frumnotyeshivish

Now that that is settled, may I pose line of questions?

If a person born to devout Taliban parents in Afghanistan is brought up to believe that jihad is the way to go, and he blows himself up believing that he’s doing the world a favor, is he a bad person? Or just stupid for not questioning the religion he was born in? Do any of you think you would be a terrorist if born there? How do you know?

He was referring to all men. You are an idealist. You think that: a) dating men should try not to have physical thoughts; b) because they shouldn’ t many don’t; and c) we should focus on those that act “correctly.”

The first assumption is partly correct, but the second is entirely wrong making the third one irrelevent.

Unfortunately, I don’t know the back of my hand too well…

Farrocks- no one is saying that the ONLY thing that matters is weight, only that weight matters (to many). Being that there are many, many, good girls who don’t have a weight problem, a sane person will choose a girl that is best for him. Because there are far fewer blonde girls, that makes it far more likely that a boy would have to sacrifice ANOTHER important quality, to get his blonde. That would likely be shallow.

You can’t honestly say that a boy who is attracted to blondes, and chooses a blonde over a non-blonde with all other thing equal is shallow. He is wise, and sane. To do otherwise would be insane. It would be like choosing 99 dollars over 100.

It is sad for many girls, especially those with no fault involved. Just like it is sad that there are poor, ugly, sick, and handicapped girls. But shallow? Try sane.

Worry about the reputation of what you do, not of what people think you do.

You can control what you do.

Maras Ayin is only when you are doing something that looks inherently wrong.

Eating pizza isn’t inherently wrong.

I know many people who worry a lot about what people think, and I know many good people.

Rarely are they the same person.

Worrying too much about your reputation can be stressful, destructive, and counter-productive.

The concept is also a little morally backward, because you are worried about social acceptance, as opposed to the real issue.

It occasionally can be a tool for the good, if the correct mentality is used. Rav Miller a”h says that the mishna says to make tocho (the inside) kibaro (like the outside), and not vice versa.

This however, does not mean that one should work on the outside first, rather, if the external motivations are A) already present, and B) cause an action that is objectively good, than one should not stop the “faking,” rather, one should work on the inside to make it real.

Whether or not it is correct for you to go out Motzai Shabbos is a different question, that you need to ask a mentor who knows you. Nothing to do with what others think, more to do with you and how you think.

NOMTW – “Seek the therapist that will be able to help you in the most constructive manner…” That is precisely the point. Gender is one of the most defining factors about a person. Who a person is defines how they can help. Unlike other “Health” industry workers, there is much subjectivity and variety within every aspect of mental health care. Additionally, there must be a personal, deep, trusting relationship, for many types of therapy to work. Saying gender doesn’t matter, may be just as shallow a view as saying one may never go to an opposite-gender therapist.

What is very clear to me, is that there is no one answer.

The universally agreed upon concept here, is to get as much objective help as is possible toward the “right” goal. To do that one must identify the goals desired. Being that everyone’s goals are very different, the disagreement here seems to be more about what the “right” goal is, than which gender gets you there.

Occasionally, and I know this may be out there, I think an opposite gender therapist may be preferred.

There are many issues out there…

Bottom line – as with all extensive opposite gender interaction – a cost/benefit analysis is in order.

GG – or it may have been good fundraising tactics.

FandC – the Maharal writes that all hishtadlus is in its essence k’fira, but is permitted to us as a subjective and temporary measure in order to live, while we work on increasing our bitachon. The word chiyuv may be inappropriate here; it is a heter to those of us [i.e. all of us] with insufficient bitachon. The chiyuv is to successfully live, and fulfill your ksuba. A person must honestly assess their level of bitachon and go from there toward the absolute requirement of providing for their dependents.

Dolphina – “And just so it’s clear, not one of the people posting here keep all the mitzvot.” That is negative judgment at its finest. Unlike much of the (admittedly often wrong) judgment of ACTIONS one may see here, you are judging PEOPLE. The Torah perspective on people is al tadin es chaveircha ad shetagia limkomo and havei dan es kol adam lekaf z’chus (don’t judge another til you walk in their shoes/ judge people favorably).

