Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
JayMatt:
The Lekach Tov explicitly states they did not sin. I am inclined to believe the Lekach Tov, not your assertion to the contrary (though there may have been SOME in Klal Yisrael who did adopt the position you mentioned, according to other mefarshim).
Again, as I posted a while ago and again on Friday, he says they DID NOT sin. That means there was no aveira. Yet, he says, Kivan sheNitan DID apply.
How can anyone be mevaze meis a tinok sheNishba after seeing what he chose to put on his matzeiva?
Look up the picture and then come back and post.
I read elsewhere that he actually had asked a Rav because he wanted to be buried on Manhattan Island.
Mr. Koch was moved by the murder of Daniel Pearl HY”D and Mr. Pearl’s last words. Again, find the picture first, and then post.
I believe the historical reason for the use of shiktza and sheigetz was not to insult non-Jews (it’s actually a pretty pathetic insult if you’re past pre-school), but rather to reinforce to the Jews that they should not intermarry, etc. with non-Jews.
It’s somewhat like if you’re on a diet and you pass a bakery. To avoid the temptation of breaking your diet, you tell yourself the bakery’s products are poison or something like that. Are they really poison? Obviously not. But if it helps you avoid it, then it’s a tactic.
My point was that, unlike Popa’s position, it’s not that she needs to see him “providing” Torah, but rather that their marriage atmosphere will be different that year if he is learning in kollel during that year, as opposed to if he already did that learning in prior years.
Popa, as you wrote, the practical difference is what you both do that first year of marriage, but I disagree with the reason given in your “terutz”.
Let’s assume that the net years of learning will not end up any different. Regardless, the atmosphere of that first year of marriage is different. When your head is filled with Torah and Kedusha, it is not the same as when it is filled with work and, lihavdil, Torah, even though this is the reality for most men.
So I can understand why a young woman would *prefer* to start off her marriage with that atmosphere of Torah and Kedusha rather than starting off with work and, lihavdil, Torah.
I already did share it.
I quoted the Lekach Tov earlier, and here is the quote from that post:
“If you look at the Lekach Tov, by “Pen Tisafu bichal chatosam” in Korach 16:26, he says explicitly that even those who did not sin had to separate themselves because “Kivan shenitan rishus…””
JayMatt:
This gemara you quoted has nothing to do with any of this.
Again, you’re taking Kivan sheNitan to an illogical extreme and, in doing so, attempting to “prove” that this chazal can’t be true, CH”V. Oy laRasha and kivan sheNitan do not mean that every time anything happens to anyone that others/many others are also necessarily impacted.
However, if an entire city/cities or significant portion thereof is impacted, then at least one of these precepts apply. So, again, Storm Sandy which caused massive destruction would be a very likely candidate for the above rabbinic precepts.
You’re welcome and Baruch Tihye re: your last post. I wish I remember the source for that pshat, and there’s more to that story, too.
As he said, “Ko Somar LiBeis Yaakov viSageid LiBinei Yisrael” and Rashi there as he quoted, is the likely source. But there are schools with at least some of the names you mentioned, too.
JayMatt, it’s nice to debate, but when you make definitive statements then that’s beyond debating in Yeshiva. But I wouldn’t want to tell anyone what to do.
1. There a variety of shitos in the mefarshim about Lot, but, as I wrote, the Torah is pretty clear that it was due to Avraham that Lot was saved and it is at least as clear that Lot was not a Sodomite other than place of residence. Thus, the fact that he required intervention to be saved is a clear indication that, very simply speaking, one shouldn’t be in the wrong place at the wrong time, as discussed above.
2. I don’t agree with your implications here. It happens that some of his descendants were forbidden to join, but that was only because of what they did (“al divar asher lo kidmu eschem…”).
But another of his descendants is the most famous convert in Jewish History and the matriarch of Dovid HaMelech and ultimately Melech HaMashiach, may Hashem send him soon to redeem us all BB”A.
In fact, I’ve heard that the reason Lot’s daughter named her son Moav is liSheim Shamayim: so that nobody should claim instead that her son was born in a “virgin birth” and therefore be michalel shem shamayim, etc. as happened with a different child some centuries later when some people made this exact claim (which was actually a common pagan belief) about a certain boy in Natzeres.
benignuman, that was the point of a bunch of posts above: this is not just “goyim’s ruchnius” but everyone’s gashmius.
