Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Unfortunately there are other things too that we picked up from our surrounding foreign cultures.
PY, exactly my point! I said the Christian’s killed far more yidden than the Arabs for 1000+ years… until the advent of zionism, which caused the Arab hatred to increase many times over and the Arabs have since been killing yidden in numbers they hadn’t anywhere close to prior to the advent of zionism.
How do you explain this to the kids?
What did you do popa?? Your stuff is popping off the screen here…
You don’t need a navi to know the zionists caused the Arabs to hate and kill Jews more than the Christians, who for the 1,800 years prior to zionism were killing Jews a lot lot more than the Arabs.
And the question why the prayer doesn’t include ALL the Yidden in E. Yisroel, especially the Torah learners, is indeed a good one. Another good question is why if such a specific prayer was required was it that zionists created it rather than the gedolim.
As far as utilizing zionist infrastructure, the zionists have made it impossible to not utilize it if you live or go to E. Yisroel. And Torah yidden have been living in E. Yisroel before the zionists, and do not have to leave because the zionists contaminated the holy land.
“Reagan’s interest in Soviet Jewry was immense; it was close to the first issue on the American agenda and was part of the confrontation between the two superpowers,” Yitzhak Shamir told authors Deborah and Gerald Strober. “The Soviet leaders,” Shamir added, “told me that every time they met with Shultz, he raised the issue of Soviet Jewry, and they would ask him, ‘Why do you do this?’ Shultz answered that this was very important.”
Elliott Abrams, who served under Shultz as an assistant secretary of state, told the Strobers that “The Reagan administration kept beating the Soviet Union over the issue of the Soviet Jews and kept telling them, ‘You have to deal with this question. You will not be able to establish the kind of relationship you want with us unless you have dealt with this question…’ “
According to Richard Schifter, another assistant secretary of state, when Gorbachev came to Washington in December 1987 for a summit with Reagan, it was just a couple of days after a huge rally for Soviet Jews had been held in the nation’s capital and the person who was the note-taker at the meeting told me that Reagan started out by saying to Gorbachev, “You know, there was this rally on the Mall the other day.” “And Gorbachev said, ‘Yes, I heard about it. Why don’t you go on and talk about arms control?” And for five minutes, Reagan kept on talking about the rally and the importance of the Jewish emigration issue to the United States, when Gorbachev wanted to talk about something else.”
The Reagan administration was instrumental in gaining the release in 1986 of prominent Jewish dissident Natan Sharansky, imprisoned for nine years on trumped-up treason charges. Now a government minister in Israel, Sharansky recalled his reaction when, in 1983, confined to a tiny cell in a prison near the Siberian border, he saw on the front page of Pravda that Reagan had labeled the Soviet Union an ‘evil empire.’ As Sharansky described it, “Tapping on walls and talking through toilets, word of Reagan’s ‘provocation’ quickly spread throughout the prison. We dissidents were ecstatic. Finally, the leader of the free world had spoken the truth – a truth that burned inside the heart of each and every one of us. I never imagined that three years later I would be in the White House telling this story to the president….Reagan was right and his critics were wrong.”
(Jason Maoz)
“I’ve believed many things in my life,” Reagan stated in his memoirs, “but no conviction I’ve ever had has been stronger than my belief that the United states must ensure the survival of Israel.”
No, I qualified it with many (as opposed to all.) There is no legal significance to the term Orthodox. The IDF converts, many – perhaps most – who do not accept ol mitzvos and have no intention of keeping even one Shabbos k’halacha, are invalid. Just because the guy who did the voodoo, eh conversion, is or calls himself an Orthodox rabbi does not automatically lend authority to his witchcraft, eh conversion ceremony.
That’s fine, rob, except for the fact that these Conservative (and Reform and many Zionist) converts never accept the ol mitzvos, they never intend to keep even one Shabbos k’halacha.
It may be fun to joke about it now, but gehenim is a real place with real people in it.
cynical
Being that you & your colleagues convert people who have no intention of properly maintaining the Shabbos even once (or practice homosexuality) in contradiction of Jewish law, why should you be surprised that your conversions are considered null and void under Orthodox Jewish law?
See the Yam shel Shlomo.
Correction – The Noda BYehuda referred to in previous comment is in its preface (rather than the cited Y”D 81) where he wrote no there is difference at all in the prohibitions of robbery. Although, the Meiri maintains that the exemption of non-Jewish property from the stealing prohibition does not apply to today’s non-Jews. The uncensored edition of Beis Yosef, Choshen Mishpat, ch. 266, maintains that there is no distinction between an idolator and a contemporary non-Jew. (Some maintain that the distinction was a form of apologetics and that it was the concern over the anti-Semitic censors that introduced this distinction into the text.)
