☕ DaasYochid ☕

Does she have a husband? If not, you should try to understand how great a mitzvah you are doing, lock everything up, and grin and bear it.

(Easy for me to say, I’m not the one living through it!)

Nobody lights for them. For whatever reason, you add one by every birth. You don’t even light for yourself.

You are correct in what you mean, but the wording is a little tricky.

The person lighting IS motzi (see – I transliterated!) her household members, so is, in fact, “lighting for them”. You are, of course, correct that the number of candles does not reflect this at all.

If she couldn’t come despite the fact that she would not carry, that would mean that the rabbi felt she couldn’t come because she’s either a rashanta or a bad influence. It then wouldn’t make a difference if she came before Shabbos, on Shabbos, or on Tuesday.

The rabbi must have felt that she would carry something.

I know the entire story. That was it. My sister was not supposed to invite our other sister because she uses the eruv, whether or not she would carry to come.

I guess theoretically if she showed up before Shabbos, she could come for Friday night dinner.

Those two statements are inconsistent.

icot,

while you’re at it can you help moderator 80 fix the shift button on his keyboard so that he can capitalize?

🙂

Actually, I missed that thread

I assume you mean that article, which is discussing the legality of it, as was I.

I was told by an internet employee that piggybacking may slow down a system.

I think it would slow it down noticeably if the user was uploading or downloading large files, but not noticably if just browsing or using email (without large attachments).

I have a wild theory also. Maybe they pronounced him dead because …gasp… he really is dead.

Probably not, but in this crazy world of ours, you never know.

The way I see it, two basic opinions have been expressed here:

a) Since she holds it’s asur, it’ wrong for her to ask you to do it

b) Not everyone has the same rov or the same situation, so while for her it may indeed be asur, for you it’s not, so there’s no reason not to download shiurim for her.

This leaves you with two options:

1) Refuse to do it, on the grounds that she’s a hypocrite, and has no right to ask you to do something which is beneath her to do.

You risk losing or at least damaging a friendship, but who needs a friend who treats you like her Shabbos goy!

2) Happily do her this chessed, either because you accept opinion (b), or, even if you personally agree with opinion (a), out of the understanding that she may look at things from the perspective of opinion (b), and in fact not look down at you, but rather see things in a more open-minded manner than that; she has her p’sak, but you have yours and are doing nothing wrong by using the internet.

You will be able to help her obtain valuable Torah as well as important medical information, and undoubtedly, through chessed, increase your friendship.

The choice is yours.

Now we have to get nasty with each other. The mods will shut down this thread and the title will end up reading:

[closed][closed] How To Close A Topic

????:

Im Al Hamelech Tov Ve’im

I’m sorry, I’m really bad at reading transliterations. Do you mind typing in ??????

Thanks,

??? ????

🙂

cherrybim,

Am I to assume that was a joke (based on that old thread)?

My netbook has no place for a CD or DVD…problem?

My guess is no, you can probably download it from the manufacturer’s website.

I see no reason to add one for your husband; the minhag to add is for children (see the explanations I brought in my lengthly post) and two is anyhow not to represent the man and wife, but rather, ???? ?????.

veteran,

If so, Bush would have had him killed.

I was told, bsheym Rav Yaakov Kamenetzky zatzal, that the source for lighting one candle per child is that it used to be that after childbirth every mother was in the hospital for a minmiumum 10 days.

A similar idea is expressed by the ??”? ???? ?????, as quoted by the ????? ??? ??????. This is, in fact brought as proof that even missing ????? obligates an extra candle. The ???? ????? doesn’t hold like this, though.

There’s a question on this approach; why would she add another candle for missing because of childbirth since her husband lit, and they were both ?????

I would suggest that a ???? might have developed for some, that a woman add an extra candle even if it was an ????, and even if she was otherwise ????.

This would explain why some light extra even if not at fault for missing.

I’ve seen another explanation for the ???? of adding a candle for each child. The ???? in ??? says ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ????? (that the ???? of ???? helps one have children who become or marry?????? ?????), so as a ????, each time a child is born, a candle is added as a ????.

According to either of these explanations, a woman would not light according to the number of her husband’s children.

You got me for a few seconds.

enlightenedjew,

Apology accepted (although I took no offense, it was an honest mistake).

I now ask you mechila for not being more clear, and therefore causing insult. (I should have added this to my earlier post).

I worked in Washington for 11 years. It would be absolutely impossible to keep such a fraud a secret for more than a few hours: The place is full of leaks and leakers. Conspiracy theorists, give up!