As Health (and others?) noted, their policies affect everyone, and it’s also not a good thing for us if the society in which we live is so immoral that it’s already crossed beyond the point of one of the few zechuyos the umos have, of not writing a kesuba bein ish liIsh.
JayMatt, this is getting a little tedious.
It seems we are agreeing that there are times when protesting is the correct approach.
As for Lot:
Lot would have been destroyed in sedom even though he was not a rasha like his neighbors. Kivan sheNitan and Oy laRasha seem to both apply: Lot did not have his own zechuyos and would not have been saved. This is one reason he was not allowed to look back at those who were being destroyed. However, the Torah states that Hashem “remembered Avraham” and therefore saved Lot. But that was exceptional and if not for that then he would have been destroyed along with the evil people of sedom even though he was very much not like them.
Back to your original post, I think the end of it was a nice thought: that we all have what to work on and should heed that message Hashem sent with Sandy.
But the rest of your post, where you imply that this is the extent of the message, is ignoring Chazal and modern Rabbanim, and this is wrong. There is a time to protest (and “Gay marriage” might have been one of those times) and Hashem does care about the world and acts as He does, as rebdoniel wrote soon after your OP.
JayMatt,
1. “Kivan sheNitan reshus…” is not universally applicable but is a definite precept from Chazal, despite the many, many, instances where Hashem did, does and will differentiate.
2. We see from Chazal that protesting is sometimes called for. There are other cases, by goyim, too, such as Moshe Rabbeinu when Yisro’s daughters said Ish Mitzri, etc.
I can’t tell you one can directly extrapolate from Korach to this. But the concept is definitely there, and if gedolim say to protest it then this Chazal seems to be at least a “deyka” or indicator that this is, in fact, correct.
3. Lot would have been destroyed in Sedom, too, were it not for Avraham Avinu. The shachain part may refer to Jews (or may refer to non-Jews, too). But it’s not only a Jewish-Jewish relationship.
Unlike Yosef HaTzaddik who said “Ani Yosef, haOd Avi Chai?”, I am not Joseph nor any other poster by any other name.
JayMatt:
I’m not sure what proofs you refer to, but I do think the kitrug was irrelevant to the post. I didn’t mean to say these situations (pesel Micha, seudas Achashveirosh, et al.) are off-limits to discussion when on topic, but I don’t see the point of arbitrarily bringing in “halalu … vaHalalu”.
Regarding Oy laRasha, are you saying that it only applies to Jews and not at all if non-Jews are involved? Why?
As for a source, I mentioned earlier that Oy laRasha is mentioned in parshas Korach. Rashi in the beginning of the parsha quotes it from the Midrash Tanchuma.
Health posted about “Kivan sheNitan rishus…” If you look at the Lekach Tov, by “Pen Tisafu bichal chatosam” in Korach 16:26, he says explicitly that even those who did not sin had to separate themselves because “Kivan shenitan rishus…”
Besides for this, however, if you look at the Midrash HaGadol later on, under “Hibadlu mitoch haEida haZos”, you’ll find something that might be relevant here: he writes that had not Moshe davened for them, they, too, would have been swallowed up like Korach because they listened to Korach’s blasphemy and did not protest. So there is what to be said for protesting, though contemporary gedolim have anyways ruled like this, in certain cases, as mentioned.
Rav Moshe did not listen to Yanni, though. Yanni is “New Age”, not Classical. Although both are (mostly) instrumental, there is a big difference between the two.
This has been discussed before in a thread about non-Jewish music, IIRC, but music is an expression of the singer’s neshama and it goes straight to the listener’s neshama. From what I’ve heard, and with all due respect to this artist, a frum Jew should not have any soul-to-soul connection with Yanni’s soul.
I do understand that Mozart, Bach, et al. were not tzadikei yesodei olam either, but if classical is good enough for Rav Moshe then I can certainly understand that. But not to extrapolate that to therefore cover any instrumental music. No.
Given the terrible general yeridas hadoros among the umos, particularly in the past 60 years or so, it is especially unwise to listen to non-Jewish music made during this time, and only worse so the more recent it is.
