Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
We already have a thread about this. Why was it necessary to make another one?
GAW: “lilmod ulelamaid – Joe is known to cut and paste from Frumteens”
Just for the record, I’m not Joseph. Never have been and never will be 🙂
DY: “No, he wants them to overcome their temptations and live productive lives.”
+1
“Is it okay to call the shadchan on your own without your parents getting involved if your 20 years old?”
I’ve always dealt with all my shidduchim on my own, and so have most of my friends, but these things probably have to do with your community and family.
As an American in Israel, I wasn’t part of a community, so I had a lot more leeway regarding these kinds of “rules”.
I guess the questions you have to ask yourself are:
1. Why is it important to you to call the shadchanim on your own?
2. In your community, would it be very looked-down-on and cause people to think poorly of you or affect the type of shidduch suggestions you get?
3. Once you have answered questions 1 & 2, weigh the answers against each other in order to reach a decision.
Personally, it doesn’t sound like a big deal to me, but I don’t know your community and family norms.
Hatzlacha!
bump
rebshidduch, please see my first post above.
GAW: “LUL – except here, Rav Moshe is someone one whom you can be Somech.”
Benignuman: “I didn’t see that in my edition of the Igros Moshe. Can you point me to the line you are referring to. It seems to me that in Even HaEzer 1:114 he says the opposite.”
GAW, This ^ was my point. I did look at Igros Moshe inside on Motzei Shabbos and it was the same inside as it was in R’ Ellinson’s sefer. I still don’t see what you are saying. He says the opposite. The only thing that is more meikel because of society is saying K”S in front of a woman with uncovered hair.
I don’t have the Igros Moshe at home, but if you tell me the volume and page # where this Teshuva is (as well as the line you are referring to), I can look it up in hebrew books. Thank you.
DY: “Hashem is the one forcing them.”
+1
“It is not the same as other attractions that we have laws against.”
Who says?
There are many people who are forced to be abstinent for many reasons. What about all the singles? And mamzerim? (while technically, there are ways that mamzeirim can get married, they are not so practical, and are therefore probably irrelevant for most mamzeirim). And what about agunos?
Life is hard. Good morning, America. And there are many things in life that are much harder than that. What about all the people who went through the Holocaust? What about all the kids who are abused and/or molested (and this category probably includes most or all people who are gay, btw)?
ZD – to be fair, I was talking about Americans in Israel. I don’t know about Israelis. I could hear where if an Israeli Chareidi wanted to teach his son english, it could be a reason to suspect that there is an issue with his general outlook (for an Israeli Chareidi). Since it is so atypical, it may show that he wants to leave the community to some degree.
Also, Brisk is its own thing and does not necessarily represent the entire Israeli Chareidi community.
B’nei Brak is also not Yerushalayim or any other city in EY, and does not reflect the entire Israeli Chareidi community.
And again, girls’ education is very different. The girls do learn english in school.
GAW: “L’maase, you were quoting someone quoting Rav Moshe, you did not (yet) look it up inside. It may be worth your while (as you seem to agree) to assume that the person (even if a Talmid Chacham) quoting does so selectively at best, or with and agenda. Look at the sources yourself and come to your own conclusion”
I agree that it is always best to look things up inside. I do think though that there is a very big difference between someone “quoting” a source, and actually bringing the source. Rav Ellinson brings the actual sources. While it may be somewhat preferable to actually look up the sources myself, I don’t think it’s THAT different. It is like going to a shiur where they bring source sheets as opposed to actual Sefarim. It is certainly not in the same category as quoting someone who is simply quoting a source (or cutting and pasting from Frumteens, whatever that is).
I also do tend to trust Rav Ellinson, because he is someone who brings sources and does bring a variety of opinions, and doesn’t simply say things like, “All the Gedolim say…” like some Sefarim do, without listing sources or even explaining who exactly “all the Gedolim” are.
That being said, I do think it’s preferable to look things up myself if possible, but I have no problem trusting R’ Ellinson’s sources until such time as I am able to find the sources myself.
