Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Doped up”:
Huh?
You posted that Judaism was, CH”V, founded on a bet.
And your source for this is
“??? ??? ???? ?? ?”
As it happens, Hashem did remove Moshe Rabbeinu’s name from Parshas Titzaveh in fulfillment of his request (not bet).
Regardless, that statement was uttered after the nation’s founding.
Judaism was founded at Har Sinai with the knowledge of the entire world. And there was no bet there.
Take it to another thread, old or new, there are plenty to chose from
The whole premise of MO was that traditional Orthodoxy would become no more than a museum piece unless he reformed/modernized Orthodoxy.
B”H, the Orthodox world (i.e. non-MO) has, of course, not needed MO’s reforms to Hashem’s Torah; while Jews of all stripes face financial struggles, there are still successful businesses that are owned, and run by, and that employ, chassidim, besides for the traditional Orthodox who also run businesses or are otherwise employed in various fields of work, whether white-collar or otherwise.
Rabbi JB Soloveitchik clearly stated he was deviating from his family tradition in the matter of Zionism. Yet the senseless and idolatrous worship of Zionism is one of the major mitzos of MO. They observe Israeli nationalist holidays as religious observances, etc.
Put simply: Even without the (rather major) Zionism issue, MO is a mistaken ideology that is kineged our Torah. We are already seeing the initial stages of disintegration of MO (as prominent MO writers have been decrying for years now); those leaning “to the left” become, CH”V, Conservative or worse, while those leaning “to the right” become traditionally Orthodox, B”H.
Charlie:
No, he is not bound by his father’s “psak”, for a number of reasons.
Ask your fellow MO, the erudite Sam2, about the few exceptions to Kibbud Av. Certain marriage and learning-related matters are among those.
As well, other than himself and his students, in whose eyes did Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik qualify as a gadol HaDor? Rav Aharon Kotler, who was a gadol haDor, said some very harsh things about Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik. Agudah’s rabbanim did not either seem to believe he was a gadol haDor; see, for example, their JO piece upon Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik’s passing, which can still be found online. It certainly did not say anything of the sort. Other than MO institutions, what Yeshivos include any of his works in their curricula?
As the founder of “MO”, Rabbi Dr. Soloveitchik obviously felt that he needed to found his co-ed day school in Boston. But this doesn’t mean that even he would agree that this was the proper thing to do elsewhere. It also doesn’t mean he would say to do so today when American Jewry has, B”H, advanced far beyond where it was then.
As well, the gedolim of the time did not agree with him on this (among other things). So it is wrong to promote these failed, mistaken and condemned notions of MO.
Finally, the end of your post (before the bracha that you wrote to him) is also ignoring a major flaw of MO, which is the only known Orthodox movement that is mattir issurim (for the sake of modernity).
(The words “be open-minded” usually are code for “look the other way when issurim are committed; it’s okay”.)
So while people of all stripes unfortunately fall prey to the Yetzer HaRa, only in MO (among Orthodox movements) is it accepted to commit certain aveiros. Therefore, one cannot compare the negative effects of living in an MO area to that of living elsewhere.
I would, instead, advise, as Pirkei Avos says, “Asei licha Rav”. It is also very unwise to disregard other maamarei Chazal like “Oy laRasha viOy liShcheino”. (No, I do not mean to imply that MO are, CH”V, rishaim, but the concept of being wary of undue influence still very much applies.)
Finally, while there are indeed a variety of different valid mehalchim in avodas Hashem, that doesn’t mean MO gets to tag along simply because they feel like it. The majority of MO adherents may mean well (the same might be argued of Conservative and Reform as well), but that doesn’t make acceptable the theology of MO.
I appreciate “From Long Island’s post”.
OP:
You may, in fact, be rejecting their lifestyle, but since they presumably mean well and liSheim Shamayim, traditional Orthodoxy can be viewed as “the next step” as FLI mentioned.
Yitzchok2:
Reb Nosson Tzvi’s success does not at all mean that this can be applied to anyone else in a different time and place. B”H, people survive many bad choices; that doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to replicate those choices.
As well, while everyone has a Yetzer HaRa, MO goes far beyond this by simply being mattir issurim, whether de facto or de jure, as the OP mentioned of his own experiences.
OP:
Find a Rav who believes in the original and unadulterated Torah (i.e. non-MO). And also, understand that many have been unfortunately misled by MO and may Hashem help them, speedily, to discover the truth as you have.
I commend you for your maturity and astuteness in considering all this and making these determinations.
Similar to DaasYochid’s point, I would say that if your parents, like so many others, have been misled by the mistaken ideology of MO, and it does seem that way from your post, then it also seems understandable that they would give you the type of education that they did, rather than a traditionally Orthodox chinuch because, unfortunately, MO was, presumably, the best conclusion in their minds.
The good news is that a good secular education (like being taught how to properly write and speak in English) can still be very helpful even within kodesh professions, so it’s great that you’ve gotten that education. Lihavdil, any good non-MO Yeshiva high school can do wonders for your religious education as well regardless of the MO issues you’ve had to deal with until this point.
Hatzlacha rabba.
Oomis: I appreciate your words.
The fact remains that love of the land (still no answer as to where to find that all-important mitzva? of loving the land) is not the same as loving the State of Israel which presently administers parts of that land.
