Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
So tell me what is their uniform? (Not what it isn’t, i.e. no hats.)
1: Who says there needs to be one?
2: Perhaps it is a knitted Kipa, sandals and a polo shirt (for some divisions/teams). For others, it may be a Beaver cap, black Kimono and white socks.
gaw: Hashem’s Army has many divisions, each with their own uniform.
Good answer! So the fix should have been:
“People want to show they are part of the “Yeshivish” division, so they wear the division colors.”
Just like there are Chassidish, Yerushalmi, Dati Leumi, Moroccan, Syrian, Yekke, YU, and plain “Yeraim” divisions of Hashem’s team, as well as many others.
Personally, I may have described it as different teams in the same company/army, each with their own uniform. Some even need to be plainclothes, or may even wear someone else’s colors, but they still work for the same cause.
People want to show they are part of the Hashem’s team, so they wear the team colors.
FTFY.
Are the Chassidim and Yerushalmis not part of Hashem’s team?
They feel that he holds himself as better than them because he wears a hat.
He isn’t? :p
In all seriousness, a baseball cap or Skullcap (or porkpie, or football helmet, etc.) should suffice for the Halachic aspect, even if you hold the Mishna Berurah means that a hat is actually required (which is not the pashut reading).
The King’s representative always dresses as befits his station. Whether in the palace or in the market.
Even when among fools who scoff at The King.
As Feivel correctly points out, nowadays, a Black Fedora and dark colored suit jacket (not a Blazer, which you never see in a yeshiva) are team identification. People want to show they are part of the “Yeshivish” team, so they wear the team colors.
DY: Doesn’t R’ Moshe give GAW’s logic explicitly in that T’shuvah? That it’s just Lo Yitachen?
I didn’t see that.
What Rav Moshe does seem to (possibly) say is that since Retzicha is Talui in having a Sanhedrin, when the issue becomes Nogeigh (i.e. when there is a Sanhedrin, B’mhirah byamainu), they will also have the right to redefine Treifos Al Pi the current Metzius of that time.
If I were a bit more OO, I would claim that Rav Moshe is trying to avoid the issue. Halachicly, Rav Moshe is simply saying that we (without Smichah) don’t have the ability to over-ride Chazal’s definitions of Traifah, even though due to evolution they no longer are the metzius.
Perhaps there isn’t a HL”M for rotzeach regarding a historical date, while there is for animals.
If I were a betting Gavra (or a bit more OO), I would say that Rav Moshe (and the RAMBAM!) agreed that it is unconscionable to allow application of the standard “Halacha L’Moshe Mi’Sinai” Treifos to people, and therefore not apply Misas Bais Din to someone who killed a person that could have lived a full life.
Therefore, although Rav Moshe can accept the “Keveiah” by the Chachomim for animals, it would be impossible for Chazal to have done so for people.
Note that Rashi in Maakos seems to disagree, and implies that if a person had a siman Treifah that the Rotzeach would not be convicted by Beis Din.
DaasYochid – all of the sudden, we drop the Halacha L’Moshe Misinai and hold like Rav Shimon Darash T’aama D’krah?
I don’t disagree that is what Rav Moshe says, but it is not the Pashtus and there are Rishonim that disagree and hold that the Treifos apply to people as well (with all of the baggage that comes along with them).
In this case since the monitor could have combined two bus routes with two schools that have the same sex student body and didn’t but used co-ed busing to deny the yeshiva students of bus rides he is in violation of the yeshiva students civil rights.
Actually, that is an assumption that probably won’t be tested, but if it was, it would (IMHO) lose in court.
If you would like, we can discuss it on a different thread.
Gavra, the chilluk is that r’tzichah is talui in the metzius: was he someone who would have died within twelve months, or not? The onesh misah is only on one who kills the latter.
Treifah by an animal is a din that a treifah is assur. The definition of treifah, as per halachah l’Moshe miSinai, is a nekev which would kill an animal within twelve months [at the time Chazal codified/established the parameters for the din].