GAW: “LUL – You do have the more difficult task.”
Actually, the reason that I have the more difficult task is that it’s harder for me to get ahold of sefarim since I can’t just walk into a shul and use their Sefarim, my own Sefarim collection is limited, and half my Sefarim are in the US.
“Many Rishonim and Achronim quote others as support for their shittos, and when you look inside the actual source, they said no such thing.”
I have a problem with this statement. If you are talking about someone contemporary, I could understand it. But I have a hard time seeing how you can claim to understand a source better than a Rishon.
“Finally, I’m glad that you agree that 4 inches is not Halacha. A certain “Rabbi” supposedly put out a letter that wearing a skirt that is less that 4 inches below the knee is just as Assur (“no less forbidden”) as eating Treif or going mixed swimming.”
IF it IS true that it is impossible for a skirt to fully cover one’s knees in any position unless it is at least 4 inches below the knees, then that statement is correct. As I said, I have never measured a skirt and I have no idea how much 4 inches is. But it does make sense that it may be the case.
I think most people don’t realize that if you want to make sure that your knees never show, then your skirts really do need to be way below your knees. The main thing that bothers me about those kinds of statements is that girls are misled into thinking that if their skirts are 4 inches, they are fine, and they may not be.
I guess the reason people got into the 4 inches thing in the first place was because girls thought they were fine if their skirts covered their knees in the front while they are standing still. Many people nowadays are not sensitive enough to know how to figure out if something is tznius unless they are given a measurement that can be measured with a ruler instead of using their seichel.
Personally, I have more of an issue with the idea that your skirts can’t be too long, and I plan to start a movement on behalf of long skirts. Halevei that everyone should wear long skirts, imho!
“It is critical to know what is Halacha, Chumra and Geder.”
Maskim 100%! I am a big believer in that.
“Being Dan L’Kaf Zechus, I assume the letter is a forgery, but some people really do think as such.”
I saw a letter on a busstop recently that someone had written to R’ Chaim about the fact that the high school his daughter wants to go to said they will only accept her if she starts wearing shorter skirts (I think that means not longer than mid-calf or something like that). R’ Chaim said that chalila she should wear shorter skirts even if she won’t get into high school.
When I told a Rav I know about this, he laughed and said that these letters are usually forgeries (he agrees with the idea that long skirts are a problem).
“I do not know Rav Ellinson (from whose sefer you quoted), but I will be Dan L’Kaf Zechus that he brings down both shittos.”
He actually does, but he brings the other as a minority opinion, and my impression was that there are no contemporary Poskim who hold that way.
That is the main issue I have with the sources you are quoting. While I am happy to do more research and look up these sources (as soon as I can get ahold of them), at the end of the day, if no contemporary Poskim hold that way, it is irrelevant what the Beis Yosef or other Rishonim say. There are many opinions in the Rishonim that we don’t go by, and the fact that someone can find a support in a Rishon for a certain action does not make it okay.
In fact, I have been wondering if that is the issue with OO and Avi Weiss. I would imagine that Avi Weiss is not the type to do something out of nowhere without finding a source. I thought that the issue might be that one can’t just find their own sources and posken against all the contemporary Gedolim. That is why Daas Torah is such a critical component of Torah Hashkafa. The entire halacha system is based on it.
Benignuman – I will try to look at the Bais Yosef when I have a chance. Thanks.
LB – yeah, that sounds close enough to me. It’s not like we are talking about a halachic measurement per se’. If that were the case, they would probably have to be more accurate. We are talking about a general measurement given as a guideline to help people make sure that their knees are covered (as I understand the issue).
And I like your reasoning for rounding up.
flatbushaskan – lol, +1.
ZD – it was an American Bais Yaakov girl.
Even in Israel, no one has a problem with girls learning english (I don’t know about Shakespeare though). All the Bais Yaakovs teach english (or at least almost all – there could be an exception, but I haven’t heard of any)
The boys don’t learn english in school, but many learn out of school, and I have never heard of anyone objecting. I even have a friend whose son is in a Yiddish school, and he gets english lessons. She wouldn’t do it if it were against the rules or considered OTD (and yes, the kids are trilingual).