One may love one (e.g. the land) and not the other (e.g. the State).
This goes both ways (either yes to land/no to State or yes to State/no to land).
Among other points, this is not opinion but fact.
As to opinions, however: yes, each is entitled to their own opinion; and I’m humbled to have been in agreement with some of your other opinions, including earlier in this thread.
Oomis, very simply: you are conflating two vastly different and, indeed, opposing views.
Love of the land is completely different than Zionism. The Zionists use love of the land as part of their propaganda attempting to confuse people into supporting their idolatry because of that wish to love the land.
Using the term “Zionist” for “love of the land” is untenable because Zionism has a well-established meaning.
By the way, where is there a stated mitzvah to “love the land”?
As thankful as you are for the yeshivos that exist there, are you also thankful for the tens of thousands of Jewish lives it cost to achieve that? Was it worth it? Not to mention the gemara in Kesubos which Zionists can’t answer. It’s not even a question.
Incidentally, many gedolim decried the creation of the State of Israel, even though there were some who agreed to work with it. Agudah was founded back in the day for the express purpose of fighting Zionism. Even nowadays, as modern (not MO) rabbis have stated, nothing has changed. Zionism was and is a very bad idea and against the Torah.
Again, only people who identify with the Zionist movement are Zionist. “We” are definitely not Zionist.
Rebbe Yid:
First, the Rambam himself was Moshe, not Moussa or some other language-equivalent.
As well, “Aryeh” is mentioned in the Torah (Gur Aryeh Yehuda…)
You’re also ignoring the language issue: Aryeh is Lashon HaKodesh while Leib and Lionel and whatever else are not.
Oomis:
Modern Hebrew has some unique “features” which place it in a different league than, lihavdil, Lashon HaKodesh.
For example, the use of “Chashmal”, which is a very esoteric concept, was intentionally chosen by the Zionists as the word for electricity.
Others include Bitachon for physical security instead of what we know it to be, ViRabbim kaHeina viKaHeina…
edited for the sake of peace
So while I do understand the similarities that do exist between modern “Hebrew” and, liHavdil, Lashon HaKodesh, the above is why this distinction is important.
The chumash tells us “Vayihi kal haAretz safa echas…”.
It was Lashon HaKodesh; not, lihavdil, “Hebrew”.
I agree with Oomis, again, and I stand by my prior post as well. It makes just as much sense to name a baby a “yeshivish” learning name as it does to give a yiddish name.
However, as in the case of the Kaminetsky family that someone mentioned, if you want give the name Mordechai at a Bris but prefer to use Mutty as a nickname, that’s a different matter. People today also “go by” their secular/legal (English) names, too, even though they were given real Lashon HaKodesh names at their bris. Like going by “Jon” instead of Yehonasan.
But you don’t name a kid “Jon” at his bris; you give him a Lashon HaKodesh name. Same with Yiddish. Don’t name a kid, say, “bendit” (or, translated, bandit), for example, at his bris (even as a second name, as someone already pointed out). Give him a real Lashon HaKodesh name and choose a nickname later.
(Obviously, one should ask their LOR, in practice…)
DaasYochid:
I intended my post for the other people posting as well, and a different poster had mentioned “keeping us together”. But I had intended to address your “unique” comment as well; I inadvertently used the other expression instead. But my point applies to both of the above criteria, including yours, “unique”.
golfer:
Naming Yiddish names doesn’t make any more sense than naming kids those Yeshivish names you mentioned.
OURTorah, again, thanks.
I fail to see how you concluded I am missing “a small bit” of Ahavas Chinam, based on my words here, but that’s okay…
As I mentioned before, this site is called “Yeshiva World”. So, just as on a “Mizrachi World”, I would expect to see Rabbi Kook almost deified, I would similarly expect to see a “Yeshiva” perspective on YWN, which includes stating the facts of Zionism just as they are.
Of course, for the same reason, I likely would not post (in any manner) on a “Mizrachi World”, because I would assume my comments would be universally rejected there due to the conflict between those comments and their theology.
Again, I don’t believe I have demonstrated any “intolerance” of anyone. So nobody should be “turned off” by anyone or anything here.
But I do appreciate your reminder that baalei teshuva and others who have been raised differently may visit the site.
But because of the educated and observant readership of this site, I feel my direct approach with “Yeshiva World” people in mind is an appropriate approach to all readers.
If anyone has a better way, I’d be happy to hear it.
OURtorah:
Thanks again.
I’m not sure how much clearer I could have been that I am not judging anyone, but I’ll try again.
I also agree that a Zionist could be a tinok sheNishba just as could anyone else. But this is irrelevant.
As I’ve said before, there is a difference between “not judging someone” and making kosher what they are doing.
Put simply, someone who worships an idol, no matter how much you like them and no matter what their background is, has just done a severe sin. While they may not know any better or have some other reason for doing so, and might, therefore deserve the benefit of the doubt (Hashem certainly knows everything, including his background, intention, etc.), there is no dispute that idolatry is idolatry and is forbidden.
So to, with Zionism (or any other aveira, for that matter), a person’s upbringing and education is only relevant as regarding motives, schar/viOnesh, etc. But this is all irrelevant to the definition of Zionism. Zionism is idolatry and shmad. Period. There is no real dispute about this.
