,
You are confusing evidence and burden of proof. The absence of evidence not being evidence of absence (without other evidence demonstrating why evidence ought to be expected in this circumstance) is self-evidently true logical axiom. It doesn’t matter if there is or is not other evidence. That doesn’t mean claims for which there is no evidence are true. It simply means that there is no evidence in which to make a determination either way (in real life there are very few claims for which there is no evidence for or against). But the burden of proof will be on the person making the claim. So you can claim that everything is made out of invisible unicorns but the burden of proof (to the extent anyone cared to ask) would be on you. To sustain your burden, you would have to present some evidence.
No faith or belief in the world has lasting power without evidence. We may also have evidence against their claims, the evidence may be fabricated, or we may dismiss their claims because prior assumptions, but the claims themselves will have evidence to support them.
Joseph,
It is not an issur for a woman to learn and it is not even an issur d’rabbanan to teach a woman. Rather Chazal said (according to R’ Eliezer) that a man should not teach his daughter (i.e. as a child) Torah because most women do not have the right type of mind for learning Torah sh’bal peh. However if she begins to learn on her own and he sees that she is among the capable minority, then she can be taught and she receives schar for her learning. This is meduyak from the Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:13), Tur (Yoreh Deah 246), and Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah 246:6), and is mefurash in the Perisha on that Tur. This is how there were individual scholarly women throughout the generations.
It is also meduyak in the Gemara in Nedarim (can’t look up the cite right now) that there were girls schools in Mishnaic times (although they may have just held like Ben Azai).
Joseph,
I will look at the case that you cited. However, I am pretty sure that no court has held that anti-polygamy laws are unconstitutional. Many years ago, the Supreme Court held that they were Constitutional. And although that holding is shaky in light of recent Supreme Court rulings, it has not yet been overruled and therefore remains the law of the land.
As I stated above, I believe we pasken (I will track down the Rama) that dina d’malchusa applies to all laws of the land (so long as they do not require violations of halacha).
You are right that if you simply live with them all halachically but only claim, legally, to be married to one of them, it would be permitted in many states (not sure about New York).
Here is the Ramah (Choshen Mishpat 369:8):
י”א דלא אמרינן דינא דמלכותא דינא אלא במסים ומכסים התלוים בקרקע כי המלך גוזר שלא ידורו בארצו כי אם בדרך זה אבל בשאר דברים לא (הרא”ש פ”ד דנדרים בשם הר”מ ומרדכי פ’ הגוזל בתרא) וי”ח וסבירא להו דאמרי’ בכל דבר דינא דמלכותא דינא (מרדכי שם בשם התוס’ ות”ה סי’ ש”ט) ולכן המלוה על המשכון יכול למכרו אחר שנה הואיל וכן דינא דמלכותא (שם בשם ר”י בר פרץ) וכן הוא עיקרPut down,
I have heard shiurim on the subject but they are not readily available online. I am sure that if you go to YU Torah and search “dina d’malchusa” (or malchuta) you will find plenty. I learned the sugya to a degree (and even once gave a shiur on the topic. The extent of its applicability is a machlokes Rishonim. But, if I remember correctly, the Rama paskens that it applies to general laws as well (i.e. not just taxes or monetary laws).Joseph,
I don’t know if you are correct or not. I have never done a survey to see the state of the law in each state. Can you give me a citation to a federal or state case striking down a polygamy law?Joseph, each was a different story. One was an attempt on kiruv, one was a relative at a family event, one was in a class (where I was a captive audience), etc.
Joseph,
“Nebech an apikorus is ocheit an apikorus” was the shita of Rav Chaim Brisker. Not everyone holds that way. Rav Chaim was coming to answer why the Rambam lists only 13 ikkarim (and other Rishonim list fewer). Don’t we have to believe everything in the Torah, how can their only be 13?
The answer, according to Rav Chaim, is that these 13 (according to the Rambam) are the beliefs that define yehadus. If you don’t believe these 13, you don’t get a chelek in the next world, you are not a Torah Jew. Not as a punishment, but simply because you haven’t met the necessary basic criteria. Ma sh’ein kein, everything else in the Torah, we are required to believe. But if someone has a mistaken belief about them (say he believes the world was created in 8 days), he is not an apikorus.