The issue that R’ Chaim had with shakespeare was not that it’s english. I believe the issue was that the RY who asked him said that it has the 3 aveiros chamuros in it (although I am a bit reluctant to quote something that I heard third-hand several years ago, and can’t guarantee 100% accuracy). But the issue was definitely not that it’s english.
LB – I would only do it in a Frum store. To be perfectly honest, I think I only did it once (I don’t have a car, so it’s usually not possible), and that one time, not only was it a Frum store, but it was a Gemach store (everything costs around $3.00; some is new and some is hand-me-downs).
In any case, Frum people usually trust Frum people, and even not-Frum Jews often trust Frum people. I remember being in a not-Frum sock store when I was in a high school, and when I got to the counter, I realized I needed to ask my mother (who was in the car) something before I paid, so I asked the guy if I could go out to the car. He let me take the socks with me, saying something like, “of course I would trust a nice Jewish girl.”
And in Eretz Yisrael, it happened more than once that I didn’t have enough money, and the guy told me I could pay him back another time. Once, it was in Machane Yehuda! And another time in Angel’s.
Jews tend to trust other Jews, Boruch Hashem!
skywalk
younger
I’m wondering if it’s done just because it was always done, and no one got around to changing it.
It is hard to find Frum quality literature, and until recently, there was hardly even any Frum non-quality literature. Once you’re already reading secular books, there is probably nothing that is completely Kosher. Shakespeare is considered a classic and a necessity for any half-decent Literature class. Also, they probably carefully select which Shakespeare plays they read. Also, I’m not sure that I remember anything so terrible from the Shakespeare plays we read in high school, but it could be it went past me or I wasn’t paying attention.
I’m not saying it’s right; I’m just giving some of the possible reasons I can think of.
LB – I don’t know. It’s a good question. I know someone who went to a Bais Yaakov high school where they taught Shakespeare. Her grandfather is a well-known Rosh Yeshiva and he asked R’ Chaim Kanievsky if his granddaughters were allowed to read Shakespeare and he said no, so they got permission to skip english class (or at least the classes when they taught Shakespeare).
GAW: “I personally never got the signs, because what if someone sitting down has their knees showing even after the extra four inches? I’ve also seen 10 CM, and those are not the same as 4 inches, which shiur is it?”
My undertanding is that what the Rabbanim are saying is that 4 centimeters is the minimum that could possibly be okay for any skirt for any person. But it is not always enough, since some skirts/people may require more. Generally speaking, the straighter the skirt is, the more material it will need to ensure that knees are always covered.
Additionally, if someone crosses their legs, they need much more material and people don’t always take that into account when shopping (or they kid themselves into thinking they will never cross their legs, and then they do).
It always bothers me when people talk about the 4 inches as though the halacha is that your skirts have to be 4 inches below your knee. That is not the halacha! The halacha is that you knees must always be covered at all times, and that is impossible with a skirt that is less than 4 inches below your knee. (at least that is what I’ve been told. Personally, I have never measured a skirt). But it is assur to buy a skirt that is 4 or even 5 inches below your knees if your knees will end up showing.
Personally, before I buy skirts, I take a chair and put it in front of the mirror and sit down and cross my legs and see if my knees show or not. I also try to look in the mirror to see how the skirt looks in both the front and back when walking or standing, because sometimes skirts are shorter in the back. Sometimes, I ask the saleslady if I can wear the skirt outside so I can see how it is getting into the car.
I didn’t know that 10 centimeters was not the same as 4 inches. It probably started with 10 centimeters since they use centimeters in EY, and then they rounded it off for inches. Do you know how much 10 centimeters is? And are you sure 10 is what they say for centimeters? (as I said, I have never paid that much attention to these measurements).
