Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
And what are you doing to prevent a Get being used as an evil tool in a way that Chazal (nearly certainly) did not foresee?
Froggie, to the contrary, the reason why real gedolim are hesitant to air their opinions in public are because there may be blind people who misinterpret their words free of all nuance. Additionally, the “Public Service” gedolim (the ones who literally give up their lives for klal yisroel) would not have as much influence or be able to do much good by involving themselves in sectarian politics.
You apparently assume that every ramification of every act of a Gadol is foreseen by said Gadol and/or that there is an alternative act that they could do to make the world a better place (because that is the only thing real gedolim think about).
Still nidcheh this year. #justsaying
I am curious as to how much damage second hand smoke causes to others in an outdoor environment. This would seemingly be the only basis for the brainwashed kneejerk and bigoted mentality of the masses. Yeah, from the public heath conspiracy. Unlike vaccines, which are backed up by facts, the anti-smoking campaign is blatantly and admittedly emotional. Yes it harms. Yes it causes cancer. Yes, lying or misrepresenting that smoking is more evil than Hitler will likely save lives. But what about truth? Does that have no merit?
People smoke because they want to. 90+ percent of the time, they are only harming themselves, and not as much as the NIH and CDC would like you to believe. Just look at their massive advertising campaigns against smoking. “smoking-related-diseases” is code word for “I’m going to make smoking sound 50 times more unhealthy than it actually is.
Dont get me wrong. Smoking is bad. Heavy smoking causes cancer in nearly 1/10 smokers. It may exacerbate heart disease. It often causes breathing discomfort. But get off your high horses people. It is not Hitler.
PBA- I need.a definitions section. Please define “daas torah,” “halachah,” “hashkafa,” “MO,” and “non-strawman” for me. It seems to me like that would clarify this issue a lot better than the other things discussed.
Giving medication that does more good than harm is obligatory. Not giving medication that does more harm than good is obligatory (in a general sense for both). Most of the arguments on these topics are regarding what does more harm than good.Usually, science is good at observing. Usually, doctors are good at interpreting. Usually, doing what is usual is what God wants.
TAG is a 501c3. Donations are tax deductible. There are many ways for money to be transferred from 501c3’s to individuals. Salaries, speaking fees, traveling expenses, and other things come to mind.
Avram: there are two sides. One side follows what’s observed by the best experts to be best for public health while keeping the individual interests as an exceptionally high priority. The other side thinks they know better that the experts.
You seem to be “poseach al shnei se’ifim.” From the vaccination conversations I’ve had with people, your stance seem uncommon.
Health: I am firmly pro-vaccine. You asked what effect feivel and avram may have on the masses. I think your shrill and irrational tone makes my side look less rational. It might hurt the typical reader from being persuaded to pro-vax’s correct point of view. Please become anti-vax so that I can once again be pro-vax with my dignity intact. Thank you!
Health- I’m differentiating between Antivaxxer nutjobs and people like PBA and feivel who appear to be rational (in a limited way) albeit selfish actors. If things change I’d doubt this category would have trouble adapting.
I’d like to summarize what I read here more pithily:
There are 4 types of complainers about the current CDC public health [and vaccine] regime.
1. The crazy and stupid big pharma cahoots conspiracy theory autistic people.
2. The quasi-educated quasi-rational folks who want more flexibilty in the quantity and scheduling of the less-serious vaccines
3. The people who purport to act in their own self interest at the expense of the herd.
4. The people annoyed with misleading CDC rhetoric, even if they understand their worthwhile goals.
“1” is what ruins the general credibility of anti-vaxxers. Being on the same side of an argument as logical sewage makes your argument smell. “2” could make occasional sense, sometimes, if done collaboratively with a thorough and knowledgeable physician or equivalent. “3” is selfish, and relies on others’ unselfish (and economically irrational) behavior to make your selfish behavior rational. Classic prisoner’s dilemma game theory idea. Relies on informational imbalances to work. “4” I relate to most. In the honorable quest of saving lives, truth becomes malleable to some and less important than behavioral results. I think truth is the highest of moral goals, think that dishonesty causes credibilty issues, and resent being a number and not being consulted on decisions that affect me.
