Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Ubiqutin, I don’t think it’s as simple as you are making it sound. For one thing, it may not be a “black and white” situation. In fact, it sounds like it probably isn’t. There is a definite possibility that someone is not treating someone else in the family they way they should be (and last time I checked, there was no such thing as a perfect family) but it’s not something that warrants police intervention. However, once they are called in, they could create problems.
More importantly, I have known of situations in which there really was no problem and the family was as close to perfect as most people get, but once the police were called in, they created a lot of problems for them.
This may be because the police are human beings and not necessarily the best human beings, it may be Anti-Semitism, or it may be simply because the job of the police is to be extra-cautious, and they are simply doing their job.
But our job is not to be naive, to be aware of the potential results when calling the police and to exercise caution before doing so. That is why there is a halacha of mesira. It is precisely because the secular authorities might not do things the way the Torah warrants.
“AVRAM, OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT WE ARE ALL YIDDEN HERE SUBJECT TO HALACHA, WHY ELSE DID THE ROV TELL HIM *NOT* TO REPORT THIS TO ANY AUTHORITIES?”
“Because the Rav may have knowledge of the neighbor’s situation that our OP did not.”
True, but then wouldn’t the Rav’s point have been that based on his knowledge, it is not necessary/helpful to call the police (or at least not at this point)? And wasn’t his point that in such a case it is therefore Mesira since it’s not necessary/helpful?
It’s true that he didn’t quote the Rav as using the term “mesira”, but I thought that according to halacha, if someone is not supposed to call the police, then it’s “mesira” to do so.
I could be wrong, but I was assuming that there are two possibilities according to halacha: either he is chayiv to call the police or it is mesira to do so. And therefore, if the Rav told him not to call the police, the implication is that it would be mesira to do so.How were you understanding the Rav’s statement?
“I think the advice people are giving is on point. I truly dont know forsure. If I had to guess the husband is being abusive. I asked my wife to try and speak with the wife to get to the bottom of it. We aren’t calling the police because of the potential issues but I asked my Rav this morning to bring it up with the Vaad, perhaps they can employ an organization to help. I would hate to be the reason for a break in a family. We’ll see how things play out, iyh for the good.”
Very wise, Oiyveyismear!! I think that you gave the best advice (to yourself) of anyone here!
A. To all those posters who wrote that he must listen to what his Rav told him: There are a few problems with that:
1. We don’t who his Rav is. He may not be the Gadol Hador. He may be someone who is capable of making mistakes. The title “Rav” is very ambigious. There are many people who have the title Rav who are not necessarily qualified to answer every single question asked of them.
No matter how qualified someone is, most people are capable of making mistakes, so if one has reason to believe the Rav is mistaken, he should certainly ask another Rav, certainly if it is a situation of possible pikuach nefesh.
2. No matter how qualified the Rav is in terms of knowing halacha, it is possible that he didn’t understand the situation fully.
Personally, it has happened to me that I asked Rabbanim questions and I realized that they were mistaken or had not understood the question fully, so I reasked the question in some cases, and in some cases I didn’t. Whenever I did, I was happy that I did so, and when I did not I regretted it.
Please note: I am not talking about reasking a question because you don’t “like” the answer, so you want to find a Rav who will give you the answer you want. I am referring to a situation in which you are honestly concerned that the Rav may be mistaken or may have misunderstood the situation.
If you do reask the question, it should only be reasked to someone much more reliable than the first one. Since this is a very serious issue (yes, being “moiser” is a very serious thing and should only be done after getting a clear psak), one should only do so after speaking to a Gadol and not any Rabbi.
B. To all those who are sayng that of course, he must report him since it’s pikuach nefesh:
1. It might not be pikuach nefesh at all. Many people scream. That is not necessarily life-threatening and a reason to call the authorities! From the description in the OP, it really doesn’t sound like a pikuach nefesh situation to me. (although it sounds like it warrants investigating).
I assume that is why the Rav said not to say anything. Also, please keep in mind that just like we don’t know the Rav and may be skeptical of his “psak”, we also don’t know the OP.