Given the name of this particular forum, I believe it is very appropriate to delineate where Zionism stands vis a vis the Torah.
As I said, I am not judging anyone, but one has nothing to do with the other.
Rav Elchonon, as I quoted before, wrote in ikvisa diMishicha that Nationalism and, lihavdil, Judaism is simply A”Z and, lihavdil, Judaism mixed together. Rav Chaim Brisker held similarly and even Rabbi JB Soloveichik publicly confirmed this view of Rav Chaim.
“Not judging” does not mean that Avoda Zara can, CH”V, be considered legitimate by observant Jews just as the baal and any other idol is correctly and absolutely not considered, CH”V, a legitimate Torah path. Zionism is indisputably A”Z and shmad.
DaMoshe, this is not about my views, and you also missed that I specifically indicated that the Brisker Rav was in Eretz Yisrael before, during and after the State of Israel was founded. His views, and those of others, remained as they were even after the state’s founding.
The only change, for some, was tactical: whether to “work from within” the State’s politics or to avoid the whole thing. This is a legitimate machlokes that remains.
But there is no legitimate machlokes regarding the severe and insurmountable halachic problems of Zionism and the State of Israel.
As well, modern-day rabbanim have also confirmed that those pre-state views have not changed; and there is anyways no reason to believe they should change. The Torah is, of course, forever.
You are trying in vain to defend the indefensible.
But, again, I believe my points were relevant with regards to the OP. I’m sorry you do not agree, and there is certainly no need to respond.
DaasYochid:
Yeshivish English is much better-suited to “keeping us together” than is Yiddish, as I mentioned above. Everyone who learns, from any stream of observant Judaism, and including women, knows at least some of these “learning words”. Yiddish does not accomplish this.
OURTorah, I appreciate your thoughts.
Again, I want to emphasize the distinction between the reality of what is Zionism versus its adherents. The reality is that R’ Elchonon and others said that Zionism is A”Z and shmad. And Zionism has been a massive disaster for our people, Hashem Yiracheim.
Logically, therefore, no religious Jew should be infatuated with Zionism. But these misguided adherents of Zionism deserve no less respect just because they have made a (big) mistake in this belief.
So any “intolerance” you may see is directed at the idolatry and belief of Zionism, not at its misguided adherents who are perhaps to be pitied, not ch”V disrespected.
May Mashiach come soon to unify us all with the truth of “our Torah”.
I mostly agree with Oomis and not with DaasYochid.
I would point out, though, that it’s Lashon HaKodesh, not, lihavdil, “Hebrew”, that we have not changed.
Yeshivish English, as in English interspersed with “Torah learning” words, is, “limaaseh”, far more unifying than Yiddish.
How many baalei bayis learn with an Artscroll gemara or other English-translated work, some of whom would be unable to do so without these English-language works? How does Yiddish even begin to compare, as Oomis indicated?
If anything, Yiddish, today, outside of Chassidic communities, is more polarizing than unifying as it divides between the speakers and the non-speakers.
As well, making Yiddish a primary language along with its attendant downgrading of English also results in certain Jews having an embarrassingly poor command of the English language, which can be a chilul Hashem, CH”V.
For those who do not speak Yiddish at home yet, for various reasons, attend a Yiddish-teaching school, this nostalgic infatuation with Yiddish makes their schooling unnecessarily harder than it already is and they lose out academically versus had they been taught in English.
On the same topic, Jews in various sefardic countries (before the Zionists persuaded them to come to Israel at which time the Zionists proudly shmaded them) have had their own dialects of the local language yet they continued to use Lashon HaKodesh names. From where did some Ashkenazim get this idea that Yiddish is the new Lashon HaKodesh?
I, too, cannot understand why anyone would give up naming their son after Moshe Rabbeinu, the Avos, malachim, neviim, et al. and instead give them a “Yiddish name”.
DaMoshe:
Given the OP’s post, I thought my posts were and are very appropriate and on-topic. I’m sorry this bothers you, and I apologized in advance, too.
OURTorah, I appreciate your remarks and suggestions.
As I mentioned before, only Hashem is “bochein kilayos”. So I am not judging anyone and I am also not speaking badly about any particular person.
But I do feel it is very important to understand these matters and, unfortunately, not even chesed and Torah, and all the wonderful things you can think of, can be used to justify Avoda Zara.
Everyone has nisyonos, and we are all human, of course. But you cannot compare someone falling prey to his Yetzer HaRa even as he knows he is wrong for doing so, versus someone who distorts and disgraces the Torah with foreign and idolatrous theology like Zionism all the while claiming that this is part of the Torah, CH”V.
In other words, if someone goes to a movie and knows he is wrong for doing so, that is the yetzer haRa having caught him, wrong as it is. But if someone goes to a movie and says the Torah permits me to do so, that is much worse than the first way. That relates to MO as well, incidentally.
Here, with Zionism, they are taking something that is Avoda Zara and then claiming that it, CH”V, is (a very big part of) Torah. That is terrible, far worse than someone falling prey to his Yetzer HaRa. Besides these (and other) great Rabbis convey in the severest way that Zionism is terribly wrong and assur.