Absence of evidence cannot on its own be evidence of absence. However it can be evidence of absence when combined with other evidence.
For example: Say I am trying to prove that I did not take a flight. If I first demonstrate that it is the regular practice of airlines to record the names of every individual flying on a given flight, I can then prove I did not take the flight because there is no record with the airline of me on the flight. In other words, the absence of evidence of me being on the flight becomes evidence of my absence from the flight.
I have interacted in learning with two reform rabbis and two conservative rabbis. Obviously, these are tiny sample sizes. But from my experience the typical conservative rabbi is much more learned in Torah and halacha than the typical reform rabbi.
However, comparing either with Orthodox children is not really fair. There are areas in which the child might know more than the rabbi, but there will also be areas where the rabbi will know much more than the child.
Streetgeek and Mindful,
I would recommend learning Gemara from a rebbi, not simply picking up an Artscroll. Artscroll, although fantastic, cannot replace learning from a real rebbi and becoming proficient enough to learn on one’s own.
“The Rambam also writes in his Mishne Torah that a man can beat his wife with a stick (he may need permission of Bais Din, unclear from text) if she refuses to wash his feet or make his bed.”
The Rambam did not write this. This is a widely misunderstood Rambam. The Rambam is discussing marriages where the husband or the wife is not fulfilling his or her obligations to their spouse and one spouse takes the other to Bais Din to enforce the rules of marriage. (These cases are discussed in the Gemara as well). Everyone agrees that there are marital obligations that can be enforced by Bais Din through kefiyah (forcing). Rambam holds that Bais Din (not the husband or wife personally) can use kefiyah b’shotim (with sticks) to force both a man and woman to fulfill their obligations (just like they do when forcing a man to give a get or bring a korban, etc.). The Raavad on the spot argues and says that we don’t find kefiyah b’shotim against a woman, rather Bais Din is kofeh her by knocking money of her kesubah week by week until she complies.
Polygamy is illegal in all 50 states. So even if the modern day Rabbonim would revoke the cherem, it would still be forbidden because of dina d’malchusa.
I don’t think Rashi was universally accepted as The Godol Hador. I think he was the leader of Ashkenaz Jewry (although I cannot think of any particular well known psak or decision of Rashi that was accepted by all of Ashkenaz over the disagreement of other Rabbonim). But I don’t think Rashi was considered the Godol Hador in the Sephardic and Middle Eastern lands, that was the Rif.
Joseph, I did not mean to imply that Rav Moshe was followed on all matters by all Yeshivish people in the United States. But his psak on various issues (especially new ones) were followed the vast majority of the time. And when it came to public halachic issues he was followed all of the time in his later years in the US. He was not similarly followed in Eretz Yisroel
Joseph,
Two reasons: 1. I think in recent years people have started to take the “leader of Klal Yisroel” idea too literally. As if there was an actual rabbinic position with that title (like the Naasi in Mishnaic times).
2. Properly understood the question is non-sensical. The authority or authorities of the yeshivishe velt come about organically. There is no appointing body, no formal vote, no particular criteria. You can’t really ask the question as if there can be an immediate answer. You just need to look around after a while and see who the rabbonim you follow defer to.
To bring my point home. I did not think Rav Shteinman tz”l was the “Leader of Klal Yisroel.” I saw large segments of the Yishivish velt not deferring to him. And I did not get the impression that people viewed him as a halachic authority.
On Rav Moshe as Rashkebehag. I don’t mean that the Yeshivish in E”Y never used the term with regard to Rav Moshe and they certainly revered him as a tzaddik and talmud chochom. But Rav Moshe actively resisted paskening for E”Y, and practically speaking his psak was not followed on many, many issues in E”Y.
Joseph, I have certainly heard people use that term as an honorific for contemporary Gedolim in my lifetime. However, I do not think I have ever heard anyone use the term in its literal sense. Rav Moshe was widely accepted as the Torah authority for the yeshivish velt in the United States. But he was not accepted as such an authority by the Chassidishe velt or even the Yeshivish in E”Y.