If you are willing to consider the possibility that the Rav could be wrong in his evaluation of the situation, why not consider the possibility that the OP might be wrong in his evaluation as well? Maybe the OP is the type of person gets nervous easily and his Rav is aware of the fact? Bottom-line, don’t be so quick to assume that it’s a pikuach nefesh situation.
We have one person involved who thinks it’s pikuach nefesh (the OP) and one who doesn’t (the Rav).
Why does the fact that the OP is the one who went online make him more reliable than his Rav?2. As Yekke wrote: “Not every situation warrants reporting to the authorities. If you have a way of dealing with it which doesn’t involve mesirah, you probably are not permitted to report.”
3. Please keep in mind that the pikuach nefesh here works both ways. By reporting when it’s not necessary, you may be destroying someone in a worse way than you would by not reporting. You must be sure that it is the correct thing to do before doing so.
4. If you are really concerned that your Rav isn’t handling it correctly, ask another Rav, but make sure he is more competent than the first. Or find someone who knows the family and will either know if the situation is really life-threatening and/or will be able to do something about it.
Bottom-line: be very careful about making any assumptions in either direction.
One more point: I would call up the Rav again and ask him what he’s done and share my concerns with him, before asking another Rav.
SYAG – I apologize if I misunderstood you.
You started off by writing that these kids “have trouble visualizing anything.”, not that they “can’t but that they “have trouble”.
So when you wrote: “So many of them could not, or they could only visualize an item, but not a scene.” after “we would have to teach them to visualize a scene so they could describe it. “, I thought that you meant that you had to teach them BECAUSE so many of them could not. But I guess you meant that you had to teach them, and (then realized) that “so many could not..”Again, I apologize for misunderstanding.
To all those who wrote that of course it’s pikiuach nefesh:
Please note that the OP wrote:
“If nothing is going on that will make living next to him uncomfortable”So he obviously thinks that there is a definite possibility that it’s not pikuach nefesh and that there is no reason to call the police.
SYAG – it sounds like what you are describing is a lesser-degree than what Chabadgal is describing. You wrote that you have to teach the kids how to do this – that means that they are capable of learning it; it is just harder for them and doesn’t come naturally like it does for everyone else.
Chabadgal seemed to be saying that she is incapable of doing this. Unless that is just because she didn’t have qualified educators teaching her how to do it when she was young.
not fair – my post was blocked : (
And it really was supposed to be before MW13’s.
Gavriel: “I have neighbours who scream at each other all the time, they’re in their 80s and have probably been married for 40+ years. Point being: there is a possibility they are just the type of people who scream, not good but not necessarily violent. Consider that the Rov may have more knowledge about the case which he isn’t at liberty to reveal.”
+1 on both points. I certainly have known of families where there was a lot of screaming going on, but calling the police was not warranted. In one particular case, I did speak to their Rav, but in most of the cases, even that wasn’t warranted.
Be Joseph or RebYidd. Once you’ve been here a bit, you’ll figure it out. It shouldn’t take so long.
I’m very offended by all the posters who have implied that there is something wrong with gaining weight.
I don’t have aphantasia, but I think that I might be somewhat “learning disabled” in terms of being able to hold things in my mind in any form other than numbers or letters. For example, I have a hard time recognizing people.
I read an article in one of the Frum magazines once about people who have a hard time recognizing people. There is a name for it, but I forget what it’s called. I always assumed, at least in my case, that the reason why I have a hard time with this is that I have a hard time processing anything that is not in letter/number form. I don’t know if that is definitely true – that was just my assumption.
Not everyone looks at profiles. Although some people do more than that.
Yekke2 , +1.
I heard a very similar story told about Rav Moshe Shternbuch and his friend when they were bochurim (although I also can’t verify the accuracy of the details, but I also don’t think it matters).
I don’t remember who the Rosh Yeshiva was. It wasn’t a precise amount of money, but the point was that didn’t raise much money and came back discouraged.
The Rosh Yeshiva called them in and congratulated them on raising so much money for the Yeshiva. They were like, “What do you mean? We hardly raised anything!”. He said, “While you were gone (or right after you came back), donated a lot of money. It was because of your hishtadlus.
