HaKatan

“I bet if you were married in the last 20 years you came out to one of those songs too”

Bad bet to make. I have been to numerous weddings where the chosson/kallah insisted on only Jewish music and the band easily obliged them, INCLUDING for the opening dance. I don’t recall off-hand the songs used, but given the breadth of Jewish music out there, there must be (and are) options.

I feel the non-Jewish music is especially inappropriate at any seduas mitzvah, especially for a newlywed couple who are both newly tahor on their personal Yom Kippur, not to mention the rest of Klal Yisrael, so if some non-Jewish intro is played then I avoid dancing until the Jewish music starts.

It’s unbelievable how so many otherwise intelligent people have their heads in the sand about this issue.

YES, it definitely does affect us. It should be patently obvious that if this bill passes it is not a good thing for Jews, even if the effects take some time before they filter down, CH”V (though it’s already pretty terrible, may Hashem redeem us all BB”A).

Imagine a father-daughter or brother-sister alliance wanted the same for themselves, that a father and daughter or brother and sister should be allowed to have spousal benefits. Nothing to do with the bedroom, of course, but nonetheless they want equal rights…what about a man and his dog? Still no problem?

The more “normal” any perversion becomes, the more it will infiltrate into our holy camps. There’s nothing to debate and no amount of sheltering and talking about it post-facto will help return it to the days before it became legal.

Look around Chazal and take your pick…how about this week’s parsha? Binei Reuven got caught up with Korach’s rebellion because, Rashi says, Oy Larasha oy Lishcheino. This means, simply, that the Bnei Reuven knew better than to start up with Moshe Rabbeinu and Hashem Himself, but their mere proximity was enough to have them err and commit a grievous sin, one that makes no logical sense to an outside observer given Moshe Rabbeinu’s greatness and direct connection to Hashem.

If you live in NY and care about (acting and) raising kids properly, you do not want this bill to pass, no matter how little the effect may be on you, personally.

Mike, it is indeed sad.

While it may or may not be miraculous, it has also been very disastrous. Did your family also witness the atrocities of the Yaldei Teiman to the many other spiritual and physical atrocities from then all the way forward to things like the Oslo abomination and the various vicious expulsions of Jews at the hand of Jews or other Israelis? It is extremely sad, indeed, what brought about this State and what it has done to those it ironically claims it best protects, regardless of who does or does not live there. Has your family retained its strong pre-war Judaism in a supportive Jewish environment? Has your family been exposed to good Jewish values, or was it the anti-Torah post-Jewish Zionist values (including the IDF and its gender-mixing issues, regardless of the noble work they do in defending the lives of the Jews living there now that the Zionists insisted on a State)?

In fact, there are a great many yeshivos and many gedolim who live in Israel, and I alluded to that in my prior post. But that doesn’t change the facts of what happened and what is right and what is not right. It only supplies more fuel for fallacious rhetoric in an attempt to kasher this Chazir that, sadly, is even more like an Egel HaZahav than chazir.

From a practical perspective, as I’ve often written on these boards, Israel is a reality and it has placed itself responsible for millions of our brethren. This is not a flippant matter but one that requires a prudent practical approach now that Israel is a reality and the facts on the ground are what they are. But this does not excuse Zionism nor condone it in any way. It only further clarifies the disaster that Zionism was and is for Jews as a people.

Re: Lemony Snicket:

“Ever heard of the 1929 arab pogroms? Almost 20 years before the “medina” was even created, arab savages murdered 133 Jews including 68 in Hebron just for the simple fact that they were living in the land of their Forefathers. It’s almost as if you’re making an excuse for the arab brutalities. “

You’re inventing reasons for what the savages did. And you’re wrong, according to people who were there, like Rabbi Kaplan. Have you ever heard of “Shema Yisrael HaKosel Shelanu HaKosel Echad” which was a “religious zionist” idea at the time? This inflamed the savages (who were told that Al Aqsa was being threatened) and they acted like the barbarians they are.

