Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Whoever is to blame, it surely isn’t the Yeshiva. The Yeshiva doesn’t have the money, and they can’t print it.
My point was that if meeting with Arafat might result in Arafat stopping to kill Jews, than as distasteful as it may be it is worth the shot to meet Arafat to talk him out of killing. I’m not saying that is the case, just that if it is, it is well worth it.
OdAmiChay: I completely disagree with your analysis that there is inheritantly something wrong with talking with our mortal enemies who seek to kill us. Throughout the generations our leaders have done so. One prominent example is Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai who spoke to Roman General Vespasian while he set siege to the city of Yerushalayim. It resulted in him saving the city and talmidei chachomim of Yavneh.
squeak: It is certainly better they be born, which you acknowledge is the Torah way. And their being born should not be contingent on financial considerations, which we both recognize is the Torah way. And once that is the case, parents should pay, but if that isn’t possible the community bears the burden.
gavra_at_work: I am suggesting that if borh parents ARE working (regardless whether that is ideal – a somewhat separate discussion), that leaves no option of keeping the children home. In any event, no Jewish child should ever be denied a Torah chinuch whether both parents are working or not.
Sending a Jewish child to public school is the quickest way, in my opinion, to *throw* him off the derech.
gavra_at_work: SJSinNYC said “Maybe they need to make tough decisions on who to send to yeshiva or who not?”
I am suggesting if both parents are working, the kids cannot be schooled at home (or even be at home unschooled).
squeak: I believe there is a halachic basis to say that the general community is to pay for the chinuch of children of poor parents (without infringing upon their mitzvah of pru urvu.)
What other option? If both parents are working poor, home schooling is not an option.
I would imagine a father with 8 children has a higher cumulative tutition bill than a father with 2 children, and not necessarily a higher income. Few jobs compensate employees based upon the number of children. Clearly as Torah Jews this will not, nor should it, interfere with parents right, if not obligation, to fulfill one of first mitzvos in the Torah of having children, as many times as possible.
Better than to ask if they have “a right to strike”, perhaps the better question is “is it right to strike” (even if they “have the right”).
Who will replace the lost Torah of the tinokos shel beis rabban?
I can’t say with certainty, but I believe there are Torah sources for younger siblings to wait (within reason) for an older sibling.
3 issues:
I strongly disagree with the implication that someone who is poor should be kicked out of the city if he can’t afford tuition. Since when is it a midda of Yidden to throw people out of town if he is poor?? Even if there is cheaper places to live.
As far as cleaning help, I would agree it is unnecessary IF the mother isn’t working. To compare to our bubbe’s who didn’t have cleaning help, it is because out Bubbe’s stayed at home (B”H).
I don’t even believe there is a right to force a mother to work. The tradition of Jewish mothers, with the support of Torah sources, is for them to stay at home. (Kollel wives notwithstanding.)
gavra_at_work: My reading of the teshuva indicates he says it is mutar ONLY by something like a lifeguard. The clear implication, as I read it, is that normally it would be assur. Otherwise there would be no need to say it is mutar by a lifeguard.
the general condition that existed in the inter-war period in america (between the two world wars and a little bit thereafter), was a temporary condition of lax religious observance. it had no real precedence in pre-ww1 europe, and thankfully the gedolim brought the level of religious observance back up after ww2.
az, one thing i do know. in order to accomplish encouraging young men to marry younger, it will have to be done in conjunction with encouraging young women to marry younger. you can’t encourage young men to marry at 18 (or 20 – whatever the young age may be), while on the other hand encourage young women to do otherwise. it is important for both genders to marry young for many reasons. (not the least of which, is if an 18 or 20 year old young man is going to get married, he will likely be marrying a young woman of between 17 and 20 years old.)
the way to implement this encouragement, is through chinuch. parents, melamdim, rabbeim, morahs, melamdos, roshei yeshiva, rebbes, and rabbonim should encourage and instill in everyone the importance of marrying young. and this kind of education should begin from a young age, for both boys and girls.
popa, it was done for thousands of years in europe, and only in recent history, primarily america, did marrying later become the norm. i don’t see why we cant successfully revert to our tradition of so long.
earlier someone cited the chofetz chaim saying it is lo yilbash. is that a halachic prohibition?
what i dont understand is, if a parent holds kitniyos cant be eaten on pesach, would he let his child under bar mitzvah eat it? same point regarding a flimsy hechsher.
isnt the whole point to teach and train them before their bar mitzvah, what they should be doing after?
someone asked on the first page for a source that the cherem rabbeinu gershum was renewed after the expiration date specified by rabbeinu gershum. if it is expired, then that my be a solution to use on a limited basis.
another possibility is to emulate the chasidish shidduch practices, since they dont have an age gap. many litvish rabbonim advocated having both boys and girls marry at a young age. if litvish boys would get married starting at 18 (similar to the chasidim), they would almost automatically be marrying close in age girls. (after all, how much younger than 18 can the kallah be?)
2 potential solutions right here!