As the Mesilas Yesharim says: hishtadlus is “muchrach” (required) but not “moil” (causes). The hishtadlus is not the cause. Only Hashem is the cause. As we say in Ani Maamin, “v’hu levado asa oseh v’yaaseh…”
We do hishtadlus only because Hashem let us know that He wants us to. If we don’t the hishtadlus that we are supposed to do (according to our personal levels and situations), then He may choose not to help us. (of course even if we do hishtadlus, He may also choose not to help us).
But it is not the hishtadlus, but only Hashem who makes things happen (even though our lack of hishtadlus may be a reason why He may decide not to help us. For that reason, too much hishtadlus could also be a reason why He may decide not to help us. Lack of bitachon or lack of davenings can be other reasons as well).
From this last source, we see the following:
1. There is a difference between a situation in which he had started eating the second food and a situation in which he had not.
2. If he hadn’t started eating the second food yet, then it is possible that he has “separated himself” from the bracha rishona once he made a bracha achrona. It is a safek.
3. If he had started the second food, the original bracha rishona is still chal as long as the bracha achrona is not chal on the second food.
4. Borei nefashos said on rice is not chal on a mezonos (even though bdieved borei nefashos might be chal on anything)
5. Al hamichya said on a mezonos product might be chal on rice even if that wasn’t his intention (as seen if 37/3 quoted earlier)
6. Borei nefashos said on rice might be chal on less than a k’zayis of mezonos.I made a mistake when I quoted the source in “V’zos Habracha”. I mistakenly wrote 37/2, and it was really 37/3. However, it was hashgacha (as is everything) that I did so, since when I went to look it up again, I found something interesting in 37/2:
אכל אורז ומיני מזונות ובירך בורא נפשות על האורז – יכול להמשיך ולאכול את המזונות בלי ברכה, כיון שהן איון כלולות בברכתו (כל זה אם הוא אכל כבר מהמזונות לפני שבירך ב”נ, אך אם הוא רק אכל אורז, ובירך ב”נ יש להסתפק אם נחשב הדבר שסילק את עצמו מן הברכה הראשונה שבירך קודם ויש ספק אם צריך לברך מחדש על המזונות. ויעשה שינוי מקום והפסק וכדומה – כמבואר בתחילת בירור הלכה סימן ל”ז. או יפטור את המזונות בברכה על מאכל שלא היה בדעתו לאכול)
וכל הדין הזה מדובר אם אכל כזית מהמזונות אך אם אכל רק פחות מכזית, אזי יתכן שבורא נפשות פווטרת את המזונות שאם אין חיוב על המחיה יתכן שבורא נפשות פוטרת גם מזונות (ראה מגן אברהם רי א, והתבאר בליבון הלכה@Yekke re: post #1334394:
I reread your post (a few times). I really don’t understand what you are trying to say. I wonder if you misunderstood my point. I had been talking about the svara raised by Sam (and apparently your father) that it would only be possible to say that it might be muttar to continue eating the rice w/o a bracha if you had already started eating it.
That svara made sense to me, and I was bringing a “support” for it (although it’s not a proof). My “support” for the svara that if you hadn’t started eating the rice before you made the al hamichya then you can no longer eat it w/o a bracha (even if the halacha is that if you had started it, you could continue to eat it w/o a bracha) is as follows:
If you would say that, then you would also have to say that any time someone makes a bracha of mezonos and has in mind that it should apply to anything else they eat, then even if they make a bracha achrona and later decide to eat rice 12 hours later, they would not need to make a new bracha as long as they didn’t do anything in between to cause a hefseik.Normally, there are 2 possibilities: a person makes a bracha achrona or he doesn’t. If he didn’t make a bracha achrona, he can continue to eat all day without a new bracha (as long as he doesn’t do anything else that causes a hefseik). If he did make a bracha achrona, he can no longer eat without a new bracha rishona.
The problem here is that we have a strange situation, since we have a food that has the same bracha rishona and a different bracha achrona. This is an unusual situation, and I don’t know if we have it anywhere else.