The same is true of Rav Shach (who was never really treated as a halachic authority) and Rav Elyashiv. Their sphere’s of authority were limited to certain subsets of Torah Jewry.
Even the Chofetz Chaim, who was universally revered as a tzaddik yesod olam, was not viewed as an authority by all Torah Jews. Even Rabbeinu Gershom Meor Hagolah, was not really a Rashkebahag because he was not followed in the Mizrachi world.
I don’t understand this talk of “taking over.” Take over what? The Gimmel political party? Degel? That’s not the same as the Leader of Klal Yisroel. Klal Yisroel is, unfortunately, not a united group. And we certainly do not all follow one person. Everybody has their own mesora, their own rabbonim, and neither Rav Shteinman nor any other Gadol has ever claimed authority over all of Klal Yisroel.
Klal Yisroel hasn’t had a single leader for 1800 years.
Apushtayid,
The situation you describe makes sense. The rule was universal for all regular meetings (i.e. would apply to a social club too), and more importantly, did not forbid praying in the space altogether, it simply required some safety changes be made. That is a classic least restrictive means.
In Jackson and elsewhere (many places in Rockland over the years), the rules were designed to stop shuls altogether and were not narrowly tailored to prevent the harm the Town was claiming the law was meant to prevent.
Zahavasdad,
I certainly do not condone the behavior you describe, but it also doesn’t comport with what I have seen in neighborhoods that aren’t already majority Orthodox. Let me guess that you live in a neighborhood that is majority Orthodox.
In frum neighborhoods people assume that the shuls neighbors will understand (sort of a tradeoff for the convenience of living next door to shul). But of course, people should have bein adom l’chaveiro middos and not block driveways or the like.
The example of the pastor in Houston, actually makes my point. It was a pastor being hypocritical, a prominent pastor at that. It wasn’t Joe Protestant.
“When a Catholic Priest is accused of molestation, that makes news
When an Evangelical is accused of something immoral that also makes news”This former is true. I don’t think the latter is true unless the person is a pastor or public figure already. It is the perceived hypocrisy and sensationalism that makes it newsworthy. And the vast majority of readers don’t personally view themselves as Catholic Priests or Evangelical ministers. But if Joe Catholic is accused of molestation, his religion is not reported as part of the story (other than in passing). If Joe Evangelical is accused of a ponzi scheme, his religion is not reported as part of the story (other than in passing) and in the minds of the public they do not associate the two. Both because the reporting doesn’t stress it and because they or their close friends are Catholics or Evangelicals.
zahavasdad,
People complain about parties when they get too loud or the like, and rare individuals may complain about them generally. But they don’t get legislation passed to stop parties, even weekly football watching parties or poker games. The key, though, is that there is no reason to complain unless you are being harmed in some way. It doesn’t hurt you if I have 40 people praying in my home’ if they don’t make noise outside your house, they don’t block your driveway, they don’t leave garbage on the street, etc. And if you are complaining about something that doesn’t actually hurt you, if it’s zeh nehena v’zeh lo chaser, you might want to be contemplate why you are complaining.
The reporting of Orthodox Jews committing financial crimes is similar to the reporting on Muslims committing violent crimes. When an Orthodox Jews commits a financial crime, the news notes his Orthodox affiliation (sometimes with a picture of the Orthodox community) and when a Muslim commits a violent crime, the news reports his religious affiliation.
But when an Lutheran or an Episcopalian commits a crime, their religion isn’t part of the news so no association is built up in the minds of people.
Joseph,
That isn’t exactly right. Federal law requires that municipalities show “a compelling interest” before enforcing zoning laws against religious institutions (other than wanting them to comply with zoning laws), and that the zoning law is the least restrictive way of achieving that interest. For example, let’s say a Town has a law stating that houses of worship must be on lots larger than 2 acres and you want to open a shul on a lot that is an acre and a half. You apply for a variance and are denied. You can then bring the Town to Court and force them to explain why they have this law.
