Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
shmendrick – kishmo kach hu. Good enough?
ZeesKite – In my humblepence, I thought a ZeesKite should be more zees.
notasheep – I think you may have got the wrong end of the stick, plonis was referring to a comment of mine about my Rav and his daughters and granddaughters. Not to daughters or granddaughters of rabbonim in Gateshead.
Plug-ins seem to work better in school.
plonis – First of all, I think you may want to rely a little less on your predictive text thing ;-). It’s ‘just my hapence’, not ‘happenstance’.
Second, I know KW was being general. That was my whole problem. I wasn’t trying to get her to be specific, I was showing her that in trying to say what people should and shouldn’t wear based on what is and isn’t ‘regal’ you would need specificity (THIS is regal, THIS is not) which is impossible. I know there is the ‘spirit’, but that’s just it, a ‘spirit’, an abstract, an indefinable ‘something’. To try and make overly general statements like ‘long hanging hair’ really misses the point. The ‘spirit’ of tznius is one of the those things that you cannot say exactly what it is, but you can see it when it isn’t there. (I know that sounds a bit paradoxical, but I think you understand what I mean…)
Third, as regards to Oz V’Hadar Levusha, Rav Falk may make distinctions between ‘halacha’ and ‘refined’, but it still not really appropriate to try and define ‘refined’ in the first place. See above.
Finally, if my Rav would have a problem with denim, I can assure you that his daughters and granddaughters wouldn’t wear it. He isn’t that kind of Rav to not say anything to them if he didn’t like it, they aren’t the type of daughters and granddaughters to do it if he didn’t like it. I have enough inside knowledge of the family to say that quite categorically. Besides, I have asked him outright if he has a problem with it. The answer was a resounding ‘no’.
Pretty much brand new.
Just keep repeating to yourself “I am not a billy-goat, I am not a billy-goat, I am not a billy-goat” until the temptation to respond passes.
Ignore them too.
Mod-007 – Ta.
iced – You have no idea of the Rav in question yet you have no qualms about slandering him?! He is far from left-wing, as anyone who knows him could tell you. But he disagrees with you, so he must be on Avi Weiss’ team, and therefore (probably) an apikores too. You really sicken me. Honestly, you really do.
We go forward because we dare not go back. (GK Chesterton)
Audaicty 2.0 is out now, we use it in the school I work in and it’s a very decent, easy-to-use all-rounder.
shemdrick – You asked me if I could, not if I would. I can. I mentioned in a previous post that my Rav disagrees on this issue, however it would make no difference to name him as a) you do not know him as you do not live in the same city as me (or even the same country), though he is well known to those who live (or have lived) here; and b) you would not believe me because you are intent on pushing your view on others. So why name names you wouldn’t recognise or accept? Hence, I simply responded to your querying my ability to name with the affirmative. And your last piece of illogic (what’s a ‘dannof’ btw?) literally left me speechless. If a lamdam is, at any point, not learning does he cease being a lamdan? Did the Great Train Robbers lose the title ‘ganavim’ when they were asleep?
‘The time has come,’ the Walrus said,
‘To talk of many things:
Of shoes — and ships — and sealing wax —
Of cabbages — and kings —
And why the sea is boiling hot —
And whether pigs have wings.’
They went to sea in a Sieve, they did,
In a Sieve they went to sea:
In spite of all their friends could say,
On a winter’s morn, on a stormy day,
In a Sieve they went to sea!
And when the Sieve turned round and round,
And every one cried, ‘You’ll all be drowned!’
They called aloud, ‘Our Sieve ain’t big,
But we don’t care a button! we don’t care a fig!
In a Sieve we’ll go to sea!
Far and few, far and few,
Are the lands where the Jumblies live;
Their heads are green, and their hands are blue,
And they went to sea in a Sieve.
Twas brillig and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe
All mimsy were the borogroves
And the mome raths outgrabe
gavra – I think you said what I meant.
uneeq – You can permanently delete your facebook account, I did mine not long ago. Google it.