Public health is complicated. I don’t profess to have the moral answers. Science observes well. What we do with the observations ought to be an individual decision if not for the fact that there are herd questions. And the idiots, of course. Now what? Reasonable opinions ought to be debated dispassionately. Autistic anti-vaxxers ought to quiet down and attend the special autistic school on a farm upstate somewhere. There they can catch autism from each other while bringing down big pharma. And I ought to go to sleep. Thus I end my rant.
I watch people trying to say that the halacha is that minhag trumps halacha. My minhag says not like that.
Minhag simply means what was/is done.
Halacha is the application of God’s law to our actions.
God wins all conflicts, obviously.
If a person family or place accepted upon themselves to go above but not beyond the requirements of Halacha, it can obtain a neder-like obligation.
The importance of minhag comes most into play imho when dealing with new “chumros.” Aside from the fact that nearly every theoretical construct can have stringent and lenient applications, causing people to play both sides of the fence in an inherently intellectually dishonest way, it may call into doubt age-old previously unquestioned behaviors. Hotzaas laaz is serious business indeed.
As far as silly minhagim to avoid chometz, my minhag is to pretend like they are important as a symbolic representation of avoiding the yetzer hara at all costs. Provided it doesn’t violate halacha and/or perpetuate sadly prevalent mental illnesses.
Because again, God always wins. I attempt to humbly seek God through his Torah. I believe this is the purpose of existence. It seems to me that there are people so focused on things in the name of “Judaism” which draw themselves and others away from God. Do they have good intentions? Perhaps. Some of them.But the road to gihennom is paved with good intentions.
I end with my favorite quote from a brilliant anti-semite:
“And thus I clothe my naked villany
With odd old ends stol’n out of holy writ,And seem a saint, when most I play the devil.” — Shakespeare. Good night folks. I likely wont be around to respond. And if you (the reader) are offended, remember that I meant to personally attack you, obviously. Because I’m discussing people, not ideas. And never forget: there’s no such thing as denial.
@dy and here I thought that R Moshe’s last paragraph was most relevant. Ha!
Mw13- “the problem” isn’t that people don’t bruk. The problem per the op is that there are people using an important albeit silly minhag as an excuse or reason to hurt people. Hataras nedarim works, solves the problem, and unlike the options, is muttar (no pun intended).
@dy you have a right to your silly feelings. And I’d like to clarify that I meant that I only eat non-gebrokst.
As someone who doesn’t eat non-gebrokst, I believe that I have a right to call my minhag silly. It is a minhag which all [should] agree isn’t required by the letter of the law. Even silly minhagim should be respected, though, when it comes to chometz on pesach. We just shouldn’t make more of them, imho, without a very clear reason justifying the burden. And because it is silly, hataras
nedarim works.
My father doesn’t eat gebrokst. My father in law does. Keilim are not an issue. Gebrokst is really a silly chumra/minhag. Hataras nedarim should solve the problem. It is otherwise very easy to work out the technical details. You know, ask, “is this gebrokst?” And if the answer is yes, and you so proclive, dont eat it…
I too agree with Joe. To an extent. Anything not tznius all year (i.e. clothing designed and worn with the intent of clearly standing out — in a feminine way — to men) is not tznius on purim. Where I disagree is in practically every other way. Pretty much.
99 percent of “hilchos” tznius are dependent on minhag to some extent or another. Thus, would I have a teenage daughter who requests my input my first questions would be “what’s everyone else doing?”; “who do you anticipate interacting with in what way?”; and “what do you want to do?” then offering some advice.
If my wife were asking I’d probably defer to her (better) judgment.
If nearly anyone else were asking, I’d likely reprimand them on the lack of tact and tznius inherent in the question before declining to answer.
And obviously, I wouldn’t be the abhorrent hypocrite with detailed opinions on the neighborhood’s costumes.
IIRC larceny (in ny and common law regimes) and theft (in nj and MPC regimes) are specific intent crimes. Thus a reasonable belief that you are entitled to the property would be a theoretical legal defense. Ignorance of the law can be an excuse for larceny/theft. Just saying.
