Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Why not do a combination of rationing and price gouging? In order words, you allowed to buy up to 5 bottles of water (or whatever number) at the regular price and every additional bottle is $42 (or whatever)?
LB – +1!
I thought that’s DY’s line
“Thank you for letting me know… and it’s funny that you first heard of it from a secular tv show. Nice that some Torah transmitted through in such an unanticipated way 🙂”
lol. And don’t worry – it was Meno’s not-so-Frum cousin who told me about the tv show – the same one who watched the movie and knows what an i-phone is. 🙂
“Why shouldn’t weird people have knives, you bigot?”
For the same reason that normal people shouldn’t have smartphones. The weird people can have the smartphones instead, since they won’t pose a problem for them.
SYAG – I’m sorry if you feel I misquoted you, or if in fact I inadvertently implied that you wrote something that you didn’t.
My point was that you were differentiating between the two. Perhaps, you felt that “nursing in public without trying to cover oneself” is not applicable to this conversation, but that was what the discussion had been about, whether or not it should be.
There are posters who seem to be mixing up the two, and I am trying to get them to realize that they are two different things, and they must clarify which one they are discussing.
I quoted you merely because I thought that you did a good job of pointing out the difference between the two topics.
But again, I apologize if I misquoted you.
GH- Now you are saying something different than either of the two points that you made previously.
Now you are making a statement about what the law is.
The topic of discussion is not what the law is, but rather about whether or not it is a problem.
And your original post was not an objective statement about the law. Rather, you were stating that you think there is nothing wrong with women nursing in public without trying to do so in a “modest” fashion. You said that there is something wrong with people who think that is a problem.
Do you still agree with that or have you since changed your mind?
Moderators – shkoyach on changing the title! This does look much better! 🙂
If he ends up sending to a Yeshiva learning a different Mesechta, I guess we will have to change it again.
I think there is an important point that many people who argue against being against smartphones are missing.
It is something that they may not be able to understand, and there is a good reason why it may be hard for them to understand.The issue is that they think that the only problem with smartphones is that someone may log onto a very inappropriate site. What they don’t realize is that there are many other problems with smartphones besides that.
Some of these have been already been mentioned above, but I would like to mention another one:
As Torah Jews, we should strive to live lives that are “kulo Torah and Kedusha”. When someone in online, they are exposing themselves to something other than Torah and Kedusha. I am not talking about “really inappropriate sites”. I am talking about just about any or maybe evem any site.
No matter what you are doing on the internet, there is a very good chance that you will see an ad or aheadline or something that contains something untznius or non-Torahdik. I don’t know if I have ever logged onto my computer without seeing something that was in someway non-Torahdik.
Regarding the argument about not walking on the street for the same reason – guess what? I do try very hard to avoid walking down streets on which I may encounter something non-Torahdik, and I do try to avoid public transportation or stores that may involve the same.
The people who argue against being against smartphones are probably people who are not trying to live a life that is “kulo Torah” and probably do not try to avoid such things in general (in terms of streets, stores, and transportation,etc), so that is why they have trouble understanding this.
Everyone is on a different level when it comes to these things, but as Torah Jews, our goal should be as much as possible to strive to live a life that is “kulo Torah” in every aspect. Just as we try to avoid streets and stores that may involve inappropriate sights and sounds, so too we should try to avoid smartphone and internet.
And even if one is not holding by it, they should understand that it is the goal, and appreciate and respect those who are holding by living such a lifestyle.
GH- I just realized what the reason for your confusing the two issues may be.
I think that when posters (such as myself) referred to “nursing untzniusly”, you thought that they meant that the very act of nursing in public was untznius. That was not what I meant, nor do I think that was what anyone else meant.
I was referring to nursing in public without attempting to cover oneself, and I believe that was what the other posters meant as well.
SYAG – thank you for clarifying that it should not be necessary for a mother to nurse in an untznius fashion in public. That was an aspect of the topic that I can’t comment on, since I have no experience with it, so I am glad that someone with experience did comment on it.
Although, come to think of it, since I have never in my life seen a Frum woman nurse in an untznius fashion in public, despite the fact that I live in Frum communities where, B”H, people have lots of kids bli ayin hara, and yet, I have never heard of a baby dying of starvation in these communities, it does seem pretty clear that that is the case.