Popa – Thanks for clarifying. I apologise again, most profusely, for not spotting you facetiousness…
Popa – What “obvious tznius reasons” are there for disliking denim? And why do you presume to know better why Rav Falk dislikes denim than, say, someone who actually asked him (in this case, myself)? He associates denim with what miners and the suchlike wore in the 1930s, which was often denim due to its durability and toughness.
Unless I am reading your post wrong and you were being facetious. In which case, I apologise.
shmendrick – I can name many Rabbonim who disagree with Rav Falk on this issue. There is one in my kehilla who told me personally that he, and I quote, “do[es] not allow Oz VeHadar Levusha in [his] house, and if it was up to [him] [he] would not allow in it in any house” [sic.]. Just because Rav Falk is a posek, that doesn’t make him infallible – he’s not the Pope, we aren’t Catholic. And unfortunately, he doesn’t know the norms. His dislike of denim is based on how denim was perceived in 1930s. He feels that because denim was primarily worn by people who were considered lower-class in those times, it is unfitting for a Bas Melech. This is, and has been for many years, not the case but Rav Falk still holds to the belief that it is. And you say he knows the norms?
You disavow “one-size fits all”, yet that’s exactly what Oz VeHadar Levusha is.
And there is no need to do teshuva for something that is not an aveira.
In return for your free advice, may I humbly offer some of my own to you. Stop jumping on every thread trying to shove your own view down everybody else’s throats disguised as basic Yiddishkeit. Stop starting threads whose sole purpose is to push forward your latest random chumra. And listen to other people. Who knows, you may just learn something…
kollel-wife – I’m sorry you think I’m being difficult. I’m not, I’m simply trying to point out the difficulties of using vagueries and generalisations. I’m trying to show how almost anything you pick is subjective. Halocho is covering knees, elbows, neckline (to whatever degree your Rav holds necessary). After that, it’s all subjective. Sure, women can wear clothes that conform with the letter of halocho and are nevertheless totally inappropriate, but that cannot be defined in any real way. So using terms such as long hanging hair or wobbly high heels is not particularly helpful to the discussion. You are attempting to define the indefinable, and, however hard you try, that just isn’t going to happen.
kollel-wife – Long hair, waving in and out. How long? Is anything longer than a short bob too long? Anything longer is likely to wave. Wobbly high heels. How high? I know some females who have physical discomfort wearing low heels. Heavy makeup. How heavy? Anything more than a light dusting? More vagueries. I’m sorry, but you aren’t making yourself much clearer.
kollel-wife – I am still at a loss as to ‘the message’. For example, the message I get from the way my wife dresses (that she takes herself and the way she looks seriously) is different to that of one of my sisters (who gets ‘the message’ that my wife is ‘stylish’) and different to that of my sister-in-law (who gets ‘the message’ that my wife is ‘modern’). So, when she is getting dressed, which ‘message’ should she ‘pay attention’ to that she is ‘sending’? How should she ‘sensitize’ herself? And to whom? And what on earth do you mean by ’empowering’?
kollel-wife – The problem remains that ‘the message it sends to others’ is also subjective.
The trouble is they taste too good…
iced – What I am disregarding is your imposition of a Rav on me. I have my Rav, you have yours. I am not dismissing Rav Falk, but simply saying that there are other Rabbonim who don’t agree. I am not saying he is categorically incorrect, just that he is not categorically correct. It seems that every time anyone brings any kind of tznius issue into a thread someone will come along and say “Rav Falk says…” or “Oz V’Hodor Levusha…” as if that was the end of the story. And this is what I am objecting to. I have a Rav, he has no objection to wearing denim or long skirts. In fact his daughters and granddaughters wear them. To say, therefore, that they are ossur because Rav Falk said so is as dismissive, if not more so, of my Rav than my saying that Rav Falk’s opinion is not the only one.
HaKatan – What on earth is that supposed to mean?