JayMatt, I don’t understand why, CH”V, you refuse to believe in that Chazal (ironic, since you just quoted from the maaseh of Vayaaminu BaHashem uViMoshe avdo”.
Health correctly referred to the Chazal that there are times, that once Hashem had allowed the mashchis to go forth, that his destruction was, to some extent, indiscriminate. (I also mentioned earlier regarding oy laRasha which Chazal also have much to talk about. Do you not believe in that Chazal as well, CH”V?)
Hence, when massive double-digit foot waves washed over NYC, it makes sense that, for instance, Seagate was also affected simply because of their topography (and perhaps because of their proximity to this immorality?), given that Hashem had sent out this destructive force “Sandy”.
I’m not claiming Sandy was or was not one of those cases of “kivan sheNitan Rishus….”. Nor can I claim this was a case of Oy LaRasha either. Who knows? But the possibility for each is certainly there, and the other 10 instances you quoted do not negate this.
As for the Yam Suf, Pesel Micha did make it through, but we had other zechuyos that compensated for “Halalu Ovdei Avoda Zara VaHalalu Ovdei Avoda Zara”. Do you also enjoy trying to bring a kitrug on what are presumably your people? Of course Hashem differentiated and saved us.
But, again, the differentiation at Krias Yam Suf doesn’t negate the concept of Kivan sheNitan Rishus…”. Hashem is always kind to us, but that doesn’t mean you can negate Chazal. Obviously, there are certain times/people/whatever when/where that Chzal applies and other times/people/whatever when/where it doesn’t.
benignuman:
Who said it “didn’t work out” and even if that is so because they didn’t get to speak to the President, who says it didn’t accomplish anything, regardless? These were great Torah giants who participated in this. Are you sure wish to ridicule them so flippantly?
JayMatt:
1. I never said we should educate them about their zechusim. But even for our own sake, we don’t want our host country to be sedom. Lot needed tremendous divine intervention and it was still bad news for Lot even though he was rescued. It is certainly in our own interest that our host country should be a country with proper morals, including not sanctifying that which the Torah calls an abomination.
2. While the cases of Toeiva and WW II are indeed not comparable, there are still certain cases when a larger protest is called for. I’m not saying this toeiva issue is or is not such a case. But there is such a precedent for certain cases, and nobody ever proclaimed that such measures were limited only to the Holocaust.
3. Again, my point does remain that despite there being two other zechuyos as you pointed out from that gemara, it is still very extremely foolish of the gentiles to do what they did by legislating “writing a kesuba between one man and another”.
As for your other points about “Partial-Birth Abortion”, “pulling the plug”, etc., note that murder is not a toeiva as is mishkav zachar nor is it a particular zechus the nations have as is not writing a kesuba bein ish LiIsh. Regardless, I am not taking any position as to whether or not I believe there should have been protests then. But I do know that the Torah calls this toeiva and that there are also Chazal’s further comments in the gemara as per the above.
benignuman, there are exceptions, such as during WW II, when Rabbanim did march to Washington. For something as terrible as mishkav zachar, I’m not so sure the quiet approach is the correct one. Either way, there are Jewish politicians, as Health noted, and other ways to properly and appropriately express our absolute disagreement.
JayMatt, Regarding, my point 1, I apologize for omitting the other two. But the point still remains. Rashi even writes that despite such behavior, they still respect the mitzva to the extent that they don’t write a kesuba. Whereas today, they’re essentially claiming there is no such mitzva. This is obviously not a smart idea.
As to my points 2 and 3, they are not paradoxical at all. Oy LaRasha has implications for others, as I wrote. There is plenty to look up in Parshas Korach and elsewhere on this matter. But outside whatever that association is, the gentiles are responsible for their own behavior; there is no arvus to them as there is between Jews.
“Imagine, if 3 thousand boys went in, perhaps 3 thousand girls would not have to go in.”
Imagine how many of those boys would, CH”V, experience tremendous nisyonos and yeridos in their avodas Hashem.
And all for no reason other than that the Zionists want to shmad them just as they’ve always done.
miritchka, it’s not that simple.
1. We were not punished for what the gentiles did. But I’m not sure (I don’t know) we “did everything we could” either.
2. The gemara clearly states that the only zechus the Gentiles have is that they don’t write a kesuba bein ish liIsh. Absent that…?