Again, I’m not looking to bash any particular people. But do you propose that we, therefore, ignore the reality that Zionism is idolatry and shmad?
OURTorah, please ask your LOR.
Defending Israel politically is not A”Z. Israel is definitely held to a “double standard”. The goyim know it, too. Since the very purpose of Zionism was and is to create a hebrew goy nation to replace Judaism, CH”V, this double-standard is, presumably, Hashem’s way of making sure the Zionists, perhaps at least the “Religious Zionists” understand “Hein am liVaddad yishkon uVaGoyim lo yischashav”.
But, CH”V, mixing Zionism into (or making it a major part of) your avodas Hashem, is a much different matter. Rav Elchonon called Nationalism mixed with religion simply Avoda Zara and religion combined. Rav Chaim Brisker, way back, called Zionism both A”Z and shmad. His son held similarly, even as and after he watched the State come into formal existence.
“Loving” Israel seems a little odd. Why would you love any country (other than, perhaps, the one in which you live)? And, of all countries, with all the terrible things that Israel and Zionists have done and still do to our people, it is completely irrational to love that particular country regardless of (or due even more so due to) their presence in Eretz Yisrael. The yaldei Tehran, Zionist shmad of the Teimanim, and the current shmad of the chareidim are mere starters. Not to mention the loss of thousands of Jews, and destruction of their families, directly due to Zionism. Hashem yiracheim.
Having said all that, I did not mean to imply that anyone, in particular, is or is not being oveid A”Z. Only Hashem is bochein kilayos vaLeiv and knows what is or is not a person’s intentions and deeds.
DaMoshe:
Why do you feel to defend this idolatry at every opportunity? You should welcome the opportunity for people to be educated about this fraud of Zionism that has been perpetrated on both our holy people and our holy Torah.
As to the Mesorah part of your story, that is commendable, indeed, and, for what it’s worth, I do agree with that.
I imagine some of you will not like this, so I apologize in advance and I humbly offer the following with all due respect.
I can’t think of many good reasons to change one’s mesorah, but shortchanging that mesorah just to sound like Zionists is (at least close to) avoda zara and, besides, one of the dumbest ideas I have ever heard, despite that many people do so (unfortunately, due to having been misled by the avoda zara of Zionism – see Rav Elchonon HY”D and many others).
Presumably, your real mesorah is to differentiate between taf and saf. Don’t let anybody change that unless a (non-MO) LOR tells you to do so.
(I specified “non-MO” because, since Zionism is an essential tenet of the MO faith, any issue that deals with Zionism must, by definition, be handled by a non-MO Rabbi.)
If you need to make your parents happy, I would suggest a possible compromise, however, that when you speak “modern hebrew” (as in mundane conversation), as opposed to, lihavdil, lashon haKodesh (for tefillah and learning), meaning for non-divrei kodesh, you can pronounce the saf like a taf. After all, that is how “modern hebrew” is spoken and if you’re speaking that language then perhaps it is okay, at least bishas haDichak, like in your case, to speak “modern hebrew” as it is “natively” spoken (ignoring the shmad and other issues).
I would also switch back to lashon haKodesh, even during mundane conversation, when referencing any davar sheBiKedusha, but I would ask a (non-MO) LOR.
But CH”V should your davening be sullied by “modern hebrew”. Our siddur (i.e. other than the Zionist insertions) is written in lashon haKodesh, not, lihavdil, “modern hebrew”. Your davening deserves no less than your best lashon haKodesh al pi your real mesorah.
Like other questions posted here, this one is for your LOR.
There are also other particulars that could matter, such as the particular work environment, how much inter-employee contact there is in the course of work, the ages of those involved, if the informal meetings are one-on-one or more than that, and much more.
Generally speaking, however, I would humbly but strongly suggest that we consider the Torah’s attitude of harchaka (lo sikrivu liGalos erva as opposed to lo sigalu erva) and the potential danger of, besides for the aveiros chamuros that could result, the resultant (and needless) destruction of one or more families as a result of extra-marital activity, CH”V.
I’m sure that use of the term “Mrs. x” is a very worthy option to consider with your LOR, regardless of industry.
whats_in_a_name, if you read my previous posts, you would understand I made the effort to distinguish this toeiva from divorce and a single parent.
The end of a marriage is a tragedy, not a first-choice. This is what makes it NOT child abuse. Although it is unfortunate for the child, there is no choice in the matter IF the marriage does end.
But there is a choice in legislating and “normalizing” “gay marriage” to begin with. That was the “WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY” above.
Sam2: thank you for your comment. As to Charlie, the point still remains.
“Gay Marriage” is child abuse. Period.
Charlie, the Sedom reference to homosexuality happens to be based in the Torah, not, lihavdil, Christendom; see various meforshim on the savages’ threats to Lot that they wanted Lot to send out the malachim because “viNeidia osam”. They wanted to have intercourse with his male guests, in case that wasn’t clear enough. That’s our Chazal.