To all those apologists for rebbes slapping talmidim, I have worked in the past with boys who, whilst they are not OTD, have trouble fitting in the system. I cannot tell you how many of them were turned off learning torah because of rebbes who used corporal punishment; one told me how his rebbe forced him to wear a sign around his neck with the word ‘sheigetz’ on it because he couldn’t answer a question, and then slapped his hand with a ruler. The boy was forced to sit at the front of the class, facing the rest of the class, wearing this sign for the rest of the lesson. Please understand that probably the worst thing you can do for a child is use such punishments. Please, if you value your child’s chinuch, don’t apologise for the things you’re apologising for.
kollel-wife – The problem with using terms like ‘dignified’ and ‘casual’ is that they are very much subjective. What you might call dignified I might call dowdy, what I might call stylish you might call casual. And referring to how people dressed in the 1930s is extremely arbitrary, why not how they dressed in the 1920’s (which believe me was far from tzanua…), or even how they dressed in the 1830s? Should men wear wigs and high heels? After all, the dignified nobility of the late 17th Century did. Should women wear tall canonical hats with veils? The dignified nobility of the Middle-ages did. Rav Falk, major Talmid Chochom though he is, is by no means the sole arbiter of what is casual or dignified. He isn’t even the sole arbiter of what is or isn’t tzanua, plenty of Rabbonim do not agree with him on many things.
Forsooth, ’tis verily.
HaKatan – I think defining tznius based on what the Queen would wear is a bit strange, she’s 85 so should all women wear floral-print dresses and floppy hats to look like a bas melech? And as for the Duchess of Cambridge, does she wear denim? In a single word, yes. Besides, as a benchmark for tznius I wouldn’t really look for someone who caught the eye of their husband-to-be by wearing a see-through dress.
“The world, not that long ago, wore hats, jackets and ties as standard formal-wear. That’s what anyone looked like on their typical commute home from work. Forget royalty. Look at old pictures; it is plain to see.”
Yep, and not long before that they wore high-heeled shoes and wigs. And that was the men. Should we?
“Even today, some sections of society still do wear dress coats and hats, such as the armed forces. Are they more regal than you, a ben melech?” They have dress swords as well. Should we?
I have never liked Lipa, and this reminds me why. The video is one problem but the music is truly aweful! And the lyrics don’t make sense either: “Am I an actor, a common factor, or a spiritual nuclear reactor”…. As we say round my neck of the woods, yerwhat?!
shmendrick – As I thought I made clear, ben achar ben lineage from Kayin is impossible as they all died, even before the mabul. If not ben achar ben, then we are all ‘cursed’ as Noach’s wife was from Kayin. Besides, as I then made clear, Og was descended from the Nefilim who were definitely not from Kayin either. So no, Og may NOT have been from Kayin. And I have already answered the original question.
shmendrick – So you can quote Pirkei D’Rebbi Eliezer and Yalkut Shimoni, and yet you seem not to know basic Chumash. The ben achar ben lineage of Kayin died out in the 7th dor with Yuval, Tuval and Tuval Kayin. And their sister, Na’amah, was Noach’s wife, which would make us all of ‘cursed lineage’ if ben achar ben is not important. Besides, the shitta that Og lived before the mabul and survived is based on his identification as ‘hapolit’ from the milchama of the 4 kings vs the 5 kings, the same medrash saying that his intentions were that Avraham would die and he could marry Sarah (hence the inference that he was not married at the time, Wolf…), and thus being descended from the ‘Nefilim’, who were from neither Shes nor Kayin (see Rashi there). The identity of these Nefilim is somewhat controversial, but see Ramban there. In any case, Og was most definitely NOT descended from Kayin, at least not ben achar ben.
What is wrong with the world? What is wrong is that we do not ask ‘what is right’. (G.K. Chesterton)
shmoel – Even if his children would have married Bnei Noach, it is only with Jews that yichus (as to nationhood) is matrilineal. For everybody else it is patrilineal, hence Og’s sons would be Bnei Og, and if they would have married daughters of Bnei Noach their children would also be Bnei Og. Only the daughters’ children would become Bnei Noach by virtue of being the children of male Bnei Noach. Whilst, over time, this would mean that the vast majority would become Bnei Noach, there would always be a few who were ben achar ben from Og and therefore not Bnei Noach. So to say “all would be Bnei Noach” is incorrect. The vast majority, maybe, but not all.