Re: The Noda B’Yehuda (and some others), we see this kind of disclaimer on almost every sefer. They can’t all be meant seriously. Sefer Seder Ya’akov on maseches avodah zarah even has a disclaimer, but inside the sefer says clearly that the disclaimer is false. Have you seen the Aruch HaShulchan’s introduction to Choshen Mishpat and his unending praise to the Russian Czar? Can we take that seriously given what we know about the Russian czars? Maybe I’m being overly skeptical but I think it is clear that these types of disclaimers are a reaction to the medieval Talmud trials and the attempt to disingenuously avoid such trials and pogroms due to contemporary halachic literature. The difficulty with these disclaimers is that they appear on sefarim (such as those of the Noda BiYehudah and Chasam Sofer) in which the authors explicitly say that the Christians in their day are ovdei avodah zarah and that the various halachos in the gemara do apply to them.
Were the printers of the gemara less than fully honest when they changed words like nochri to kena’ani or kusi? If not for that we would not have had any printed gemaras for centuries. Similarly, if not for these disclaimers we would have lost centuries’ worth of chiddushei Torah. Perhaps this was an es la’asos laShem.
Yam shel Shlomo, Baba Kamma, ch. 10, no. 20, states that the Torah
is given solely to the Jewish people for their welfare. Thus, theft of non-Jewish property is not its concern, except as it affects the integrity of Jewish behavior.
Whether this concern for chillul Hashem is biblical or rabbinic is the subject of debate. Kesef Mishneh, Hil Gezeilah va’aveidah 1:2, maintains that the way Rambam codifies the law (i.e., he writes that it is prohibited, but does not say that the transgressor violates a negative commandment), indicates that Rambam is of the opinion that chillul Hashem is a rabbinic
concern.
Rema, Even HaEzer 28:1: If a Jew betroths a woman with a ring that was stolen from a non-Jew, that the betrothal is lawful, is problematic. If the ring is stolen property, then the betrothal should not be valid.
However, even those who are permissive in these areas prohibit such behavior because of Chillul Hashem.
Rabban Gamliel decreed that stealing from a non-Jew is prohibited because of chillul Hashem (Talmud Yerushalmi, Baba Kamma 4:3: “The Roman government once sent two officers to learn Torah from Rabban Gamliel and they learned from him mikra, mishneh, talmud, halachos and aggadot. When they were finished, they said to him, “All of your Torah is pleasant and praiseworthy except for these two matters in which you maintain … and in that which you maintain that it is prohibited to steal from a Jew but that it is permissible to steal from a non-Jew. At that very moment, R. Akiva decreed that stealing from a non-Jew would be prohibited because of chillul Hashem.). And Shimon ben Shetah refrained from keeping an object that was lost by a non-Jew lest he be considered a barbarian. “More than I want all of the money in the world,” he
declared, “I want to hear the Gentile say, ‘Blessed be the God of the Jews.'”
(Talmud Yerushalmi, Baba Metzia 2:5. See also Tosafos, Baba Metzia 87b, s.v. ela. Rambam’s Commentary to the Mishnah, Keilim 12:7.)
R. Moshe of Coucy, author of SMaG, put is succinctly, “All those who steal from Gentiles are guilty of Chillul Hashem for they cause the Gentiles to say ‘the Jews do not uphold the Torah (ein Torah leYisrael)’.. and they cause them to say ‘see how God chose for His portion a people of thieves and frauds.'” (SMaG, Negative Commandment no. 2, Positive Commandment no. 74. SMaG, prohibitions, no. 152; Sefer Hasidim, no. 1414. Hagahot Maimoniyos, Hil. Gezeilah va-Aveidah 1 [a].
mw13
Member
I find it slightly disturbing that so many here question whether or not somebody is genuine simply because they disagree with them… I have never seen anything that would suggest that mosherose is baiting anybody, and I have no reason to think this is the case.
=========================
Couldn’t have said it better.
The only rule Ger has that isn’t universal, is their extra chumra of keeping the genders apart in public (including spouses). But even that isn’t unique to only Ger.
The reason Gezel Akum is not allowed, is because of Mipnei Aivah/Darchei Shalom/Chillul Hashem. There is no other reason. Just like you shouldn’t go to a nochri and curse him, you shouldn’t engage in gezel from him.
We have yet to find a living Gadol who is on record as supporting R’ Levin.
The Kashauer Rov zt’l supported him; and the Kashauer Rov shlita supports him currently. Raya? The entire incident when Paladino spoke against toeiva, occured in the Kashauer Rov’s Beis Kenesses!
apushatayid: “The term Reshaim was applied to those who grew up frum, knew better, and STILL joined those movements.”
