Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I definitely still agree with the first post of the thread.
When I was a kid, Jewish couples did divorce, of course, but it was always a hush-hush affair that was often followed by a total relocation of both former spouses.
By the time I was marriage-age, I’d already seen the divorces of three friends of mine at whose weddings I’d danced. The reasons were varied and always seemed very important at the time, but the common denominator always seemed to be: It Was Just Not Working.
Nowadays, as a married man myself, I have definitely encountered my share of woes and bumps in the road. To me, the only game changer is when one or both spouses don’t WANT it to work. I’ve found that almost anything can be surmounted if both husband and wife are on the same page regarding where they want their marriage to be.
If both want it to work, I’ve seen severely beleaguered marriages bounce back stronger than ever. If even one of them doesn’t, a marriage will dissolve over the proper positioning of the toilet paper.
VM: To be honest, I have no idea what you mean. Not trying to argue; I legitimately don’t understand.
What do you mean by 110 IQ tenth graders?
You and I both know that half if not more of the subjects discussed here would be better discussed between the topic starter and his/her rav.
THAT SAID, my intention is to inspire discussion, as I believe is usually the case on a message board of any caliber.
Specifically, is it even possible to claim “hefsed mamon” when the mamon in question is theoretical? I’ve learned that fear of mockery is insufficient reason to shave, so I don’t know if I have a leg to stand on, here.
Somewhat unrelated, but I am currently seeking advice on whether or not I am allowed to either shave, trim and wear a clean suit for a job interview scheduled during the Nine Days?
The company in question is not Jewish and I have strong reason to believe my looking unkempt would detract significantly from my chances of getting this job.
I personally wouldn’t believe anything that fish says, he tells all kinds of tall tales.
Well, you’ve done it! The first thing I’ve read about the Kosher Switch that makes me smile.
I only want to make one suggestion, here, and that is that the OP should take some time to examine exactly WHAT she wants to cut out of her life by ceasing to watch movies.
I say this because I believe that refraining from things simply for the sake of deprivation will ultimately lead to recidivism. You need to solidify IN YOUR OWN MIND why something is bad for you, and only then will the motivation to stay away from that thing really crystallize.
In other words, don’t stop watching movies because you read in the CR that it’s assur. Stop watching movies because you have identified something about them that you find detrimental to your growth, and because growth is your priority. If you believe that, the logic will fall into place.
Yeah, it’s not a perfect metaphor, but the basic idea is intact. Jewish music is the sum of its parts.
To answer haifagirl’s original question:
No, there are no specific tones, intervals or notes that are intrinsically Jewish; no more so than there are specific, isolated ingredients that are intrinsically one culture’s food. It’s what is done with the musical ingredients that make the dish.
Jewish music usually morphs over time to resemble the music of its surrounding cultures, with the one key difference being that the goal of the song is historically either D’veykus or Simcha. As someone pointed out above, there may be Jewish songs whose lyrics are angry, but the music itself is usually still upbeat.
In other words: the “Jewish” aspect of Jewish music is the product, not the ingredients. So, to ask if, say, an A-minor is a Jewish note is like asking if a kernel of corn is Mexican food.
Syag: I got the part about him being shot while Wilson was in pursuit from Wilson’s own testimony. You’re right, though, that he wasn’t hit in the back. I believe the bullet grazed his fingers, although I’m not sure. Wilson testified that he saw Brown’s body “jerk” before he turned around.
As to your second point: I’d venture to say that Wilson should have waited for the backup that he’d already called in at the start of the incident. (They ended up arriving moments after the fatal shots.) Even in circumstances where a suspect is ARMED but not an immediate danger, protocol is to wait for backup. By choosing to pursue and continue using lethal force against an unarmed person, Wilson was following the protocol for believing another citizen’s life was at risk, a conclusion that is difficult for me to understand given that Brown was heading away from the scene at the time and no longer threatening anyone.
As to the stolen merchandise: Wilson testified to his sergeant that he had not been aware of the robbery when he stopped Wilson; this was indeed publicly available information long before the grand jury’s decision. This testimony was completely changed during McCulloch’s press conference with no explanation.
Bear in mind that I am not in any way endorsing Brown as an innocent. By all accounts and as evidenced by the robbery video, the kid was acting like a thug and trying to flout the law and authority.
Like millions of OTHER unarmed teenagers do.
The reason an “incident” became a “fatal incident” was solely the discretion of Darren Wilson. Brown was not armed, and could not have shot Wilson even had he wanted to. He was a teenage thug wannabe who figured he’d intimidate a cop and ended up paying the ultimate price for being a punk.
I am by no means an expert, but I HAVE read up on the case, and here are my thoughts, if anyone cares to hear them:
To my understanding, there are two situations in which a cop is permitted use of lethal force. (Also important to note: “lethal force” means use of a potentially lethal weapon, not a carte blanche to kill on sight.)