Meheicha Teisi, and what is the S’vorah behind the chiluk. Pashtus the Mishnayos and Gemorah talk about “Harag es HaTreifah”, not “Harag mi sheino kayam yud beis chodesh”.
DaasYochid:
1: Regarding the CY point, by the OU putting their mark on the product, they are taking responsibility that the milk used (which presumably also has a Hechsher) is also not adulterated. The only issue is the Gezairah of Cholov Yisroel, and on that specific issue the supervision of the FDA (however that is done, I’m not an expert) and resulting fines is sufficient according to Rav Moshe’s Hetter. As for the Nirbater Rov’s teshuva, do you really believe that at the time of Rav Moshe the FDA came down to every single dairy to check?
2: Regarding the Treifus issue, Rav Moshe holds of a combination of the Chazon Ish’s terutzim (Chazal Koveh and evolution), but also holds that the Simanei Tarfus were only set for animals. For people, Tarfus only depends on Mekomo V’shaito if they can live (and brings a Rambam to prove it). L’cheorah, it makes for tremendous Nafkei Mina l’gabei the Dinim of Gozez/Treifah, Eidus, etc. I also don’t see why there should be a Chiluk between people and animals lgabei this din, and ask the Olam for their ideas.
Lesschumrus: I never said that yeshiva students will drop out of school. All that will happen is that the 8,000 yeshiva student Approx 30% live within 2.5 miles of the school will have to be driven to school resulting in traffic jam and pollution. The 4,000 puplic school students approx. 50% live within 2.5 miles of the school who are mostly lower income may have to walk to school they are the ones who will drop out. even if they come they will be so tired they will fall a sleep in class. The reason we have school lunch program is so they will have a full stomache and be able to learn better
1: Lakewood (Boruch Hashem) probably has a decreased property tax base due to the large number of shuls, yeshivos and non for profits in the area, which reduces the funds available to bus Yeshiva students.
2: With the tax base not keeping up with the population explosion (Boruch Hashem), Lakewood should expect to have fewer and fewer non-mandated services without a similar tax hike. There is just no way to pay for busing for the thousands of students, even if they were in public school.
3: Parents could decide to hire a bus service to substitute for non-mandated busing, if they so desire. They either pay for it with tax dollars, carpool gas and time, or hire someone. Either way, there is no free lunch.
Sam2 – a quick Google search yielded CMII:73.
I have to look through it completely, but Rav Moshe asks my question regarding Rotzach.
Gavra, ????? ????? ?, ?.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14334&st=&pgnum=40&hilite=
Are ulcers listed in the ???????
Thank you.
The Chazon Ish basically gives two possibilities. The first is that the Chachomim were Koveah Treifos based on what they could do medically at the time. Had they lived now, they would not have included it in the Treifos. None the less, the Halachah is set by what the Chachomim decided then (interestingly, another proponent of this Shittah is Rabbi Nathan Slifkin).
The second is evolution, and that the Refuos would not have worked on the bodies of people during the time of Chazal, but they can work on ours.
A hole in the stomach is listed as a Treifah by the Rambam; I can’t speak to “The Braisah”. But if you would like, you can switch the example to an amputee above the knee, which we know can live a long life now but still has the “din” of a Treifah.
DY – Let me know when you have it, thanks. Also, this would mean that someone who had an ulcer (or similar) would be patur for killing/get killed, is considered an “Eid she’ei Atah Yachol L’Hazimah”, etc.?
Another problem with OU “chalav stam” is that the OU allows milk from cows which have had their abomasum pierced. If your posek holds that this makes the cow a treifa, OU chalav stam is just treif (because the cows that get pierced are more than 1/60).
Someone mind explaining this one to me? I had thought that a Treifah is an animal (or person) that will not live out the year.
??? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ??? Chullin 57a.