There was a problem with the speech — it was too mild. Isn’t Rechnitz “daas torah” by the way? If Lakewood is “Ir Hatorah” and its decisions are made “al pi torah” then the threshold for having “daas torah” is not that high (at least if you ignore the wallet).
“[H]eal[ing] the community” is what Rechnitz was trying to do. Some, however, have no idea what “community” is, let alone any concept of health.
Rechnitz directly attacked appalling behavior. I’m not always Rechnitz’s biggest fan but when someone attacks appalling behavior you are either with them or appalling. W3DCB – I’d have no problem telling you to your face that your comments are objectively, inherently, appalling (but I’m sure you are otherwise frum and kosher).
@miamilawyer – I’m glad we now agree. Possession of Marijuana is illegal in the USA under the Controlled Substances Act. The odds of facing criminal penalties for violating this federal law in states with legislation which purport to “legalize” it are currently negligible. Things could change in the future.
miamilawyer- many debates exist. The Supreme Court has been the self-proclaimed and only accepted interpreter of the constitution for at least the last 200 years. It has ruled directly on this issue. Raich says drug laws are not a federal overreach of interstate power. Marbury says that federal law as defined by the USSC wins. Debates and your view notwithstanding, marijuana remains entirely illegal under federal law.
@dy – congress may have chosen to “not fund” the prosecution of violators of this law. If Obama were to decide to prosecute, I don’t see how the funding would have any direct bearing on anything but logistics.Medical Marijuana is illegal everywhere in the USA under federal law as stated above. Federal law preempts state law. The only thing stopping medical marijuana producers and users from going to prison is Obama’s administrative (some might say illegal) orders not to enforce the law when the states pass (otherwise) meaningless legislation purporting to legalize it.
It is more than a breach of contract. It is a crime.
Let’s get something straight here: Using “Marijuana and its cannabinoids” is blatantly illegal everywhere in the USA (with the exception of prescribed schedule III FDA approved derivatives like Marinol). See controlled substances act.
The fact that our president instructed his underlings not to enforce this law (among others) in states which have passed (constitutionally meaningless) laws to the contrary does NOT make it legal. EVEN if a person has glaucoma, ms and terminal cancer.
The fact that it is unquestionably illegal means that should Obama or a subsequent president change his mind, these offenses technically MAY be prosecuted. It would be a highly unlikely that retroactive prosecution would occur as it would be unpopular and perhaps political suicide for the decider. But it is a technical possibility.
RICO (a tool designed to help the feds bring down careful mobsters) includes any enterprise which involves racketeering. Included in racketeering is any violation of the controlled substances act. It has a 10 year statute of limitations. It could also have ramifications in civil court.
RICO could perhaps, in theory, be extended to members of OU affiliated synagogues. Technically. I’d estimate the odds of such a thing happening as slightly less likely than PBA secretly being Donald Trump.
Doesn’t change the fact that the OU is engaging in clear and incontrovertible criminal behavior which may, in theory, subject its members and affiliates to criminal consequences.
Using Marijuana tends to make people happier (in the short term), hungrier, dumber, and more irresponsible. There are most definitely situations where the pros of use outweigh the cons. But it is never legal anywhere in the USA. I’m not saying chiddushim here.
Joseph- jaywalking tends to be a violation of Regs or Ordinances. Not a “crime” as most people would define it.
Health- dina dimalchusa dina depends on prosecutorial discretion?
As an aside, after a quick googling of marijuana and cancer this is the best scientific summary I have found:
“Cannabis: the evidence so far
Many of the studies put forth aren’t even about cancer.
Most of the studies were preclinical studies looking at cell culture models and mouse models.
Some of the studies found evidence that cannabinoids, under some circumstances, can actually stimulate cancer cell growth and possibly contribute to tumor progression.
Many of the studies involve trials of cannabinoids to treat cancer-related symptoms and side effects, not cancer itself.
Finally, the studies taken as a whole suggest that some purified cannabinoid agonists might be worth investigating further, but they do not provide a strong case for cannabis curing any kind of cancer.
Dr. Gorski concludes:
The “Medical” use which states “allow” is supposed to be “compassionate.” In short, it makes miserable people happier.
Anyone taking Marijuana to cure cancer is an idiot.
