Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Have you tried calling Relief? I don’t know if they could help with this, but maybe they could or know who could.
Kugel is better.
Torah4me – that is how I understood Spunk’s comment and why I concurred with him/her. Thank you for confirming. My point in telling you about my experiences as a daughter was not to c”v convince you that you have OCD. I think it is normal for parents to worry about their children. However, I also do not think that you have anything to worry about as it is normal for kids to ask questions.
On the other hand, if you do feel that a particular child continually asks questions about a particular topic (especially if it is a sensitive topic such as death) I would think that it MIGHT make sense to try to think about why that may be so, although it doesn’t necessarily mean that there is cause for concern.
To answer your question, Abba, I appreciate your concern with Motzi Shem Ra. However, I do not see any Motzi Shem Ra in Spunk’s comment which is why I agreed with it.
Spunk stated as follows: “I may be wrong, but it seems to me Torah4Me is referring to him/herself, not daughter… i.e. is this experience of worrying about said child’s questions common to other posters or is it possibly a manifestation of a more worrisome pattern in Torah4Me’s brain?
Torah4Me, please clarify.”
I understood that Spunk was simply explaining Torah4me’s comment and not in any way implying that Torah4me was lying, and that is why I agreed with it. I am not sure how someone can read into Spunk’s words that he/she was saying that Torah4me was lying, and I certainly did not (and still do not) suspect Spunk of doing so (which is why I agreed with him/her.)
Benignuman – I may not be using the term “midrash” correctly. I think that what I meant was “Midrash aggada”. I believe that people often use the term Midrash this way even though it may not be accurate. I admit to not being 100% clear on the precise terminology of divrei Chazal.
I do think that the Midrash that you referred to however, does in fact fall under the same category to which I was referring. I’m not sure why you think otherwise.
Flatbusher – I realize that I didn’t respond to that question yet -there were too many other things to respond to, and I felt guilty taking up so much of the page as it was. I will try to respond later, b”n.
So Spunk, Abba wants you to tell him if you (and therefore I as well when I agreed with you) were speaking MSR when you said that Torah4me was referring to himself. If you don’t agree, he will take that as admission of guilt (that you and I were in fact speaking MSR).
For all those who want to have a better understanding of the topic, there is an article on Aish.com that I would recommend reading. You can find it by googling. It’s called “Is the Midrash literal?” by Rav Yitzchak Adlerstein.
He explains the topic pretty well, but it is important to remember that he is writing for a particular audience, so there were certain important points that were left out, namely:
1. That the issue is not that Midrashim CAN’T be literal; the question is whether or not they are, and I think it is possible that there can be a hashkafic problem with not being able to believe that they CAN be literal.
2. My understanding is that there are Midrashim that are meant literally.
I would also recommend reading the article on Vashti’s tail by Rebbetzin Heller on Aish.com
Again, the issue is NOT whether or not she could have had a tail, but whether or not she DID. Also, what is the Midrash coming to teach us?
okay, so I found an article on Aish.com by Rebbetzin Tziporah Heller in which she discusses Vashti’s tail. She says straight out that it is not meant literally – it is an allegory which she proceeds to explain. I saw another article that quotes the Maharal that it is not meant literally.
LF- do you have a source for the fact that it is in fact meant literally?
“To me, the details of what that means is irrelevant. We’ll find out either way when we get there after 120 years.”
Just want to add that we can’t know in this world anyhow since it would be impossible for us to understand.
Spunk +1!
“Do you believe that Yehoshua literally made the Sun stand still”
Unless you have a source that says otherwise, we are required to believe that it did, and it may be kefira to believe otherwise.
Even when it comes to Midrashim, I remember a teacher of mine pointing out once that even when it comes to those Midrashim that are not meant literally, if someone does not believe that they COULD have happened literally, that shows a problem with their Emunah.
When we don’t believe that something has a literal meaning, it is not because the literal meaning CAN’T be true, but ONLY because our Torah Greats tell us that it did not have a literal meaning. NONE of this should be about our personal beliefs but ONLY about what our Torah Giants tell us (as LF stated previously).
LF- I was surprised by your statement that there are those who disagree with the Rambam. I have spent a lot of time in many different places with different hashkafas and I have never before heard that anyone disagrees with this Rambam. Which does not mean that it is not the case – there are probably many things I have never heard of – I am just surprised. Do you know who says this and where?
PS: – just so I should not be misunderstood again. I am NOT saying that Vashti did not have a physical tail. I do not know what the mefarshim say about it, and it could very well be that she did have one.