So the Chevron Massacre does NOT at all indicate that the Arabs hated us before Zionism as Zionism actually pre-dated both the State and the Chevron Massacre by a good number of decades and the massacre did not happen in a vacuum.

None of this is intended to in any way excuse the savages for what they did. But it is also fallacious to say Zionism had nothing to do with it.

Goq, I am saddened to hear your pain, but I would hope that, in fact, you are misinterpreting her gestures and she has nothing against you.

I wouldn’t be surprised if she just heard that gemara about Uncles marrying Nieces and that kind of threw her and she was shy and confused because of that…also, young people do some strange things, both of which others have noted.

I’d be surprised if she actually intended to make you feel bad, though I obviously don’t know the people personally. I hope you can keep a good relationship in the future, BE”H, once this phase has passed.

Many simchas for all of you!

MANY guys continue to smoke after they get married no matter how much they love their wives. This is reality, and if you are willing to risk your life by dating a smoker, please do NOT have any illusions that he (or she) will likely quit. Is it possible? Yes, and I do know one or two people who have. But are the odds in your favor? NO WAY!

You can ask your mechaneches, Rav or whomever you look to for advice, but there is no person on this planet, no matter how many other maalos they have, that is worthwhile dating if he is so lacking in middos and brains that he is a smoker, even a “once-in-a-while” smoker. It’s very wrong and it speaks terribly of the person who smokes.

I happened to have been at a popular minyan factory in a certain well-established frum neighborhood and it was disgusting that there was no smoke-free area of the shul that I could get to and (not that anyone was smoking in shul, but) the strong lingering stench of cigarettes was repulsive (and a chilul Hashem). We are an am navon vichacham and yet this is what a shul smells like!?!

Also, anyone who starts to smoke now has an even lesser likelihood of quitting than someone who started 10 years ago, as someone who starts now is ignoring the many additional years of further medical knowledge of this deadly disgusting disease-causing dumb and deranged ADDICTIVE habit.

Virtually every society has its elegant and put-together form of dress. The form of dress of the United States and of many “Western” countries is that of a suit and hat. Unfortunately, the hat (and suit jacket, and soon the tie, too) have been mostly abandoned due to society’s decadence. However, the many military and other respectable institutions (like police departments), whose uniforms do include a hat, provide continued proof that a hat (and suit) is the most elegant form of dress, even if you would not nowadays wear a hat if you are not in a profession whose uniform includes a hat.

The black hat, in particular, is essentially as Grandmaster stated above. It’s not innately any more respectful than a different elegant hat, say, a Navy uniform’s cap, but in context it most likely is.

Therefore, *unless your minhag is otherwise* or there are practical consideration involved (work, people, etc.), it follows that a yeshiva-educated male would wear a hat to davening if not also throughout the day not less than, say, a firefighter or police officer wears his cap whenever he is on duty.

It’s obviously inadvisable to sit next to the opposite gender even if it’s not as obvious as not eating pork. Have you ever heard Lashon Hara (without wanting to, of course)? Does that make it okay? Obviously not.

And, incidentally, (perhaps?) you should not sit next to the opposite gender on a bus or train (even IF it is not technically forbidden? Ask your LOR, but don’t assume and extrapolate when it is not based on halacha.

As far as concerts, while it might be just fine to sit next to your spouse at a concert, that doesn’t mean there are no other issues in mixed concerts that need to be addressed. Are there any issues that concern you, personally? Perhaps ask your LOR.

While a posek should be consulted on this matter, my personal understanding and thoughts, based on what I have heard from prominent reliable people is that a shul and even a yachid cannot put someone in a situation where the person will either likely or definitely, (I cannot recall which, now) drive on Shabbos. More precisely, when dealing with someone who you know would drive on Shabbos, there has to be a practical and plausible alternative before you can invite him to your shul/home etc. on Shabbos.