If they answer, that they don’t want to have parking issues on the street so they want to make sure that the house of worship has sufficient parking spaces, the Court will say that the Town could have achieved that goal by simply making parking on the street illegal in front of the shul. The zoning law will then be invalidated and the Town will have to pay your attorney fees.
zahavasdad,
I am certain that there are cases where people with shuls in homes are crossed the line in disturbing their neighbors. But what is happening in Jackson and elsewhere is not because of that. Even when the frum Jews are very careful to be quiet, to not park on the street, or when the minyan is in commercial space, they still receive tremendous pushback and government harassment. Neighbors call and complain about non-existent minyanim, about excessive parking on the street when there is none or little (far less than they have when they host parties). The only item you listed that might apply in most cases is “People who live in Suburbs do not want people congregating on a residential street.” But that is nonsense, because it doesn’t bother them when people gather for the things they like to do, like parties. It only bothers them if people congregate for worship different from theirs. And if the frum Jews are careful, which they should be and usually are, the neighbors suffer no harm whatsoever. It is all in their heads.
I don’t think it is anti-semitism per se. It is a fear of the other (non-conventional churches and mosques often face similar discrimination), of having the character of neighborhood change to that of a strange religion. But this is America, and people are free to move wherever they like. If they don’t like it, they can move and take advantage of the rising home prices that Orthodox Jews create.
slonimer,
I don’t think so. The gemara that idea is based on is not clearly referring to Moshiach at all. There are many gemaras, midrashim and nevuos about the end times that we don’t understand. It isn’t a reason not to keep halacha. As the Rambam writes (Hilchos Melachim):
וְכָל אֵלּוּ הַדְּבָרִים וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן לֹא יֵדַע אָדָם אֵיךְ יִהְיוּ עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ. שֶׁדְּבָרִים סְתוּמִין הֵן אֵצֶל הַנְּבִיאִים. גַּם הַחֲכָמִים אֵין לָהֶם קַבָּלָה בִּדְבָרִים אֵלּוּ.
…
וְעַל כָּל פָּנִים אֵין סִדּוּר הֲוָיַת דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ וְלֹא דִּקְדּוּקֵיהֶן עִקָּר בַּדָּת. וּלְעוֹלָם לֹא יִתְעַסֵּק אָדָם בְּדִבְרֵי הַהַגָּדוֹת. וְלֹא יַאֲרִיךְ בַּמִּדְרָשׁוֹת הָאֲמוּרִים בְּעִנְיָנִים אֵלּוּ וְכַיּוֹצֵא בָּהֶן. וְלֹא יְשִׂימֵם עִקָּר. שֶׁאֵין מְבִיאִין לֹא לִידֵי יִרְאָה וְלֹא לִידֵי אַהֲבָה. וְכֵן לֹא יְחַשֵּׁב הַקִּצִּין. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים תִּפַּח רוּחָם שֶׁל מְחַשְּׁבֵי הַקִּצִּים. אֶלָּא יְחַכֶּה וְיַאֲמִין בִּכְלַל הַדָּבָר כְּמוֹ שֶׁבֵּאַרְנוּ
…
וְעִקַּר הַדְּבָרִים כָּכָה הֵן. שֶׁהַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת חֻקֶּיהָ וּמִשְׁפָּטֶיהָ לְעוֹלָם וּלְעוֹלְמֵי עוֹלָמִים. וְאֵין מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶן וְלֹא גּוֹרְעִין מֵהֶן:NO ONE knows for sure how things will work out, how the pesukim and medrashim will be fulfilled, how and when the geulah will come. Don’t try to work out when Moshiach will come. Do the mitzvos, learn Torah, fear Hashem.
Animal rights is a separate subject from tzar balei chaim.
Animals do not have any rights in halacha or American law. Humans have rights and responsibilities. Some human responsibilities are related to the proper treatment of animals. Halachically, this includes avoiding tzar balei chaim. But the halacha is chal on the human not on the animal.
Saying tzar balei chaim is because of animal rights is like saying shatnez is because of wool and linen rights.
Rav Osher Weiss and his brother Rav Yonasan Weiss.
“I’m not sure that “bosis” is such a problem because I think you can just make sure that there is a bentcher on the table or that it is set before candle-lighting (making sure that there is at least one non-disposable item).”
You can put a bentcher (or a challah as some have the minhag), but if you always put the candles on the table sooner or later you will forget and that will be the week that you want to move the table.