3. There is a concept of Oy LaRasha Oy Lishcheino, which means that if an innocent person associates with a wicked one then the innocent person may end up caught up, CH”V, in the punishment of that wicked person.
147, it’s not exactly the mark of a chacham to base one’s world-view of right-and-wrong on what “Satmar” does.
Perhaps learning the inyan is a better idea.
DaasYochid, no, I could not come up with a better analogy. Regardless of how commendable some of the people who serve in the IDF are, they are part of an organization that is anti-Torah which is, in turn, a part of a State that is anti-Torah. So I thought my analogy was actually pretty charitable.
Regardless, as you mentioned at the end of your post, it doesn’t matter what you might think your reason is for wearing a sweatshirt or anything else.
If the garment carries with it a popular connotation then by wearing that garment you will convey that connotation even if you’re doing so because it’s “stylish” or comfortable or you like the color or for any other reason.
Wearing an IDF sweatshirt necessarily implies endorsement of the IDF and, also by extension, the State of Israel. This is, therefore, inappropriate, on many levels, as mentioned earlier.
DaasYochid, by wearing a WCS shirt or any other t-shirt, whether or not you got it for free, you are, like it or not, expressing an approval for that organization. That’s just the facts.
You may mean differently, and that’s very nice in your own thoughts, but, in the real world, wearing a logo implies some recognition/support of what that logo represents.
With a Sports Team, for example, it could mean you enjoy watching their games or attending their games in person. It could also mean you consider them to be role models or more; but it doesn’t necessarily mean that.
There is no possibility of kosher endorsement of the IDF. The best you can say is that, once the Zionists made the mess they did, the IDF is now needed to deal with that mess. Arguably. But that’s not why one wears a t-shirt or sweat-shirt, just like you wouldn’t wear a sweatshirt with a toilet plunger (except as an an inappropriate joke) despite its utility, so the obvious implication of wearing an IDF sweatshirt is more than that, one of endorsement, which is inappropriate on a number of levels.
DaaasYochid, wearing anything with a logo on it explicitly denotes support for that organization, so anyone who wears it for whatever reason is still incorrect in doing so.
anon1m0us, there’s no contest between the two, though organized sports happens to be another topic.
Many yeshivos and camps have taken their students or campers to ball games. As well, many gedolim have proclaimed it’s yehareig ViAl yaavor to join the IDF.
Is it not very obvious which shirt is better to wear?
rebdoniel, I enjoyed your posts on this thread. Thanks.
It is inappropriate to wear an IDF sweatshirt, regardless of how naive its wearers may be.
Every army indoctrinates its members in its nation’s core values. Regardless of your views on the State of Israel, and how much Zionist kool-aid you’ve had regarding how the IDF protects Jews, etc. ad nauseum, those core IDF/Zionist/anti-Torah values, including the rampant znus there, and that the gedolim have already ruled it is Yehareig viAl Yaavor to join that army, are all obviously very much not in consonance with those of a BY Girl.
I’m surprised this is even a hava amina. Besides for the whole Zionist mess, the gedolim said it’s better to forfeit one’s life than to join the IDF. Yet some BY girls think it’s okay to wear a sweatshirt with the IDF logo imprinted on it because they want a wearable memento from Eretz Yisrael?
(Would you wear a sweatshirt with an image of an avoda zara on it as a memento from a trip to Rome, lihavdil?)
Do they not make sweatshirts with Yerushalayim or the Kosel or something else that’s actually Jewish, if you must have a memento from E”Y? Even if not, where is your sensitivity?
On another note, who said you have to support the army, and who told you it’s a kiddush Hashem to show the nations you support the IDF? Maybe you have no business supporting that which the gedolim ruled is yehareig viAl Yaavor to join and that it’s in fact a chilul Hashem to show the nations that you support anyone but your host country?
Ask your LOR, but Zionism is a very big problem, even if the current attitude to it is essentially, “it’s terrible that Zionism came around, but now that it did, we can’t do anything about it”. This doesn’t kasher their various forms of rishus and it does not kasher their State or anything else about them, either.
Matan1:
Why not?
If you Google Rabbi JB, then you will find that “YU Torah” deems it:
“Rabbi J.B. Soloveitchik”.
The more reverential appellation is “Rav…”, which is what I used.
