Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Hmm. So Reb Moshe says that for refua one may go to mixed beach if no separate beach available. I wonder what he’d say about gyms?
DY: When dealing with something presumably assur, then koach of heter is the bigger chiddush. When dealing with something presumably muttar than the koach of issur is the bigger chiddush.
I suppose my main gripe here, and with many other “rules” of tznius, is who says the presumption is to asser?
If I were to discuss the halachos of standing on my head and Lior were to say that it is equivalent to theft is he saying the lesser chiddush? Erring on the side of caution or ignorance?
No one said anything is proven. If there was a proof here, it would be toward heter.
The baer heiteiv on walking behind women would imply that you should take the treadmill in the front, and be very careful on the street where it is much harder to comply.
I will check the other thread soon.
Why is my order wrong? Source?
Being that everything is muttar until proven assur, and being that no credible source was given citing an issur [yet], this thread points to the assumption that mixed gyms are muttar. If you disagree, prove your point. As always, please consult with a rabbi before providing practical advice toward chumros and even toward kulos.
The “great chance” was alluding to the fact that there remains a faint[er] possibility that Lior’s opinion isn’t always categorically wrong. Just usually.
I’m still waiting.
Which rov has come out and said it is categorically assur to use a mixed gym? Also Lior thinks its assur. Two reasons why there’s a great chance it isn’t categorically assur.
No one has given any credible source applying an issur any more to a mixed gym than it applies to walking on the street. I’m still waiting.
It would seem that a previous post of mine didn’t go through. I will try to rephrase. I’m discussing sources, primarily with DY, in a hypothetical way. As always, one must get halacha from an authorized source.
The gemara on bb57 isn’t that clear. Darka acharina is relative. Being that the world is round, there is always a different way to go. What I understand it to mean is that if there is an EQUIVALENT way, then one may presume that the MOTIVE is to look. One who goes somewhere with the intent to look is a Rasha.
The sh’a isn’t clear. lehisrachek is perhaps 50 feet, meod, 40, and meod meod, 30? No? What are the RULES, then?
The baer heiteiv would apply equally in all settings.
The gemara in gittin is discussing bathing, not swimming, and is discussing justifications for divorce, not how far men must stay away.
Without addressing anyone in particular, what IS the issur of taking necessary swimming lessons in a mixed swimming pool? I’d like to emphasize that I am not saying it is muttar. What I’d like is for people to offer sources in an organized way. Thank you.
Lior – your deliberately inflammatory posts on this thread are getting no further attention from me.
DY- I have a problem with your first post. What is seen may matter too but why you are going is the primary question. To me. Where are the hilchos shmiras einayim in sh”a a btw? A serious question. My main point of reference otherwise is the gemara in bb regarding clotheswashers.
Brony- as someone obsessed with credibility you should know that you lost me with the Cornell thing and confusing Penn with Penn State.
DY- Among the variables I can think of combining to make children’s tylenol less chamur than I think you’re implying:
1. It’s [presumably] for a koton
2. There may be no tarfus
3. The tarfus may be botul
4. The tarfus may have been not rouy leachilas kelev at some point
5. Taking a bitter flavored syrup may not be derech achila (tylenol is nasty)
6. D’rabonnons may not apply b’makom refua, particularly in combination with “1.”
These may be boich svaros but I don’t think they are as irresponsible as categorically implying that tylenol should be kosher certified unless there’s great need.
I used to like Citizens United, as injecting money into politics seemed good for the economy (there is nothing money cares for, more than money) but now I have doubts. Popa has freedom of speech?!!! I’m starting to doubt…
— aside first – @Rebyidd23 – at best your comment is irrational and wrong, as beauty is in the eyes of the beholder. Your comments are doubly wrong because the typical [defined as anecdotally observed interviewed and stereotyped by me] male beholder strongly disagrees with you. – so ends aside —
If every mother who had a child in shidduchim, would abdicate the work they are doing for their own child, and instead put in an equal amount of time on another child (or two because the narishkeit isn’t as all encompassing with other people’s children) I believe the crisis would be greatly lessened.