1. If a cop feels that his life is in danger.
2. If a cop feels that a felon is violent and is about to put another citizen’s life in danger.
A cop is legally required to perform a quick assessment of the situation before EVERY discharge of a firearm in order to determine if lethal force is still necessary. Sometimes, a criminal who sees that the cop is ready and willing to fire his gun will surrender at that point.
Now, there is evidence that a scuffle took place between Brown and Wilson while the latter was still seated in his car. This much is evidenced by the bruise on Wilson’s jaw. During that scuffle, the gun was fired twice. (Wilson stated that Brown had put his hand on the gun as though to take it from him.) Once the gun had gone off, Brown took off running and Wilson was able to leave his car.
At this point, remember that Wilson was legally required to justify continued use of lethal force. That would mean that he’d need to believe that Brown, though he definitely acted like a thug and a lowlife, was an actual danger to Wilson’s life or that of another citizen.
Wilson then chose to pursue Brown, who was at that time running away from him. He yelled at Brown to stop, and then fired his weapon again several times when Brown did not comply. He saw Brown’s body jerk with the impact of at least one bullet, and then Brown turned around.
This next scenario is where witnesses’ and Wilson’s accounts start to differ sharply. Witnesses say that Brown raised his hands in surrender and ducked his head, then began jogging towards Wilson to be arrested. Wilson says that Brown’s hands were never up, and that he ducked his head in a charge. At any rate, that was when Wilson fired the fatal rounds that struck Brown in his head, killing him.
The way I see it, there are two main reasons that the black community is furious about what happened:
1. They don’t agree that lethal force was necessary, especially after Brown fled the scene after scuffling with Wilson. The discharging of the gun DURING the scuffle was necessary, since Brown was attacking a police officer who was trapped in his own car, but Wilson should not have left his car and continued firing until Brown was dead.
2. They believe that the reason Wilson DID continue to use his gun was that his assailant was black, and he considered use of lethal force against a black person a much lighter affair than against a white person who had acted similarly. In fact, they point to Wilson’s lack of non-lethal alternatives on his belt as proof that this was a police officer who intended to kill someone if the opportunity was right.
That said, I’m sure everyone can agree that one should NEVER attack a police officer and certainly never put a hand on his gun for any reason. But the source of the anger appears to be the idea that a white person who had done something similar would still be alive today as well.
What is normal? One might think that the guy on King’s Highway in Brooklyn who sings and plays a giant rubber fish is not normal, but what if that fish is actually a musical prodigy and it is the rest of us who can’t see it?
BYM:
Firstly, as I’m sure you have already discovered in your research of the topic, there is a halachic distinction between one who teaches a woman Gemara and a motivated woman who wishes to learn it on her own. No less a personage than the Chida writes (in Tuv Ayin) that the original prohibition cited by R’ Eliezer does not even apply in the case of a woman who is truly MOTIVATED to learn Gemara. Obviously, there are further voices of agreement and disagreement on the subject, but I am fairly confident you have studied these, too.
I guess my question to you is: which perceived fallacies and inconsistencies PRECISELY do you mean to resolve through learning Gemara? Rigorous study of Gemara is, as you theorized, rooted strongly in building sound logical edifices and constructing sound arguments. On a purely logical level, it is immensely satisfying to a person with a scientific mind. But here is where I must digress.
Without the basic tenets of belief intact, you may as well be having an in-depth discussion of the ins and outs of Tolkien’s Middle Earth or the Harry Potter series. In other words, you can have an immensely satisfying discussion about something that you are taking for granted to be fictitious. The discussion will be enjoyable, but the MEANING will be absent.
I myself have had a long and interesting journey of belief, and I won’t even be so arrogant as to say that it’s ended. I have learned in my travels that Talmudic Judaism’s logical structure stands on a base of spiritual BELIEF. Why discuss whether or not a divorce is valid if it is handed to one’s wife via a messenger if you don’t believe in the binding nature of that document? Why debate the hidden meanings of extra words or letters in the Torah if you do not believe them to be of divine origin?
My question to you is: what exactly is it that you seek in the study of Talmud? Is it the satisfaction of logical construction or is it the foundation of belief itself?
But one cannot know the question and the answer at the same time. 🙂
I believe that the urge to say “yenna machla” actually stems from a good place.
The Gemara often uses euphemisms to avoid describing things that are deemed too explicit or shocking. Probably, the origin of “yenna machla” was not a superstitious ritual to prevent bringing cancer upon oneself, but rather an attempt to euphemistically minimize the shock value of the word.
Unfortunately, what the term mostly succeeds in doing, nowadays, is further stigmatizing an already stigmatized condition within the Jewish world. Cancer is hardly a rare and unspeakable condition nowadays, and to use “yenna machla” to describe all forms of it lumps the treatable in with the terminal and the survivors in with the deceased.