Would you prefer “Rabbi…” instead of “Rav…”?
Also, are you saying one should not use someone’s initials when it is clear to whom those initials refer to? Why would you write that?
anon1m0us: You did not “reiterate” point by point, and, again, the difference is not semantics. The differences are:
1. MO made it a religious value to acculturate, even bending halacha to do so. Everybody, including especially Rav SR Hirsch and even including Rav JBS, agrees that this is NOT a good thing.
2. MO violates halacha. Period. Whether or not Rav H. Schachter condones the various behaviors is not relevant. If one joins that community then they will be joining a community whose halachic standards are lower than traditional Orthodoxy (see point a, above, for reason #1).
3. I posted at least 5 points in my post from page 1. Point one, a YU administrative issue for posting this video on their blog (and for interspersing the genders as they did), was never addressed except for a false claim that it is only “hashkafa” when it is, instead, halacha to be marchik from arayos, which certainly does not allow any woman to throw herself around and almost come in contact with the man sitting next to her, and the points at the very end were never addressed either. Here is that post, again:
“
I doubt you believe that their halachic standards are “no less”, but, just in case, here is one small example, off-hand.
On the official YU blog, there is a video of an interview of a bunch of students, both male and female. Instead of interviewing them separately, or at least separating them to the greatest extent possible, they are interspersed male and female around one table. If anyone setting up this event cared about/had the proper sensitivity for tznius, then a different arrangement would have been made. After all, YU does maintain a school for each gender. So there’s no reason there couldn’t have been separate contingents from each school. Unless they intentionally wanted to mix them and convey that. That’s one point.
At certain points in the video you can easily observe one of the young women dressed not 100% appropriately and you can also observe one young woman laughing and, while seated, clearly leaning over and closer to “falling” into an unsuspecting young man next to her. Considering her hair was uncovered, I would be dan LiKaf zichus that she is not married to anyone including this young man. Therefore, in addition to the public impropriety of behaving this way regardless of marital status, since there was a man seated next to her it is that much worse. That’s a second point.
To the scoffers who will say I am making too much out of this, they are missing the point entirely (as scoffers often do).
I didn’t say this was on the level of that piece by the prutza who proudly advertised her znus in a long article for the Beacon, whose Torah Umada or cultural sensitivities evidently made them conclude it was appropriate to publish this and broaden this chilul Hashem. This video is very far from that, of course.
But since you asked about standards, I answered about standards. As YU proudly proclaims, that standard is “Nowhere but Here”, as in YU.
So please be honest. If you like YU’s derech and think its liberties are muttar, then that’s your choice. If you think it’s perfectly halchicly acceptable to review bars/pubs in a YU (student) publication and talk about being “hit on”, then that’s also your choice. But please don’t falsely characterize their MO standards as Orthodox when those standards are, instead, only MO and NOT traditional Orthodox. “
anon1m0us, you have ignored my point and are desperately trying to justify the mistakes of MO with your obfuscations, which only leads you to make bigger mistakes.
The Torah can never be “modernized”. This was and is the main problem with MO theology. Accepting this fraudulent belief opens up a pandora’s box of other problems, like grafting Zionism on to, lihavdil, out holy Torah and many other terrible things in the name of modernity.
Our Torah is dynamic and applicable in all ages. It has no need for “modernization”. However, Rabbanim have had to deal with changing circumstances and apply the Torah’s rulings to those changes.
TIDE is a good example of this. How to regard electricity on shabbos is another.
None of these examples are problems because, as you wrote, it is done “…without violating the Torah”.
On the other hand, MO practices clearly do violate the Torah as mentioned above and can be confirmed by any who care to browse YU’s official blog.
Again, the Torah cannot be “modernized”, ch”V, but MO still thinks they can do so and MO standards are, therefore, lower.
anon1mous:
I already stated that there were *multiple* halachic violations in that video. I accept your right to disagree with these facts and assume it is “only” inappropriate, especially since you haven’t seen the video so you can’t really speak to the facts anyways.
Bringing in Chassidic standards is not relevant to halachic requirements.
Regarding Rav S.R. Hirsch, he was not a proponent of MO.
That is clear, despite MO revisionism trying to fool people otherwise.
TIDE is a good example of Eilu ViEilu, unlike MO.
Regardless, I already wrote that I respect MO rabbanim and was not commenting on them.