At the moment, we are operating under the assumption that the al hamichya was not chal on the rice (which is probably incorrect anyhow, but that doesn’t matter right now). Therefore we are assuming that one can continue eating the rice w/o a new bracha.
I am saying that it must be that this can only be true if he started eating the rice. Otherwise, any time that someone makes an al hamichya, he would not be allowed to make a new mezonos if he eats rice at any point that day before he goes to sleep (as long as he doesn’t create a hefseik in another way).
This could only happen with al hamichya and rice since normally any food that has the same bracha rishona also has the same bracha achrona (unless there’s something else like this).
Had you understood me? If so, can you please reexplain your point because I didn’t get it.
I just realized what your point might have been – Was your point that you specifically had in mind not to include the rice? Are you saying that if you hadn’t had that in mind, then you would assume that the rice was automatically included whether or not you had started it, but if you had it in mind, then it shouldn’t matter if you had started eating it or not?
I hadn’t been looking at it that way, because I had understood (perhaps mistakenly) that you weren’t originally even considering the possibility that the al hamichya could be chal on the rice even if you hadn’t specifically had in mind disclude it.
“It doesn’t sound like in his case he was mechaven that the al hamichya shouldn’t go on the rice. I think there is a big mokom to differentiate.”
I’m sure that he was mechaven that the al hamichya shouldn’t go on the rice. It says that he wants to continue eating the rice, so he clearly did not intend for the al hamichya to include the rice.
“I disagree. According to your rationale, the reason you cannot continue eating forever (as long as you haven’t made a ברכה אחרונה) is because the brocho is only chal when you eat it – so if you make a brocho on a large challah, and begin eating it, can you continue eating the challah without a new brocho tomorrow? Obviously not.”
I’m not sure what you are trying to say here. According to halacha, once you make a bracha you can continue eating all day unless something happens that is considered to be a “hefseik” according to halacha. A bracha achrona is one type of “hefseik”.
Going to sleep for the night is another type of “hefseik.” So even if you didn’t make a bracha achrona, you would not be allowed to continue eating the next day without a new bracha (assuming you went to sleep). “But you would be allowed to continue eating the entire day until you go to sleep (unless you do one of the other things that create a hefseik).
(Source: “Halachos of Brachos” by Rav Bodner, page 158-159): “Most Poskim rule, that, although a lapse of time affects a brocha achrona, it does not affect a brocha rishona….Since the brocha on nuts is valid for the entire day (provided that it is not terminated by a change of location, a decision to stop eating or the recital of a bracha achrona), he may continue eating nuts (or any other fruit that was included in his original brocha until the time he goes to sleep, without having to make a new brocha.”)
Iacisrmma – sorry about that. I realized after my post was put up that I may have put the smiley in the wrong place. I also realized when I read your post that that might be the reason you missed it.
As I was posting, i was trying to figure out where to put the smiley. I was never “taught” these things – I go by how it looks. The problem is that with the new format, you can’t see how things look until it’s too late.
As soon as I saw it, I realized that it didn’t look right.
One of my issues is that I’m not so comfortable using smileys when posting to members of the opposite gender, but sometimes it’s necessary to use them in order to ensure that no one is offended.
I think that was my reasoning when I put it after the link. I felt that a smiley was necessary in this case (and you have proven me right), but I thought it would look less inappropriate after the link.
In any case, I apologize for any inadvertent offense, and thank you for the tip on how to use smileys, so now I will know for the future.
L’maaseh, the sefarim I’ve been looking at seem to say that al hamichya either exempts the rice or it’s a safek if it exempts the rice. This would mean that you definitely should not be eating it without a new bracha, and perhaps you shouldn’t be eating it at all (unless you find someone to be motzi you).
In Rav Bodner’s Hilchos Brachos sefer, he quotes the Shaarei Teshuva that if you ate regular mezonos and rice and said al hamichya, the al hamichya exempts the rice and you are no longer allowed to say a borei nefashos. (which would also imply that you shouldn’t eat more w/o a bracha).
He quotes the Ben Ish Chai that you are supposed to say just an al hamichya l’chatchila, and the מגיה לחסד אלפים that you should first say a borei nefashos and then an al hamichya. It sounds like according to the “magiah l’chesed alafim”, it must be a safeik whether or not the al hamichya exempts the rice, whether or not you want it to.