GH – I suggest you go back and reread what you wrote in your first post. You wrote something there that is completely different from what you are writing here.
You seem to be confusing two different issues here. As SYAG pointed out, the two issues are:
1. Is it a problem for women to nurse in public without trying to cover themselves?
2. Is it a problem for women to nurse in public even if they are trying to cover themselves?All of the posters here (unless I missed a post somewhere) who were in the opposition only referred to women who nurse without trying to cover themselves. No one in the opposition discussed the second issue (unless I missed a post somewhere).
If you do in fact agree that women who nurse in public should try to cover themselves, then you are not disagreeing with those posters, and you made a mistake in the way you phrased things in your first post.
You wrote there that it is the women’s CHOICE if she wants to try to nurse tzniusly, and that no one should be bothered by it. Personally, I found that statement offensive. People are not allowed to do whatever they want to and tell others that it shouldn’t bother them. We do have a Torah and it does set guidelines for behavior and people are not allowed to just do whatever they want to.
It sounds now like that is not what you meant and you didn’t realize the implication of your words. That is okay – that happens to people all the time. But if that is the case, then please clarify that that was not what you meant and that you take back your words in that post.
On the other hand, if that was what you meant, then what you have written in your last two posts was not an accurate expression of your opinion, so then you should take back what you wrote there.
“Is the yetzer hora involved with holding a knife any less strong?”
For you – no.
For most other people – yes.Worst advice: Keep going out with the guy even though you can’t stand him and would never possibly consider marrying him, even though (or because) he wants to marry you and doesn’t realize that you can’t stand him.
How often I was told this: Too many times to count.
Worst advice- start dating before you’re ready
Given by: everyoneBest advice: Wait until you’re ready.
Given by: nobodyRY: “The people who can’t get married are the people who are already married. Single people can get married.”
RY – +1
ZD – since it was your question, what did you mean? How are you defining the word Tzaddik?
DY: 1. It’s not a question of making up definitions. I explained what my definition was based on.
2. You haven’t explained yet what your definition is. You wrote that someone who doesn’t keep every halacha can’t be a tzaddik. Since no one is perfect and everyone does aveiros, then what is a tzadik?
3. You wrote that you didn’t make it up, so what is your source?
Nisht – +1
So the question remains, why do we view serial killers differently: Why don’t we say: “Maybe he is a tzaddik because he really wanted to kill ten people today but he only killed one?” Why don’t we say that the Arabs are “tinok shenishba” (so to speak) because they are taught and believe that G-d wants them to kill Jews?
This is something that I have thought about a lot, and I have come up with several possible answers:
1. Chazal say that someone who is merciful to cruel people will end up being cruel to merciful people. Maybe the person really is a tzaddik in Hashem’s Eyes but it would be bad for our middos for us to view him that way. That would not be true of people who are mechallel Shabbos or who are oiver on just about any other aveira other than murder.
2. Maybe we are wrong and we really are not supposed to be judgmental of murderers the same way we aren’t judgmental of people who are oiver on other aveiros.
3. The Sifsei Chaim makes the following point regarding a different issue. I forget the exact issue – something to do with Nevuah, I think. He states that Hashem would only put someone in a certain position (involving doing something good without having any bechira in the matter at hand) if Hashem knew that the person deserved it and He knew beforehand that this is a person who was going to use His bechira for good.
Perhaps one could apply the same principle here and say that Hashem would only put someone in a position where he will be brought up to murder Jews if He knows that the person is a bad person. Maybe one could say that Hashem would never put a good person in such a position.
This is not something that we say about keeping Shabbos. There is a concept of tinok shenishba when it comes to keeping Shabbos.
4. Maybe the concept of “tinok shenishba” doesn’t apply to Mitzvos Sichlios, of which murder is certainly one. Maybe it is so clear-cut and obvious that it is terrible to murder that one can never judge a murderer favorably.
5. When it comes to Arab terrorists, perhaps one would be able to say that they don’t realize it’s bad so it doesn’t make them bad. Except for one thing – one could only say that if they were doing it reluctantly and found it hard to kill. The way that we find it hard to kill when we must do so (in self -defense, for example).