The point of this discussion was simply that MO halachic standards are lower than in traditional Orthodoxy. A “naval birshus HaTorah” may not have committed an aveira per se, but is still a “naval birshus HaTorah” and that is, of course, a lower standard.
Again, YU posted this video on their official blog, which means that they do not find it problematic even though, afilu liShitascha, there is inappropriate activity shown therein as I mentioned in earlier posts.
No traditional orthodox Yeshiva or Bais Yaakov would dream of posting such a video, and they would have set it up and produced it differently to begin with, if at all, too. As YU writes, “Nowhere but Here”. Why can you not see the truth?
I am not judging anyone and I am not telling anyone how to live their lives. I am not looking to bash any movement or any person. The goal was simply to clarify that MO has lower standards than traditional Orthodoxy.
Matan, I wrote about other things in addition to the seating arrangement at the table in that video. But, yes, mixed seating can be assur depending on the context, besides for the other things I posted about.
anon1m0us, to anyone who has not “modernized” halacha to fit their agenda, it was an aveira, not hashkafa. And I was not choshed anyone, as I wrote. The video footage was not some mirage; it was clear and it was clearly inappropriate and therefore not under “Eilu ViEilu”, MO fallacies not withstanding.
And there are other examples I posted, which you continue to ignore because you have no answer for them because they are absolutely against halacha. Although I do respect your Rabbanim and I can’t answer you why your Rabbanim permit this to go on, that respect does not permit anyone else in condoning issurim that are violated, which includes the examples I quoted, one of which is this video, despite what happens under the watch of those Rabbanim.
The purpose is not to bash MO, as I have repeatedly stated. The purpose is to distinguish between MO ideology and traditional Orthodox ideology. The few examples I’ve brought clearly bear this out (not to mention Zionism and the rest).
Once again, I respect your choice to be MO, but please don’t misrepresent MO as traditional Orthodoxy or Eilu ViEilu, CH”V, because permitted aveiros do not come under the rubric of Eilu ViEilu.
The OP writes of the personal impression that this is considered “normal” and addressing the usual channels has not met with success.
If there is no way to change that lack of safety then it seems that it’s time to get the kid out.
A trusted Rav would be a good person to speak to, but if it’s one who’s involved in this unnamed chassidus and is therefore biased in its favor, this will, of course, prevent an unbiased answer.
The Torah writes “Vinishmartem Miod LiNafshoseichem”. Hashem wants us all to stay safe, BE”H.
Matan and anon1m0us, you have chosen to focus on what you (incorrectly) consider to be “only” a hashkafa issue (it is, in fact, halachic, likely diOratysa to boot, but that’s “only” a minor point).
But you have ignored the MO halachic violations I wrote about in my post.
Although those are not the only violations, my point is simply that MO is a different halachic standard, and the facts available to anyone to see make that clear.
Again, please be honest. You can love MO (including Zionists) and whatever else, and nobody can stop you. But please don’t lie that MO is halachicly equal in standard to traditional Orthodox Judaism when it is clearly not.
I doubt you believe that their halachic standards are “no less”, but, just in case, here is one small example, off-hand.
On the official YU blog, there is a video of an interview of a bunch of students, both male and female. Instead of interviewing them separately, or at least separating them to the greatest extent possible, they are interspersed male and female around one table. If anyone setting up this event cared about/had the proper sensitivity for tznius, then a different arrangement would have been made. After all, YU does maintain a school for each gender. So there’s no reason there couldn’t have been separate contingents from each school. Unless they intentionally wanted to mix them and convey that. That’s one point.
At certain points in the video you can easily observe one of the young women dressed not 100% appropriately and you can also observe one young woman laughing and, while seated, clearly leaning over and closer to “falling” into an unsuspecting young man next to her. Considering her hair was uncovered, I would be dan LiKaf zichus that she is not married to anyone including this young man. Therefore, in addition to the public impropriety of behaving this way regardless of marital status, since there was a man seated next to her it is that much worse. That’s a second point.
To the scoffers who will say I am making too much out of this, they are missing the point entirely (as scoffers often do).
I didn’t say this was on the level of that piece by the prutza who proudly advertised her znus in a long article for the Beacon, whose Torah Umada or cultural sensitivities evidently made them conclude it was appropriate to publish this and broaden this chilul Hashem. This video is very far from that, of course.