But I wasn’t even referring to that. Rather, you can compare the legalization and “normalization” of this toeiva with the middos of sedom that Chazal have told us that Sedom possessed. Like, for example, how they stretched a person’s legs to extend all the way on the bed they prepared for him. Or how they would permanently “shorten” a person’s legs on the bed they prepared for him. All so that the bed would fit the guest. Obviously, that they brutally murdered the guest in doing so was irrelevant (or, rather, the whole point). Of course, the length of each bed was chosen specifically for this reason.
So, too, while those who have legislated and “normalized” this abomination *might* not have been as evil in intent as was Sedom, they are still severely short-changing the children by legislating and “normalizing” this abomination, all so that the bed would fit (the child’s “parents”).
I really prefer to avoid analogies, which are often imperfect to some extent, but I don’t see how else to possibly convey the point when simple logic had no effect.
Regarding the Israel parades, you can’t compare them to toeiva parades.
Israel is very clearly discriminated against and is held to an unfair political double standard, regardless of how terrible Zionism was and is for Jews. While toeiva people, on the other hand, have managed to inject into marriage their abominations and corollary child abuse as societal and legislative norms.
Nonetheless, it is highly improper for Jews (including American Jews) to march in any parade for Israel, despite the legitimacy of the political double-standard issue. Just for starters, Zionists and their supporters miss out on the entire “hein am livadad yishkon uVaGoyim lo yischashav” angle. Not to mention the disaster that was and is Zionism from a Jewish perspective and the possible higarus baUmos, inevitable chillul Hashem and “double-loyalty” accusations. But let’s not get side-tracked…
Writersoul refuses to understand the point. It is silly to even ask if “you’d consider preferable, abusive heterosexual parents or loving homosexual parents.” Would you ask if one would prefer malkus or galus, as if the preference of one makes the other something at all preferred? Besides, I have repeatedly mentioned that ANY, even “loving”, homosexual parents IS CHILD ABUSE for WILLFULLY AND INTENTIONALLY denying the child a male father and female mother which the child clearly needs for life.
Although I imagine that many people do have an “ideal life”, I addressed this point repeatedly, too. Although divorces/second marriages, etc. obviously should be allowed, it is incomparable and amoral to legislate, and promulgate as normal and expected, an extremely terrible situation for a child where s/he is guaranteed to be missing one parent of one gender as in same-gender “marriage”. This is a terrible scam and shame and even rachmanim bnei rachmanim have fallen for it. Oy meh haya lanu.
Writersoul:
“Gay parents” cannot possibly be as loving and supportive as one mother and one father, (even if one or both of the normal and non-gay are step-parents). Men and women complement each other and offer different types of “comfort” and “support” to a child, and this entire dynamic and its unappreciated positive effects on the child simply cannot exist in “gay marriages”.
As well, in this case of “gay marriage”, one of the parents is GUARANTEED to NOT be the biological parent (as opposed to “real” marriage where, in most cases, both parents are also both biological parents). This is plainly not normal and abuse to the children to make this on par with “normal” marriage.
Of course, allowing second marriages and foster-home situations where both parents are of opposite genders does not at all contradict the sheer abomination that is this whole disaster of “gay marriage” for these and other reasons.
Although I don’t think it adds much to the point, what if society decided that a kibbutz could raise a child better than parents could and foisted that as “normal”? What would you say then?
This is so absurd it is not even debatable.
Simple biology and logic (not to mention, lihavdil, the divar Hashem) cannot be refuted.
Charlie,
I have read articles in the secular media that correctly point out the disaster that is “gay marriage”, particularly for the children, as I had posted.
As to the others you referenced, Goyim do not have the Torah and therefore don’t usually benefit from its guidance.
There are goyim who are baalei taava and/or have the midos of sedom and are destroying children and families so that two “gay” adults can call themselves “married”.
Writersoul, the “facts” do NOT contradict my “claims”. The “normality” of this abomination is very new. So that effect on kids still remains to be seen. Therefore, there cannot be any meaningful studies yet this destruction of “gay marriage” being normal and its effects on kids is still in progress.
But simply biology and logic do back up that claim.
As to your theoretical question about a child of divorce, etc. versus a child of “two loving parents”, your implication is that “two loving parents” could include “gay” couples, but this is not at all necessarily the case.
Besides, I have already answered this in my previous post.
As to abuse, I would think that intentionally placing a child in the situation of two fathers and not one mother (or the inverse) is a form of abuse. Abuse is, of course, not acceptable.
Writersoul:
How could you possibly compare this abomination (both the practice and its legalization and “normalization”) to children of divorce or orphans, R”L L”A.
What does one have to do with another? If that theoretical child has suffered the trauma of (regardless of which way) losing a stable two-parent household, CH”V, then a “new” parent, even though not the biological parent, might actually ease that trauma and would at least provide as much stability and support as possible under the circumstances as they are. But to intentionally throw children into a same-gender marriage is obscene and absurd.
You wrote “For all I know, maybe kids do OPTIMALLY need one male and one female parent at home…” So that’s only a “maybe” in your mind? Do you know of a better way? Could you possibly explain a plausible reason that a child would do better with two females or two males than with two actual parents? Biology and logic dictate that this is impossible.
But the worst part is your contention at the end of that sentence where you claim “that doesn’t mean it’s impossible to be well-adjusted without them [a male parent and a female parent] implying that this is justification to allow same-gender marriage.