Furthermore, to keep a shul parking lot open past the start of Shabbos, in a case where people will likely use it, seems irresponsible and a chilul Hashem. If they want to drive, they’ll find a way without you opening a parking lot for them as long as you do so with love and sincerity, not holier-than-thou nonsense.

A conservative Jew once mentioned to me in conversation that he lives too far from shul so he drives because how could he not pray to G-d on Shabbos just because he lives too far away? I was so thrown by this line of thinking that I regret I didn’t have an answer for him at the time that would not be CH”V embarrassing or offensive but still convey the fallacy of this argument.

The obvious flaw in that argument is that it is forbidden to drive on Shabbos. Prayer, however, can be done at home, too, even if this is not as preferable as praying in the synagogue. But, again, driving is absolutely forbidden barring pikuach nefesh et al reasons, so there is no justification for ASSISTING someone in doing so, CH”V. If someone parks around the corner then that’s his business, so to speak, but that doesn’t mean you leave the parking lot open to welcome the behavior, CH”V.

As with any mitzvah, the ends do NOT justify the means, and the future potential shemiras mitzvos is wonderful, but you can’t help him be mechalel shabbos to attain that wonderful goal. Let Hashem take care of His children while you work with them only within the framework of His Torah. Hashem is looking out for all His children and obviously does not want nor need you to assist in Chilul Shabbos.

There is plenty of Torah regarding how music is an expression of the soul and that it touches the soul directly.

Put simply, music is extremely powerful and its deepest “language” is understood by your soul, not your brain.

Why would anyone want to contaminate their neshama with some (low-life’s) “music” no matter what the lyrics, or even if it is instrumental?

Having said that, I have heard that this does not (fully?) apply to classical music. But it’s hard to imagine how any non-Jewish music could be safe, even if instrumental.

Comparing movies to the Internet is like comparing a Bais Zona to an apartment complex.

In each side of the two cases, one could find pritzus. But in each, as well, there is far more in one side than the other.

In other words, while the Internet contains both good and bad, as does any place where large numbers of humans exist like an apartment complex, any modern movie as well as a bais zona will definitely have unkosher material in it.

I think the mod made an excellent point about being desensitized to this stuff; just because society conducts itself in a very liberal manner does not ch”V change halacha.

Also, if one reads only the reviews of the movies currently out there (without even watching anything), there is no way any halachic Jew could justify such a debased and pathetic excuse for “the arts”. I don’t want to quote titles, but it is already beyond absurd; I don’t need to see the movies themselves to know it is not for any good Jewish boy or girl (yes, girls, too) to watch.

Even in a “normal” (by society’s standards) movie, there are too many potential issues to mention in even a few sentences, and the actresses’ inappropriate attire is not even the tip of the iceberg.

As with any halachic question, if in doubt, ask your LOR.

The notion that divorce is simply a “d-word” is, with all due respect, nonsense.

First, I would not make light of the mizbeach crying if one divorces his (first) wife, CH”V. That’s a serious statement.

Divorce has many ramifications and, for that reason alone, it should not be utilized unless it is truly necessary to do so, as opposed to anything less than necessary, including specifically *childish* divorces.

It is oftentimes also a tragedy because it is often avoidable given proper communication and proper mindsets before any nastiness starts. So it is, sometimes, a tragedy that did not have to happen if the players were both up to speed. Aseh licha Rav (uknei licha chaveir), and marital therapy as appropriate, would probably be extremely useful in nipping in the bud any potential trouble before it becomes a real issue.

Again, in cases of abuse or even for less serious issues, it would seem obvious that this is why Hashem, in His infinite wisdom gave us the framework for instantly ending a marriage in a halachic fashion. But this is not a decision to take lightly.

And the fear of divorce is not what will keep a marriage healthy. If that’s what’s keeping a marriage together then there are obviously underlying issues that must be worked through to keep the marriage truly healthy. But fear of it is obviously not the purpose of divorce nor the cause of lasting marriages.

Eclipse, I hope no others ever experience the pain you eloquently convey and and I don’t mean to minimize your personal circumstances.