The problem is that they don’t. They enjoy killing and try to torture their victims as much as they can. I saw a video of the lynching in Ramallah years ago – one of the terrorists held up his blood-filled hands – he was happy and proud of himself. He was definitely not a tinok shenishba.
And I saw a video of a play in which Arab College students made fun of Nachshon Wachsman HaKadosh, HY”D.
A good person would never enjoy killing someone else. But he might not realize that he is harming anyone when he doesn’t keep Shabbos or Kashrus.
Joseph – you are asking a good question. As I already pointed out, there is a reason that you are assuming that even those people who are advocating that someone can be considered a tzaddik even if he does an aveira would differentiate when it comes to a serial killer. The question is, “Why?”
I think it can be explained as follows: We are supposed to (and it is logical to) judge others favorably. Even if someone seems like a really bad person, you have NO clue what his level of bechira is (see Michtav M’Eliyahu for an explanation of bechira levels). You have no idea what his upbringing was, what all his experiences in life were, and what his inborn nature is. Even though he seems like a really bad person, perhaps for someone from his background and personality, etc, he is really a tzaddik.
Maybe the person who is continually insulting you has poor social skills and has no idea that what she is saying is offensive. Or maybe she really wants to insult you 10 times a day and she is a tzadeikis for holding back and only insulting you once a day.
Maybe the guy who is Mechalel Shabbos was not brought up Frum and was never taught about Yiddishkeit so he has no reason to believe there is any more truth to it than other religion. Maybe the guy who grew up Frum but stopped keeping Shabbos has emotional problems that you can’t even imagine and he is a Tzaddik for not giving into his Yetzer Hara and holding back from committing suicide every day even though every day of life is torture for him. Or maybe you saw him smoking of Shabbos but you don’t realize how hard he had to struggle not to smoke for the first four hours of Shabbos.
I read a story about a kid-at-risk who approached his mentor/Rebbe distraught. He said, “I was trying so hard not to smoke on Shabbos! I held out for one hour, for another hour, for a third hour, and for a fourth hour. But then I gave into my Yetzer Hara and smoked.”
The mentor said to him, “I’ll tell you what. I’ll make a deal with you. I’ll take the Gehenom you are supposed to get for smoking on Shabbos…
As long as you also let me have the Gan Eden you are supposed to receive for not smoking for those first four hours.”
(I realize I didn’t answer the question yet, but this post is long enough.. to be continued..)
GH – In your first post you wrote:
“Most women typically find some way of nursing their child in a discrete way but thats the mother’s chocie. ”Then later, you wrote:
“However, in rare cases where circumstances dictate and there are limited options for “privacy”, better to nurse the baby than worry about Joe’s or someone else’s visual/erva fragility.”Those are two different statements and imply completely different things. In the first post, you are saying
that women don’t have to try to nurse tzniusly and they can do what they want. That is precisely what other posters are arguing – the idea that a woman is allowed to CHOOSE to nurse untzniusly when she has the option nursing tzniusly.In the second post quoted above, you changed your mind and decided that you are talking about RARE circumstances in which it’s NOT POSSIBLE to nurse tzniusly.
No one had said they had a problem with that – that was not the topic under discussion,
So which one are you talking about – a COMMON occurrence of women CHOOSING to nurse untzniusly, or a RARE circumstance in which it’s NOT POSSIBLE to nurse untzniusly? Those are two entirely different things. And again, it was the first one that people were taking issue with.
I could write a book on the topic (worst advice that is)!
mw13:
“I become very frustrated when people blame, or place responsibility on, the system. What’s the system? Is it the community’s selfless people who are already doing more than they’re able to do, with less funding than is needed to succeed? Or is it the people who are lamenting that the system isn’t doing enough?
R’ Shmuel Gluck of Areivim”
mw13 – +1.
I will add another quote from the same person:
“If you are going to feel guilty, get out of the business (of working with kids-at-risk)”
(R’ Gluck to Lilmod, who fortunately is not really in the business, since she’s not good at not feeling guilty)
That’s weird – I’m pretty sure I had written a comment here that seems to have disappeared!?
All I wrote was: Thanks DY for the source. And then something about how I hadn’t realized that it was an analogy to literally grabbing something.
“Has that ever happened before?”
“Yes”
When?