On the issue of whether “יעקב אבינו לא מת” is literal or not. I think it pays to clarify what Rav Yochanan was referring to when he said יעקב אבינו לא מת. The posuk, in describing Yakov Avinu’s death writes: “וַיִּגְוַ֖ע וַיֵּאָ֥סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו” This means his soul left his body and was gathered onto his nation (i.e. went to Gan Eden). But when describing the deaths of Avraham and Yitzchak the posuk adds in the term “וַיָּ֧מָת.” For example by Avraham the Torah says: וַיִּגְוַ֨ע וַיָּ֧מָת אַבְרָהָ֛ם בְּשֵׂיבָ֥ה טוֹבָ֖ה זָקֵ֣ן וְשָׂבֵ֑עַ וַיֵּאָ֖סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו׃.
The addition of the word וַיָּ֧מָת implies that it has a particular meaning, an aspect of death that is not captured in וַיִּגְוַ֖ע וַיֵּאָ֥סֶף אֶל־עַמָּֽיו. Because this word is not present by the death of Yakov Avinu, R’Yochanan says יעקב אבינו לא מת. Rav Nachman is confused and asks that Yakov was embalmed, buried and eulogized, how can R’Yochanan say he wasn’t dead. To which the Gemara answers that R’Yochanan is making a drasha, Yakov Avinu is compared to the Jewish people and just like the Jewish people are still alive, Yakov Avinu is still alive. (מה זרעו בחיים אף הוא בחיים).
You can understand this simply to mean that Yakov Avinu lives on in name so long that his children live on and therefore he cannot truly die because the bnei Yakov (referred to as bnei Yakov or bnei Yisroel) are still alive and will remain alive. Rashi, however, takes a more literal approach and understands Yakov Avinu to be in a quasi-death state (suspended animation) and he will be revived for the final geulah to see his children redeemed.
But under both understandings, Yakov Avinu appeared dead to everyone around him. His body was indistinguishable from a dead body to the embalmers and the eulogizers. But there was one aspect of death that he never suffered.
Joseph,
I am not sure. I could give some rational, reasoned explanation but I would be only fooling myself. It is most likely a combination of feeling like I am bothering the Rav (if the shaila is not “big” or interesting enough) and feeling stupid for not knowing or being able to work out the answer myself.
@SechelHayashar
You wrote: “If you’d be intellectually honest with yourself, you’d realize the fallacy of your argument. Go open a Gemara, and look how a classic stira between the gemaras statement and a possuk is resolved. Many times, it’ll be “the Tanna is speaking about this, and the possuk means this”. I’m not making chiddushim here, this is basic Jewish literacy.”The Gemara is basing such statements on a received mesorah, a Torah Sh’Bal Peh. Moreover, there is a principal of ein mikroh yotzei midei peshuto. To claim that a posuk is actually referring to a subset of tzadikim when its simple meaning is otherwise, would, at the very least, require evidence of some kind. Finally, the Gemara itself lists only 4 people that lived without any aveiros. But according to the interpretation discussed above, wouldn’t there have to be at least one in every generation?
I think that Lilmod’s point is well made, and well taken. There are many shailos that people (including myself) don’t even think to ask.
However, looking at Lilmod’s lists of questions, I think there is another aspect at work here. I, and I suspect many others, have an aversion to asking shailos. As such, I simply avoid questions or I am machmir when it is not too difficult to do so.
For example, because I don’t know what the proper halacha is if I am planning on eating potato chips in two locations, I simply do not eat the potato chips in the second location. I am pretty sure that having Shabbos candles on a shaky table is bad idea, so I would simply not put Shabbos candles on a shaky table (as a general practice I don’t think it is good idea to put Shabbos candles on the table because of bosis).
As an aside, the best practical hilchos Shabbos sefer, in my opinion, is Rabbi Ribiat’s 4 volume set. He really does cover almost every practical scenario and he has extensive endnotes so you can look up the original sources.
Meno,
I would expect that it rises with education (as a person learns what is a shaila) and then drops with education as one learns the answers to questions, or how to find the answers, on their own.