How dare any society subject children to this human experimentation when it’s anyways clear that it’s a disaster for these children? Raising children is not easy even in optimal circumstances. What gives you the right to intentionally make it vastly more challenging for these children (“it’s not impossible”, in your opinion, so that’s good enough to make it permitted to everyone as marriage)?
Charlie:
If you read the rest of my post then it should have been very clear why your comparison was disingenuous.
Even the goyim know (obviously without our Torah), that this is a really bad move for the kids.
Let’s also add the following. Presumably, one of these women is her biological mother while the other is a mere same-gender partner. This daughter may never get to know even the identity of her own father, much less ever see him and, by extension, what a father and husband should be, as his identity could be contractually or lawfully protected as a “fertility” donor or the like.
Not to mention that the women may choose to never reveal to her who is her real father, as the women may wish to (fool themselves and think they) demonstrate that a pair of two women is just as good or better than a pair consisting of one man and one woman.
You cannot compare the pain of an absentee father (or mother) to this. A normal step-father (or step-mother) is heaven in comparison to this. Do you not see even an inkling of the utter disaster that is this toeiva marriage?
Oh boy…this is going to take some time, presumably. Sam2, writersoul and Charlie…
Sam2:
This is absurd, even without bringing up the Torah’s perspective. And not only can there be no studies yet that can possibly back up your claim, but simple biology and logic makes that claim exceedingly untenable.
Could a child raised in a same-gender household still possibly “make it”? Maybe for the “lucky” ones. But is that the bar for acceptance and “normalization”? As long as it’s not guaranteed that they will commit suicide before becoming teenagers then society should allow it? This is absolutely absurd and insane! (Rather, it’s taavah and perhaps midas sedom, which they allow to supersede anything else).
Children raised by same gender parents cannot possibly be having “normal okay lives” as you astoundingly and offensively claim, unless they are robots rather than human beings with human emotions and needs. Anyone claiming such a thing likely has zero understanding of what his parents did for him from before conception and on and also has zero concept of what it means to live with two parents who are not of opposite genders.
Even if the community they live in is “accepting” of this toeiva, how would that help a confused child who may not prefer toeiva like they do, and may instead prefer a male father and female mother instead of a second female “parent”. An accepting community could actually be rubbing salt in those life-long wounds; not, as you perceive it, helping the daughter.
Sam2, there is no way that this should have ever become legalized and normalized, and it is an unprecedented and outrageous avlah to the children involved.
rebdoniel:
Regarding the very end of your post, Hashem could bring the geulah today (*despite* the existence of the State of Israel). So I think your last sentence should have been written differently.
writersoul:
Not true.
Legislating something is normal is a cause of at least two ill effects:
1. It causes far greater acceptance among those who do not engage in this.
2. It encourages others who are “on the fence” to “come out” loud and clear.
The result of both #1 and #2 affect society as a whole.
And the other points also remain, as in the damage this does to kids. The other day, I saw a news picture captioned to the effect of two women and their daughter. I imagine you believe that this “daughter” has a perfectly normal life?
I find it odd that people are comparing idolatry and kishuf to, lihavdil, our holy faith.
Charlie:
It is disingenuous to compare a politician’s polytheism with society’s normalization of same-gender marriage.
Same-gender “marriage” is thoroughly amoral, and affects everyone, whereas an individual’s practice of idolatry does not, and certainly not anywhere close to how same-gender marriage affects everyone.
Also, unlike a previous poster’s claim, marriage is not merely a state-sanctioned financial process.
Marriage affects children and custody of those children. It is plain to any objective person that a child needs a father and mother, not two of either one. It is similarly obvious that, barring extreme and unusual circumstances, a child needs the child’s biological father and biological mother.
Same-gender marriage is a terrible mess for children. The chutzpah of any society to allow this is appalling. That any Jew could condone this is even more so.
In addition to the severe impact on children, same-gender marriage also, as one of its goals, “normalizes” this toeiva. Since a person is, to at least some extent, the product of the society in which he lives (even if he is in as insular Jewish society), this societal recognition of same-gender marriage as “normal” is an attitude which will, CH”V, seep into our own culture as well.
I think Sam2 is 100% correct that this practice is assur.
But even if genuflecting in proposal weren’t technically assur, do you really want to engage in this practice knowing that its origin is in Avoda Zara?
Aren’t the many beautiful hanhagos of, lihavdil, our Torah traditions not sufficient?
Charlie:
Regarding Zionism:
Your latest futile attempt at defending Zionism has already been refuted last time. It is also despicable to accuse the non-Zionists, among those you listed, with such deplorable accusations of being Zionist, CH”V.
In particular:
Rav Reines died in 1915, well before political Zionism made so many terrible marks on Eretz Yisrael and Klal Yisrael. Rav Ovadia Yosef was also not a Zionist; read his words on the subject.
Even Rabbi AY Kook, himself, did not advocate forced conquest of the land as does Zionism. Not to mention the severe condemnations his Zionist shitos received by various gedolim.
Rabbi JB Soloveichik departed from his mesorah on his own. You really think that makes a compelling case to use him as a “proof” to Zionism?
Again, as you quoted, “The greatest Torah giants (the Brisker Rav, the Chazon Ish, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Satmar Rav and many others, in no particular order) spoke against Zionism”.