If people would stop determining their own and other people’s adult status based on whether they are married, there might be no crisis – only people that want to get married. That might help too.
Lastly, if people insist on making getting married as important to one’s maturing as schooling, it should be institutionalized (like school) with fees (like school) and it would be more efficient. Today’s shidduch system seems analogous to yesteryear’s melamed system. Just doesn’t work that efficiently with large numbers. Either it’s a public problem or a private problem. The word “crisis” implies public problem. Public problem implies public solution. Public solution requires powerful, unafraid, accepted leadership. I see no such leadership today. Granted, my vision is flawed but whose vision should I go by, yours? Those (non-hasidic) leaders that are unafraid tend to get marginalized, because very little works for most people.
In sum, I expect no public solution, don’t see lack of marriage as defining a person, and think that parents’ selfish short-term interests systematically undermine their selfish long-term interests and think that each individual is a different story and should be treated and act as such. So ends my rambling.
I think vaccines cause global warming. Because big pharma are in cahoots with the illuminati, the children of the nazis, and doctors, to wipe the jewish infested cities of NY and LA off the map. I believe it. Prove me wrong. Idiots. Murderers.
Suppose I had a belief in shooting a gun off at random around my children and all the children in my neighborhood. Should I not go to prison? Should I not at least be forcibly restrained? Should I be allowed to keep my children? These are important questioned that need to be asked and answered.
Avner Gold is a pen name. I believe the author is the husband of Shami Reinman of “Upwards” fame. He may have more important things to do these days…
I am bothered by the confusion of the issues. There’s a halachic issue and a political issue.
It would seem to me, that if this discussion would be about davening at the kosel, all but some neturei karta-like people would say something like “bleep” the arabs.
Which moves us on the the halachic issue. I am unlearned in this area and have no direct opinion as to whether to risk relying on heteirim here other than to encourage all to ask their rabbi their halachic questions.
Is it and, or or both? One literally can’t go wrong with taking things literally. Seriously, when should something not be taken literally? As far as taking things seriously goes, everything is serious. Even a joke has serious lessons which can be learned from it. Besides Ebola and Popa of course.
Catch yourself: I don’t see why it is that close minded. Seems relatively true. Whoever said that open mindedness is an ideal?
Charlie: the subject matter here is making fun of the ideas and people (particularly the self proclaimed women) who are trying to change things we believe shouldn’t be changed. Another discussion would be the better place to legitimately discuss such ideas.
Lamedvov: so I’m yeshivish but not frum? Lol. My screen name was because I was annoyed at the title of this website.
CRuzer: it is a reasonable assumption. What it is not is definitive. The more assumptions that are made, the less real meaning of any findings based on those assumptions.
Obviously, if there is no such data, it is reasonable to make assumptions. However, if people want a statistical study to be taken seriously (i.e. to change behaviors and/or raise the “crisis” alert) they should make the effort to obtain real numbers.
Really? No one noticed that the “ushpizin” included Shlomo and excluded Yosef?
But the answer is obviously Peyton Manning.
Generally, ignorance is nothing. Being completely ignorant on a matter means you have no thoughts or feelings about it whatsoever. That is not bliss. However, if knowing about a matter would be painful, then its ignorance would be more pleasant (in regard to the aforementioned pain).
As a general policy, the way I see it is: If generally there are painful issues, then ignorance can be seen as relative “bliss,” whereas if generally there is happiness, then ignorance couldn’t possibly be seen as better, it could only be assumed less [or at best, equal] in terms of pleasure vs. pain.
[Obviously, ignorance is only bliss {if at all} to the ignorant, which means all these question which preclude ignorance tend to be brain twisting conundrums.]