Joseph,
There are some basic things in parenting that are black and white, but those are few and there wouldn’t be a reason to ask about them because the answer is obvious. For the vast bulk of parenting (after the basics are covered) there are just shades of grey, no right answers and no wrong answers, and approaches should be very child specific. If both parents agree, they won’t have a shaila and then there is no reason to go to a Rav. Only if the parents disagree or are uncertain, does going to a Rav or a chinuch expert make sense. But even then, the parents in the way they frame the question greatly influence the rabbinic response because the Rav does not have independent knowledge of the child and his needs.On the issue of non-halachic questions. Where to take a job has halachic aspects to it, but those aren’t usually the sort of questions that you would need to ask a rabbi. For example, let’s say you are faced with a choice between a job in area where there is kosher food and an area where there is not. A person needs to work out which location is better economically (and for waist sizes) and kosher food is a factor in that, but he doesn’t need the Rav to tell him not to eat at a non-kosher restaurant. He knows that.
I ask about 4 or 5 halachic shailos a year, on average. I imagine that the frequency of asking shailos depends a lot on one’s level of education.
My guess is that there are very few frum people that don’t have a Rav (or more likely a few rabbonim) that they call for halachic shailos.
My guess that there are many more frum people that don’t have a Rav for non-halachic life questions.
The former is necessary unless you are yourself a posek. The latter is nice (in some circumstances) but not necessary.
Joseph wrote: “how can a father not have chinuch questions or know all the answers as to what’s best in such an important and complicated area?”
It is true that every father has chinuch questions and no one can know all the answers as to what’s best in such an important and complicated area. The problem is that this usually applies to the Rav too, only much more so because his knowledge of the children in question is far more limited. These are problems that require nevuah to know what to do and b’avoisainu harabim we do not have nevuah today.
There are multiple false prophets mentioned in Tanach. See, e.g., Yechezkel 13, condemning the false prophets and Melachim Aleph 22 in which Achav gathers many neviim that give a false prophecy that he wants to hear.
And you don’t get to be a navi in the first place until you successfully pull off a neis or an accurate prediction. On the other hand, I don’t know if there are any (beyond the nevei ha’baal but they didn’t pull of a real miracle) who were advocating avoda zara.
1. It has been many, many years since I have taken that bus, but the last time I did so the men and women were separate on different sides of the aisle, not front and back.
2. The Monsey Trails buses have women sit in the front right of the bus and often put a mechitza up for davening. Apparently the rear vision of the bus driver is not an issue.
3. When I was a boy (my memory of this is a bit hazy but the key point is clear), I once took the Heiman bus with my mother. My mother had an arm in a cast and we had a lot of stuff, including a basketball which didn’t fit in my suitcase. Anyway, when we got on the bus we saw in the first two seats, just like the couple in the video. At a later stop a man got on and said that he had paid for the front two seats, they were his and we had to move. By this time, however there were no nearby double open seats and argument broke out between some men as to where on the bus we should be seated. Then my mother shouted “Please!” and started crying “I just want to sit with my son, I have a broken arm and lots of packages, can we just stay here?” And then everyone just backed off and let us sit there. If your attitude is conciliatory and sincere, you are much more likely to get your preferred outcome than if you are aggressive.
As some have written, schools have a responsibility to other students and therefore, on rare occasions, should expel a student that is endagering others physically or spiritually. The problem that I have with this instance is that it wasn’t that the school had observed problems with the child, given the child a chance to changer her behavior, and then, only after she did not change, expel her. Rather, other parents threatened the school and the school caved, going against its own judgment, to expel a child on the first day (!) of school.
That the school caved is sad. That parents would call and make such threats is even sadder. One wonders at the influence they are having on their own children.
Syag,
This is quote from an earlier post: “Reality is that this occurs almost constantly in the mainstream mosdos of Brooklyn, and I suspect Monsey.” There were multiple similar sentiments on the first page but after looking through them I see that they all came from one poster. It might be that the idea that this sort of thing is common is limited to this one poster.
“I also happen to have shared breathing space (tho not by choice) with people who make those types of calls/demands/threats.”
When I wrote that I have never heard of a single case, I meant that I never heard anyone mention having made such calls/demands/ threats or urging others to make such calls/demand/threats.