“LB: What do you think “bachurim” means? You wrote “Warning: Don’t feed the bachurim”. Why would I think you are referring to bears?”
Iacisrmma, while I understand why you thought LB meant what you thought she meant and I understand why that bothered you, it sounds like she didn’t mean it that way at all.
I think it had to do with some kind of play on words from “don’t feed the bears”. I’m not sure if I totally get it either, but I can assure you that LB is not the type to have intended any slight to Yeshiva Bochurim (or any other group in Am Yisrael). She is one of the most (perhaps the most) sensitive posters in the CR.
Flatbusher- I’m from out-of-town and I love out-of-town, and I didn’t see anything wrong with your statement whatsoever and was totally not offended.
You were just stating your opinion about out-of-town living. You weren’t criticizing the people.
Additionally, I’m not even sure that it was necessarily an objectively negative statement. Some people think it’s a maaleh to be in the midbar- away from distractions and gashmius. I read that R’ Aharon davka chose Lakewood for his Yeshiva for that reason.
“LuL, What you’re saying is a Chofetz Chaim. Those two things exactly, are what is stopping the rebuilding of the Beis Hamikdosh.”
Geordie – +1! That’s the proof that those two things are worse than the Churban. Hashem is withholding the Beis Hamikdosh because He wants us to get rid of LH and SC, so clearly Hashem considers LH and SC to be much worse.
GAW, I don’t have time and energy for this discussion tonight. I hope to respond tomorrow, but a few important points I do want to make now:
GAW: “LUL – I await you going through the Sugyah, not quoting others and writing their opinions. You may as well copy and paste FrumTeens.
Would you please inform us who you are quoting?”
Excuse me! That is rather insulting! I am not in the habit of just quoting random people without looking things up myself. I know how to learn, thank you. And I certainly don’t copy and paste from Frumteens.
My source for the Shulchan Arucha and Mishna Brura were the Shulchan Aruch and Mishna Brura.
The Igros Moshe and R’ Ovadiah were from “Hatzneia Leches” by Rav Ellinson, which is one the only sefarim on hilchos tznius that actually brings sources, which is why it is the only seifer on hilchos tznius that I have any use for. (the translation was my own. So was the transliteration – typing in hebrew takes too long).
I usually try to look things up inside, but since I don’t have an Igros Moshe at home, I was not able to do so Erev Shabbos. But since he brings the sources themselves, it is basically the same thing as looking it up myself.
In any case, I did look up the Igros Moshe tonight inside the actual Sefer, and I did not notice anything different than what was brought in R’ Ellinson’s Sefer.
“LUL – Also, if you ever go through Rishonim and Achronim on a Sugyah, it is normal that the Shittah brings others to support. Then, when looking at the source, it doesn’t support that Shittah, and others bring the source for the other shittah. That is why you always need to look at the source inside.”
I’ve gone through Rishonim and Achronim on Sugyahs, but I didn’t quite understand this sentence. Maybe I’ll try reading it again when I’m more awake. In any case, I usually do look up sources when I can, but I didn’t have the necessary Sefarim. I will try to get ahold of them this week if I can.
I have a lot more to say, but am too tired now, so it will have to wait.
LB, my high schoool did. That was many years ago, so I don’t know if things have changed since then or not.
LB: “Anyway thank you. I realized that there was no answer here. I needed to say it aloud and realize what it meant to me. What I learned was that even when the Rebbetzin said that there was no dress code, I didn’t feel comfortable dressing untzniusly. I know that for myself, I must dress tzniusly. That’s ideal. Right now, I am not-ideal. However, I can at least not show up untzniusly. I don’t want to add that. And if I want Torah, then okay, I need to find a sustainable way to learn and grow.”
LB, shkoyach! I’m impressed!
DY: “You shouldn’t be dressing in a non-tznius manner in public regardless of whether there are or aren’t rabbis or rebbetzins there.”