What I am saying (as I said previously) is that:
1. Some Midrashim are not meant in a physical sense at all.
2. I believe that all Midrashim (whether or not they are meant in a physcial sense) also have a conceptual meaning.
3. I think that I learned that the conceptual meaning is generally the main meaning. I do not know whether or not everyone says this. I also can’t 100% guarantee the accuracy of this statement, but that is my impression that that is how we are supposed to understand Midrashim.
4. I am fairly certain that according to the Maharal, Vashti’s tail was conceptual (and this is the main meaning according to him).
1. Flatbusher – My impression was that LF was arguing with Avi, not with you. I don’t think that you and LF were contradicting each other. You are both leaning towards the idea that midrashim are meant literally.
2. Avi- The Medrash says that Vashti had a tail. It does not say that this is meant in a physical sense. That is your interpretation. A tail can be taken to mean a physical tail or it can mean a spiritual tail. In order to know which it is, you must know how to understand Midrashim. In every day language, we use the word “tail” a certain way. The Midrash is not every day language, and we have to know how to understand Midrashim.
Anytime you read anything in any discipline, you have to first understand the language being use. If you want to read a math textbook, you need to first know what the various mathematical terms mean. A particular mathematical term may have a different meaning in math than it does in every day language. Even within every day language, different terms can have different meanings in different contexts.
Certainly when we are dealing with Torah and particularly with Midrashim, we have to know the language first. We have to first study what the Rishonim and Mefarshim on Midrashim, etc. tell us about how to understand Midrashim.
BG- The basic Halacha for men is that they have an obligation to learn Torah every second. But they are allowed to stop learning for any Mitzvah that can’t be performed by someone else. If going to the chasuna was a Mitzvah that couldn’t be performed by someone else, then it was allowed.
I assume that usually when people go to chasunas it is for the purpose of being mesameach the chasan and/or kallah which is a Mitzvah that can’t be done by someone else.
I have been trying to stop using smileys but now people can’t tell when I’m joking. So I either have to go back to using smileys or come up with something else.
“lilmod, that would be Bitul Torah/Bitul Zman.
If that’s the topic of discussion.”
I was joking, by the way.
So what is the next lesson?
It’s not such a bad thing you know. Actually, it’s a very good thing. But you’re right – a balance is needed, and I appreciate the mussar lesson of the day :).
BG- she was referring to the ability to survive not to the ability to win a sporting competition.
Story I heard from my teacher: When he was 12 years old, his Rebbe hit him for something. He wasn’t too bothered about it (he probably deserved it and knew it), but his father was really upset and called the Rebbe to complain. The Rebbe said, “Well, don’t you ever hit him?” Dad said, “Yes, but do you ever hug him?” Score one for Dad!
Lightbrite – call me next time, and I’ll ask you for a bracha :). I can always use another bracha.
I’m glad the Rebbetzin was able to help you feel better. It is a big zchus, even if it was unintentional! The hardest part is feeling good about it afterwards instead of being annoyed that you couldn’t come up with a comeback 🙂
“lilmod ulelamaid: Language-wise… personally I did not take your message as saying anything less than neutral about women. Thanks for explaining on the record just in case :)”
Just wanted to be careful, since it’s been a sensitive topic lately, and you never know how people will read things 🙂
Lightbrite – You seem like someone who excels at bein adam l’chaveiro. So maybe work on that since you are good at it. I think that Rabbi Orlofsky says that a person should put his kochos into his strong points (hope I’m not misquoting).
Obviously, I don’t think a person should ignore his weak points, but if he tries to focus at least as much on his strong points, he will feel better about himself and this will give him more koach for his avodas Hashem in general.
btw, I have noticed in general that people who are nicer and sweeter and better at bein adam l’chaveiro often seem to have a harder time with tznius.
Lightbrite – I think it made him feel good. At least, I hope it did – that was my main point.
lightbrite – It says somewhere (not sure where, but I think it’s from Chazal) that women are an “am b’fnei atzmam” “a nation unto themselves”. I guess that’s the source of the idea that men and women are from different planets. Which explains the language differences.
Just so I shouldn’t be misunderstood: this is NOT to be taken as a negative statement about women! No one says that our Nation is inferior to theirs. Perhaps it’s better (at least in some ways).
LF- knew what exactly? That I take things too seriously? Is that what you meant?
Spunk – he is referring to himself/parents, but by explaining why I, as a daughter, do this, I can lay his mind to rest by showing him that it’s normal for kids to do this, so he can stop worrying about his kids. (assuming of course, that the fact that I do it is proof that it is normal).
