☢️ Rand0m3x 🎲

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 2,551 through 2,600 (of 2,752 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: What happened to the funny side? #1051075

    Yes, the Italian wasn’t there to scare him away.

    in reply to: shlomo carlebach #1050752

    Patur Aval Assur put it up here:

    http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/dilemma-involving-

    jewish-singers/page/2#post-547956

    (Be aware that anything that was not known about at the time

    the t’shuva was written is, of course, not addressed in it.)

    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050743

    I think you have violated every single condition for your return.

    I don’t think I can honestly disagree, and I thank you for

    your continued tolerance of my presence. Gut Shabbos! 🙂

    in reply to: Coffee Room achievements #1087999

    Pessimism, perhaps? (Was it ever visible?)

    in reply to: Interrupting Shmoneh Esrei #1050442

    You’re right – I hadn’t realized what you meant. It does sound

    sensible to say that there is no reason for multiple people to do it.

    Perhaps those people who do it after the first one does were

    concentrating properly on their own tefillah and didn’t notice? 🙂

    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050735

    I think you have violated every single condition for your return.

    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050733

    It means “I am not lost.”

    in reply to: #1052468

    zahavasdad:

    I really don’t see any way to think that response was in good faith.

    in reply to: On the subject of shidduchim… #1050188

    I think what he’d say is about 13 for a boy and about 12 for a girl.

    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050731

    The word in the triangular brackets is a link – follow it.

    in reply to: Shelo Asani Isha #1050890

    I believe PBA is addressing the notion that “sheosani kirtzono” reflects a positive attibute of nashim, by pointing out that the converse would mean that men were not created kirtzono (which is, of course, absurd).

    Two years later, can anyone give a good alternative explanation?

    (Or perhaps it does not actually need one?)

    in reply to: Shelo Asani Isha #1050889

    Bumpius Humorus!

    Popa was in excellent form in this thread.

    in reply to: Parents and Shidduchim #1050688

    Does anyone else think the SNs of, and the threads started by,

    “lalaland55” and “chumchuck” bear some resemblance to each other,

    or am I just being paranoid? Personally, hope confirmed.

    in reply to: Signs I never saw on the highway #1050152

    Did anyone here actually see Burma-Shave signs?

    in reply to: Is Addiction a self inflicted disease? #1050145

    So if addicts don’t stop their destructive behavior is it the consensus that it’s not really their fault?

    No – but it is very difficult to overcome.

    that they are predestined to their fates as addicts?

    It’s a difficult thing to hold them

    accountable for, but I wouldn’t go that far…

    In many cases they could have avoided becoming addicted in

    the first place (drugs, for example), so those cases can be

    considered self-inflicted, if not necessarily self-perpetuated.

    in reply to: Riddles #1050132

    I like how TheMusicMan answered the first

    riddle without spoiling the riddle for others.

    ( http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/riddles#post-399085 )

    Does anyone know where his profile is? It’s not at his name-link.

    in reply to: #1052465

    That was how their rebbeim taught them, and how the rebbeim of their

    rebbeim taught them, going back many generations. It’s not

    like they decided one day to create an entry barrier…

    And it’s not like there aren’t any Torah classes in English.

    in reply to: SUC Grand Member Master List #1177897
    in reply to: Sample Seminary Essay #1063269

    Careful examination of my post may reveal the double line-gap technique.

    in reply to: #modern Yeshivish #1050326

    Is that screen name really Popa? >It does seem plausible…<

    Should its posts also not be trusted/taken at face value?

    in reply to: Making songs out of p'sukim #1050073

    The story of Uzzah happened.

    Here’s a d’var Torah from Rabbi Yissochor Frand on the subject:

    Calling Torah “Shira” Is Allowed; Calling It “Zimrah” Is Not Allowed

    A pasuk [verse] at the beginning of Parshas Naso defines the varying duties of the different families of Levi. The job given to the family of Kehas was to carry the Aron HaKodesh [the holy Ark] on their shoulders during travel.

    The Talmud [Sotah 35] discusses an incident in the book of Shmuel when King Dovid ordered that the Ark be transported by wagon. This was contrary to halacha. An incident occurred where the Aron almost fell off the wagon. Uzza reached up to try and save it from falling, and he was killed on the spot. The Talmud says that this punishment befell King Dovid because he referred to the words of Torah as ‘Zemiros’ (songs), as it is written “Your statutes were like songs (Zemiros) to me” [Tehillim 119:54]. (Rash”i explains that when Dovid was fleeing from King Shaul and was leading a tension-filled existence “on the run”, he was able to achieve ‘playful enjoyment’ in the words of Torah and they served to calm him down, like a soothing song.)