But since you asked about standards, I answered about standards. As YU proudly proclaims, that standard is “Nowhere but Here”, as in YU.
So please be honest. If you like YU’s derech and think its liberties are muttar, then that’s your choice. If you think it’s perfectly halchicly acceptable to review bars/pubs in a YU (student) publication and talk about being “hit on”, then that’s also your choice. But please don’t falsely characterize their MO standards as Orthodox when those standards are, instead, only MO and NOT traditional Orthodox.
Safety is very important. Why not find a different Cheder?
BT and FFB both deserve safety.
Matan, it’s not necessary to write about my personal experiences.
There are various tznius issues evident by simply perusing YU’s official blog, to say nothing of the things people have written about to the YU Commentator.
I don’t understand why you keep trying to deny this. YU is proudly M.O. (“Nowhere but Here”), and M.O. has different “standards” than traditional Orthodoxy does.
Matan, you wrote: “HaKatan- Whats wrong with a kosher social gathering of men and women?”
Nothing, of course. But these gatherings that YU has are not “kosher social gathering
of men and women” but rather non-kosher ones.
Matan, I didn’t write “promiscuous”; I wrote mixed-gender. Mixing the genders is a problem even without promiscuity. Just reading through YU’s blog indicates this mixing, though that’s not the extent of it, obviously.
At no point did I imply promiscuity. Kedusha of a ben and bas melech, however, requires much more than not being promiscuous.
Matan, I would presume the level of learning in YU’s BM is wonderful, but unfortunately that’s irrelevant due to YU’s hashkafa. For example, besides for general issues with MO, YU’s school-sponsored events where the two genders mix partly defeats the purpose of attending gender-separate schools even if you’re not forced to attend those events.
If you want to save money on the Bas Mitzvah, you might want to ask your LOR if it’s at all appropriate to make any sort of party. This is an halachic issue, not “mere” hashkafa.
My understanding is that it should be in the house and for family (perhaps classmates, too, though I don’t recall the particulars). That should fit the budget.
It’s brought down in halacha to add a name when naming after another person, in certain circumstances. Also, there are actually some phrase names in Tanach, so it’s not quite true that they all had only one first name.
Interesting topic, though.
It’s interesting how Zionists are very quick to trumpet the kashrus of their idolatry, but when shown how their idolatry is really chazir treif, it conveniently becomes time to move on without a word in response.
Shmad is, indeed, a powerful word, but, no, it should not be reserved for the czar.
While I don’t dispute (Chazal say so, so there is nothing to dispute) that a person should preferably earn a living on his own rather than rely on Tzeddakah, this has nothing to do with this job fair.
As gedolim have stated in the past, and as is now plain to see for all, the goal of Zionism is shmad. “Religious Zionists” probably mean well despite this truth, but this does not change the reality of Zionism, whose very purpose is shmad.
So, in light of all this, back to the thread: who was running this job fair, what kind of jobs were offered and, also importantly, which rabbinic authority backed the protesters?
147, you need to read up on the subject. You wrote:
“
Well, if the Chareidim were first, how were they not able to convince the British Mandate to have open door policy to every Jew? Especially during the Holocaust. Or maybe they simply didn’t care about or embrace every Jew?”
The obvious answer to your rhetorical question is, aderaba, even though the yishuvim indisputably predate Zionist conquest, the Zionists had the power and world attention.
The Zionists insisted that they alone were the legitimate leaders of the Jewish people and they murdered Yaacov DeHaan, allegedly for that reason. The Zionists also had quite a history during the Holocaust as they were the address for Jewish concerns from the 1920s and on; for example, Chaim Weizmann testified in London on behalf of the Jews for the Peel Commission. The Zionist Jewish Agency for Palestine sent a memo to the Evian conference.
All this was well before the disaster was inestimably worsened with the establishment of the State of Israel.
The yishuv, consisting of Jews who simply wanted to live in peace with their neighbors and to NOT rule over them, was powerless.
Josh, if you are a(n honest) Zionist, you really don’t want to talk about Zionists and the Nazi death machine in the same breath.