“And again kabel es haemes mimi sheomro. When you are right you are right”
I was right the other times, too. I’m just impressed that you were able to acknowledge it this time.
Joseph – are you saying that because you it is a movie and you think that it is inappropriate to watch any movie or are you saying that because the particular movie is inappropriate?
If it is the first, while it may be true, I think it is important to clarify to the OP what you mean.
Also, it is important to keep in mind, that while generally speaking, one should keep away from all (not-Frum) movies, there may be extenuating circumstances since the person in question is BT (and may not be at the point yet where she should stop watching movies altogether) plus there may be some delicate family-relationship issues here.
That is something that she should probably discuss with a mentor/Rav/Rebbetzin who knows her well..
The question that she is asking is about the particular movie, so it seems to me that is what should be answered.
Sorry, I know nothing about it, so I can’t answer you
Avi – I’m not sure if your first paragraph is meant for me. If it is, it has nothing to do with anything I wrote! Please reread what I wrote. I never said anything whatsoever about having an issue with the fact that there can be different opinions amongst the Poskim.
Actually, you were the one who seemed to have a problem with that.
What I took issue with was your statement that the halachos that put a non-Shomer Shabbos Jew in the same category as a goy do not apply today. In the context of your statement, the implication was that the halachos do not apply today AT ALL.
Even if it is true that there is a Poseik who says that the halachos do not apply today (which may or may not be correct – I do not know), you can not disregard that there are many who say they do, and pretend that such an opinion does not exist.
In case you forgot what we are discussing, you had written as follows:
“Mr. Crawley, he is not considered a gentile. He simply has a few legal disabilities in common with gentiles. However, his kiddushin would be a good kiddushin, to give just one example.
In any case, as i posted this does not hold true today.”
You wrote, “This does not hold true today” (the fact that he has a few legal disabilites in common with gentiles).
That is not a true statement, as many (if not most) Poskim say that the halachos regarding wine do apply today (even if there are heteirim in certain circumstances).DY – I thought about the issue some more. While I still agree with what I wrote above (1394920), I decided that there is another side to it, and that the other side is also correct.
While on the one hand, I do think that there are problems with calling it a crisis as stated earlier, I also think there is a positive aspect to referring to it as a crisis.
For one thing, it makes others (non-singles) more aware of the seriousness of the issue and therefore more aware of the need to see what they can do to help. It also makes them aware of how difficult being single can be, and therefore of the need to try to help singles in general (not just in terms of helping with shidduchim).
Additionally, while on the one hand, the singles need to work on having bitachon and being “sameach b’chelkam”, it is also good to have a reminder once in a while of the fact that they are missing something so that they will daven with more kavana.
So, both sides are correct: It is both wrong and right to call it a shidduch crisis.
That may be a paradox, but that is not a problem in Yiddishkeit.Yitzyk – beautifully written! (and thanks for the compliment).
“For the bochur chained to a shtender and shteiging in kollel 24×7, maybe not but thats probably not what SHE would even consider.”
So apparently you agree that going to college affects a girl’s ability to appreciate Limud Torah.
You’ve just proven the point of those who said that going to college affects a girl’s Ruchnius level.I do agree that the musical chairs analogy is not a good one. Mainly, I think it is very offensive to refer to shidduchim as a “game of musical chairs”.
In addition, one’s decision about going to college should not be based on a fear that there will be no boys left for you because you will be considered second-class. Your decision should be based on what you feel Ratzon Hashem is. It is legitimate to consider whether or not the type of boy you would want to marry would want to go out with you, but that is very different from a fear of “being left without a chair.”
WTP – the question still remains: Would you call him a Tzaddik?
Avi, there are definitely not-Frum people reading this (as well as non-Jews, anti-semites, anti-Religious, and anti-Chareidi people who will get the impression that these people represent the Chareidi world since they are (possibly incorrectly) referred to as Chareidim). Therefore, it is L”H and a Chilul Hashem (if posters write about them negatively)
The fact that one of the protesters may happen to be reading this as well does not render it okay.
RY – As my elementary school teachers used to say, “If you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything.”
Qualification to my last two posts: I am not expressing an opinion on the topic at hand about which I know nothing and am not interested in knowing anything. I do not mean in any way to imply that these people are either right or wrong.
“Can you think of any other places where you may find male CRers?”