But there are women who do not understand that a healthy intimate relationship is the main glue that keeps a marriage together. While that doesn’t excuse what men do in response to a lack of that physical intimacy, the woman, in that case, if she reasonably could do better, whether in attitude or in deed, she is playing with fire by not doing what she should be doing.

Men also need to know the emotional needs of women, and be able to reasonably fulfill that, too. One leads to another the other leads to the first.

Rabbi Shafier, of The Shmuz, has an excellent “Nidah” series of audio shiurim. In one of those, he mentions how Yaakov Avinu should have been “head over heels in love” with Leah simply because he married her and had an intimate relationship with her. If I recall, it was only because Yaakov was the Ish Emes that he was and Lavan’s trickery so abhorred him, that this was able to override an otherwise natural (and this is also common medical knowledge) feeling of being emotionally bonded to Leah.

I may not have accurately repeated this portion of his shiur, as I listened to that shiur a number of years ago, but you can get it online and hear for yourself.

In Shema, the common way I have seen children taught is “vi-aHAvta”. The correct way is “VI-ahavTA”. There is a difference in meaning between the two, and I was told one is not yotzei if one reads it the wrong way.

The common way of singing Adol Olam and Yigdal also have many mistaken emphases.

For example, “nosein larasha ra, kirishaso” should really be “nosein larasha, ra kirishaso”. Translated, “…He gives to the bad wicked one, like his wickedness” is incorrect. It should be (forgive the rough translation) “…He gives to the wicked one, ‘bad’ like his wickedness”.

And many others if you simply listen as they are sung.

Not to mention that the whole havara of many of these tunes including the ones for Anim Zemiros is almost completely incorrect as the songs typically emphasize the first syllable as is typical of American English instead of the last syllable of lihavdil Lashon Hakodesh; often, the meaning is changed and is still incorrect regardless of whether or not it actually changes the meaning of each word.

Someone’s got to redo all these tunes.

I assume this came up due to one of the stories YWN posted today, the one about the Jewish German doctor who refused to operate on a patient who is seemingly a neo-Nazi.

I won’t repeat my comment I wrote there, but I think CantorEsq has a very good point and it seems silly to “punish” for atrocities that were committed 70 years ago but not for atrocities that were committed before then.

mw13, Thank you. I appreciate your kind compliment, even if I am not quite so deserving of it.

Wolf, I don’t believe any of them present themselves as being under the authority of any gadol/gedolim, nor as endorsed by the same.

However, HaModia does give me the impression that it is run by people who are in close connection to some unknown Torah institution (and its leader(s)) and are, therefore, more strict with what they write or don’t write, etc., while Yated seems to be more independent and run by the publisher’s personal hashkafa with, I imagine, some input from whomever he feels he should be shoel eitzah from. I do respect both, personally.

The Jewish Press, on the other hand, seems to do whatever the publisher feels is appropriate, which I also respect.

First, there are exceptions to every rule.

The equivalent in women is probably 17 versus 20, or perhaps 18 versus 21, but that’s just an illustration and not an exact comparison.

Regardless, for most people, there is a tremendous amount of maturity that a young man gains between those 2 ages you mentioned, in the three years from 20 years old to 23 years old.

So, first and foremost, the difference is much emotional maturity.

However, that 3 years of additional learning and life experience should not be discounted either. That’s 3 years in a yeshiva or multiple yeshivos (multiple rabbeim, varying hashkafos, different inter-personal experiences, et al.) as well as, for some, college. And 3 summers working as a counselor or in an internship of some sort. Or perhaps not all of that.

But you don’t have any of that by the age of 20 (in most cases). But you could have it (including a college degree and the attendant work and discipline that requires) by the time you reach 23.

re: Anon

I noticed, btw, that one of the above-mentioned papers will sometimes write the article author’s name in full (e.g. Jane Doe) and others will write only the first initial and last name (e.g. J. Doe).

