Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
abcd2 – “Worse comes to worse (sic) I poured my heart out a little to the one above”
The problem is that this is not true. You would not have “poured your heart out,” appealing to the boundless love and mercy of Hashem.
What you would have done is attempted to manipulate Him by means of some “spiritual loophole.”
Quite aside from the disingenuous nature of the campaign, relying on such “segulos” is in the spirit of Avoda Zara (and, in fact, is labeled as such by some Gedolei Acharonim).
Hashem’s love is not so petty that He would grant our requests only when presented from a certain place, at a certain time, or when accompanied by a libation of Chai Rotel. Do not put any stock in anyone who would convince you otherwise.
???? ??? ??? ??????, He is near to ALL who call Him.
?? ????? ???? ?????? ?-??? ????? ?????, Davening from one set place is the truest acknowledgment of His omnipotence, and is rewarded with His help (see Maharsha on this Gemara).
In contrast, travelling to Daven in particularly auspicious places belies the misconception that Hashem’s Hand can be “forced”, ?? ?????, putting Avodas Hashem on no higher a level than pagan worship. The same applies to all such segulos.
The ???? of ??? ???? ??? is an expression of appreciation for the greater opportunity afforded to men to bring themselves closer to Hashem through the performance of ????? (of which more apply to men than to women).
I’m sure most people here are familiar with the explanation that this is so because women are naturally on a higher spiritual level, and therefore do not need as much “work” to develop their relationship with Hashem (great Mashal, benignuman).
On a similar note, men apparently have a greater natural love for their children than do women, which would explain why it is the mother who needs to endure childbirth, etc…
Lt. Birnbaum related that he once asked Rav Chaim Kanievsky what Kavana he should have when putting on his tallis. Rav Chaim told him he should have Kavana not to whip the person next to him in the eye.
zahavasdad +1
Changing history undermines the entire edifice of Torah Judaism.
I find it amazing that people can be so blind.
The message of Hitler’s Germany was not that we need to pay more careful attention to the political landscape, or that we need to find a place which will provide us with better security, or that we need to arm ourselves, all of which misconceptions appear above in this thread.
The message of the Holocaust is that the only source of security upon which we can rely is HKBH. It is only by His boundless mercy that we can hope to exist, let alone prosper. All of the trappings of contemporary political or societal developments are nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to distract us from this fact.
This is the one and only important factor to our health, wealth, happiness, prosperity and security, as spelled out clearly and directly in the Torah dozens (if not hundreds) of times: ?? ????? ???? ???.
When we thing it’s about who wins the White House, we have lost the race.
When we think it’s about where we live, we are in foreign territory.
When we think it’s about how well we can aim a gun, we are completely off target.
It is about none of these things. They are all, ultimately, utterly unimportant. The Holocaust happened in what was then the most civilized nation on Earth, which was, incidentally, the first country to grant full citizenship to Jews, about one short century before attempting their extermination. If it can happen then and there, it can happen anytime, anywhere.
It is only HKBH who can protect us, and He has told us what it would take. ?? ???? ??? ??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ???.
As usual, it is impossible to comment on a particular case without any context.
If the person making these comments is the principal, given the way you feel about it, you should switch schools. Proper Chinuch can not happen if the parents and the school do not get along.
If the person is the secretary, you can complain to the administration, but that most likely will get you nowhere, so just grin and bear it. Use the opportunity to teach your children how to be a Savlan.
Mik5 –
For the record, I am a black hat Lakewood alumnus. I strive to align myself with many of what you would label “real Gedolei Yisrael” (and some whom you actually did).
Nevertheless, I must protest your appropriation of that title exclusively for those who fit your definition. The idea, for example, that Rav Kook was not a “real Gadol Yisrael” is both laughable and reprehensible.
It is terribly unfortunate that we have sunk to the level of denigrating and invalidating those with whom we disagree. This is not the Derech HaTorah.
BOTJ was obviously employing satire to make the point that manipulating government programs is dishonest and cheating.
Did you ever read Labels for Laibel?
Of course, if a child has so little respect for his father that he will believe his father to have acted for the same selfish reasons as himself, the system of Midah K’neged Mida does not work.
A parent must develop a relationship with his children in a way that they will understand that everything he does is for their own benefit, because he loves them. In this context, Midah K’neged Mida is an incomparable teaching tool.