At the Kosel on Motzei Shabbos:
Shkoyach, Health!
GH – that is a really negative and inappropriate way to refer to people who are learning Torah all day!
“The same source that a serial killer isn’t a tzaddik. What’s the source for that?”
Apparently, you think that it’s obvious that a serial killer can’t be a tzaddik and that this is proof that someone who does not keep Shabbos can’t be a tzaddik. So you obviously consider think there is a difference between the two (since you were assuming that it would be obvious that the serial killer can’t be a tzaddik even if the mechalel Shaboos can be). Therefore, it doesn’t prove anything.
In any case, why are you putting the two in the same category? Is it because they are both aveiros? Are you trying to say that someone who does an aveira can’t be a tzaddik?
LB -thanks so much for the compliment!
By the way, I would have said “in the Beis Medrash”
“If something as natural as nursing a baby troubles you than perhaps you need to deal with that issue”
Say what? There are many “natural” things that should not be done in public.
Wow, I don’t believe it – Ubiquitin actually agreed with me about something (granted, not something particularly important)! Has that ever happened before?
It was on another thread
4. L’maaseh, I don’t think it should be called a crisis. I don’t think it is healthy or hashkafically appropriate to consider it a crisis and to encourage singles to consider it a crisis.
In Chovos Halevavos, Shaar HaBitachon, he states that having bitachon entails realizing that whatever situation you are in is the situation that Hashem wants you to be in. I think that referring to it as a crisis makes it harder for people to realize that.
Being single is not a crisis. Our Tafkid in life is to serve Hashem, PERIOD. And someone who happens to be single can be an Eved Hashem just as much as someone who is married.
So, no, I don’t think there is a shidduch crisis. And I do think that the only crisis is thinking that the “shidduch crisis” is a crisis.
DY:
1. Nowhere in the above article does it say that the Roshei Yeshiva feel there is shidduch crisis. It says that the askanim feel that way.2. Regarding the quote from R’ Dovid Feinstein:
a) you can’t believe everything you read in the news.
b) He was simply using the commonly used term in passing while making another point. This does not prove that he thinks the term is accurate.
L’havdil, but I don’t think it should be called a crisis, and yet, I could see myself using the term in the same type of context.3. I wrote +1 because I thought it was a funny comment, not because I was trying to get into a debate about whether or not it should be called a “crisis”, but once you’ve brought up the topic… (to be continued)
Hashemisreading – Nice to hear from you! I don’t think you’ve been around for a while (unless you post on different threads than I do).
I speculate that it’s a combination, and probably mainly due to being happier. I think that today divorce has become pretty acceptable across the board, so I’m not sure how big a factor that is anymore in terms of comparing communities. I could be wrong though.
But I do think that in more insulated communities, there is a greater likelihood of people being satisfied with their marriages. And Chassidim tend to be more insulated.
WTP – while it’s true that attending an online program is very different than a liberal college campus, it also has problems.
First of all, being online is a big problem.
Again, I am not saying that she shouldn’t do it, but she must be aware that she is exposing herself to negative influences.
And yes, when you go outside, you are also exposed to bad influences. It is necessary, so one does it. But you have to be aware of the dangers and avoid them as much as possible.When you have to go somewhere, you should try to think about the best route to go in order to avoid negative exposure. If you have to travel somewhere that involves going through a neighborhood or taking a bus which will involve negative exposure, you do it, but if you can avoid it, you avoid it.
What if she doesn’t have a brother in Yeshiva and she’s not an accountant, ot or pt? Is she doomed?
SYAG – sorry, but I don’t see how either of your meshalim fit. Regarding the pharmacy mashal – the Ritalin, etc are kosher for some people which is why it’s okay (and necessary) to sell them.
If we are talking about unfiltered Smartphones, is there anyone to whom it would be okay to sell it? And is there any reason why they can’t filter the phones before they sell them? (I am deliberately phrasing this as a question – I haven’t read the article, so perhaps there is an answer to these questions.)
And regarding McDonalds, if it’s a Frum Jew who owns or works in the store, yes, that is terrible and yes there should be protests. In Eretz Yisrael, people protested when there were treif McDonald’s. Even Rebbetzin Machlis a”h, staged a protest, despite the fact that she was the model of Ahavas Yisrael.