In addition, these Halachos of Treifah apply to people as well. Are we Machmir there as well (for example, that someone who kills someone who has the equivalent surgery will be Patur, even though the murdered individual could have lived another 60+ years)? I imagine there are other Halachic ramifications as well.
or they were trying to decide if you were reporting an isolated incident or making an accusation against an industry. I’ll go with the first but cautiously -29
In all fairness, it is not necessarily against the companies that create the milk but the long distances that it must travel (instead of being locally sourced), or the stores that carry (or mishandle) the product. I know of one Jewish owned store that I am careful not to buy dairy in the summer, but have no issues in the winter, and buy the same product from my local grocery even in the summer. It is the handling procedures in the Jewish owned store are grossly inadequate, causing the product to spoil much quicker (if not on the shelves).
Please define “spiritual benefit”.
Knowing our outward looking society (which insists on hats for walking in the street but allows copying music because no one (besides God) sees), keeping CY will probably get your children a better shidduch, while not keeping it may mean that your children are relegated to being home schooled (as if anyone would accept a Chalov Stam child). So yes, there is a “spiritual benefit” (as per above) in keeping CY.
“I believe that ethical behavior, simply put, is to reduce the suffering of conscious beings.”
1: As Joe said (and I’m shocked that I agree), does it then follow that you disagree with all of the Torah’s physical punishments?
2: If you had the ability to murder Maria Schicklgruber, (or for Godwin, Pol Pot’s mother), would that be “ethical”? How about if someone actually did so?
gavra,
So if our morality is not in line with what to Torah says, how would we resolve such a conflict?
Ah, the age old question.
We have a responsibility dwelling in any country to follow the law. Therefore, if there is any commandment that is not a requirement (ex. there is no mitzva to own an Eved), then one should follow the law.
Today, if it was not illegal in the country in which one lives, you would say that it’s perfectly okay to buy and sell humans(Vayikra 25:44-45)?
What do you mean by “perfectly okay”? To turn the question over, do you believe it is “perfectly okay” to slaughter a living cow and consume its flesh? And isn’t the difference only in magnitude?
GAW: You started your post by stating that you cannot explain the positions of others then ended it by stating you see no reason not to extend the “rights’ of marriage to same gender couples.
Seriously, did you even read what I wrote? I wrote the exact opposite of what you are claiming.
That being said, your Beef is with Justice Kennedy, not me. Go argue with him. I’m not going to try to explain it yet again.
Do we not get our morals from the Torah? Isn’t the Torah true and perfect for all times?
ROTFLOL!!! This is a different question that we have gone over ad nauseum many times here in the CR. My short answer to you is no, the Torah is not “Moral”. “Morality” is a human concept.
Point 3 is Halachic. One could not simply kidnap someone and keep him/her as a slave.
Point 4: if you recognize that there are different levels of responsibility, you may (if you are honest) recognize that responsibility comes with power (on each level). Those with a lower level of responsibility for themselves have their own responsibilities towards those with greater responsibility (such as the requirement to redeem a first-born son).
anon1m0us – you would have a hard time proving that your dog loves you in that way, but if you say so……
goofus –
1: I fully expect in the not so distant future that people will look back at us and wonder how we could have enslaved our computers and I-phones, and how we could have eaten meat, etc. Morality evolves.
2: Eved Cannanni is much more similar to Serfdom (and perhaps more rights are given to Jewish owned slaves in many aspects over Serfs) than to antebellum slavery in the USA.
3: As I pointed out earlier, Eved Cannanni was usually a step up for the person themselves (as opposed to a POW (for which forced labor is allowed by convention, why don’t you ask about that!!) or actual slave).
4: In an alternative line of questioning, do you understand why some people are Kohanim and therefore have more “rights” than other people? Or do you disagree with that as well?
Based on what you seem to think marriage has evolved to is a father and son “married” is a “mother and daughter” married?
1: It is a fallacy to assume that because I am able to explain the positions of others, that I agree with their position. For the record, I completely disagree for a number of reasons, including those you state.
2: Nonetheless, the majority of SCOTUS disagrees, and that makes it law in the USA (right or wrong).