LU –
I wish I could say the same. I unfortunately am acquainted with people who don’t even realize that there is anything wrong with this practice. I have even had my protests dismissed as “lifnim m’shuras hadin!”
I do agree that the vast, overwhelming majority of people that I know would never commit such acts.
Your spellcheck is too judgmental.
For the record, buying something with the intention of using it for some time and then returning it is considered ????, since you are making use of the seller’s property because he is holding your money, which he will need to return. If the seller is ???? ???, this is a serious ?????.
Without question, most Orthodox Jews are horrified by the thought of such practices, which are in direct opposition to Torah and Middos Tovos.
Nevertheless, the fact that there exist those who perpetrate them should give us pause. How can we better train and educate ourselves and our children so that the exploitation of such loopholes, which is ??? ????? ????? at best and outright ???? at worst, is not perpetuated?
Switching schools is NOT the answer.
The school has not yet been founded which is guaranteed Bully-Free.
DrMW, I commend you for a valiant attempt, but unfortunately, you’re wasting your time. You will never convince the Anti-Vaxxers.
Owl, it’s interesting that you commit precisely the obfuscation of which you accuse DrMW (but of which he was not guilty – reading the full text of his post will make this clear); instead of responding to his points, you simply counter with scare tactics and empty rhetoric, but no actual data. I also disagree with your assertion that today we administer “dozens and dozens” of vaccines. This is an exaggeration even The Donald wouldn’t have used. None of my children received, or were even offered, more than the standard series of vaccines, which included about ten injections total per child before puberty (although I might be off by one or two).
I’m going to venture a guess that some people here have a misunderstanding of the concept of ??? ?? ?? which stems from the fact that their first exposure to it was ???? ?????, and because it also appears in context of ?????? ???. It seems they believe it to connote a very intimate relationship, not merely a familiarity.
Comparison to a similar phrase employed by Chazal, “?? ??? ??????,” however, makes clear that this is erroneous.
It is obvious that the intent is a comfort level which erodes the normal boundaries, lulls the normal precautions, and which could lead to cavalier conduct.
In fact, it is explicit in ???? ???? (unfortunately, I can not provide specific references at this time, as I am away from home) that any relationship which results in such a comfort level is considered ??? ?? ??.
Certainly, this would extend to an employer/employee relationship, especially in such a small setting.
??? ?? ?? denotes nothing more or less than a familiarity which mitigates the natural mutual boundaries which exist between strangers of opposite sexes.
For example, one’s mother in law is considered ??? ?? ??.
Just a couple of points about ????? ???? that seem to have been overlooked in this thread.
1. According to ????? ?? ??? ????????? ??”?, the ???? of ??? ???? does not require that the door be physically open, just that there is an expectation that it will be opened when the bell is rang.
2. If I recall correctly, in a situation of ??? ?? ??, the ???? of ??? ???? is not operative. I don’t think there is any doubt that an employer is ??? ?? ??.
Don’t worry, Reb Yid, it happens in the best families. 🙂
In any case, I think it is very judgmental of you to assume that the ice cream is vanilla, simply on the basis of how it looks and tastes. The correct thing to do would be to ask the ice cream how it identifies. Perhaps it is really chocolate that you dislike…
An easy way to cut down the length of a speech is to omit any talking about yourself.
Common mistakes include:
Talking about how undeserving you are to speak at such a venue (which is either faux humility, AKA the worst arrogance, patently obvious, or both)
Talking about how little you prepared for the speech (even if due to lack of notice – the message is, “You in the audience don’t deserve the respect of a speech that sounds well prepared, or even the dignity to pretend that you do”)
Talking (in an “Out-Of-Town” setting) about how surprising it is to find B’nei Torah (or the like) “even here in _________ ” (You just slapped the entire community across the face)
Talking about how short the speech will be (you just ruined it)
Another common mistake is the belief that every speech must begin with a joke. This is totally false. It is not necessary to start with a joke. Nobody needs to hear the same corny lines again – and, yes, we heard that one already. DO NOT tell jokes unless they are truly funny. They lengthen both the actual and perceived duration of your speech, with no positive contribution.
In general, a speech should be planned. Determine the purpose of the speech (that is, what the audience wants to hear, not what you want to say) and how long it is expected to be, and develop a focused address that does not digress from its purpose or overstay its welcome.