Finally, in regard to Yiddishkeit, being that it is essentially truth, life, and happiness, and if one truly believes in “kol man deavid rachmana letav avid,” there is no real question, as all [should] agree that ignorance of good is not bliss.
MDG: Pretend that instead of smoke causing your imagined sensitivities, it was Arrid deodorant. Would you then admit that it is you with the problem?
YYTZ: If there is a place (like a room indoors, BMG, or a car) where there has been a lot of smoking done, third hand smoke is a plausible, albeit far-fetched concern. If you talking about a person whose breath smells, it is less plausible concern. A person who takes precautions to not expose another is a completely implausible source of third hand smoke.
Seriously, the witchhunt needs to go. Yes, smoking causes cancer. A heavy smoker has about a 1:10 chance of getting lung cancer. Other breathing problems are more likely. The CDC with all its MPH knowitalls were and are very successful in manipulating the masses’ thoughts regarding smoking. Don’t smoke. It’s stupid. But don’t be an idiot either.
From Wikipedia: “A 2014 study published in the journal Pediatrics demonstrated that parents are more likely to attempt to quit smoking if they become convinced that thirdhand smoke is harmful to children and more likely to have smoke-free home and car policies if they are aware of the dangers of third-hand smoke.” Every MPH knows that their ultimate purpose is to get people to quit smoking as it is from the most controllable significant health factors. Thus you cant believe everything they say as truth isn’t their goal, raising public life expectancy and decreasing overall healthcare cost is.
What about reb moshe’s tshuva about leaving the tv on on shabbos? I find that to be analogous to the shabbos app (if the theoretical technical question were resolved). As far as the ok google thing, to me that would be analogous to a burglar alarm on standby. As long as nothing is apparent, and you don’t want it to be listening, sounds ok.
Matan: In terms of formal logic, your first idea is severely problematic. In the spirit of other posters here, one might even say retarded. I have not the time to write why now, but if you desire, after shabbos I can go through it. The second one suffers from the same problems as the Idea you are tring to be more precise about. Your reasoning doesn’t support your conclusion. Have a great shabbos. I’ll be back in a few days…
Matan1, your words: “If someone if suffering from depression, anxiety, OCD or any other mental illness, it is completely and entirely irresponsible and dangerous to think that the root of the problem is spiritual.”
Responsibility and danger aren’t what we are discussing. We are discussing truth and reality. No one said that the above problems are necessarily spiritually rooted. You said (or at least implied) that they are necessarily not. If responsibility were an issue I’d call that irresponsible. Because it isn’t the issue, I’ll just call it presumptuous. How on earth could you know that in all cases of depression and anxiety the root of the issue is not spiritual? You would need a huge amount amount of scientific and spiritual knowledge for that proclamation. I’ll [attempt to] save you the effort of trying to persuade me of your scientific knowledge by informing you that you do not have enough.
“There is no heresy in clinical psychology. It’s all about helping people. I[f] that’s apikorsus, then I give up.”
Your point is meaningless. Imagine if someone said “There is no heresy in the Catholic Church. It’s all about helping people. If that’s apikorsus, then I give up.” You’d laugh them out of the building because they did nothing to address the subject matter of what either is or isn’t heresy.
Here how I see it:
The reason we are created is to make the right choices and do the right behaviors. We have a soul which naturally yearns for the spiritual, and a body which is physical. We are required to use our brains in a way which connects us to our souls and not our bodies. There is a good and evil inclination which represent the soul and body in our choices. All of this seems to me to be mainstream classic jewish thought.
Psychologists, on the other hand, are trained to think only about physical attributes. Often, psychological problems (or undesirable behavior) are physiologically rooted. For such problems, a psychological/psychiatric approach is entirely appropriate.
When the root of an undesired behavior is spiritual in nature, a spiritual expert should be consulted (if any expert need be consulted at all). The above statement seems to me incontrovertible. This is not to say other experts have no input on the treatment of the problem- just that the primary authority as to treatment should be given to the experts on each respective topic.