DY, while I agree with you in theory, I’m not sure it was the appropriate response in this case. She’s in the process of becoming Frum, and working very hard to grow in tznius. Cut her some slack. People have to grow at their own pace, and going too far too fast can be self-defeating.
lambkin
masters
interns
trapped
LB: “Does that apply to sitting too? Does it say anything about having covered knees specifically while sitting?”
Yes, that is the halacha. I am too tired and don’t have time to post those sources, so it will have to wait till M”S or Sunday as well (unless DY beats me to it).
Have a great Shabbos!
A: GAW: “LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.”
1. That’s not true. Sometimes the Mishna Brurah disagrees with the Shulchan Aruch. In those cases, the Mishna Brurah is not explaining the SA according to his own shita.
2. Benignuman seemed to think that the MB is disagreeing with the SA here. He is not – he is explaining what the SA is saying.
3. Are you trying to say that you understand the SA better than the MB does???!!!!
4. There is nothing whatsoever in the words of the SA that says that upper legs and upper legs go by minhag hamakom.
B: GAW: “Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.”
1. “b’makom shehetarich l’hiyos mechuseh” refers to those parts of the body that have to be covered.
2. Rav Moshe clearly states in the above teshuva that these parts have to be covered regardless of the place.
C: “Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).”
I thought you had said or implied that hair didn’t have to be covered. It is true that all you had said was that it’s not a lav or a bitul aseh, but that seemed to be response to my saying that it is assur for hair to be completely uncovered, thereby implying it is not assur.
I do not know what category of issur it is and never claimed to know. I merely stated that it is assur.
D: “Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.”
My points were:
1. That we see that the places that have to be covered for K”S have to be covered in general. R’ Ovadiah, Zatsal, writes about z’roah and shok having to be covered in general, and R’ Moshe writes about hair having to be covered in general. It is not necessarily clear from these teshuvos that we learn it from K”S, but I never made that claim. I merely said that we see that these areas have to be covered in general.
It is true that R’ Moshe doesn’t mention shok and z’roah here. Again, I never claimed that he did – R’ Ovadiah talks about shok and z’roah here and R’ Moshe talks about hair. I am also positive that R’ Moshe has a teshuva where writes that shok either refers to the leg from the knee up or to the entire leg. He might write that the bottom half of the leg depends on minhag hamakom. But he almost definitely writes that the leg from the knee up is completely assur according to everyone.
I don’t have Igros Moshe at home, but I will try to find it over Shabbos, and post it M”S, bli neder.
2. Rav Moshe in the above Teshuva is davka more lenient for Krias Shema. It seems that the halachos are more stringent when it’s not for Krias Shema.
But I will try to read Rav Moshe’s Teshuvos over Shabbos inside.
I also have several other sources regarding the fact that it is assur in general for a man to see these areas even when not saying Krias Shema and that it is assur for a woman to not cover these areas. But I am too tired to post them now, and I have to get ready for Shabbos, so it will probably wait till M”S or Sunday as well.
Yes, but I still don’t get your point. Are you comparing free verse to an emperor who thinks he is wearing clothes but he’s not – meaning the person thinks the free verse is poetry but it’s not?
“Additionally, I use a goral to decide which faction of klal yisroel I support on any given day so any patterns you notice are coincidental.”
lol. good answer.
Sources from contemporary Poskim that minhag hamakom does not make a difference (in terms of “shok” and “z’roah” and hair with the exception of Krias Shema with hair):
1. Yabia Omer 6, Orach Chaim Siman 14, letter 3: “Haholchos b’gilui zroos overes al hadin, v’af al pi sheze darchan k’sil lamo, pshita sheasur l’kros krias Shaema u’l’varech k’negdan… ain l’hakel bazeh klal. u’cvar casav haGaon m’Lubavitch: ha’im nomar sh’im yirtzu hanashim lnhog laleches bimos hakayitz b’shuk meguleh, sh’ail bazeh mishum shuk b’isha ervah, m’pna shenahagu cach? yishtaka hadavar v’lo yomar, vadai, kaivan shehu ervah, lo moil mihhag bazeh”
“Those who walk around with revealed arms are transgressing the law, and even though this is their usual foolish way, it is obvious that it is forbidden to say krias shema and to make brachos in front of them.. and one is not allowed to be lenient in this matter. And the Lubavitcher Rebbe (The Tzemach Tzedek, grandson of the Tanya) already wrote: Would we say that if women want to walk around in the summer with uncovered “shok” (upper leg) that it is not included in “shok b’isha erva” since they are accustomed to do so? We can certainly not say such a thing. SINCE IT IS ERVAH, THE MINHAG (CUSTOM) DOES NOT HELP”.