3: After reading the opinion (in part), I can not see any justification in the opinion to not include in the 14th Amendment rights the liberty of any consenting adults who wish to have a loving (even if not one that would involve the act of procreation) relationship. Denying the formalization of such a relationship via marriage would infringe on their “individual autonomy”, and the state would need to pass strict scrutiny (which IMHO it would not pass) to deny 14th Amendment rights of “equal dignity” before the law.
Why is slavery condoned by the Torah?
Note that in your thinking about it, (I believe) one can only become a Jew’s slave by already being a slave to a non-jew or being captured in war as an enemy (excluding those born as that status). Otherwise selling ones self is merely a willing indentured servant.
Correct me if I’m wrong.
a customer walked in wearing a “pride” button and the frum salesperson asked about the button and the person said in the affirmative. The salesman then said yeech and walked away from the customer.
Stupid AND Anti-Torah. Where does it say that you can’t sell good to people who do Avairos? If the customer had a pin saying “I eat live lobster”, would the salesman do the same?
Or just what if a co-worker is one and you call them an abomination (creating a hostile workforce)
Abominable Lobster Eater! 🙂
The facts on the ground is that marriage is not equal to a means to building a family.
As marriage has evolved from a structure in which a family could grow (the “original meaning”) to an affirmation of individuals’ love and a financial/legal “next of kin”, so too has the “right” to be married. From the opinion:
Indeed, changed understandings of marriage are characteristic of a Nation where new dimensions of freedom become apparent to new generations, often through perspectives that begin in pleas or protests and then are considered in the political sphere and the judicial process.
You intended to misspell the word “use”?
😛
I don’t care what a pollution does in the bedroom if he votes the Torah way. Us that as a guideline, and “Ten L’Chacham V’Yachkim Od”.
(typo intended)
Daas Yochid, I need more information. Is the second candidate personally immoral, but his immorality does not affect/influence his political positions? Or are his political positions immoral (ex. he promotes “Shechivas Behaimah” amongst the general populace)?
What is, or is there, a non religious argument against same sex marriage?
Libertarian – The government has no business telling people who they can or can not marry, and should not be in the business of deciding who is and who is not married in the first place.
From the Obergefell opinion:
See Maynard v. Hill, 125 U. S. 190, 211. States have contributed to the fundamental character of marriage by placing it at the center of many facets of the legal and social order.
If states were to remove the centrality of marriage in social order, then possibly even after Obergefell there would be no protected right for SSM.
States seem to be be able to prohibit or to allow first cousin marriages.
States also WERE allowed to prohibit SSM. If there is a constitutional right to marry, then that right MUST be provided to any two consenting adults.
No. I’m not saying we don’t use math or even other forms of knowledge in Torah. I’m saying we don’t twist the Torah to conform to secular knowledge.
I’m not certain what you mean. Would you mind expounding on your thoughts? (I assume you do not mean on the basis of secular “thinking”, such as liberalism, because that would be obvious).
DaasYochid – In all fairness, the Torah has to be understood via the supplemental information provided by secular sources. Take a classical example (Bava Basra 102a), where both Rashi and Tosfos attempt to understand the Gemorah without resorting to secular sources (in this case, the Pythagorean theorem, which was well known at the time of the Tannaim, let alone Rishonim), and fail to succeed. (Another example is BB 27a and the value of ?). We have to use the secular knowledge available to us to assist our understanding of what Hashem wants and how to go about doing it.
(although I should have)
You should have. Had it not been you, I would have thought you were bringing it “L’kanter”.
Why don’t you just close the thread?
I have no idea what it means, but that’s what it says (about daas, not about being alive).
Let’s not lose sight of the fact that Tehillim is poetry. It’s not a science text. Like most poetry, it’s not meant to be taken 100% literally.
Wolf, you of all people should recognize the possibility of Silicon or Plasma based life forms. Just because we are unable to detect their sentience does not mean that they don’t have it (perhaps they simply choose not to exercise it).