The big question: is the source of a given undesirable behavior physical or spiritual? The answer isn’t simple. I’d say to consult with experts in both fields. I’d also say that a good rabbi would not be biased against the field of psychology, whereas psychologists are often biased against rabbis.
Tlik- I’ll concede that some psychologists believe in the soul. The problem is that the credibility assigned to psychologists as “experts” is partially misplaced because as a community they aren’t any more expert on the soul than dentists are. I don’t consult with my dentist regarding the spiritual ramifications of taking a medication or conditioning my behavior. I consult with an expert on spirituality. Your point earlier that there are many who people view as experts in that field that really aren’t is important but doesn’t minimize my point in any way.
I’m not disagreeing about the possibility, DY. I was annoyed that someone just can’t read.
Lior: The question was why girls don’t give the “yes” first. My response was that more girls get rejected than boys and preserving their dignity is important.
The reason you claim not to have understood what I was saying is because I didn’t directly link dignity to rejection, you assumed I meant that a girl’s dignity is more important.
I have no idea how you jumped to that conclusion. I’ll accept that reason “3” came into play. I just think that “1” and/or “2” were far more relevant.
Now allow me to explain my point a little more. When a person is rejected before they look into someone else, the rejection is often without their knowledge of, investment in, or acquiescence to, the shidduch. A rejection is in essence saying “I don’t want you.” When someone has to hear that from someone else, it is an affront to their dignity. When it occurs after the person has said “I do want you” to the other party, the affront to their dignity is compounded. The word dignity as I’m using it refers to worthiness.
In sum, more girls=more guy rejections and the party with propensity to rejection should go first, as a rejection which occurs before the other party says yes, is less of an affront do dignity.
TLIK – So you are saying that the percentage of people who believe in free will in the “mental health community” is approximately the same as in the general population? How about in the frum community? The psych courses I took were replete with ideas that minimize, seek to minimize, or outright deny the abilities of people to determine their own choices. CBT is not the most flagrant offender in this regard but these attitudes and mentalities are the overwhelming consensus.
The idea that people can determine their own choices is part of the 13 principles (schar v’onesh) and is the reason the world exists.
CharlieHall: “Measurements of behavior are often as reliable as any other in medicine . . .” Behavior? Sure. Psychological causation of a particular behavior? Not as much. Especially if often the thing causing the behavior (or the underlying condition) is the exercise of an unpredictable undeterminable free will.
Also, the word “often” isn’t all that persuasive. As a statistician, are you suggesting no significant deviation? I’d find that hard to believe.
Moreover, as a jew I believe there is a body and a soul. I believe that the soul is far more directly involved in the brain’s function than it is in say the bowel’s function. I’d also say that psychologists are not – as a group – particularly well studied on the functions and disorders of the soul. Do you disagree?
Bottom line: Only a fool would completely discount the observations of social scientists and only a fool thinks that socials scientists have all the answers.
Lol. I just read through this whole thing too. The winning quote: “the reason Tylenol relieves headaches is these people’s brain fails to produce the correct amount of Tylenol.” –PBA. Sheer awesomeness. People are very passionate about these things. There are a lot of biases and stigmas. This does not mean that one’s critical thinking skill must be turned off. Popa might be wrong but no one (in my admittedly quick scanning) proved it. Just saying.
Lior, you said: “But, oomis, fny attributed it to ‘preserving the girl’s dignity’. Do you disagree or do you think that preserving the boy’s dignity is equally vital?”
I’m glad you understood my point in which all dignity is presumed equal. Thus, the two choices are either 1. Disagree with me, or 2. agree with me that all dignity of either gender is treated equally.
I am so glad you decided to read what I wrote carefully, think about it, and formulate a carefully worded response.