My assumption, upon seeing this, is that by an unmarried woman they would use the full name while for a married woman they do not (this is only a guess, of course, because I do not know the authors), also to conform to this holy practice of not referring to a married woman by her first name.

Referring to someone by their first name conveys a certain familiarity and since a married woman is an erva and one must distance one’s self from an erva, that, perhaps, is why we do not address a married woman by her first name.

I’m not sure if that’s what anon was referring to above, but I still think a letter to the editor is the best way to find out.

Jaky, there are women’s magazines like Yaldah (teen girls, anyways) that definitely show pictures of women/girls. If there are none for adult women, then why don’t you approach your favorite publisher to start one?

Besides, why would you specifically *want* to be seen in public? Especially if one is a woman? Your quote “So girl’s role is to work hard and somehow not be seen in public?” seems to harbor this misogynistic view that men allegedly have over women. Again, it is for your own dignity as a bas melech, not to put you in an undesirable role which it is not. If you don’t/can’t believe that, why don’t you (ask a Rav and also) write a Letter to the Editor asking why their policy is to not show pictures of women. Perhaps they can explain better.

Again, I see no loss in not showing a woman’s picture. I already mentioned that anyone, male or female, can take photos. And that you are free to publish a magazine or newspaper with pictures of women in it. And that, presumable, they would, too, in theory.

Wolf, there is a tremendous difference between hanging a picture of your mother in your home and publishing her picture in a mass-circulation newspaper. Please don’t make a mockery of the discussion; any guest who comes to a home will obviously see the woman of the house over the course of the meal; but that doesn’t mean her shabbos table should be broadcast on national TV (Shabbos aside). Do you see the difference?

Having said that, *perhaps* it is, in truth, more dignified for the woman that her picture not be there. I don’t know what the answer is to that, but ask you LOR if you’re interested in knowing you’re for sure doing what’s right. Personally, I don’t recall seeing any pictures of women in any of the Roshei Yeshiva’s homes that I have been to, but perhaps one cannot extrapolate from that.

I am a little amused by the whole “erased from history” argument. Again, nobody forbade taking a woman’s picture, and many people of all sects and types do so. So much for worrying about preserving history. But that doesn’t mean the pictures have to be published in general circulation newspapers. And even if historical record were a concern, it still does not override the kavod due to a bas melech, so it would be a moot point, anyways.

I don’t understand why people are so worked up about not showing pictures of women (properly dressed). While that idea did not occur to me, personally, I do think it is an excellent policy.

There is no need for your wife or daughter to be on display to the entire world. Kol kevuda bas melech penima; it is a compliment to the ladies that the newspaper values their dignity and doesn’t display their picture to the whole world, not CH”V an insult. If you don’t like that, make your own photo albums with your wife and daughter(s) and enjoy them. They’re yours to show to whomever you want.

But you can’t deny that it is more kadosh vitahor to not show a bas melech in any form in a public forum such as a newspaper. And there is no journalistic value in showing the picture of a woman, either (not that this would override the previous point, but it so happens that this is the case). So why show pictures of women?

The answer is that some are influenced by the degenerate society in which we live and have lost the sensitivity of what a woman is as a bas melech whose kavod is penimah. We just read last week about Sarah Imeinu, “Hinei BaOhel” – that was the ideal. Yes, women need to drive cars, carpools, and also participate elsewhere in modern society by working, running errands, etc (unlike, lihavdil, what our “cousins” do to their women). But there is no need for pictures of women to be shown in a newspaper.

Nobody seems to be arguing that we shouldn’t seek the welfare of anyone in Israel. Everyone, including the great man who is reviled by Zionists, the Satmar Rav, wants all Jews to be doing well, as evidenced by the story quoted above.

But that is not a reason to say a special mishebeirach. As another poster correctly commented, if you don’t say a weekly mishebeirach for the collective cholim in your local hospital, does that mean you don’t care about them?