    G-d responded, as it were, “About my Torah it says ‘If you blink your eye in it, you can lose it’ [Mishlei 23:5], and you refer to it as a song and plaything? I will cause you to err in a matter that even young school children are aware of — namely, the explicit verse [Bamidbar 7:9] that the Aron must only be carried on the shoulders of the family of Kehas (and not on wagons).” As a result of this ‘flippancy’ on King David’s part he forgot this halacha, and the unfortunate death of Uzza followed.

    Rav Bergman, in his work “Shaarei Orah,” asks an obvious question: What is so wrong with referring to the Torah as “Sha-a-shuai”, a pleasant and uplifting thing (literally, a ‘play’ thing)? We are all familiar, with the verse “Lulei Torashcha Sha-a-shu-ai, az avadati b’anyi” [Tehillim 119:92] (If not for Your Torah which was my plaything, I would have been overwhelmed with my suffering). We do not find anywhere that Dovid is held accountable for this statement where he refers to Torah as a plaything.

    The unavoidable conclusion is that Dovid’s crime in the earlier verse was not that he referred to Torah as a plaything (Sha-a-shu-ai), but that he referred to Torah as a song (Zemiros). But what is so terrible about calling Torah ‘Zemiros’? I would have better understood it, if the objection was that he called Torah a plaything. That might be objectionable. Torah is not Nintendo — it is not a game! Why is it a sin to call Torah ‘Zemiros’? Moreover, the Vilna Gaon makes the question stronger: the Torah itself refers to Torah as a Song: “And you write for yourselves this Shirah [Song]” [Devorim 31:19].

    The Gaon answers that there exists a tremendous difference between “Zemirah” and “Shirah”. Zemirah, like the Zemiros of Shabbos, are finite. They have a beginning and end. [Kah Ribbon (a Sabbath song) starts with a Yud, it ends with a Lamed — and it’s over. All Zemiros are similar.] Shirah represents the infinite. Shirah represents the articulation and expression of feelings, which have no end and no beginning. When a person breaks out in Shirah, it is a manifestation of what his essence is all about. There is no end to that. It is not finite.

    Torah can be called Shirah, but Torah can not be called Zimra. To refer to Torah as Zimra has the connotation that there can be a beginning to Torah and an end to Torah and then I would be finished with Torah. That is untrue. Torah can’t be finished. Torah is Shirah — the infinite expression of what a Jew is all about, his innermost essence. That was King Dovid’s sin.

    Based on this distinction, the Ponevezher Rav (Rav Yosef Kahaneman, 1886- 1969) once gave a brilliant interpretation to a famous Gemara. The Talmud [Megilla 3b] mentions that when Yehoshua was encamped during the siege of Jericho, an angel confronted him with a drawn sword. Yehoshua queried the angel as to whether he was friend or foe. The angel identified himself as follows: “I am an angel of the L-rd of Hosts; I have come now.” The Talmud explains that a dialog took place. The angel informed Yehoshua that he committed two sins of negligence: (a) he did not bring the daily sacrifice that day and (b) he neglected his study of Torah that night. Yehoshua asked for which of the two sins he was being held accountable and the angel responded “I have come now” e.g. — for the current sin, that of failing to study Torah.

    Tosfos identify the linkage between the words “ATA ba’si” and the failure to study Torah, by quoting the verse “v’ATA kisvu lachem es haShirah haZos” (and NOW record for yourselves this Song — referring to Torah) [Devorim 31:19].

    The Ponevezher Rav asks why the Angel used such an obscure reference, rather than telling Yehoshua outright — “I have come because of your failure to study Torah?” The Ponevezher Rav answers that when a person is fighting a battle and is in the middle of a siege, there are a million excuses not to learn. “I’m busy”, “I’m worried”, “I have things on my mind.”

    What is the reason why a person must continue to learn, regardless of the circumstances? Because of the phenomenon alluded to in the verse “And now write for yourselves this Shirah [Song]”. Torah is a Shirah that has no beginning and no end. It has no time. It has to be learned every place and under all circumstances. It is that endless expression of what a person is supposed to be all about. Yes you are tired, and worried, and busy, and fighting a war. But “NOW I have come”. There is never an excuse not to learn. Torah is not confined to time or space. It extends toward infinity, like a Shirah.

    (from Torah.org)

    in reply to: What Makes Jewish Music Jewish? #1051307

    I know this is not The Chassidishe World, but…

    The books of Kabbalah explain that all the tunes in the world originate in the Palace of Melody in heaven.

    The Other Side- impurity – knows no melodies, nor knows the taste

    of joy, since it is itself the source of melancholy. Only through

    the sin of Adam did certain stray sparks fall into the unholy domain of the Other Side, and the task of the tzaddik is to

    elevate those sparks of melody that have gone astray.

