cantoresq

What? Is this a joke? Lox and cream cheese with onion on a bagel is now subject to a chumra?

@Hershi, you’re correct to a point. Without someone supplying falsifiable information about my marriage, there is no reason to believe that I am, beyond the assumptions that might be made about people. But, the need for falsifiable information grows in proportion to the improbabilities contained in a story. For example, it might be reasonable, all things being equal to believe a story that says “Cantoresq got married to his wife on May 13, 1998 and they have three children.” The reason that can be believed here on this blog is because there is enough information in the statement that can be examined to establish its truth, and such a story does not need more than a cursory exam as there is nothing remarkable about it. But when one presents a story with fantastic allegations, like a story in another thread about a girl who lay in a coma for 73 years, or the story here, that requires more information to render it believable. It the unbelievability of the story that necessitates greater falsifiability.

Heaven and Hell are the same place, a shiur. For some it’s Heaven. For others it’s Hell. Of course, if I’m ultimately deemed a paragon of virtue, the place is a chazzanut concert.

LoyalJew, if it’s rabbinic leadership that created the system, let them fix it. It still isn’t my problem. If the critical mass or a significant enough minority to make a difference, has abandoned the system, that’s a failure of the rabbinic leadership to either maintain control over their flock, or a failure of the system. In either event, why maintain the mirage?

Are either of these stories falsifiable? If they are not, they are merely myth.

I’m just wondering if people on this chat are aware that one of the most popular works in the yeshivish world about the structure of the Talmud, is in fact an annotated translation of the introduction of a book written by Meiltziner, the first dean of the Reform Hebrew Union College. How’s that for a hashkafa conundrum?

I don’t see a shidduch problem or crisis. Part of being an adult means making your own choices. Adults are the ones who marry, not children If the “shidduch system” isn’t working for an individual, that individual should choose an alternate system. The s/he chooses not to, for any number of reasons, is his/her prerogative, but not my problem.

What does it mean, or what does it connote?

Actually Daas Yochid, my father z”l told me that the pieces of matzah he handed out were substantially the same size as those handed out by his father. The point is that there was no emphasis on the amount of matzah to be eaten at the Seder. One ate an amount sufficient to show he was eating matzah at the Seder. The same goes for kiddush Shabbos morning on bronf’n. We drink a one ounce shot and not a full revi’is. One drink an appropriate serving of the beverage at hand. Same happens at Havdalah, which we also make on schnaps. That’s how it was done and that’s how I continue to do it.

BTW, my emphasis on preserving such folkways leads to one ironic “right wing” conclusion. Because I am in many ways culturally Orthodox, I’m opposed to any expansion of women’s roles in ritual. My opposition does not stem from any Halachik argument (for instance the Mishne Berurah says b’feirush that a woman can make motzi on bread for a man, but I’d never go for it). Rather it’s due to my desire to do things the way they were done in yesteryear. I’d want my ihr zeide to be comfortable in my home and he would not accept any Halachik argument that it’s mutar for my wife to make motzi. (MO ignores such folkway arguments at its peril, in my opinion.) I can adopt your code based insistence on shiurim. But then I’d also have no choice but to endorse a lot of feminism.

Greatest, the fact is the Rav zt”l was right. Chareidiut as a doctrine is a failure. It cannot and has never thrived in this country without engaging in serious morally/ethically compromised actions. Vehameivin yavin (besides I doubt the moderators would allow me to get into specifics). Moreover, on the intellectual side of things, Chareidi isolationism, obscurantism and anti rationalism has compelled it to adopt a series of doctrines that render it entirely irrelevant and anachronistic to the critical mass of world Jewry. People will not leave their rationalism at the door as the price of entre` into Chareidi portals. And those who do so, often don’t stay, or fail to make any significant contribution to Orthodoxy (30 some odd years into the kiruv enterprise, how many roshei yeshiva are b’alei teshuva, the sine qua non of success in the chareidi world?) because they cannot reconcile their rationalist past with Chareidi anti-rationalism. Chareidiut succeeds only by dint of its birthrate and nothing else. But that factor requires ever increasing financial resources and those two are inversly proportional. The longer Chareidiut remains isolationist and obscurantist, the fewer possibilities for economic growth are available. As the money dries up, the system will either implode with catastrophic consequences or redefine itself of necessity. And when it does redefine itself, will it then claim to the be standard bearer of Torah Judaism immemorial?