Actions are either right or wrong and the Torah requires that we know which are which (ubacharta bachaim – you must choose life).

P.S. As to the matter of clearly settled jewish law that the privileges and responsibilities of being jewish are only passed on through the mother, is that misogyny too?

Worry about yenems gashmius and your own ruchnius is am important saying. There are those here that would apply it to yenem smoking. They missed the boat. SayIDitIt – of course you should light someone else’s cig.

Oomis – As long as a person is not steadily exposed to 2nd hand smoke the risks are marginal at most and unproven. Smoking can cause emphysema, and I’m sorry that a relative of yours suffered. Don’t confuse your one valid argument with your two silly ones. Smell is opinion. I love and always have loved the smell of smoke. You don’t. Your taste isn’t more valid than mine.

The assumption the OP started with is flawed. EVERYTHING is muttar, unless G-d says otherwise. Therefore, a logical (albeit wrong) way to frame the topic is: Smoking is assur because of xyz, or stupid because of xyz. The assumptions that people leap to, especially regarding highly enjoyable acts that they clearly dislike, shouldn’t be confused with Halachah.

Logician – Learning is “the most important part” of Judaism? I vehemently disagree. Getting close to, emulating, and having a relationship with Hashem is. Learning may be the most fundamental means of doing this, but It’s not the primary goal.

“f someone a fine head…but doesn’t know how to apply it…in a way that he’ll be interested…nebach.” The commandment of learning is equal to people of all intellects. In my own estimation, while some people less capable learn less, when learning their enjoyment is equal, regardless of intellect.

Additionally, some of the people that I’ve seen having the most difficult time learning, are very bright. Saying nebach in a patronizing tone when deciding what other people should be doing for their avodas hashem is rather arrogant, don’t you think?

Have you ever heard of hodoas ball din? That applies in secular court. Migu – not as much. It’s really a credibility question. The 911 call is not hearsay as A) it was emotions at the time of the incident, and B) there was no better source as the victim refused to testify.

Laws of evidence and hearsay are complicated.

Since you asked for it, this is the case I was referring to.

Aron v. Quest Diagnostics, Inc., CIV.A.03-2581 JSH, 2005 WL 1541060 (D.N.J. June 30, 2005) aff’d sub nom. Aron v. Quest Diagnostics Inc., 174 F. App’x 82 (3d Cir. 2006)

Health – Your “synopsis” of the law – “They must accommodate religious beliefs unless they can prove doing so will cause them minimal hardship” – is wrong.

The law is that may not discriminate based on religion. They discriminated based on you not working on Saturday (a day that they needed employees to work on). Likely, the case was dismissed. Correctly.

The only thing you could possibly contend is that they really aren’t hiring you because you’re an orthodox jew, and the fact that they blamed it on Saturday is a lie as proven by the fact that they could have somehow accommodated you as an exception.

Such a contention is obviously silly and wrong. It’s a pain to make exceptions, and likely would get the other employees rightfully upset. No one wants to work on Saturday.

As far as credibility calls, the finder of fact (in this case the judge – by choice of the defendant) is obligated, repeat obligated, to make judgment calls like I buy this or I don’t buy that, or I’m not sure etc., based on the evidence presented. The Judge’s job is to apply the facts to the existing legal standards.

Implicit in this obligation is to read expressions, context, and demeanor of all the witnesses and testimony, and to consider all the evidence.

The facts seemingly not in dispute (that the defendant was the initiator of the altercation, justified or not) shift some of the burden of proof on the on the defendant here.

Was there a legit case of self-defense? Legally, the one who concededly assaults another must prove this. Did they sufficiently? I doubt it. The Judge decided not.

After all this, you came along and made your own decision about the Judge’s motive. The burden of proof of this extreme statement is on you, just like the burden of proving justification is on the instigator. You have not come close.