To quote Perek Shira (and the Pasuk in Nechemya): Kochavim Omerim:
??????-???? ?????-?, ?????????–?? (??????) ???????? ???-??????????? ?????? ??????????? ?????-??????? ??????? ?????-?????? ??????? ?????????? ?????-?????? ??????, ???????? ???????? ???-???????; ??????? ???????????, ???? ??????????????.
So I would say that Pashtus, the Rambam is learning from a Pasuk.
newbee – Have you asked him for a Mashkon, like his Menorah or Shabbos Leichter? That will certainly give incentive to pay back.
DY – fair enough. There is no need to dress “Shabbos’dik” during the week.
Take a Mashkon? Do you even need Bais Din for that (if he agrees, which it sounds like he might, and even if not, Avid Inish Dina D’Nafshei B’Makom P’saidah).
nishtdayngesheft – I only quoted “HaKohen53” who said it was a Mesorah. If you agree with me that it is not, take it up with him/her.
Nobody actually wears (or probably ever did wear) Shabbos clothing for a regular weekday davening. There are still levels of respectability of weekday clothing; it’s not all or nothing, and just saying to add cufflinks for Shabbos is silly.
For those of us who wear ties and jackets every day, wearing cufflinks shows that the Levush of Shabbos is different than that of a weekday. You would never disrespect someone who wears a Straimel B’Davka on Shabbos as a sign of “Levush Kavudah”, and I expect an retraction from you regarding cufflinks as a “Levush Kevudah” (vs. “silly”) for Shabbos and/or Yom Tov.
DY – So you haven’t answered my question. Am I a Yeshiva Hater or not (taking into account the Machlokes Tannaim I brought in)?
You already did, so what does that say? 😉
Machlokes Rebbe Akiva and the Chachomim in Perek HaNoder Min HaYerek. I believe the Chachomim are like me.
😛
P.S. who said anything about a propeller? Efshar if it charges your (kosher) phone via wind power, then maybe.
I think we can have a healthy discussion about what is the appropriate balance between different ideals. In this case it’s being dressing nicely versus not being materialistic (at least that’s how I understand the discussion).
Sounds suspiciously like another Jewish concept called TZNIUS.
extremely casual or strange hats
a cat-in-the-hat style hat, and a plaid jacket with a water squirting flower on the outside pocket
Methinks you are joking.
DaasYochid – can you please define “Yeshiva Hater”? I would like to know if I need to respond.
🙂
2. In some communities, a hat and jacket are considered part of the requirement for dressing nicely for davening.
So as not to make the same mistake, what type of hat (and jacket) do you mean?
Or, just use a brown paper bag, or drape a towel over your head.
What is wrong with a Fez or a turban? If you drape a towel over your head, is it then a tallis?
So after all that misunderstanding that y’all agree that a skicap, football helmet, or baseball cap is sufficient (sorry to everyone, my bad), let’s get back to my original post on this thread…
Someone who used to present himself properly for his audience with ??? ???? ??????,
Unwarranted assumption. Please prove the assumption before continuing with your conclusion. 🙂
DaMoshe – I agree with Daas Yochid that you are harping the wrong point. Halacha continues to be debated, even when a “Gadol” says something. It is more the “Meta-Halacha” (to use a scholarly term) where hashkafic points are considered (and yes, there are those who will follow their Rebbe blindly) that is the Chassidic approach, but you do not see it with the working Yeshivish Olam (as opposed to Kollel types), who just mostly ignore it. There are many examples as such within the past five years.
Nisht – fair enough. I was responding to hakohen’s assertion that a hat is Mesorah or “the right thing”. There is no such Mesorah, and certainly not for hats as worn today by yeshiva bochrim.
Further than that, if you would agree that there are head coverings that are respectful for davening other than a black fedora (which it seems you do), and that it is not a requirement for davening, I’ll take that and leave it alone.
P.S. for certain I was going overboard on the fedora point, but was doing so to show that Moshe Rabbainu did not come off Har Sinai with one. How a beged becomes or changes from a beged Ish to Isha or vice versa should be for a different thread.