    -Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin in Sippurei Chassidim (attached to Bereishis 47:14)

    [translation by Uri Kaploun for Hillel Press/Mesorah Publications]

    in reply to: Could Chanukah happen again #1050182

    twisted:

    taxation was one of the reasons cited for the revolt

    The revolt that was not supported by the chachomim and

    eventually led to the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash?

    That’s not a very good argument for fighting.

    the need to define what is ezras yisrael mitzar haba aleihem

    If you’re interested, go ahead. Patur Aval Assur might be willing to help.

    would a non halacha sanctioned malchut

    (government for example) have a mitzva to act

    Wouldn’t anyone who could act have a mitzvah to?

    We still have at least part of the mitzva of bet din based government, which today is oppressed by the PTB, this alone is reason for a mini chanuka

    Seeing as the gedolim have not called for revolution,

    they apparently do not agree with you on that.

    Even if it is true, it would not require endangering our lives.

    in reply to: Chronicle Moderations #1215459

    What about chronicling times when you get other people moderated?

    “If you see something, say something.”

    in reply to: Safety First #1050206

    “Unsafe” and “unhealthy” are quite different, however,

    and it is not “unsafe” to go out without a coat,

    while it is “unsafe” to ride without a helmet.

    Perhaps the helmet should go on first after all.

    in reply to: If you could change the Shidduch System #1056230

    “Somehow, I find it all so confusing. For 18 years it gets

    drummed into my head that I’m not supposed to talk, to look

    at, or even think about boys. Then all of a sudden, literally

    overnight, I’m supposed to be able not only to go out with

    boys but also to feel relaxed on a date.”

    -Anonymous girl quoted by Dr. Meir Wikler in “Preparation for Marriage: A Prevention for Divorce,” Jewish Observer, January 1979, p. 11.

    Source: Professor William Helmreich’s The World of the Yeshiva,

    p. 254 (2000 edition).

    in reply to: If you could change the Shidduch System #1056229

    Oomis did not propose a free-for-all, just ways that the system could

    be helped to work better, unless you count singles events as such.

    (Popa’s second post appears to be guilty of straw-manning.)

    Having all messages go through the shadchan creates

    a buffer zone for everyone involved, ensuring that no one has difficulty

    saying what they need to say because of who it is being said to.

    I think we can assume that the shadchanim stay on top of things.

    f he did an exact study, why is he giving the results in approximation?

    Because nobody really cares to hear that it’s 10 months and 4 days, etc.

    However, he does appear to compare the amount of time

    a yeshiva bochur’s full shidduchim process takes with the amounts

    of time non-Jews or chassidishe bochurim spend on one person.

    DaasYochid, can you say with full confidence that the

    matter of daters not being comfortable in each other’s

    presence has nothing to do with the shidduch crisis?

    in reply to: See you in… a while. #1085386

    Correction: “nor will I be” should’ve read “nor be”

    (so as not to separate “posting” from “usually”).

    in reply to: Please put your contact info in your tallis/tefillin bag #1050378

    It’s “blockquote” on the CR.

    (Or maybe it’s that only “blockquote” is usable on the CR.)

    in reply to: Interrupting Shmoneh Esrei #1050440
    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050726

    To be honest, when I first posted in this thread,

    only the original post had already been approved.

    Sometimes things like that happen. 🙂

    in reply to: On the subject of shidduchim… #1050186

    Welcome back, NJS! (No, we don’t know each other.)

    in reply to: Parents and Shidduchim #1050686

    “Yes” would’ve been fine, Lior.

    (Okay, “two meanings” was a mistake, but which

    of those two words is that fifth definition for?)

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051772

    Golfer, do you work for M.A.P. Seminars? 🙂

    in reply to: #neutiquam erro #1050725

    That’s enough lorem ipsum.

    Just sayin’.

    (No offense intended. I quite enjoy having you here, NeutiquamErro.

    Congratulations on your >achievement<.)

    in reply to: Must shuls accept everyone? #1050418

    Is the guy normal? (Has anyone had a conversation with him about

    anything?) If he’s not, he must of course be treated more tolerantly.

    DaasYochid, perhaps we should distinguish between

    being a mispallel, being a shul member,

    and terminating each of those statuses.

    Lior, he said that they didn’t ask the Rov because

    they don’t think he’d want to be involved, not

    that they asked and the Rav didn’t do anything.

    #poster, I don’t know if that’s a good parallel – the chelb’na

    didn’t disturb the other ingredients, but enhance them.

    NeutiquamErro has two valid points. As to the second, well, does

    a shul have to accept someone difficult, who does not get along

    with established members? That’s part of this.