I just have one issue with your wording. The quote: “preserving the girl’s dignity” seems to be misplaced. One might think you understood me to be saying that a girl’s dignity is more important, when I clearly said and meant no such thing. This quote might lead me to think that you did not think about what I wrote in a meaningful way. After all, my main point was that girls are more likely to be rejected because there are more of them. Thus, assuming all rejection is equal, it would minimize the amount of rejection in the world if girls waited until after they were approved.
Now the question is what motive do you have for putting that quote in there. I’ll attempt to list the options. Please let me know which option
is/are correct.1. You didn’t read what I wrote well enough even though I requested that you do
2. You read what I wrote well, but couldn’t comprehend it
3. I was unclear and somehow implied that a girl’s dignity is more important than a boy’s. Please let me know how and where I implied that, so that I can learn from this and be more clear in the future
4. I was clear enough, you read it, and understood it, and your mischaracterization was deliberate. This is the option that is most disturbing to me. Why would you do that?
I think very few, here or anywhere, would say that it can’t work. I think the big questions are 1. are they necessary to solve the problem and 2. how likely are they to solve the problem vs. other methods.
Unlike the science of medicine generally, psychology does not lend itself to hard rules well. Too many variables, choices, and each mind is unique in some way. Also, far too often, people in this field try to either subtly or overtly deny or minimize the idea of free choice. This makes me wary, as IMHO this is the worst and most depressing form of kefira that exists.
Bottom line: all methods must be on the table. Knowledgeable people should be consulted before embarking on a journey, particularly one that is long-term and/or changes brain chemistry. This includes experts on morality and free choice as well as experts in psychology.
PBA: Why do numbers matter? I assumed you meant because there are more girls per guy, and therefore more girls are going to get rejected (a girl that gets rejected because there’s someone else is rejected for a “comparative” reason). Even if you did not mean that, I did. Sorry for assuming though.
Lior: Read it again, think it through, and if you still have the question I’ll try to break it down for you slowly.
As PBA noted, boys are far more likely to say no for comparative rather than substantive reasons. More girls get rejected because more girls are in play. Preserving the girl’s dignity is the idea. Pre-approval may help a little though. A girl that’s ready to go out tomorrow has a competitive advantage, all other things equal. Just saying.
Lior: I never favored either gender for custody. Look back at my post. Don’t misquote me. I don’t believe in stereotyping. Best interest, one way or another. What I was trying to say is that the interest of the child is almost certainly going to be affected by any custody agreement, and therefore any such agreement should be focused exclusively on that. Should there be a range of possibilities which don’t impact the child one way or another then you can move on to “tiebreaker” type scenarios. I just don’t think a “tie” is likely.
Ben-Levi: I’m glad you now agree with me that the best interest of the child is the criterion by which to decide custody. I have never said that the behavior of a parent doesn’t go into that decision. The question is whether the initiator is automatically disfavored. The answer is only as much as it affects the best FUTURE interest of the child. People have a hard time being pragmatic and get stuck on the blame game. Such fallacies have even less a place, and are even more destructive, when dealing with the kids.
Lior: If the child’s best interest wasn’t impacted one way or another, perhaps. I have a hard time envisioning a hypothetical scenario in which that were the case.
Ben Levi, Syag- The thing about “getting” the kids is not about a narcissistic entitlement of seeing and enjoying them – it is about the parental responsibility to raise them as healthily as possible, physically emotionally and spiritually. As such, the initiator of a no – fault divorce shouldn’t automatically be disfavored – custody is about the kids after all, is it not?
The halacha is a man can give a get for whatever he wants, for any reason. I think we all agree on that.
A man who has the capability to not torture, abuse, and control a woman should use that capability. I think we all agree on that too.
I think our fundamental disagreement is whether the behavior we are discussing is torture abuse and control.