I do, however, agree that it is far from certain that Og had any children post-mabul. At any rate, bizman Avraham Avinu, Og was not married.
shmoel – akuperma may as well have used any other organisation with a uniform, e.g. airport baggage handlers. Are Chasidim Jewry’s airport baggage handlers?
abcd12345 – Sorry your thread has been somewhat hijacked…
PBA – Care to explain what you couldn’t follow with my explanation of the no true scotsman fallacy? Just saying “you don’t make sense” really isn’t going to cut the mustard.
I know you are capable of reasonable and logical halachic discussion, I had a very informative one with you on another thread (thanks for that, btw), so why can’t you do the same with rebdoniel here instead of just crying apikores?
Health – I am not saying that I agree with Avi K, I am simply saying that those who claim ‘no torah-true gedolim’ were for the medina are as incorrect as those claiming that all those who oppose it are eirev rav. I’m not saying that we should support the medina or that we should oppose it. Rov has nothing to do with what I’m talking about as I am not talking about reaching any kind of hachro’oh. I am simply trying to balance the discussion by saying there were those for and those against. Anyone who claims other form of otherwise is distorting the truth. I hope that clarifies my position.
Please understand that I do not hold that a shul does not require a mechitza, I don’t have the requisite halachic knowledge to even attempt to make such a claim. All I’m trying to say is that you’re approaching the issue in the wrong way. You should be making your point halachically rather than dogmatically. What is true is that at least here in England any shul that professes some form of orthodoxy has some form of mechitza, so perhaps orthodox shuls have taken mechitzos to be an identifier for themselves. Again, as I say, at least here in England. I have no idea of the situation in the USA.
It falls foul of the no true scotsman fallacy because it starts with an idea and creates the definition around it, rather than starting with a definition and seeing if the idea fits. As I explained on another thread, if you have an absolute this creates a category, anything that violates the absolute cannot be part of the category. An orthodox shul is, by absolute definition, a place of worship according the religious beliefs of orthodox jewry. As a cross is, by absolute definition, a violation of said (it being the symbol of a religion whose beliefs are contrary to orthodox judaism), any place of worship with one in cannot be an orthodox shul. If a halachic case can be made for no mechitza this would mean that no mechitza is not a violation of the orthodox category (as it complies with the absolute, I.e. conforming to halacha). To start with the idea that mechitza creates the definition therefore falls foul of the ‘no true scotsman’ fallacy. A normative definition has to have a basis, it cannot be arbitrary. You are being arbitrary in your definition. Why should a mechitza define an orthodox shul any more than a bima?
It’s not a fact. You have arbitrarily decided on who qualifies for gadlus based on your opinion. There were gedolim who held of creating a medina, and yes Rav Kook was one (regardless of whether or not you agree with some of his more controversial piskei halocho) – Rav Sonnenfeld, despite disagreeing with him on many things, was machshiv him as such, as was R’ Aryeh Levine and R’ Elyashiv. You, however, based on your opinion, have decided that he was not as he had the ‘chutzpa’ to disagree with your received wisdom. This is the no true Scotsman. Treifus is an absolute as it is a pasuk mefureshes, and therefore by definition someone who disagrees cannot qualify for gadlus. Like saying a bird cannot be a fish. But a Scotsman can wear underpants.
Just so you know, I am not and do not intend to ever be any form of tziyoni. I am also not Satmar, and definitely not Neturei Karta. I may be Agguda, I’m not quite sure. I am trying to present a balanced view of the inyan, that’s all.
You’re clearly trying to be provocative. Is this your version of fun?
Shmoel – don’t try to be clever, it doesn’t suit you. As you well know, there is a difference between a pasuk mefureshes and your opinion.
Coz it’s a) more comfortable, b) smarter, c) you look less daft and d) we feel like it.
I personally have very broad shoulders and a big neck and physically cannot do up the top button of any shirt that fits.
Zeeskite – ‘no torah-true godol’ = ‘no true Scotsman’… I’m not saying I disagree with you, just your method of arguing.