Depending on how the law is formulated, parking without paying may constitute theft, ?????? ???”? ????? ?????????.
In any case the question was specifically about stealing from the government, not any other way of breaking the law.
It actually comes straight out of the Gemara… “?????? ?????”
( although I’m sure that’s not the meaning he intended…)
Of course, the fact that we do not “look for problems” during Yemei Tahara is also an example of “relying on Chazaka…”
DY, I think the OP meant that we rely on Chazaka (actually, Rov) to allow the drinking of milk (instead of shechting every cow so we can check its lungs before drinking).
You would have to turn your fauces down to soak your shirt, and even then, it would be quite a feat.
In any case, fauces is singular.
The Shidduch Crisis is apparently caused by Shidduchim.
At the outset, I must say that I agree with the question. (More on this later.)
The final paragraph of the OP, however, struck me as rather offensive.
Why would I “simply dismiss” a reasonable question about my lifestyle as “simply coming from someone who says ‘Sukkot’ instead of ‘Sukkos’?”
The insinuation seems to be that “big-city” Jews who say “Sukkos” are not sufficiently honest with themselves for even the slightest introspection, that, in their arrogance, they would dismiss the question because they consider the one who posed it to be morally inferior due to some trifle detail in religious culture.
Those who dwell in the “shtetle”, on the other hand, apparently are of a higher caliber, and are spiritual enough to perceive the materialistic character of those “big-city amenities,” as well as to appreciate the perspective of those who say “Sukkot”.
Perhaps I am reading too much into it, but this is how it came across to me, and I resent the implication.
Now, it so happens that I, too, live in a small, “out of town” community, and I agree that the simpler lifestyle in my community is preferable to the materialism which has unfortunately crept into the lives of my brethren in the N.Y. / N.J. region. I do not understand why this has been allowed to happen, and I think that any objective observer would concur that it is unhealthy. This is part of the equation which led me to choose to raise my children in my present community, despite depriving them of the advantages of growing up “in town.”
That said, I must admit that if I would be living in such a community, I don’t know that I would have the moral clarity to recognize the slow trend towards materialism in my own lifestyle, let alone that of my community as a whole.
In all fairness, LF, we don’t know yet whether the CR proletariat has actually grown as a result of your sacrifice.
Big Brother just called.
He’s got everything under control.
Sure. (I consider myself a male like an apple considers itself a fruit.)
Yeshiva Rabbeinu Chaim Berlin Alumni Minyan
Ave L between Nostrand and 31
Started by YRCB alumni, and has become a large Shul with a lot of non-alumni as well. Every time I have been there (which has been many), I have only met nice, friendly people who take Davening and Torah seriously.
“Please don’t get off topic…”
“I, for one, have never…”
Oops.
In my defense, I didn’t mean to “tell” anyone what to say, as much as to illustrate my point.
But I realize it didn’t come across that way, which is probably what upset Feivel.
My apologies.
#catchyourself
Feivel, I’m not sure why my post touched such a raw nerve. It was not my intention to get you so riled up, but simply to point something out in the context of the conversation which I felt was an important point. I did not mean to imply in the slightest that this is a formal debate, or that only comments of which I approve and are directly related to the OP should be allowed.
I am not sure why you chose to make it personal.
I, for one, have never told anyone what they should or should not post in this or any forum.
This is because I am interested in a discussion, not the obfuscation and distraction techniques of debaters. Regardless of a person’s interest, his use (intentional or otherwise) of these tactics, in my opinion (which is not binding on anyone, but no less deserving than yours to be heard) detracts from the conversation. To my mind, this is not a bunch of people shmoozing at the water cooler; it is a focused discussion of a particular subject.
Not all peripherally related comments are appropriate. If a poster were, in the context of this conversation, to launch into a scholarly conversation of the etymology of the phrase “tongue in cheek”, would you think that to be appropriate for the discussion?
I don’t remember anyone asserting that vaccines were the sole, or even greatest, factor in all disease reduction and prevention.
I didn’t think that was ZD’s intention, either. Please don’t get off topic now with a specious discussion of statistics. For purposes of this discussion, it doesn’t really matter if a disease killed ten percent or fifty percent of children globally before a vaccine was developed.
This is a classic smoke-and-mirrors debate tactic. The main discussion is about whether the possible risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits, not about whether it was vaccines or improved hygiene which proved more beneficial overall.
PBA, you conflated two of my posts.