Based on these sources, it would seem that it’s a safeik and the best thing to do would be to not eat the rice.
(cont. of last post)
Unless we go back to point #2 and one knows that the original mezonos can not possibly be “chal” once an “al hamichya” is said (in which case you would definitely be allowed to make a new bracha on the rice regardless of point #1).Personally that seems to me a bit shvach. It’s hard for me to imagine that there is any concept of a bracha achrona “cutting off a bracha rishona” (although I could be wrong). According to halacha, the reason you can’t eat anymore is because of “hefseik” not because the bracha was cut off.
I think that if this is an issue, it’s not that the bracha achrona cuts off the bracha rishona, but that a bracha that no longer applies to the original food it was made on can no longer apply to anything else.
But I know of no source for this and it doesn’t sound right to me. Certainly if it’s a food that you specifically had in mind (as Yekke said) and that you already started eating (as Sam said), I would think that wouldn’t be an issue. But I have no conclusive sources either way.
There is a third issue here as well:
What happens if someone mistakenly makes a bracha achrona even though he wsa planning to continue eating?
If the “al hamichya” is automatically “chal” on the rice even though Yekke didn’t intend it to, then perhaps this situation falls in that category. According to Rav Bodner’s sefer (p. 124), it’s a machlokes, so you are not allowed to continue eating.
I wasn’t talking about money.
I also didn’t mean to imply that c”v I don’t like people who don’t fit in those categories. I just meant that these are the kinds of people I prefer to spend time with.
I want to clarify what I think the relevant issues are here. I think that there are two ways of approaching the issue. Meno, Yekke, & Sam are approaching it from one angle, and I (and the Sefarim I looked at) are approaching it from another.
The two possible issues are:1. The reason that you can’t continue eating once you make a bracha achrona is that the bracha achrona provides a” “hefseik”. So the question here is: Does the “al hamichya” in this case exempt the rice and thereby create a “hefseik”?
2. Even if it doesn’t exempt the rice, can one say that a bracha rishona that no longer applies to the food on which it was made can still apply to another food (in this case a food that one specifically had in mind when he made the original bracha)?
I was approaching the issue from the first angle, and Meno & Yekke2 were approaching it from the second angle (as far as I can tell – they can feel free to correct me if I’m wrong).
If the answer to 1. is that the al hamichya exempts the rice in this situation, then 2. becomes irrelevant since he clearly needs a new bracha.
If it’s a safek if the al hamichya exempts the rice, then “safek brachos l’hakel” and he is not allowed to make a new bracha, but it is also better if he doesn’t eat the rice. However, in that case, if we knew for sure that the answer to #2 is that the bracha of mezonos was terminated and can no longer be “chal” on anything, then he can certainly make a new mezonos.
“Although the eating is the mechayav, are you sure that the brocho hasn’t taken effect until you actually begin eating?”
It has to be that way (according to this svara that the bracha of mezonos is still “chal” on the rice even after the al hamichya) Otherwise, anytime someone makes a Mezonos on a regular mezonos product and he has in mind that his bracha should cover any foods he will eat that have the bracha on Mezonos (as the Rema says that one should have in mind), then after he makes an al hamichya, if he wants to eat rice at some point later on, he wouldn’t make a new bracha, since his original bracha is still “chal” since the al himichya didn’t end it. That is ridiculous! I don’t think that anyone would say that.non-judgmental, intelligent, and not needy. People with whom I can have an intelligent conversation.
I just realized this couldn’t have been the sefer you were quoting, since you wrote that you are sure that your al hamichya did not exempt the rice since you had in mind that you didn’t want it to, and this Sefer’s safek is based on the fact that the al hamichya may have exempted the rice anyhow.
So it sounds like your sefer had a different reason for צ”ע. What was his reasoning? And what was the reasoning of your LORs who said that you needed a new bracha?
Things to do when you have a safek brachos:
1. Shinui makom (change of place – go outside). Note: this does not work for Mezonos or Hamotzi, so it wouldn’t help here.
