Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ColombianJew: In line with what Avram wrote, why not obtain a geirus l’chumra and convert under Orthodox auspices to resolve any lingering doubt?
Translations are usually never as good as the original. They frequently lack the nuances and things get lost in translation.
There has been a machlokes rabbonim for a long time whether seforim should be translated. Rav Shach (I believe) was opposed to translating the Gemorah into English.
PAA:
The unquoted point about Cannan wasn’t necessary to give the quote its proper context – that R. Solovitchik agrees that we are better off without all the new culture and technology. We know that he thinks it is necessary today, but the quote was only showing he agrees it would be better if it weren’t necessary.
Chacham Ovadia Yosef said a week after Rav Cohen’s remarks that he was only referring to the seruga leadership like Bennett and R. Druckman (who were promoting forcibly drafting the Bnei Torah), not to the seruga klal. Regarding Rav Kaplan, he said his hyperbolic remarks about the government ministers trying to draft the Bnei Torah were said in humor.
What do you make of the above quotes from the Tur, the Sefer Hachasidim, the Aruch Hashulchan and the Torah Temimah?
This sounds a bit more than saying they’re not amaratzim: “She should know that no matter how much she knows, she will never reach her husband’s ankles in his knowledge and understanding of Torah.”
Is there a frum community there?
Sam: The financial payments are considered a form of kofin oso and halachicly he can only be made to pay the prenup payments if beis din rules kofin oso. Halachicly a beis din can’t order Kofin oso except in extraordinary cases. Yet the financial payments under the prenup are permitted under its provisions in more ordinary cases, even in non-kofin oso situations. Kofin oso can’t be ordered even in every mesarev case.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/men-withholding-a-get#post-566490
Yes, it is wrong to make a ceremony and celebration. Rav Moshe wrote multiple teshuvos condemning them where he explained the halachic problems. See:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/bas-mitzvah-ceremonies-rav-moshes-psak
1) I’ll again ask you to please provide some samples of quotations made that you feel was taken out of context, as well as the original context it should have been made in and how you think that changes the meaning. I don’t believe any where taken out of context.
2) The context was insulting. He referred to YU being in the “real world” whereas the yeshiva world was not but rather in the cave. Just excluding them from the “real world” (a verbatim quote) itself is insulting. He directly implied that Bnei Torah should be told “go back to your cave!” for attempting to “impose the discipline of the cave on the “real world”.
3) RSC didn’t apologize or retract. He may have clarified his initial remarks were only applicable to less people than the media reports indicated. In context his initial remarks should have been self-understood to only apply to those he clarified they only applied to, but that limitation didn’t fit the media narrative reporting the initial remarks. Did RNL ever clarify he didn’t intend to refer to Bnei Torah as cave people?
4) Rav Volbe was discussing the real world situation how boys and girls are schooled in Limudei Kodesh. Nothing about extraordinarily gifted boys or extraordinarily gifted girls. The general rule applicable to the vast majority of yeshiva educated boys is that they are head and shoulders above the vast majority of beis yaakov educated girls in Torah. Rav Volbe was not in habit of relating “meaningless” points.
Related to this topic:
Aruch Hashulchan
We have never taught women from a book, nor have we ever heard people actually do so. Rather every mother teaches her daughter well-known rules women should know.
Sefer Hachasidim
One should teach his daughters practical law – not because there is a requirement for them to learn, but so that they should know the laws. Once they know the laws, there is no need for them to learn any more.
Torah Temimah (R. Boruch Epstein)
Girls do not have the intellectual stability and are, therefore, unable to make profound inquries with a sharp mind and appreciate the depth of the Torah. It is possible thay by using their own minds, they will transgress the Torah.
Tur (Yoreh Deah 246:15)
Most women’s minds are not geared toward being taught, but if she had begun to study properly herself, not making Torah into foolishness, she is no longer like most women and she is rewarded…
“Lying” for shalom isn’t just “muttar”; it should be done as it is the appropriate thing to do, and telling the “truth” if it would cause the opposite of shalom is inappropriate.
Who could forget that she turned into a pillar of salt?