I don’t want to get into a debate over whether there really is such a thing as a perfect analogy, but I don’t think anyone would find fault with a dentist or hygienist discussing the detrimental effects of candy, or of neglecting proper dental care (as part of, not instead of, a cleaning).
I don’t consider doctors to be malachim, but they are highly educated professionals. The responsible ones (I try only to use these), though not infallible, generally endeavor to come to logical conclusions based on sound research. Their opinion should be respected more than that of people whose conclusions are based on emotions and anecdotal evidence at best. When there is near universal consensus among doctors, this magnifies exponentially the respect which should be accorded the consensus opinion.
Well, perhaps a little bit got lost in translation. “Stern talking to” and “riot act” should not be misconstrued to mean “screaming, humiliating and careless condescension.” It means that the doctors in question conveyed somberly the seriousness and magnitude of the issue at hand.
When a doctor has a relationship with her patient and the patient’s parents, she won’t need to hide the truth by sugarcoating everything. My daughter went home from the doctor’s office in a booster seat.
My friend’s son, now twelve, has lost over 30 pounds and counting.
Okay, so based on PBA’s post, I concede that it was in fact Avak Lashon Hara.
Let me correct the record. A legitimate question asked in a sincere way would not upset him in the slightest (I don’t think). The narcissistic stupidity of the antivaxxer movement is what upsets him.
I have engaged several doctors on the subject, and I have never encountered resistance to an open discussion of it. I have never personally experienced, nor even heard of, a doctor saying anything like, “If you even try to delay vaccines we will not take you as a patient.”
I think for the most part it has been a civil, if sometimes passionate, discussion of an important issue.
I suppose, now that you point it out, that my mention of a specific individual as being beyond reproach may have been avak lashon hara, but I am not even sure of this (although I’d rather not have the Halachic discussion right now).
What’s interesting to me is that, despite all the conspiracy theories about Big Medicine and Big Pharma teaming up with Big Government to make oodles of money by forcing us to vaccinate our children (none of which are substantiated), the established conflict of interest was actually in the conception of the antivaxxer movement (as is well known about the Wakefield study, which was even recanted by its co-authors).
Kol haposel b’mumo posel.
For the record (this story had actually slipped my mind), when I brought my six year old to the pediatrician for her annual checkup, the doctor asked if she sits in a booster seat in the car (required up to age 8 where we live, believe it or not).
When I responded in the negative, I was given a rather stern talking to by the doctor.
When my friend brought his obese ten year old son for a checkup, the doctor (not the same one) read both the parents and the child the riot act, and gave them, in no uncertain terms, the prognosis for his condition.
Apparently, some physicians do take these issues seriously.
But still, there’s something special about the possibility of epidemic [especially of devastating illnesses] that somehow evokes the strongest ire. Go figure.
I don’t propose to speak on his behalf as to why this issue is more upsetting to him than others. Perhaps, if a patient’s parent, as part of a growing movement among the impressionable masses, would seriously insist that, contrary to the position of the vast overwhelming majority of physicians, car seats do more harm than good, he would be equally agitated.
Perhaps not, for the simple reason that the negligence to properly secure one’s own child in no way endangers those of others. In either case, it certainly seems to be neglectful of the child’s well-being.
I can assure you that it is not his arrogance which causes him to get upset (he does not “hyperventilate”, and his blood does not “boil”), as you seem to believe. Anyone who knows Dr. Shanik can attest to this.
@ Feivel:
cc @ Joseph:
Please respond to the main point, “we all know…increases the risk to themselves…”
In any case, I do not understand how there can be a difference between what is beneficial for the “health of the world” and what is beneficial for a specific individual who does not have specific contraindications for a vaccine. Is it not beneficial to the individual to have herd immunity?
Feivel, I’m a little confused. If I understand correctly, you chose not to administer D vaccines to your children because the disease is rare in the U.S., even as you acknowledge that it has a much higher incidence worldwide. It seems obvious that the reason D is so rare in this country is that we vaccinate our children (as indicated in the quote from CDC, above), not that they are somehow less susceptible to this disease.
We all know that when individuals start choosing not to vaccinate, it increases the risk to themselves as well as to the rest of the population (see the OP). Why didn’t you vaccinate your children?