2. Have someone else be motzi you
3. Make a bracha on another food that you definitely did not have in mind the first time (although whenever you make a bracha on food, l’chatchila you are supposed to have in mind that it should cover any other food w that you may eat that has the same bracha. If you do that, then this suggestion would be impossible in most cases. However, in this case, if you made a mezonos on any “regular mezonos” it should be okay since your al hamichya certainly covered any “regular mezonos”According to the Sefer “V’zos Habracha”:
1. If you ate a regular Mezonos food and rice, the “al hamichya” that you make on the regular Mezonos exempts the rice (פרק כב הלכה ב בשם שע”ת רח/ט, כה”ח רח/מא)
2. The author adds in parenthesis that there is an opinion that one should say borei nefashos first, although this is not the opinion that he is going by and it seems to be a minority opinion. According to that opinion, it would seem that there is some safek involved regarding whether or not the al hamichya exempts the rice. But again, this may be a minority opinion and it may not be one that is accepted l’halacha.
3. Later on (Birur Halacha, 37/2), he writes that if someone ate regular mezonos and rice and he made an al hamichya on the regular mezonos and he wants to continue eating the rice(the OP’s case), it is a safek as to whether or not he can continue eating the rice w/o a bracha, since al hamichya exempts rice b’dieved, so it’s considered that he has a “siluk” (removal) from the rice, and t/f (since it’s a safek), he must do one of the things that one does whenever he has a safek brachos.
Yekke, was this the Sefer that you quoted in the OP?
“In my day (30 years ago) taking date to a restaurant was “normal” even in yeshivish circles. It is not pretzus.”
My comment was meant “tongue in cheek” (that’s why I put a smiley, because I didn’t want anyone to think I meant it and that I was, c”v, criticizing people who go to restaurants on dates).
I was saying that to Joseph because he has come out against people doing things on dates, as seen in the thread I linked as well as his above response.
And btw, if you check out that thread, you’ll see that I came out in favor of people doing stuff on dates.
Actually, the reason I prefer to do things on dates is precisely because of the OP’s reasoning – if you do something fun on a date, it is harder to have a bad date. The reason why most of my dates are bad is because we don’t do anything, so if you don’t like the guy, it is just a waste of time and energy.
I would be able to go out more often if the guys I went out with actually took me to restaurants or to somewhere fun.
” However, at this point you have 2 LOR’s saying make a new brocha and one saying no. Do we follow the ROV (majority)?”
In general, the rule with brachos is: ספק ברכות להקל but in this case, one would first have to determine who the Rabbanim are who are saying this and what they are basing this on.
Mazel Tov!
” BTW> the chassan/kallah loved your gift”
Curious to know what you gave??Yekke2: “Because, on the negative side, the emotional investment a girl goes through is tenfold that of a man. And that’s just while deciding what to wear.”
lol. +1
“Getting dressed for a free meal at a nice restaurant is worth getting dressed even if the date turns out to be a dud. At least she got a nice meal that was paid for her.”
Restaurants on a date???!!!! Are you modern or something????That sounds like the height of pritzus to me!! (https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/is-dating-tznius 🙂
Very interesting question. I’m impressed that you even realized that it was a sheilah. If I had been in that situation, I don’t think that I would even have realized there was a sheilah – I would have assumed that I could continue eating w/o a bracha.
Meno makes a good point, but I think the issue may also have to do with the way that we view rice, since rice is a safek to begin with and if you make an al himichya on rice, b’dieved you are yotzei. I want to look into this when I have a chance. Thanks for the “food for thought”.
Lowerourtuition: My impression was that he didn’t realize it was a sheilah/safeik until afterwards.
To clarify my above post: When I wrote that “it doesn’t mean it’s ideal”, perhaps the person feels that in a particular situation it is necessary, but in others it’s not, or perhaps he feels that it’s a b’dieved, so in some situations one has no choice but one should try to do it as little as possible, or perhaps he feels that it’s something that he needs to work on as well. (I’m talking in general now, not just about this case).