2. Igros Moshe, Orach Chaim 1, Simanim 42,43:
“rak b’searos megulos, shenispartzu b’davar rov hanashim b’avonoseinu harabim, ain l’esor l’kros krias Shema k’negdan m’taam shecasav Aruch HaShulchan, shekaivan shenispartzu b’davar harbei nashim, af sheovros issur, ail din ervah lkrias Shema u’l’divrei Torah..aval im nireh bsaral b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh, af sheholchos megulos mitzad pritzus, yesh l’esor m’lkros Krias Shema v’amiras Davar Torah k’negdan.”
“Only with uncovered hair, which has become widespread amongst most women due to our many sins, we can’t forbid the recitation of Krias Shema in front of them for the reason given by the Aruch HaShulchan, that since it has become common amongst many women, even though THEY ARE COMMITTING A SIN, it is not ervah regarding the recitation of Krias Shema and Divrei Torah… but if their skin shows in places that it is supposed to be covered, EVEN THOUGH IT IS THE NORM TO WALK AROUND THAT WAY BECAUSE OF PRITZUS, it is still forbidden to recite Krias Shema or to say Divrei Torah in front of them.”
We see the following from these sources:
1. In terms of hair, upper arms and upper legs, the “minhag hamakom” makes no difference in terms of its being forbidden to walk around that way.
2. The only situation in which one of these things becomes more lenient due to minhag hamakom is for saying Krias Shema or Divrei Torah in front of a woman with uncovered hair. However, even in terms of uncovered hair, it is still forbidden to walk around that way.
3. These halachos are not just about a man saying krias Shema in front of a woman. It is also forbidden for a woman to walk around with these areas uncovered even if no one is saying Krias Shema.
4. The halachos of Krias Shema are actually more lenient (I think DY may have pointed this out earlier).
“Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 75:1 talks about how tznious is dependent to your surroundings”
“On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.”
The Shulchan Aruch says no such thing. He writes (75/1): “tefach meguleh b’isha b’makom shedarka l’chsoso, afilu hi ishto, assur l’kros krias shema k’negda”.
“If a tefach is showing in a woman of the places that are supposed to be covered, a man is not allowed to say Krias Shema in front of her”
The Mishna Berurah explains that the Shulchan Aruch is referring to:
1. the upper legs and upper arms EVEN if the minhag hamakom is for them to be uncovered.
2. The lower arms and legs if the minhag hamakom is for them to be covered.
Loshon Hora and Sinas Chinam – clearly much bigger problems than the Churban!
“Rewriting halachah doesn’t always need to be allowing things which were forbidden. It can go the opposite way as well.”
MW13: “True, but that only applies to passing off a new chumra as halacha. And while that does happen, these things usually understood to be a chumra/minhag/hanhagah tova, wich is not only not problematic but actually admirable. There is no issur against an individual or a community doing anything that is not absolutely mandated by Halacha.”
Maskim.
“In any case, I refuse to believe that Rav Moshe would allow mixed seating if he felt it was not appropriate, regardless of who “the other side” was.”
There is a difference between “not appropriate” and assur. You are right that if it assur, he would not have allowed it. But if he felt that it is appropriate to have separate seating but not assur to have mixed seating, it makes sense that he would have allowed it, at least in certain cases.
My impression of the halacha (based on conversations I’ve had with knowledgeable people) is that it’s not assur to have mixed seating at weddings (at least not according to all accepted opinions) but there are very good reasons for not doing so. One reason is, as Joseph mentioned before, that there may be a problem with saying “simcha b’mono”.