Is that a trick question? I didn’t see anyone claim that. If you’re demanding I give a guess answer to your gotcha, I would say S”A YD 246:6.
We were able to daven at the Kosel for hundreds of years before ’48 too. Those that went to war for “independence” caused us to lose that access in ’48.
If he’s some random guy that didn’t go to yeshiva, nu. But if he went to yeshiva and she went to beis yaakov, Rav Volbe said “There is no comparison to anything she knows to the knowledge that a Ben Torah acquires in yeshiva”.
PAA:
1) Please specify which quotations you think are out of context. Just as you indicate you can’t quote five pages of RNL’s speech, I’m sure you can understand why five pages from RJBS’ book wasn’t quoted and ellipses were used to indicate where the relevant quotes continued elsewhere. I don’t believe it was taken out of context. If RJBS contradicted his own opinion in other writings (“in his other writings he expresses a different position”), you still can’t take someone to task for quoting him with his own precise words. I’m sure talmidim don’t agree with how the position was portrayed there; the exact point was to disagree with them.
2) I read the entire cave speech a few years ago. It repeatedly refers to living in the cave experience. (Using Rashbi as an analogy.) I pulled it up again now in google books but the second page (p. 164) is blocked due to copyright issues. The entire point throughout that speech was to compare the Bnei Torah (in the yeshiva world) to living in caves whereas in YU they don’t live in caves but in the “real world”. Even if the term was “cave experience” rather than “cavemen”.
3) Are you referring to Rav Elchonon hy’d calling zionists amaleikim or Rav Shteinman shlit”a calling Lapid Amalek? Either way, there’s nothing to explain away. They stand by it.
4) The quote from Rav Volbe was straightforward. The wives were very worried that their husband didn’t know as much Torah as herself – and Rav Volbe reassured them not to worry as their husband’s Torah is far more in both scope and depth than their own.
I haven’t heard of that shitta, but what’s worse? A shitta that you can say krias shma after the zman or a non-shitta but widespread open practice of having mixed swimming and calling it “family swimming” hours and when asked how is it permissible them responding that it’s okay because “we’re a mo bungalow colony and this is what we hold”. Look through the bungalow ads in the Jewish Press and you will find this fairly common when calling. If it were rare what can I say, but it isn’t.
But you have heard of a rov approving ignoring zman krias shema?
ABA: If the secular court imposes any penalty not specifically authorized by the beis din then in fact it causes a get me’usa. It is insufficient that the beis din only authorize he be penalized but it must specifically authorize the extent of the penalty. If the secular court imposes something in excess of beis din’s mandate, it causes a get me’usa. Also, beis din cannot authorize a penalty in every case where the husband declines to give a Get. They can only do so in cases where he has a halachic obligation to give it, he refuses and halacha permits coercion. As a general rule in halacha, a husband doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get simply because his wife wants one. Examples of the rare exceptions where beis din is permitted to order him to give a Get even if he is unwilling to, are cases of his being physically abusive that’s been proven in beis din and unchanged or where he has a physical health deformity.
They only time they use jail is in the rare case where the beit din formally ruled kofin oso. With the prenup, the financial payments are mandatory even in cases where there is no justification and ruling for kofin oso.
R. Shlomo Aviner is opposed to the prenup and says the Religious Zionist rabbinite is opposed to it as well on numerous grounds, including potential ?? ????? and multiple other grounds.
Rav Aviner: The Chief Rabbinate Remains Strongly Opposed to Pre-Nuptial Agreement
Here is a translation of another related teshuva from Rav Elyashev (Kovetz Teshuvos vol. 1 #174):
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/men-withholding-a-get#post-566490
IEHB: Thank you for the conversation. You misunderstood. This has nothing to do with the OED. That was a sidepoint. And really it is meaningless what the etymology of Orthodox means. It was probably applied to us by the non-Orthodox as an offshoot of the Orthodox Christian use of the term. But the historically non-disputed fact is that Orthodox was applied to us by the non-Orthodox.
From Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch, Religion Allied to Progress, in JMW. p. 198:
“It was not the ‘Orthodox’ Jews who introduced the word ‘orthodoxy’ into Jewish discussion. It was the modern ‘progressive’ Jews who first applied this name to ‘old’, ‘backward’ Jews as a derogatory term. This name was at first resented by ‘old’ Jews. And rightly so. ‘Orthodox’ Judaism does not know any varieties of Judaism. It conceives Judaism as one and indivisible. It does not know a Mosaic, prophetic and rabbinic Judaism, nor Orthodox and Liberal Judaism. It only knows Judaism and non-Judaism. It does not know Orthodox and Liberal Jews. It does indeed know conscientious and indifferent Jews, good Jews, bad Jews or baptised Jews; all, nevertheless, Jews with a mission which they cannot cast off. They are only distinguished accordingly as they fulfil or reject their mission.”
Yes, nowadays you’ll find Orthodox and Chareidi Jews describing themselves with these silly and counterproductive terms. But it was not Orthodox or Chareidi Jews who gave themselves these terms. The term Chareidi may have not been intended derogatorily (who knows what their intent was) but probably they just applied the term from the Eidah Chareidus to the virtually the entire Orthodox world other than MO and RZ.
Regardless of any apologetics, the way Dr. Rabbi Lamm used the term cavemen in conjunction with Bnei Torah was malevolent despite a sophisticated explanation of how he “really” meant it all innocuously. He well knew beforehand that making the comparison in one speaking would give the impression it gave.
YU is more than a Beis Medrash. (In fact only RIETS is a B”M.) It is also a secular college. BMG is not.
Avi Weiss was long known as a left-wing liberal radical, long before the 90s and early 2000s when he was still teaching at YU. He only left YU because he started his own competing YCT. He didn’t suddenly get all radical in the week he quit YU and started YCT. And why is the RCA still allowing him to be a rabbinic member?
Burning a flag is a statement not malice. Malice would be burning someone else’s property.
Nor does it mean that it is.
It isn’t malice, it’s free speech. They are exercising their right to air their views. It’s even a lesser form of protest than civil disobedience (where protesters block traffic, etc.) which is illegal, whereas this is not. They have as much right to air their views in this manner as do the climate advocates or abortion advocates.
No it doesn’t. It certainly was far from the intent. At most it was poorly worded. Those two sentences were not intended to be a continuation of or related to each other. Just a quick online informal typing.
Because the father’s involvement in shidduchim was being neglected in the discussion. I just wanted to emphasize it. (Why would “keep the mothers in” be any better than “keep the fathers in”?)
Okay, this thread’s gone way off tangent. To get it back to the original discussion, let’s repost what got lost in the shuffle here.
From ?????? ????? ????? by Rav Shlomo Volbe ??”?
Talmid Chochom vs. Talmida Chachama
Girls nowadays attend elementary school, high school and usually seminary too. They learn a lot Tanach, halacha and hashkafa.
“Sometimes, however,” says Rav Shlomo Volbe, “when a girl gets married, she discovers (to her disappointment and surprise) that her husband, who she was told was a talmid chochom isn’t as knowledgeable as she is in those areas.”
“She should know” continues Rav Volbe, “that no matter how much she knows, she will never reach her husband’s ankles in his knowledge and understanding of Torah. There is no comparison to anything she knows to the knowledge that a Ben Torah acquires in yeshiva; not in scope nor in depth.”
MDG: A Jew. End quote.
Matan: How terrible it is that so many people are learning in kollel, no? It’s also become the norm, going against hundreds of years of history, to use air conditioning, running water and electricity. Widespread air conditioning is okay but widespread kollel is not okay? Besides, today and at any time over the past 65 years most Jews (by far) have been working and not in kollel. So why are you so upset with the people who learn Torah? Regarding getting paid, see the linked thread’s discussion on the Halachah in the Ramah and Shach in Hilchos Talmud Torah permitting being paid.
The “keep the fathers in” was merely directed at the comments advocating removing parental involvement. Nothing more.
The flag burners are no more violent than those that burn their chometz. (Which is also “physical”) They have property rights and the freedom of speech to burn the flag or chometz.
MDG: That topic was introduced to this thread by someone else. Who said I consider myself a chareidi? (See the Who is a Chareidi thread for the answer.)