Someone taking Marijuana because chemo is making them miserable is completely understandable.
OU’s theoretical violation of RICO is possible. However, RICO is a criminal statute that is notoriously inclusive. Prosecutorial discretion is what keeps RICO at bay. That and the fact that they’ll lose their most powerful organized crime weapon if they abuse it too much. OU’s decision-makers’ practical criminal exposure – particularly in light of the current federal enforcement regime – is negligible. However, should one fall on the wrong side of some federal prosecutor somewhere, beware (see eg Rubashkin). However, they usually don’t need RICO to get you if they want (see eg Rubashkin’s money laundering and stockyard act violation conviction).
Obviously, every person should do what best enables their productivity and fulfills their respective responsibilities. Obviously, Kollel is not responsible for most people as it violates the kesubah and the average women with three kids isn’t mochel her fully justified and codified rights. Obviously, some people (usually men) disagree. Is it laziness for many? I believe that the people making the decision to remain in Kollel don’t believe they are being lazy. I also believe that laziness isn’t defined by belief.
To my knowledge there was only one person who got away with making drastic changes to orthodoxy while retaining the perception of being orthodox through the generations. Reb Yisroel Baal Shem Tov ztl. That is all. Any person (mis)quoting “al titosh” to attack modern orthodoxy while advocating for more chassidus would seem to be stuck in an irrational stubborn ironic brainfreeze.
All of orthodoxy believes in applying the Torah to the world we live in. I suppose the “MO” side of the continuum (whatever that is) believes that the true application of the Torah involves a greater interaction in “the real world.”
I do not self-identify as MO, Chareidi, Yeshivish, or Chassidish.
I wrote all the above to make one entertaining (AL IMHO) point:
Anyone who thinks the “MO movement” (if it can be called that) is a greater change to orthodoxy than the “Chassidic movement” is an ignorant idiot. Again, IMHO. K, now I’m going to sleep. Have fun people…
Comlink: you hypothesized 2 possibilities, masculinity and visibility. Presumably you think piloting is masculine but not visible.
I’d like to hypothesize two alternative possibilities. Is driving banned so as to require community infrastructure or merely to discourage independent behavior? A pilot who can’t drive surely still needs infrastructure so maybe it would be okay. But it is independent and (*gasp*) out-of-community recreational activity so the final decision is BANNED.
As a pediatric neurosurgeon, Carson’s expertise is not in this topic. And spreading it out has great risk of the patient’s [parents] behavior being irrational and/or irresponsible. Spreading out vaccines requires more action on the part of the patient. As a rule, patients are more irrational, stupid, and less responsible than Doctors. Carson may place the moral onus of such behavior on the patient. IDK whether I agree. As always, it all depends on the numbers, and the numbers people looking at this are more qualified than me to make that judgment.
CTLawyer, thanks for clarifying what I said with different words. Nothing like tax dollars to create magnanimity.
Not sure if you are serious. Wifi is always free. Usually internet costs money unless one finds a magnanimous sponsor or figures out how to piggyback on someone else’s cost which would likely be theft.
Many law professors are jewish. Amira leyisroel is far more chomur than amira leakum.
Why aren’t more people medical doctors? They make good money, do good work, are respected, and there’s a general shortage of them.
Wait, I know, because medical schools have a threshold. Only bright people capable of understanding science and statistics can get in and stay in. You know, the kind who you want to evaluate medical questions of life and death.
Anyone who goes with the anti-vax, naturalistic, simplistic, idiotic ad hominem attacks on Doctors and the FDA can be assured that the odds are quite high that they wouldn’t qualify for med school. Just sayin…
I’d like to do a vague paraphrase of South Park. Excuse me if offensive. Google 9/11 opinion polls. You’ll see that less than half the people in 2008 believed Al-Qaida were behind the attacks. What does this prove? Just like the thread here, it proves that there is no shortage of idiots in the world.
What I don’t understand is this: when it comes to something like internet in the house, which at worst, may indirectly affect other children negatively, and the negative ramifications have not been objectively proven by any stretch, there it is okay to not accept a child, Indeed, to many, this is ideal. But when it comes to vaccines, which HAVE been objectively proven to everyone capable of objectivity, and does DIRECTLY affect other children, and unlike internet, there is no upside to anti-vaxers viewpoint, there all of a sudden we’re “denying children the right to attend Yeshiva”.