Health – discriminating against a person who won’t work Saturday when one has a reason why having an employee who works on Saturday fills a need, has nothing to do with anti-semitism. Nothing. Why should the Government or an employer give you special treatment? What about the next person, who doesn’t want to work on Saturday b/c they just want off? Must they be hired too?

As far as your attack on who has more ahavas yisroel for whatever sect, the irony is that your stereotyping of the sects is so hateful.

There is a question of fact here as to what happened. The judge was supposed to be the fair and objective fact-finder. Having seen all the evidence, and having made CREDIBILITY calls, the Judge ruled on the facts. Nothing in the judge’s story is far-fetched. In the judge’s story, a beloved Jew did an understandable, yet illegal act, and now must face the consequences.

Caring for someone does NOT mean that you believe they can never do something illegal. Does it?

I’m still wondering how you are noticing others learning? Aren’t you looking inside? How DARE you answer amen while focusing on others learning?

Yeshivish is whatever you are if you want to be Yeshivish, and whatever you aren’t if you don’t want to be Yeshivish.(In other words it’s an arbitrary, subjective gray area, that is defined differently by nearly everyone.)

Logically, the clear distinction between taking someone’s coat and copying someone’s music is obvious. Taking a coat provides a benefit to the taker, an act of taking, and a loss to the owner. Copying music provides benefit, but the other two aspects are not nearly as clear.

If one wouldn’t have bought it, where’s the loss?

Is it possible to “take” or steal something intangible?

What’s the halachic mekor for an issur?

Is there a Dina D’malchusa issue?

Because of these questions, Rabbis are all over the map here.

Wikipedia – “Jewish eschatology”

The Midrash comments:

“Six eons for going in and coming out, for war and peace. The seventh eon is entirely Shabbat and rest for life everlasting”.

The Zohar explains:

[which has the numerical value of six]

Elaborating on this theme are numerous early and late Jewish scholars, including the Ramban, Isaac Abrabanel, Abraham Ibn Ezra, Rabbeinu Bachya, the Vilna Gaon, the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the Ramchal, Aryeh Kaplan, and Rebbetzin Esther Jungreis.

So we have a Machlokes. Sam2 says assur, and the Ohev Yisroel (and my mother) say (or represent) “Torah Hi”.

Presumably, the Ohev Yisroel was directly addressing the claims that it had other origins (otherwise his words are rather misleading). The small quote I saw here was not that it didn’t have other origins, but that since it came down from previous generations, it is correct. Sam2 says he knows better than the previous generations.

While I don’t have the knowledge that Sam2 is representing with his viewpoint (namely, that there is no legitimate source before 1800 or so, and that previous great ones and previous lesser ones were misinformed at best), Sam2 hasn’t proven the negative at all, let alone sufficiently to make him more credible than even my mother…

zvei dinim – I spent half an hour writing a post that included a link to your first study, and the mods didn’t let it through. I won’t do it again right now. Let it be sufficient to say, your studies don’t prove that most smokers (especially a pack a day or less) will die from smoking. And citing sourced material and claiming that they prove a “fact” is making [a] claim/s that those materials prove that “fact”. They don’t.

The “full time top learning boy” that you want for “your daughter”, can be seen in many ways. Full time learners are aplenty, and Brisk does not distinguish itself in that regard. Top learners can be seen in may ways. There is top as in closest to Hashem (what this religion is all about anyway…right?), IMHO Brisk doesn’t distinguish itself in that regard either. Brisk does have one advantage in which the average IQ (as it applies to being capable of learning) is likely higher than in other places. But there are idiots in Brisk and geniuses elsewhere. Bottom line – if you’re looking for a future RY anyway, look at Brisk, but don’t pretend it has anything to do with Judaism.

So if you stop using your Kindle for games,and learn how to use it better (taking care of 3 and 4), then you pass it on to your grandchildren (assuming it doesn’t have collectible value – taking care of 1 and 2) it would be fine , right?

98th percentile verbal. 88th math. The SATs only had 2 sections then.