    Wolf, someone who cannot give tochachah in such a way as will

    cause it to be accepted is patur from that mitzvah. I don’t

    see why you’d be obligated to refrain from davening in that shul,

    unless you just want to avoid conflict with that Rav, or halacha grants

    Rabbonim the right to decide who may or may not daven in their shul,

    regardless of whether they are doing or have done anything wrong.

    in reply to: Parents and Shidduchim #1050683

    Lior, what do “vain” and “vanity” mean to you?

    You appear to be using them (here and >here<) as though they refer to ???, which is one of their two meanings, but in a context where you’re obviously talking about someone’s looks, this can be confusing, given that their other meaning is “excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements.”

    Did you mean, in both places, that the boy is concerned

    with ????? ?? ???, namely, the girl’s looks?

    in reply to: Parents and Shidduchim #1050682

    My first post is still in limbo, but Lior was able to figure

    it out on his own (and I hadn’t even thought of expenses).

    We’re thinking along the same lines, too, for once.

    in reply to: There is nothing wrong with ….and driving a car..take it from me. #1050612

    “M’shaneh” (changes), not “b’shana” (in a/the year).

    The words are related, though.

    in reply to: Parents and Shidduchim #1050676

    1) If he can figure out if she is “the girl he was hoping for”

    quickly enough to change his plans for the evening based on that,

    I’d assume he’s talking about looks.

    2) If he knows he’s not interested in the girl, but is in a situation

    in which he must take her out, he will presumably choose

    a location based on how much he will enjoy it, as opposed

    to a location he thinks most suited for a first date.

    Personally, I hope he’s trolling.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051768

    [W]hat stellar qualities led to the creative composition of [GrepsilBoorvis’] name?

    Country Yossi Magazine readership.

    in reply to: If you could change the Shidduch System #1056221

    (Not a full response to this thread)

    Actually, Boaz and Rus were not married when Rus

    went to where Boaz was staying the night alone.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051767

    I wouldn’t have been smiling if I didn’t know the

    reference, but thanks for providing it for newcomers.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051766

    Oomis, I liked everything you said except the first paragraph, in

    which you downplayed looks because of their being subjective

    (which I see no logical basis for), then related it to attraction,

    but didn’t mention any reason for attraction (which is not subjective*)

    not to be so important (I do agree with that, though).

    *

    “Person A is good-looking” is subjective, because

    it may be true or false for different people.

    Although it cannot be objectively determined,

    “Person A is attracted to Person B” is either true or false.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051764

    Actually, even if this were an objective list, a subjective

    factor could certainly be said to be objectively necessary.

    For example, one could say that looks are necessary,

    and each person would go by their own idea of looks.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051763

    Thanks for providing context for that Gemara, Sam.

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051762

    If you want to apologize, DaasYochid, let it be for calling

    “male” and “Jewish” repetition. Or is that a CR reference? 🙂

    (Presumably, it was originally “human” and “Jewish,”

    but then the grammar bit took “human.”)

    in reply to: 3 most important qualities to look for in a shidduch #1051761

    (I thought Haifagirl was joking, actually…)

    No one would ever suggest a shidduch for a girl if they

    knew him to be anything but a frum adult male Jew.

    While one might be able say the same about middos, people are

    usually aware when someone is not one of the aforementioned,

    but they may not be aware of someone’s lack of good middos,

    so you’ll want to look out for that yourself.

    in reply to: Why leave your dirty tissue on the table in Shul? #1212564

    RED ALERT!

    The experimental Popa clone has escaped the laboratory and

    is loose in the main CR area! All available personnel report!

    in reply to: A source for this Chanukah halacha/minhag, please #1049948

    (I either did not hear or do not remember that tape [FFB].)

    Okay, I think I’ve got it. There are two issues here:

    1. Where the lights are placed on the menorah.

    2. The order the lights are actually prepared in.

    (It’s hard to tell which one some people are talking about…)

    1. This is what SDD was talking about – lighting begins with the

    rightmost lamp, and each night’s new light is added to the left,

    but they are lit each night from left to right:

    
    
    1
    12
    123
    ----1234
    ---12345
    --123456
    -1234567
    12345678

    This is not what I meant to ask about.

    2. When you actually prepare the lights, do you have to do it

    in right-to-left order? Or, on the fourth night, can you prepare

    the lamp you will light first, first, second, second, and so on?

    (The book has a hand placing the candles into

    spots numbers three, two, and one in sequence.)

    Sam mentioned ma’avir al hamitzvah – this would only apply

    if you were setting up at a time when you can already light, correct?

    Sam2:

    Are lefties meant to light in a line that follows the direction they’re facing (“away from you” / “reaching across [lit candles]”),

    while righties light in a line perpedicular to their gaze (“the one

    […] on your right”)? It’s hard to understand what you wrote.

Viewing 50 posts - 2,551 through 2,600 (of 2,752 total)