So I don’t see what we are arguing about. My actual comment was about their clergymen, not 7 year olds. And by your own words, you agree the movement itself is rishus, but its just a question whether the adherent knew that or was unaware.
apushatayid:
The Gedolim themselves refer to them as reshoyim. And they have also clearly and unequivocally stated that they are not practicing any form of Judaism. Don’t shoot the messenger here.
There is no stira about the kiruv work. We should also try to be mekarev a Yid who became a Christian.
Why do you bother bomb? The leaders of Torah Jewry have long and consistently stated these clergymen of these two false religions are reshoyim. Period. End of discussion.
No conservative or reform convert intends to accept the 613 mitzvos, thus they are all invalid. No conservative and reform convert intends to keep Shabbos (i.e. not drive, no making fires, opening electricity, etc.) or keep the full taharas hamishpacha.
In any event, the great intermarriage rates in those religions (conservative and reform) are causing a high percentage of their children to be non-Jewish. While their Judaism was long ago discardrd, sooner rather than later there will not even be any Jews left in those religions.
1) If a drop of milk falls onto a kli, it is a sofek how far it will spread. 2) A sofek Rabim is a sofek to the whole generation, a sofek yachid is where there are some people who are knolagable about the sofek. 3) We are meikil in a sofek rabim in that it can be combined with a second sofek to make a sofek s’feka thereby permitting something which may have otherwise been forbidden. 4) We are machmir in a sofek yachid because the facts are knowable; we simply haven’t ascertained them. 5) We need 60 times 61 minus a bit to mevatel the drop (and not just 60 times 60) because 1. The drop spreads in the wall to osser (a little less than) 60 times itself. That plus the drop make a little less than 61. 2. This 61 ossurs 60 times itself. 3. Thus we need 60 times (a little less than) 61 to mevatel the drop. 6) Because of the sofek yachid, we have to be choshesh for the worst-case scenario when a drop of milk falls onto a meat pot. Thus when the drop falls on the raikan we assume the drop spreads up to 60 times itself in the raikan area — thereby making the largest issur of ChaNaN in the kli.
Yeshivish is a vadeh a chashuveh lashon bfnei atzmo lgavi Talmud Toireh Lishmah for Bnei Torah who are mchuyav in such a heleige and chashuveh Mitzva. This is such a pashute and emesdicha zach that lifnei Aniyas Daati that I am msupak if it is mechzie kbitul zman or bital zman mamash in even raising such a chakirah that is pashut ubarur a chakirah bli nafke minah lchatcilah or bdieved.
Takeh, one could kler a nafkeh minah that lgavi Bnei Toireh, a chisaron of Yeshivish is lmashul like an esroig chaser-al po Shitas HaRitva-such a esrog lacks the Shem Esrog-al achas kamah vkamah-such a Ben Toireh is missing a cheftzah that defines the Chalos Shem Ben Toireh. It should be davar pashut that such a cheftza also requires a gavra with suitable levush. OTOH, nashim who are patur Lgamri from the heilige mitzvah have no shaicus to this chakirah lgamri!
What does MOFES stand for?
The Chofetz Chaim never said that. Also, Republicans (as a rule) dislike Jews a lot less than do the Democrats (especially members of the Democrats’ Congressional Black Caucus.) And Republicans support Yeshiva vouchers.
Is that a widespread view, or a personal one?
Is it some kind of sin against a marriage to rave to your spouse about another families cooking?
Yet he didnt abolish fasting for all future Y”K’s.
How can someone (either a bt or ffb) become Chasidish?
What’s the reason for the different “havoros”?
And why is it called the Chasidish Havora, when some non-Chasidim (i.e. “Oberlanders”) use it? (And some Chasidim [i.e. Stolin] use the Litvish Havora!)
And where exactly do “Oberlanders” fit into the Chasidish/Litvish picture?
You aren’t even allowed to start talking to the mourner until he starts talking to you.
Many people do, and it should not be said. It is no way to comfort a mourner.
Because supporting Torah is comparable to Limud Torah.
Another big no no, is to say at a shiva call that “he is now in a better place [at olam habo]”. That is no way to comfort a mourner.
estherh, you are so right.
cherrybim: Is that an open heter applicable to everyone. Or was it made to the person who asked the shaila when it was issued?
oomis: See what gavra wrote to SJS. He made some good points addressed to your comment.
gavra: One of several reasons that comes off the top of my head is “minhug hamokem.”
If both the boys and girls started off in life and marriage earlier, they would enter marriage with less of the meshugasim that many come into marriage with currently. (That also further delays their willingness to marry.)