Interestingly, the Brisker Rav and Satmar Rav disagreed only on whether the State’s creation was a “maaseh Satan.” SR held it was, while BR disagreed. But, despite this disagreement, that same BR stated “the State [of Israel] that they have managed to achieve is the Satan’s greatest achievement since the cheit haEigel”. So while BR held it wasn’t a Maaseh Satan, it was still, however, as he, himself, said, the Satan’s greatest achievement since the Eigel.
The Zionists have no answers.
Charlie:
Regarding MO and Kollel:
No, MO is not following the traditional view in secular studies.
In fact, it is the traditionally Orthodox Jews who follow the traditional practice. And the Chassidim, too, have a tremendous amount of workers, regardless of what degrees they may or may not have pursued.
Whatever secular studies were studied historically are not comparable to MO’s elevation of secular studies to “Torah uMaddah”. Traditionally Orthodox Jews, on the other hand, do attend college and obtain various degrees, including advanced degrees. Yet they do so for the proper reason (parnassah) and with the proper balance (Torah is holy and the rest, lihavdil, including Maddah, is merely utilitarian), not via MO’s taking away from the Torah to elevate Maddah.
Again, MO is not the traditional way, much as they wish they were.
Sam2:
It’s nice that you claim that virtually nobody cares about the Commentator, but, even if it is true that this publication does not broadly reflect on YU students and MO adherents, the fact remains that no Orthodox institution should allow anything to carry its name given these circumstances.
To illustrate, if any traditionally Orthodox Yeshiva students at a typical traditional orthodox Yeshiva were to pull something like that, especially more than once, one can be sure that the hanhala of that Yeshiva would not tolerate this and there would likely be stiff consequences for the offending student(s), in addition to disallowing such activities to continue with the school’s name attached, like what happened (to the Beacon) after the Beacon scandal and YU.
With the Beacon scandal, on the other hand, the dissociation was fairly quick in coming. So this leads one to believe that although this incident of shameful recounting of giluy arayos is a reason to deny usage of YU’s name, on the other hand, lesser shades of the same and other aveiros, are not reasons to deny usage of YU’s name.
Yet you are unfazed, again, that an institution that names itself “Yeshiva” University (no, I am not disputing the Torah studied there) and whose slogan carries the word “Torah” in it, can simply look the other way while this publication (Commentator) still proudly carries its name. Not only is that the case, but you aren’t even fazed by it since “mostly, no one cares [about the Commentator]”.
Sam2:
This does explain what I read, but since what you describe sounds like a Chilul Hashem that no Orthodox institution would allow, how can YU allow the Commentator to be “the official newspaper of Yeshiva College” and to carry its (YU’s) name?
Sam2:
So your opinion went from certainly “not something he would say or hold” to how could I say it’s wrong because he’s so much greater in Torah than I?
Even a gadol cannot say something that is clearly kineged the Torah and expect the hamon am to accept that simply because he said so. “Asher nasi yecheta” is also a possibility. How much more so when a gadol comes out and publicly condemns that shita.
So I disagree that my question was “moronic” and “ridiculous”, though I do otherwise understand your perspective since Rabbi Schachter’s your R”Y.
While you may feel I’ve misread Rabbi Schachter’s words, I’m sure you don’t feel, lihavdil (between myself and Rav Schwab), that Rav Schwab misread it, especially given Rav Schwab’s public reaction to it.
Surely, if Rabbi Schachter’s quoted shita were within normative halacha then Rav Schwab would not have written about them the things that he did.
You also haven’t answered regarding the Commentator review/bars. In fact, it didn’t even faze you that someone would do such a thing and also write a review about it and that the Commentator would choose to publish such a review with the language it used.
I respect your erudition and Torah, as I have mentioned, but the points remain about MO. In the case of Rabbi Schachter’s Zionist shita above, you’re arguing with Rav Schwab who left no room for any such opinion.
truthsharer, your LOR should be able to answer you about Zionism, too, not only about Sukkah on Shemini Atzeres. If he can’t, then you have a problem. I don’t understand your question.
Sam2,
Regarding your denial of the quoted views of Rabbi Schachter:
Please see the “Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society” #16. I believe the publication date was 1988.
I believe the piece is titled “Land for Peace: A Halachic Perspective” and the author is listed as “Schachter, Herschel”. The above is, I believe, from page 79 there.
So, although you cannot believe Rabbi Schachter said such a thing (and now you can check it out for yourself), do you not agree, regardless, that this view is well outside the bounds of what is allowed by the Torah?
In case you are still wondering, the following is (a slightly condensed version, to save the Mods some reviewing time, of) Rav Shimon Shwab’s eloquent written response to Rabbi Schachter’s stated views, as found in “Selected Writings” and also in the community’s bulletin not long after the above was published:
But let us also remember at the same time not to yield even an inch of our emunah peshutah, and not to fall into the trap posed by the easygoing formulas of the new Centrist orientation.
There must never be any contact with organized heresy, in whatever shape or form. When it comes to Zionism, even the kind that has changed it from realpolitik into a pre-messianic religion, let us be firm and brave and defy all forces which tend to weaken our fundamentalist – yes – loyalty to the unadulterated heritage which we have received from our forbears. But all this without hate, without anger and with great humility.”