The truth is, from the reverence ascribed to Zionism by its adherents, I would think that those people do, in fact, care about the medinah and its agents (who live in a land that Hashem gives “extra protection” to) more than the local cholim who (also) truly need their tefillos.

Again, just because someone is in a makom sakana or any other difficult situation, that doesn’t mean that they deserve a special mishebeirach and not be included in the general tefillos as general members of klal Yisrael. Only because you (incorrectly) ascribe special holiness to the fallacy of Zionism do you feel that they deserve an extra tefilla or two.

PY viseyato: Zionism has been abject failure for a number of reasons. The greatest military in the region is *worthless* if the citizens are not protected from the savages who live there. The horrific carnage CH”V R”L L”A that went on there for years is absolutely unacceptable; in fact, the loss of even one Jew s unacceptable and if your whole raison d’etre is to provide a safe haven for Jews yet these savages were able to spill so much pure blood of our brethren under your protection, then you have failed miserably in your goal.

As well, the point of greatly magnified Arab hatred is one you did not address (because, as a Zionist, you can’t). Things like the Kuran (which does contain much anti-Jewish sentiment and more) and other examples you brought do not translate to the reality of what occurred on the streets of Yerushalayim under Zionist rule and how the Jews live even now under Zionist rule with fences and ultra-security everywhere, etc. The Arabs had their Kuran for over a thousand years, but only once their hatred had been inflamed due to the entire Zionist enterprise, which began well before the actual founding of the State in 1948, did this result in the tremendous increase in hatred, which had such deadly repercussions R”L L”A.

Jews also lived in Arab countries for centuries and did not have anything near this extreme level of hatred directed at them. That’s historical record. Granted, they were dhimmis, second class, etc. and the Arabs did not love them nor shower them with flowers. But it was nothing like what the Arabs have done post-Zionism’s founding.

Of course these savages have no right to murder as they did; that should be obvious to anyone (except, it seems to the nations of the world). But the Zionists were foolish in doing what they did as they knew they were dealing with savages yet their only concern was their State.

So the whole Zionist fallacy is simply not justifiable just because you can have yeshivos and seminaries and access to the Kosel or whatever other wonderful accomplishments the Zionists did achieve. Because it’s not worth sacrificing Jewish lives for any or all of that. Period. That’s the cold hard truth as I understand it.

re: HomeOwner

As righteous as their cause may have been, you’re watching people who do not have the gadlus nor the sensitivity of bnei Avraham, Yitzchak viYaakov.

Furthermore, they are actors who are being paid to convey a particular set of emotions and reactions. And that goes from the screen to your eyes to your soul.

And that lack of sensitivity (among other things) is bound to have an effect on you, as does everything in our seviva.

At the end of the day, one should filter what one allows into one’s body so that only purity and good is even brought up for consideration; that goes for all senses: sight, sound, taste, etc.

I can’t tell you it’s assur, but I can tell you that it makes no sense to make yourself a lesser person as a result of watching it.

re: theprof1

This does not mean one should not give a legal name other than the Lashon Hakodesh “real name”. Rather, one should, in that view, be known by his “real” name. That would, then, allow the malach to look out for him. Again, this story you mentioned does not imply any problem with merely having an English name, only that one should use his “real” name.

Regarding the earlier “zona” comment. I did not CH”V intend to imply that a skirt that’s too short means the wearer should be labeled a zona. That is clearly not true as there are obviously many levels of dress between tznius and zona and besides it would still be a terrible thing to call a bas yisrael so I was in no way implying that.

My point was, as I wrote, that a woman has no right to violate tznius in any way (whether prutza, zona or any other level) just because she feels the need to make herself more attractive for her husband. Tznius certainly does allow a woman to make herself attractive to her husband (when appropriate), but that does not mean she can dress in a non-tznius manner in the street; she obviously may not.

And if the husband senses this is what’s happening, he obviously should inform her that he appreciates her thought and consideration for him, but he prefers she dress fully modestly in public as required by halacha.