More like we’re denying Yeshiva children the right to have idiotic parents. Sounds good to me.
The way I see it is as a choshen mishpat question. I dare anyone to show me the precedent in choshen mishpat in which the owner of a school is REQUIRED to allow dangerous children who were born to gullible, irresponsible, and generally stupid parents, to attend their private institutions even if it causes them a loss.
I’d love to watch that Din Torah.
Until then there is no binding psak on anyone. People confuse unvalidated opinion letters with “daas torah” (whatever that is). What gives it power, the stationery or photoshopped signatures?
People quote “lo sassur” but forget that the possuk starts with going to beis din.
To Clarify: I never said to not put filters on your child’s internet. I did say that CrazyBrit’s scenarios, while possible, are far-fetched. I also implied that the way the yeshivish community as a whole is dealing with this issue is counter-productive.
Reading an elementary school application recently. Soon (likely next year) they will require not living within 5 miles (biking distance) of a store that sells tablets or an unlocked network.
At some point, someone, somewhere, is going to have to deal with the fact that the internet is here to stay and becoming more and more accessible each year.
Crazy Brit- you are being a little extreme. To complete your thought: Physically locking it won’t work because there are safecrackers. And even if you put it in an uncrackable safe, the neighbors’ safes are crackable. Finally, stores sell unlocked tablets for $100. If your kid can’t figure out how to steal $100, he’s an idiot.
Bottom line: some safeguards are often necessary. Panic and extremes are pointless and often arouse rebellious feelings in children.
So Joseph, you agree with Sam, had you only understood him. The “if not others” part of your comment was the only thing remotely addressing his point.
There are two potential issues with smoking on tisha b’av more than other days:
1. Pleasure
2. Hesach hada’as
As far as “1.” goes, if the purpose of smoking is more to avoid pain (i.e. I “need” a cigarette), I think you would be hard-pressed to find a viable issur on t’b at any time.
As far as “2.” goes it’s a question of degrees. Playing a game like candy crush on tb or watching many videos is imho worse than smoking. The rules of hesach hadas are for more lenient after chatzos. Smoking socially is worse than smoking privately. Everyone is always encouraged to maximize their aveilus through whatever means. One can make the argumnet that if smoking will help you sleep less in the afternoon, and you will therefore go to eg the chofetz chaim videos instead of sleeping (or worse), I’d think it is ok. The fact that this year was nidcheh could make all of the issurim a little less severe (or not). Those are my thoughts on the issue.
Also, “after chatzos” could also mean “after kinos”. See aruch hashulchan.
As long as the ultimate goal of the trip is permissible, and one is trying to accomplish the goal in the most efficient way (i.e. no pritzus free equivalent “darka acharina”), I would find it hard to make a blanket issur on going even to places where you KNOW there is pritzus. If you KNOW that you will have hirhurim it’s a different story.
While there are SOME clear rules when it comes to shmiras einayim, the vast majority of the avodah is subjective, IMHO. Everyone should work on moving toward the “no hirhurim” side of the continuum, and no one but God is perfect.
YiddisheMusic: any way I could get them? Mods: I give permission to send yiddishemusic my email address, if you allow it and are willing.
Q: How is a fish like a bike?
A: They both swim (besides for the bike).
Ubiq- the idea that halacha says two different things to two different people is not necessarily true. One person views halacha legitimately one way another views it legitimately another way. Each one must follow what they see as objective truth. One is right and one is wrong yet eilu vaeilu. Pehaps it “seems funny” that we can have subjective views about objective truths in your subjective view. Objectively speaking though I don’t know what “seems” or even “funny” is…
lol. me and joe agree? a first.
I suppose that if morality is defined as “beliefs about correct behavior” (which is a paraphrase of me quoting websters in the above link), it can be subjective and thus relative.
If however, the question is not “what are the beliefs?” but rather “what should one’s beliefs be?”, the answer that orthodox judaism proffers is “whatever god says” otherwise known contemporaneously as “torah applied” or as “halacha.”