Sam2 (and truthsharer), I hope you enjoyed your Yom Tov.
Regarding your question about a hypothetical non-MO Yeshiva student being found in a bar:
I feel you are being disingenuous here. I have noted that sectarian affiliation does not inoculate one against sinning. But only in a YU publication did someone take the trouble to review, and did the publication’s editors choose to publish, a review of a bar, as well as using lishonos shel pritzus in the course of that review.
You would not find that review, and with that language, in any publication from a traditionally Orthodox institution such as the ones you mentioned. And if a student from such an institution did transgress and visit such a place, the logical next step would NOT be to trumpet that sin in the institution’s student paper and write a review for it. And the other students would obviously NOT choose to publish it, even if the student were to attempt such a thing. And they would use a lashon naki, not crude secular terminology. As YU says, only here…
truthsharer, a shidduch date in a fancy hotel lounge is not comparable to hanging out in a bar/pub.
Sam2:
I’m not sure what hatred you believe I cause. Halacha cannot be compromised in its own name. Period. Anybody who chooses to do so and claims that Modernity or any other reason allows them to compromise halacha cannot expect to be considered a legitimate derech. I’m not sure what your problem with this is.
Again, please don’t misunderstand my posts. My goal is to discuss what MO and Zionism are, and not, CH”V to hate or condemn anyone. Hashem is the only judge of people, and certainly not, lihavdil, myself. But when gedolim tell us that someone is wrong, then we (ask, if we have questions, and) listen to them.
As for examples, read Rabbi Soloveichik’s own words, where he wrote that Orthodoxy would have to change to fit America. Not only was he wrong about that, but he also wrote that the more one can distance themselves from culture the better it is for the spirit. But MO, instead, makes it a mitzva of engaging with secular culture. He also admitted that he was changing from his Brisker mesorah, and knew that everyone who mattered disagreed with him. Or do you deny this, too? This has all been discussed before.
As for my example earlier, please explain to me why a YU student would write a review of a bar/pub in YUs Commentator magazine and also use relatively crude lishonos in that review. Why would anyone bother to even review it if nobody went and if it were correctly viewed as assur as it is?
I have also, in other threads, pointed out other things even from YU’s own blog.
I have heard that Rabbi Herschel Schachter explained about how fighting in the IDF is *doche pikuach nefesh* as follows: “lichaora” (he did say liChaora, at least), since the State of Israel is a source of national pride, losing the state would be a fatal blow to the spirit of the nation and therefore the loss of life of a soldier in the IDF, CH”V, could be compared to an amputation of a limb needed to save the life of a person.
Remember, this is not pikuach nefesh of the soldier versus potential pikuach nefesh of other Jews, CH”V. This is pikuach nefesh of a soldier versus national pride in the State of Israel to the point that the state is considered the body of Klal Yisrael and its Jews are considered mere appendages.
Please try to tell me he never said that and please explain what he said. Because that is MO and Zionism simply superseding Judaism, never mind the other problems of Zionism.
Wow. So many attacks…
Traditionally orthodox Jews do not, as far as I have heard, go on dates in bars/pubs.
I never said sukkah on Shimini Atzeres was a machlokes. I simply said to ask the Rabbi of the person you observe behaving in such a manner.
Regarding Zionism being idolatry and heresy; this has all been covered in the past. The Zionists struggle mightily and futilely with the three oaths. All of their attempted answers are nothing. Ask your LOR who knows the sugya. The Balfour declaration and the Or Sameach, Rambam’s omission of the oaths in Mishneh Torah, et al. The Zionists have no answers.
The Brisker Rav and Satmar Rav did differ as to whether or not it was a maaseh Satan. But both held it was heresy. And there is no argument on that. Even Rabbi AY Kook never condoned militant Zionism. There is no dispute.
ZDad:
Would you advise someone to trust their daughter alone with her male cousin on a desert island to the extent that you would advise trusting their daughter with her brother on a desert island?
With all due respect, it also doesn’t matter what you think most people think. LiHalacha there is no issur to marry a cousin and there is also no natural aversion as there is by a mother and sister.
Sam2:
I disagree with your contention that it is “clearly not true with a cousin”. It very clearly COULD be true and, by that age, likely is the case that it’s for the wrong reason except in limited circumstances as mentioned by funnybone.
Sam2: Thank you for the clarification. However, I still don’t see why R’ Moshe’s psak wouldn’t apply to cousins other than as FunnyBone mentioned.
truthsharer:
The term is “Das”=”law” not “Daas”=”knowledge”.
There are basically three ways of sinning:
A) Knowing it’s wrong but not resisting the temptation to sin
B) Not knowing it’s wrong and therefore thinking one is acting properly
C) Knowing it’s wrong but deciding that “Modernity” demands the Torah accommodate this.
The essential point, as I wrote, is that MO makes (some) aveiros into mitzvos (option C). The sin of a traditionally observant Jew, however, would fall into either A or B.
I don’t discuss my personal hanahgos, though if you want to know why some Jews eat indoors on Shemini Atzeres, why not ask their them or their Rabbi?
Sam2:
I thought my first post above suitably addressed ANONANO’s post to me. I’m sorry you didn’t think so.