Greatest, please read the entire essay. You will quickly see that the Rav was addressing how to create Torah Jewry in an America which is vastly different from pre WWII Europe. His view of things is as true today as it was when he gave that address to the Mizrachi in the 1960’s. In it the Rav zt”l rejected the rejectionish of contemporary Chareidim and explains why he rejects it, both on Torah and practical grounds. The quote upon which you rely is taken totally out of context. Whn sying those words, the Rav zt”l was speaking of a theoretical utopia, one which he quickly dismissed as untenable and unworkable (consider the current implosion of Chareidi society, mainly the lack of funds for kollelim, the backbone of the society, and you’ll understand how precient he was). A littlte intellectual honesty goes a long way.

DY, neither site checked out online.

The fact is that Chareidiut is as much a departure from pre-emancipation traditional Judaism as is MO, reform Judaism or any other movement. Jacob Katz and others have well established the truth of that, and it is undeniable. Emancipation was THE game changer, and Judaism has yet to recover from it. Reform responded by jettisoning Halacha. Chareidiut responded by hallowing the Shulchan Aruch and by elevating Dinei Derabbanan and minhag tot he status of Torah law. MO, while essentially accepting the authority of the Shulchan Aruch as normative accomodates certain deviations from it in light of an equally important manifesto to participate in the surrounding culture. Those deviations might be grounded in minorty Halachik opinions not accepted by the Shulchan Aruch, or they might be based upon contemporary sevarah. But MO does, in theory at least, seek a Halachik basis for its actions. MO, also in many instances rejects the notion that minhag always has the status of din. It also rejects/resists the jettisoning of those minhagim which contradict the Shulchan Aruch, if such practices are hoary with age. Thus at my MO seder, I divide one piece of shmurah matzah among the entire table, even though the size of each piece is far smaller than the shiur of the Chazon Ish, or even that of Chatham Sofer. I do it because my father did it that way, as did his father etc. That age old family practice, a mesorah if you will, trumps any code based criticism anyone might levy. Conservative Judaism seeks to place Halachik observance within a historic continuum in which Halachik practice remains ever fluid and always subject to modification.

But all this is merely academic. Who is anyone to criticize the Halachik praxis of anyone else, when none of the current schools of though truly reflects the pre-emancipation system?

Actually WIY, the faculty there has remained pretty constant over the past 25 years. R. Avrohom Friedman, who was the Mashgiach Ruchani is now the Rosh Yeshiva. R. Chaim Twerski, who said a shiur in the high school, now teaches Yoreh Deah. R. Ben Zion Rand still says his shiur in the high school, as does R. Yosef Polstein. R. Aaron Cardash, a recent addition, was my roommate senior year. R. Mordy Ginsparg, was a year ahead of me. R. Schuman, two years ahead of me. R. Jeremy Newman, the Mashgiach was also a year ahead of me.

I graduated the high scool around 25 years ago.

I have no problem letting my 11 year old son have a little of my beer or scotch when I’m with him. He also likes to take a few mililiters of liquor at kiddush; he thinks the cough syrup tasting dreck is cool. But I won’t ever give anything to his friends, unless a parent is there as well. In short I’ll take responsibility for my kid imbibing a little under controlled circumstances, but not for others.

A very good friend of mine is the highest ranked frum office in the NYPD; an Inspector, which is just below the various levels of Chief.

The problem is that since R. Miller died, evolution has moved one. Many of the problmes with evolutionary theory he cited have been resolved.

Alternate titles would be: “How to say a shiur wearing khakis” and “I close my collar when wearing a tie.”

When earning an honest buck seems more honorable than sponging off the community.

<SIGH>