Imagine you are a woman who can’t stand the person you are married to. You made a big mistake. You regret it. You are utterly miserable. The marriage is absolutely over. There is no chance of you be able to hack another day of it. You tell your husband that it’s not him it’s you, and you are willing to make equitable arrangements for the best interests of the children. He says no. We are staying married. Because I’m in charge. Your input here is irrelevant. How you feel about the marriage is meaningless. Is that considerate? Is that decent? Is that not the epitome of emotional abuse?
If your response mentions her responsibilities again, I’m going to throw the phone I’m typing on at you.
If your response mentions halacha, it should be the halacha that says that he MUST do the evil above. If there is no such halacha (hint: there isn’t) then it is irrelevant.
You keep hiding behind halacha to pretend that the abhorrent behavior you are defending is somehow moral.
If a woman seriously and permanently wants a get, and the man does not choose to give it, he is evil.
Sam2: I find this thread to be the most disturbing thread I have ever seen on YWN. The disconnect from reality, complete lack of empathy, sense of entitlement and control, is just evil. Not love. Evil.
Leibidik, you contradict yourself. First you say she’s not entitled if she’s the aggressor. Then you seem to imply that she can get out but deserves “petch”.
I agree with the second part. The thing is, in judaism, when someone deserves “petch” we let God do the “potching”. Doing it ourselves, purely for the sake of revenge, is completely wrong.
If the marriage is over, not giving a get (with all other things resolved) can only be revenge.
The marriage is over if either party permanently decides so. For any reason.
And, of course, the children are far, far, better off dealing with divorce than dealing with this stuff. Not giving a get when asked for seems to me a foolproof method of messing up the kids.
Bottom line: if someone seriously wants out of the emotional aspect of the relationship of marriage, there is nothing anyone can do to stop them. Once this occurs, it is cruel, controlling and abusive to force them to remain in a legal relationship.
popa: as noted above, dash and dy are correct, that most “lakewood-style” two family homes are excluded from federal and state housing equality law, if owner occupied.
Yonkar, the fine is far less relevant than a potential lawsuit. There have been successful lawsuits/settlements in which sympathetic minorities cited statistics about the differences between neighborhoods and won significant sums of money.
The key is being able to get a jury on your side. With missionaries this would probably be quite hard. Divorcees, not as much. African American, pretty easy.
Rebyidd- again, provided that your “liked” people don’t correlate to a religion ethnicity etc.
Lior- if it’s not under a different exception, probably. You can probably require that the missionary not proselytize on or near premises. These things are hard to prove in court. Usually, “testers” are used to prove discrimination. In order to motivate anyone to send the expensive testers there would likely already be a significant situation. But who knows? Maybe you just gave all the numerous missionaries who are reading this a great idea!
Good point as far as federal law. Up to four units (if owner-occupied) would be exempt. In NJ and NY the exemption is limited to two units if owner occupied, or a room in a single family house even if not owner occupied.
Discrimination is something we all do at all times. Discrimination means to choose or favor. The question is whether the choice is made on the basis of a legally prohibited criterion.
Discrimination on the basis of length of last name (provided there is no correlation with a protected class, in which case the assumption would be that the last name is a pretext and the discrimination is really on the basis of the protected class) would be completely legal in all scenarios.
The federal fair housing act prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender and familial status. “Familial status” excludes unmarried couples and it is still illegal for unmarried couples to live together in many states. It is unclear if denying a single unmarried person is covered by federal law. Probably not. However, under New york, New Jersey, Maryland and Massachusetts law it is quite clear that the behavior you’ve articulated is illegal and may be the basis of a civil lawsuit.
As a side note, my dream tenant would be single and financially stable. Furthermore, no laws require disclosure of these things or prevent subletting.
You can rent the apartment and then sublet or assign to your divorced relative without secular legal problems (unless otherwise specifically agreed with landlord).
Disclaimer: I am posting this anonymously with no representation that this post was made by a lawyer, and it should not be relied on as legal advice.
Wait. If he’s a woman, he isn’t jewish. How could she them be a nevia? A female Bilaam is not on the list of nevios…