“also another question. you are using the internet while writing this article. so please dont be a hypocrite. ”
“Hey, that not true. Internet and smartphones are worlds apart. And yes, Internet may also be wrong in many circumstances, but most of the points the author lamented in the OP are not relevant to internet, they are specifically about smartphones.”
True, but there is also another point to be made here: Even if it had been about internet, I don’t think that necessarily makes the poster a hypocrite. Actually, I would say that it makes him/her intellectually honest.
One of the main reasons for people having a hard time acknowledging that a certain behavior is problematic is that they themselves engage it. An intellectually honest person is able to acknowledge that the fact that he does something doesn’t make it ideal.
Mazel Tov!
Shopping – Your post does not answer Haimy’s objections. He did not compare forums to chat rooms and he did not state an opinion on either.
His point was that Loshon Hora and Onaas Devarim are assur whether online or offline.
And no, one should not try to “develop a thick skin” if that means becoming insensitive to Loshon Hora and Onaas Devarim.
Kol Hakavod Haimy, for “not having a thick skin” and being sensitive to these issues. If you continue participating in this forum, I hope that you are able to maintain your sensitivity and not “develop such a thick skin” that you become insensitive to L”H and O”D.
Shkoyach!
Iacisrmma – The OP labeled the boy as Chareidi in his title. He did not have to do so.
oyyoyyoy, Shkoyach!!! +1,000!
SYAG – Amen!
WTP – Shkoyach! +1,000!
ZD – I agree. That is why I wish that people would be more careful about what they post in the Coffee Room!!! They can cause unmeasureable damage!!
1. I haven’t read the article and have no interest in doing so, but it is never okay to refer to another Jew as “despicable”, particularly during The Three Weeks. THAT is appalling!
2. It is also inappropriate and halachically problematic to refer to someone as Chareidi if their views do not reflect the Chareidi position (since it implies that this is the Chareidi point of view.)
3. If the boy was interviewed “on the spot”, it is certainly inappropriate for anyone to be writing about him and attacking him.
GadolHadorah – If I understand correctly, your comments are referring to how the army should be run on the battlefield during a time of war. That is not what was I referring to. That is not the case most of the time, nor is it the case now, so that is not what anyone is talking about when they are describing how the army should be run.
Obviously, when someone is on the battlefield, they don’t run away because they hear a woman singing to herself in a foxhole (and if there are soldiers singing to themselves in foxholes, the Army definitely needs to be redone! 🙂
That is not where the kol isha issue came up in the army. The issue was that the Army was FORCING soldiers to attend PERFORMANCES of women singing publicly. That is completely assur, and there is no pikuach nefesh involved.
The Army clearly does not consider Israel to be in the same kind of emergency situation that you are envisioning if they have the time and energy to stage performances.
In any event, even in the emergency situation you are envisioning, the ONLY reason why it would be permissible for the soldier in question to not run away when the lady starts singing is because the halacha says not to, and NOT because we ignore halacha in such a situation. Halacha takes precedence over everything else, period! When we are mechalel Shabbos to save lives, it is only because (and when) the halacha says to do so.
No, I found out that it couldn’t have been you, Random3x. And you would have known what I was asking if it was, so it clearly wasn’t.
Joseph – you were on my list of suspects. I’m still unsure, but I think it’s unlikely. What I was sure of was that you would claim it was you. (you have a tendency of doing that).
Daas Yachid: “GH, it is your comment which is absurd. Yes, most issurim can be violated for pikuach nefesh. That is indeed the halacha. But to say that therefore an army doesn’t need to follow halacha? That is the biggest narishkeit.”
+1. It’s also missing the whole point of why we do hishtadlus in the first place as well as an understanding of what Eretz Yisrael is about and the reason for living there in the first place.
Random3x, was that you?
Guess.
“I actually said that as a joke, but based on what iacisrmma said, it might be better if you don’t say why you’re calling.”
The Chofetz Chaim says that’s assur. You are only allowed to ask for and to listen to information l’toeles if the person knows it’s l’toeles. Otherwise, he is doing an aveira by telling you about the person since he is not speaking l’toeles, and you are doing an averia by asking him for information since you are leading him to sin.