I agree that he’s most likely dead; it would be, as you and others have written, nearly impossible to fake, and the risk of being exposed too great. And, as Dave Hirsch pointed out, it’s too early in the election cycle for that.

I am curious, though, if you consider it a remote possibility that he’s been captured for information. It would make some sense, if he would be caught alive, to feign his death. He still couldn’t release a tape of himself, and only very few people would know the truth. His death (or claim of it) is, IMO, safer than his being captured alive.

I don’t think this is likely, but as an “insider”, I’d like your opinion.

DY, thanks for the ad hominem attack, that really disproved my point. Disingenuous is spelled D-I-S-I-N-G-E-N-U-O-U-S, just like I wrote.

It was a joke, not an attack. Hence the “:)”.

there are many highly regarded Ortho Rabbi’s who do not hold that view point….

So far not one has been named here. What you consider “highly regarded” might very well differ from what I do (at least for this discussion).

I use the word “posek” intentionally. Someone may hold a very important pulpit or other rabbinical position, and may indeed do excellent work for Klal Yisroel, but is unqualified to render halachic decisions.

there are many prominent Rabbi’s who clearly ban the internet, no exception

I don’t know of any (although there are probably some, especially in Eretz Yisroel). I know of many who don’t ban it outright, although do ban it if there is no need for it.

Yet, despite this you don’t seem to have a problem going on line…and the coffee room is not “work”

Once it’s available, why should using it for other “kosher” purposes be a problem?

I find some of your arguments to be ad hominem, and not related to the actual discussion. Even if I were a hypocrite for having a discussion on the internet taking a negative view of television viewing, it wouldn’t change whether or not my position is correct. (It would make my position more difficult to accept, human nature being what it is, which is why I’ve felt the need to explain how I’m absolutely not being hypocritical.)

I personally know of a well-known yeshivish posek who gave a psak regarding a specific case to get one.

Since the reason it’s asur is based on the content and not the actual medium, it’s entirely possible that in a specific case where there is a need and the content can be carefully monitored, a legitimate rov might allow it. But that would not change the fact that it is generally asur. (This is based on the ????? which I alluded to earlier.)

MindOverChatter,

Thanks for the compliment, and for answering for me. I would have answered about the same as you did.

I would probably not have used the analogy of the conservative rabbis, because there’s a big difference between them and the rabbis being discussed here who supposedly are matir TV (although I haven’t seen any names mentioned), but the point is still well taken.

mikehall12382,

As for the filter and password, the filter is for the whole family, including me, and the password is for the kids (who I wouldn’t even want on YWN without a parent present). No, the filter is not perfect, I’m told, but to find sites which slip by, one would have to really know what he’s doing (it’s impossible, AFAIK, to access the forbidden sites without use a wifi card and an unlocked signal from a neighbor,and there is none near me).

Didn’t happen. Humor.

I know. (I thought it was funny, actually.) 🙂

I tried to reciprocate, I guess you didn’t think it was so funny. 🙁

I agree that some had to know, but they were likely either highly paid or ideologues. If regular citizens knew, wouldn’t someone have been tempted by the reward money? (Who knows, maybe someone did tip off the U.S….)

I’m going to assume that with your sarcasm you understood my point.

I thought I did, but from your latest post, I’m not sure. I’ll explain.

I frankly am quite skeptical about anyone owning a television and being able to control it’s use to the extent that nothing is ever viewed which, for example, I wouldn’t let in my house in the form of a book.

That’s why I assumed that your earlier post referred to a compromise in content.

In your more recent post, however, you seem to be making the point that the only content allowed in your home would be consistent with what I would allow in mine, only through a different medium.

To this, I respond that there’s so little of this type of programming available on television (to my second-hand current knowledge) that, certainly as a child grows a little older, there would not be any benefit, regarding preventing unmonitored viewing, to allowing the child to watch TV at home. (You would also have to lock up the TV when you’re not home to monitor, which is impractical and has other negatives as well.

It is also forbidden to allow oneself exposure to temptation (chaza”l make statements such as “??? ????????? ??????”, and “?? ????? ????? ?? ??? ????”) unless given no option (“???? ???? ??????”). (There are ????? about this, based on ????? in several places.)

So to my understanding, owning a television was declared forbidden by the ?????? for these reasons, despite the theoretical possibility that anything viewed on it in a particular home is “kosher”.

Another member of the “matched by God” club here.

I wish to disagree with the implication that a match facilitated by a shadchan is not “matched by God”. I’m sure you didn’t mean that, I’m referring to the choice of words.