The other problem is that I have noticed at mixed seating weddings (or partially mixed seating) that there is very little room for the women to dance. I know this is a practical problem not a halachic one, but it is an important issue, nonetheless.
Was “The emperor has no clothes” supposed to be a description of free verse? If so, I don’t get it.
You defined “free verse” as POETRY that has no…
Before this last comment, there were at least 3 moderator comments in this thread, seemingly from at least 2 moderators. Two of these comments sounded like attacks on Avi K, imho (I don’t necessarily mean that as a criticism) and the third could be called a mild defense (although I think it was fairly neutral).
I suppose NCB was referring to the third comment. He probably felt that it was out of character for the moderators to give such a defense. I’m not giving an opinion here; I’m simply responding to the above post. I haven’t been here long enough to analyze moderator’s comments to that extent.
I do agree though that the site doesn’t seem to cater to the religious right (although I suppose that would depend how you define your terms.), but I’m not sure that I see this thread as a proof of that.
How is “the emperor has no clothes” poetry? And if it’s poetry somehow, why can’t the next two posts count as poetry as well?
CTLawyer – your family came in 1868 and stayed Frum all these years?? If so, that is incredible!!!
“If I wrote ONLY then why would you think that I’m under 35? By writing ONLY, I meant that it is a short amount of time.”
Ezaspie, it could have been sarcasm. I think that’s how LB understood it.
Just for the record, that was not what I had thought you meant (since I understood LB the way you understood her, that it meant lifetime, I also assumed that’s what you meant), but once I saw that LB had meant something different (years until now) and that she assumed that you understand that and were answering accordingly, I figured out how she read that into your words, and acknowledged the possibility that that was what you meant.
But apparently, I had understood you correctly. But I had misunderstood LB’s initial post.
Or maybe it’s a miracle that people who grew up with dinner tables are having Shabbos dinner tables.
nuclear
chisled
“LU,
In which Country were did your dating experiences happen?”
I’ve gone out in both EY and the US, but mainly EY. I am not sure which post you are referring to, and I no longer remember what I wrote. If you can provide a link to the post you are referring to, I can tell you which country I was referring to.
Chances are I was talking about EY, since most of my dating was done here, and the first 14-15 years were only in EY.
Takahmamash: “If it bothers frum Swiss Jews enough, maybe they should just make aliyah. There’s no one forcing them to stay in Switzerland, and there’s certainly no mitzvah to live there.”
Takamamash, good point in theory, except – even though the ideal is to live in EY, there are reasons why it can be muttar or even a Mitzvah to live in Chu”l. I try to be dan l’kaf zchus that many of the Jews in chu”l have good reasons for being there. This is certainly true for many of them. And the rest are “tinok shenishba” in this area since they were never taught the chashivus of living in EY.
btw, I used to be much more judgmental of Frum Jews who live in chul but I have learned to be more open-minded over the years, as I have come to realize that there can be good reasons to live in chu”l, and making aliyah is not always the best choice for everyone from a Torah perspective.
pickles
cracked
In everything! That’s why I wrote Yum!
But someone else has to chop the onions for me – I have sensitive eyes.
I do think it’s important to add that I think that many women nowadays are often made to feel the opposite – that women aren’t important, etc. There are many sources that seem to imply that. And that is why women need to have the other sources stressed to them (the ones that talk about the greatness of women) in order to build up their self esteem (which is crucial for one’s Avodas Hashem) and get upset when the other sources are quoted too much or without explanation.
But it is entirely possible that sometimes the opposite happens as well, and in the desire to build up women’s self-esteem, people end up going to the opposite extreme. Both as a girl and as a result of the type of circles I am in, I have seen much more of the first problem than the second. But it is very possible that the second problem exists as well. It is not something I would be likely to know about.
(ps: in case this post gets moderated before the earlier one, this post is meant to follow a longer earlier post).