Moderators -what in the world is wrong with thanking him? I want to make sure there are no hard feelings. Is it untznius or something?
it seems from this end posters are being pushed to make apologies for things they might not have said and it’s time to move on.
“Who cares?”
Ditto. This conversation reminds me of the letter in the editor I once saw in the Yated complaining about how terrible it is that people eat chulent during the week.
To clarify: According to the way I was taught to understand Agadata, the meaning is the conceptual meaning. They may be meant physically as well, but I was taught that the physical meaning is generally NOT the (main) point that the Midrash is trying to get across. Yes, of course we have to know what the Mefarshim on the Medrash say and we can not decide for ourselves which Medrashim are meant literally and which are not. And we have to make sure that we do not find ourselves in a position that we can not, chas v’shalom, accept the possibility of a Midrash’s literal interpretation, especially in those cases in which the Mefarshim do say that it is meant literally.
However, my point was that the conceptual meaning IS the main meaning that Chazal were trying to get across (even when it also is true in a physical sense). At least, that is how I learned Medrashim and that is my understanding.
That thread is closed, sorry
A lot of kids-at-risk are actually the children of baalei teshuva, and one reason for the pheonomenon is the fact that not enough support is given to bt’s after they become Frum. Obviously, there are many factors, but that is one of them. In any case, the baalei teshuva seminaries are aware of the problem and have started to work on it.
Your point is a valid and good one, and I did not mean that as a contradiction to anything you wrote.
I do disagree with your last sentence though. I think the school system is a very good one, and that they have put a lot of effort into these areas in the past generation. The school system today has changed a lot since I was a kid in precisely these ways.
Of course, there is always room for improvement, but it has to be remembered that it next to impossible to create a school system that will be the perfect system for each and every child, and that the administrators, principals and educators are putting tremendous effort to do what they can.
They can not be blamed for every problem. They may not even be able to solve the problem. And they work tremendously hard for the klal with little reimbursement and should be shown appreciation and not blame. (I’m not saying that you were trying to blame anyone. I don’t think that is how you meant your words – I just want to point out that one should not use this as an excuse for blame.)
Person1- That is definitely a better approach than some others. But I think the best approach is to explain WHY you don’t think it’s LH.
“golfer, you see CR discussions as akin to Beatles trivia?”
What if you learn Beatles trivia from Cr discussions? (I now know that there were 4 Beatles. I never knew that before.)
Sorry Golfer for the commercial break 🙂
Meno – Boruch Hashem, I have lived most of my adult life in EY! And even when I lived in chu”l, it was mainly out-of-town. I was just proud of myself when I finally figured out that Boro Park and Flatbush are sections of Brooklyn, and when I found out what the five towns are.
Now, if I could just figure out the streets in Yerushalayim.. The fact that I don’t know that is definitely a cause for shame!
LF- I also am not sure that the edited part had anything to do with you. If it did, it didn’t really say much more than what was already said – it probably just clarified it.
LF- I am writing this here because I don’t know where else to write it. I just wanted to let you know that although I do not remember exactly what I wrote that the moderators felt a need to edit on the other thread (I actually was surprised that they did so and think they may have misunderstood something), I can assure you that nothing I wrote could possibly have been meant to offend you in any way.
I have always had the highest regard for you. Anything I wrote was due to the fact that I hold you in the highest regard and therefore assumed that you are the type of person who would want to be informed if there was a misunderstanding and he inadvertantly offended someone. If that is not the case, then I do apologize for saying something as there would be no point. But I really do find it hard to believe that my opinion of you until now has not been justified.
I’m curious as to what exactly you mean when you refer to at-risk-adults? Also, do you know a lot of people like this? And are these at-risk-kids who got older? I’m not sure, but I think that nowadays, people continue to refer to kids-at-risk as kids-at-risk until they are around 30 or so, unless they really turn around.
I used to work with kids-at-risk to some extent, and I think that some of these kids may now be raising a second generation of kids-at-risk.
“It is wrong to consider that a personal attack, or people not defending you.”
It is a personal attack for someone to repeatedly insist that you have no cheilik in Olam Haba.
“edited. This has already been addressed, he said he did not see anyone attacking you”
According to what he wrote, that was because he had not read the post.
LF- I realize that you would not agree to a personal attack on me. I realize that you had not read the post to which you were responding.
edited. This has already been addressed, he said he did not see anyone attacking you