1. No-one will ever care about your problems as deeply and as urgently as you do.
2. 42
Hey, Shraga18, thanks for asking.
Things are still very difficult, but I’m keeping my head up and trying to make the best of it. Can’t say it’s ever easy, but I have my health and my family, b”H.
Some very kind folks in the CR helped my family a little while ago, which they did with the help of my rebbi. I guess those particular people had to learn a bit more about who I am in real life, but the result was some very sorely needed help, and so I can’t say I was too upset. 🙂
People bump the weirdest things. I’d forgotten this existed.
“I mean, you’re fifty and it’s slushy outside.”
Potato starch. If you add tons and tons of sugar, it tastes like sugary potato starch.
Hey, if we’re already looking at them and judging them, why not be a mensch and walk over and ask?
A rasha is that guy who leans his entire body against the pole in a subway car when it’s crowded to capacity.
A rasha tries to win an argument by being louder than you.
A rasha does not make breaks between paragraphs.
A rasha puts pepper in the salt shaker and then loosens the top.
A rasha takes your armrest during a long flight and then falls asleep on you.
A rasha occupies two parking spots.
A rasha eats all the red jellybeans in the bag.
A rasha takes all the cheese off his pizza.
A rasha has loud cell phone conversations in the bathroom.
A rasha sings a lot of slow tunes when he is chazan for mussaf.
Hope this helps.
I don’t think coffee has any effect on me anymore. I think it just keeps the coffee levels of my blood stable.
Mobe613: Maybe I can shed a little light on your evident confusion over people’s reactions in this thread.
In your original post, you wrote:
” Now, i understand that sometimes this is done for safety purposes, and that seems reasonable. However, it seems to me like sometimes many yiddin choose to wear a baseball cap even when there is no sakanna and they just don’t want to be identified as a frum jew. This often happens when young men (or men of any age really) go out in public places that are outside of where frum yiddin usually are, like during a hike in a state park or while on vacation outside the NY area, usually this is also accompanied by wearing clothes that are not usually worn by bnei torah at home (ie like khaki pants or a tshirt/polo shirt.”
This implies that the only conceivable reason you can come up with for a Jew to be wearing a baseball cap/sports garb is “sakana.”
You then go on to address the idea of “young men or men of any age really” donning the garb in question in order to go hiking or on vacation, but you take them to task for this because they are not in a makom sakanah.
In other words, you do NOT allow for reasonable use of sports clothing; on the contrary, you imply that the only possible explanation for it is the wearer’s desire to appear non-Jewish.
Again, READ YOUR OWN POST. You do NOT state that you believe leisure activities to be a reason to don leisure clothing. You specifically state only two possible reasons that–in your estimation–apply to the situation:
1. The person in question is ashamed of looking Jewish.
2. The person in question is preparing for the possibility of doing an aveirah without being recognized as Jewish.
Even when DaasYochid stated, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, that perhaps people don’t want their yarmulkes to blow off, you only conceded, grudgingly, that perhaps this is the explanation SOME of the time.
THIS is why people here are taking you to task. You have already decided that you know the Real True Reason why you saw a Jew in baseball cap. You phrase it in the form of a question, but you are essentially telling us that you already know the answer and would simply like everyone to agree with you so that we can go on to discuss the crisis du jour without having to haggle over whether it is in fact a crisis to begin with.
Most people here seem to think it isn’t.
I’m gonna go way out on a limb here and assume that people wearing leisurely attire while engaged in leisure activities are doing so because they are engaged in leisure activities.
Believe it or not, baseball caps and the bills on them, as well as sunglasses, are intended to protect the face and eyes from direct sunlight, not to transform a Jew into a non-Jew. Likewise, jeans/cargo pants and sneakers are important if one is engaged in an activity that will damage or wear at finer, thinner, more formal wear. T-shirts are infinitely more effective at wicking away sweat and letting in air than a Shabbos shirt. People are dressing smart, not “goyishe.”
It appears to me that you are applying your own preconceived sinister intentions to people who may be guilty only of engaging in an outdoor activity.
In my free time, I like to worry. There’s any number of things I can ponder to get me to that coveted state of heart palpitations. Calm is for wimps. :-/
One thing that helps when one is trying to avoid music with an anti-spiritual message is to ask yourself what, exactly, you are looking for in your music.
Jewish artists pretty much run the gamut from cantorial pieces to Eastern-European folk songs to synth/electronica to classic rock to hip-hop and back again. If it’s simply the style that moves you, there are Jewish artists out there who retain the musical style but substitute a more spiritual message.
Figure out what it is you like and plan accordingly. You might find that can even be completely inoffensive, beautifully arranged musical works written by non-Jews. Simply writing off anything for the crime of its being sung in “English” is a very constricting set of parameters to bide by.
Take the time to do it right, especially if you’re someone who loves music.