Matan: Chareidim didn’t create a movement and still aren’t a movement. (See the Who is a Chareidi thread.)
Regargidng Kollel: http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/kollel-talmud-torah-kneged-kulam
The name isn’t the critical point. The critical point is that the MO broke away from traditional Orthodoxy (what is now called Chareidim) and organized themselves as a separate movement. (See the MO thread linked above for this point. And see the Who is a Chareidi thread linked above for the point that “Chareidim” are not a movement.)
DY: The “get shallowness out of the process” comment wasn’t intended to be directed at women but rather at the discussion of boys whose shidduch focus is thin pretty wives.
How about you prove that either those called Orthodox or Chareidi adopted either of those names for themselves. Neither of them took those names upon themselves. This is a simple non-controversial (in the real world) historical fact. What kind of negative proof do you want? A video of the early reform calling those they broke away from Orthodox? Even the Oxford English Dictionary doesn’t know the exact origin of many words.
Get shallowness out of the process. Keep the fathers in.
What proof? There is no proof that something didn’t happen because it didn’t happen.
It’s the same as “Orthodox”. The term Orthodox was also imposed by non-Orthodox.
The Eidah may have used the term for themselves; but today it is used to describe a community far more than just the Eidah, and they never selected this term.
Mammele: Of course you are speaking for yourself. Many others may find the quick cheap places to have a great tasting burger that beats virtually any of the fancier restaurants.
Sell it on eBay or to the pet store.
It’s also a matter of taste. Many people enjoy and prefer a burger from a place like Chap-a-nosh more than a supposedly better burger from a “fancier” restaurant.
Moshe Rabbeinu had a speech impediment. He was still good shidduch material. If you don’t discriminate on race you don’t discriminate on handicap.
I said self-imposed not self-identify. MO was self-selected to identify and differentiate themselves while chareidi was imposed on them by outsiders whereas they never sought to group themselves.
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/who-is-a-chareidi
That argument’s been hashed out here a few times in the past, but to my knowledge neither he nor Rav Shneur did so, and particularly by design not. (Much as Rav Elchonon indisputably refused to enter there when he visited the US.) I know some claimed he gave a shiur there or something but I believe that is misinformation. Rav Ahron said many times he wouldn’t go in. And Rav Shneur waited outside during a student’s funeral in YU.
Yeshivish and chareidi are not self-imposed labels. MO is. RAK did not enter YU. Meeting the RY elsewhere is less of a statement. BMG is a yeshiva not a business. Dr. Lamm was originally President before getting the additional title of RY. Rav Elya Svei zt’l shredded Dr. Lamm for his quote equating Bnei Torah with cavemen. Avi Weiss used to teach in YU (until he opened his own shop with YCT) and is still a member of the MO RCA.
From ?????? ????? ????? by Rav Shlomo Volbe ??”?
Talmid Chochom vs. Talmida Chachama
Girls nowadays attend elementary school, high school and usually seminary too. They learn a lot Tanach, halacha and hashkafa.
“Sometimes, however,” says Rav Shlomo Volbe, “when a girl gets married, she discovers (to her disappointment and surprise) that her husband, who she was told was a talmid chochom isn’t as knowledgeable as she is in those areas.”
“She should know” continues Rav Volbe, “that no matter how much she knows, she will never reach her husband’s ankles in his knowledge and understanding of Torah. There is no comparison to anything she knows to the knowledge that a Ben Torah acquires in yeshiva; not in scope nor in depth.”
Mendy’s
IEHB: There is not a single word of sinas chinam or misinformation in the OP of the mo thread. In fact, to the contrary. Even mo folks would agree to its truthfulness. Indeed it is sourced, with citations in large part to RJBS’ own writings. And the proof? You haven’t been able to quote a single sentence from there that is untrue. And you can’t define citing his own writings as being disrespectful. Disagreeing with his positions, yes. Including logically explaining its wrongfulness. If you dispute that, then bring proof to the contrary. If you have any, that is. Since not, there’s nothing more you could say than mischaracterize what’s written there.
rew: Get a grip. I only asked a question, not a statement. And I haven’t heard about cherem rabbeinu gershom being repealed to allow double marriages.
Chap A Nosh.