There’s much more, but consider this, from AICE, just for starters:
In case you’re wondering, the AICE has, right on their home page, quotes from both Israeli PM Netanyahu and also from President Obama. This is not just some anti-Israel site that states this, but one that supports Israel.
Here is their mission statement:
Health, I did and do understand the context. But I still feel the words chosen still were at least a possible indicator of what I wrote, which, if that were the case, would be improper.
So, despite my respect for you and your opinions, I still maintain that the post should have been worded differently.
I also respect your opinion if you disagree with me on this, but I do maintain my opinion as I stated here.
I don’t know about this organization, but YWN wrote that the protesters “accuse the organization of pulling avreichim from the beis medrash and into the workplace, where their lifestyle and adherence to Torah and Halacha would be compromised.”
So if that’s a real concern then their protest is valid. But if it’s not a real concern then their protest is a fraud.
The article doesn’t mention any more, like who runs this organization, and if their adherence to a Torah life would be respected/accommodated.
Health, while you may have intended differently, this is what you wrote:
“How did we become just like the Goyim, that when there isn’t a parent or a Rebbe watching us, we need the cops around to make us behave?”
You rhetorically stated (asked) how it is that we, meaning the kids, are just like the goyim. To which I (and others) answered that, in fact, we (including the kids) are not “just like the goyim”.
Chachamim Hizaharu Bidivreichem…
No. We are *very much* NOT “just like the goyim” even if these kids expressed themselves with a lack of derech eretz.
There may be room for improvement, but these are not “goyim”.
While I am not denying this seems like a chilul Hashem, which is deplorable, the general secular culture is falling hard and fast, and this affects everyone.
We have lost a massive amount of gedolim in the past few years, and, as we know from VaYetzei, the departure of a tzaddik from a place makes an appreciable difference.
Again, I am not claiming this is justified, but it’s not difficult to understand how it could have happened.
May we all merit the true geula BB”A.
far east, I did not imply, CH”V, that Rabbi JBS held more of secular knowledge than of the Torah. That is, however, an MO phenomenon, even though he explicitly stated that it’s better to avoid culture as much as possible. For some reason, the practicality of this part of his address seems lost to MO.
GAW, I am not defending that “cult”, as you call it, and I don’t necessarily agree with anything/some things/everything that they do. And I have stated numerous times that the Yetzer HaRa targets everyone.
But that was not my point. My point was and is that as opposed to traditional orthodoxy, MO is unique in that it is mattir issurim and its very birth was based on a now-known-to-be faulty premise, that traditional Orthodoxy could not survive in America. Not only can it and does it, but even “Ultra-Orthodoxy” thrives. Back to MO, Zionism alone is a major problem. This has all been discussed repeatedly.
anon1m0us, MO does not believe in Daas Torah like traditional orthodox do and, from what I understand, MO frowns on the whole concept; they obviously do believe in psak halacha from a Rav, though. If I am wrong here and MO does teach “daas Torah”, I would be interested in being corrected on this. This is irrelevant to the point of the matter.
As I stated above, I was discussing a movement, not a person or persons. I did not mean to “hate” anyone, CH”V, only to point out the spiritual dangers of MO.
For the record, I have never posted under any other name and I do not do so now; nor do I expect to do so in the future. Therefore, the “Joseph” references are not appreciated as they are false.
JayMatt, for the record, I do not post under any other screen name, and I do not know who Joseph and Ben Levi are.
Health already answered your question and, as I noted above, I wasn’t addressing the propriety of discussing this in public (i.e. to the secular press).
I stand by my original post, that there is a major difference between Sandy and Sandy Hook.
It’s not ironic at all. Israelis may do things differently as, for one, they have a different culture to deal with so they may have to play by different rules. So this has no bearing on American Jewry.
MO, starting from Rabbi JBS, on the other hand, touts modernity as a reason to do things differently whereas traditional orthodox tout absolute fidelity to halacha and daas Torah as their banner. Though, again, the Yetzer Hara is happy to target everyone.
Thank you, Ben Levi. If I recall correctly, Chazal does say, as you mentioned, that mishkav zachar was what sealed the fate of the Dor HaMabul, resulting in the destruction of almost the entire world.
Regardless of whether or not it’s appropriate to make a public statement on the matter, I’m surprised any Torah Jew could be so cavalier about toeiva marriage when Hashem called it an abomination straight out in the Torah.