A man came to Rav Elyashiv ZT”L complaining about his wife. After listen8by to the man’s diatribe (which consisted of petty complaints), Rev Elyashiv said, “It seems to me that your life is too good.” As he left (no doubt upset that Rav Elyashiv didn’t understand him), our hero fell and broke his leg, requiring surgery and a hospital stay. Of course, he learned then just how grateful he should be for his wife’s devotion.
I don’t want to say that we are too healthy, but let’s just put aside the rhetoric and contemplate a world without vaccines.
Of course there are side effects and risks, but for most people these are insignificant relative to the benefits.
In short, this is a stupid debate.
As an aside, few people care as deeply for children as Dr. Shanik, and none care for as many. The antivaxxer movement is perhaps the only issue which can get him visibly upset.
Do you doubt his motivation to encourage vaccination?
As far as vaccines being dangerous for some people, anyone with a specific reason not to take a vaccine should not get that vaccine. These are exactly the people who should rely on the herd immunity provided by widespread vaccination.
Anyone who has no specific reason to think that vaccination is more dangerous to them than the disease it is intended to prevent should weigh the cost of vaccinnating against the benefit of disease prevention.
Anyone who has had the chicken pox vaccine can have shingles. This happened to my friend’s daughter.
If the antivaxxers are making basic mistakes in logic, I should be able to have an opinion on their claims as long as I have common sense, even without a degree in medicine.
Having read Tanach and Shas Bavli doesn’t necessarily qualify one to have an opinion on advanced Halachic questions any more than reading medical textbooks qualifies one to have an opinion on advanced medical questions .
We’ve already had the anti-antivaxxer conversation enough times. It seems either incredibly stupid or narcissistic (or both) to assume that you are both more knowledgeable and more concerned with human health than all of the medical professionals and establishments in the world.
@ apushatayid – Agreed. I realized too late that that particular sentence was very poorly written. Thanks for the correction.
On the contrary, Health, I think that in many cases, a Cheshbon like DY’s is Glatt and Yashar.
I know a Rav who took a position as Rabbi of a Shul, where he gets little to no pay, for just such a Cheshbon. He has, over the years, effected tremendous growth in areas such as substance abuse and chillul Shabbos d’Oraysa, as well as saving a marriage or two along the way. All of this would have been impossible if he would have been Makpid about talking during Davening.
Was his Cheshbon “Krum”?
Ubiquitin – According to the way you present the deal, it would seem (to me) that when the Goy decides not to keep the Chametz, it turns out never to have been his in the first place. How does this circumvent the ??????? of ?? ???? ??? ????, and why isn’t this ??? ???? ???? ?????
Gut Moed, everybody
@CA- in the words of the Rambam,
?? ????? ????? ??????? ????? ?????…??? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ????
I think not going to work on Chol HaMoed is a commendable reason to have a desire for Mashiach, if, as in this case, it is spirituality, not laziness, that is the underlying motivation.
29, DY – I think it is quite obvious that the OP did not mean the comparison in a favorable way; this was the intention of the second paragraph of my first post in this thread.
Nevertheless, I think that he (albeit unintentionally and indirectly, even ironically) made a good point about one possible reason that Hashem allows social safety net programs to exist.
I saw nothing in the OP about “Hashem’s embrace,” and, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I think that he is wrong to compare ?? ????? ????? to government programs. My point was simply that the comparison was not inaccurate, just inverse. It may not be wrong to compare government programs to ?? ????? ????? in the sense that they may be the way in which He chooses to provide for many of ????? ??? ????? today.
29 – In case you haven’t noticed, we are in Galus. We do ***not*** currently enjoy “living in Hashem’s embrace,” and I made no mention of such. In His concern and care, however, He continues to provide for us, albeit indirectly. I think this is quite obviously part of the ????? ???? of Galus.
This would not be unlike the statement of Chazal that it would have been appropriate for the Geulah from Bavel to be accompanied by miracles similar to those of Yetzias Mitzrayim, but that the generation was not worthy. Instead, it happened at the pleasure of heathen dictators.
According to the Gemara, the ????? ????? will eventually acknowledge the benefits we enjoy from their investments, and try thereby to claim some reward; they will be rejected because this was not their intention. That it is His intention seems eminently plausible, though I do not claim to know the Mind of Hashem.
His love for us is boundless, although our conduct unfortunately at times necessitates that it manifest itself in ways difficult for us to withstand. Any other interpretation, I believe, is skewed.