Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
There are two differences between this and the Monsey bus, I think (although I’ll admit I’m not positive about either).
First, in order to pick people up at stops on the street (as opposed to travel from pickup at point a to drop off at point b) the company needs the franchise from the city to allow them to what is in effect compete with the MTA. They could reorganize as a private bus company, but I think would be unable to make stops along the route if they did.
Second, the Monsey bus is an interstate route and is licensed by the USDOT. Not sure if that matters in terms of what is considered discrimination, but it does affect what would or would not be considered a public vs. private route.
Wolf (and anyone else who cares),
By gender discrimination in public accommodations the law limits its application to exclude situations where such restrictions are reasonable (e.g. bathrooms, changing rooms, gyms). The bus line could argue that busses are such a place. They’d be laughed out of any court that they tried that in.
And R’ Weiss would disagree with you about that (if he didn’t would those words sound as carefully chosen as they do?). You can think he’s wrong, but you can’t think he doesn’t care about the Rambam.
R’ Lieberman makes an assumption in metzius there that the title Rav implies a fitness to judge. I can’t say I’ve read, or have any interest in reading his proofs for this, or in debating Conservative movement hashkafa on this site, but R’ Weiss certainly disagrees about that metzius and certainly (and reasonably) sees nothing wrong with arguing about it. It’s just objectively true that the person working as the assistant to the Rabbi of a Modern Orthodox shul, whatever their gender or title, has significantly less authority than basically anyone who’s ever held the title Rabbi in any community ever. I still disagree with R’ Weiss, but at least it’s worth trying to understand what he’s saying.
Not really a Tanach person, but I’m not seeing your question.
Part of the city of Yerushalayim is a mountain called Har Tzion. It had a fortress on it. Dovid conquered that fortress and made the mountain his administrative headquarters (i.e. Ir David). As a result Tzion became shorthand for the entire city.
The Beis HaMikdash was on a different mountain, Har HaMoriah, that also was part of Yerushalyaim. Moriah is also used in Tanach as a shorthand for the city. (e.g. Hashem’s instructions to Avraham by the Akeidah).
Whatever Tzion is, if you must insist it’s not Yerushalayim, it’s certainly not a building that was located on a different mountain.
Amused (and really this goes for everyone here, since this seems to be the underlying assumption being made),
You’re entitled to believe that, but then, and I mean no offense by this, you don’t really have anything useful to say about Modern Orthodoxy. Your problem with Saul Berman isn’t his stance on woman’s issues, it’s that he’s a liar and a heretic. And the answer to the question of why Avi Weiss is still a member of the RCA is that the RCA’s been promoting the work of a lying heretic since at least 1973 (Tradition being the RCA journal). Suffice it to say that the RCA does not see it that way.
Popa,
Ok, you’ve totally lost me. The claim that’s been made here repeatedly is that R Weiss et al lack respect for Rishonim, the Mechaber, and basically every Gadol since Moshe. I’ve been saying that my understanding of the position of everybody or virtually everybody on the left fringe of Orthodoxy is that the Gedolim of previous generations would have agreed with their innovations had they been alive today, and therefore, while they may be wrong, their wrongness has nothing to do with a sense that they’re entitled to disagree with the Mechaber (as they think he would agree with them).
The article from Saul Berman doesn’t just suggest that that’s true; it’s explicit in your excerpt. He admits that many people have suggested a reason for why women have different roles in Judaism, and rather than dismiss those views, he says he doesn’t believe that the people who expressed them actually held by them, You can think that that’s a dumb or just not particularly plausible opinion or that it’s kefira, but it means what it means and if he’d wanted to say it meant something else, I’m sure he has the vocabulary to do it.
In the end, isn’t the reason RCA members aren’t members of the Agudah that they don’t think that analogy to secular academia holds? (To be clear, I don’t think it holds in secular academia either. The world’s most preeminent Shakespeare scholar might accept the non-absurdity of academics attempting a feminist reading of Romeo and Juliet, even if he doesn’t actually read it that way himself.)
And the RCA makes its own determinations for who’s qualified to give that Semicha. If a time element was brought in, could the RCA demand that the Yeshivish/Chassidish world be somewhat more uniformly rigorous in their testing? (Choosing words very carefully due to the time of year/my desire to not be a troll)
And for the umpteenth time, I don’t believe for a minute, as someone who knows many living breathing MO Rabbis, (some even YCT grads) that anyone in that community actually would take a position on halacha that they believe the Mechaber would disagree with were he alive.
Has R’ Weiss ever sat on a Beis Din with a woman? (Sorry for editing my previous comment such that yours now makes no sense.)
Popa, again, I can’t speak for R’ Weiss who I’ve never heard speak, but I’m unaware of any reason not to think that his desire to innovate is limited to a belief that standards of Tznius and Kavod HaTzibur should adapt to a world in which women are generally far more involved in public life, so long as those standards still conform to halacha. I can’t begin to figure out what you think his real agenda is after that, and I certainly don’t think the RCA (the people this conversation is about) is in any position to start divining the hidden agendas of their membership.
As for standards of ordination, that’s just not a hashkafic issue, and in the event it was, are you seriously suggesting we should start insisting on minimum standards for Rabbinic knowledge? I just can’t see that ending well for anyone.
Can you name the Gadol of 1000 years ago R’ Weiss doesn’t respect? And are we back to suggesting that he acts in conflict with halacha? I thought we agreed he didn’t (or at least didn’t think he did).
Popa, again, I’m pretty sure R’ Weiss (certainly Professor Sperber) wouldn’t say what you’re saying they say. I think his position is that any of the Rabbonim who felt that women leading tefilos was a problem of kavod hatzibur would not say that in modern day America. The idea that they judge rabbonim of previous generations is just wrong as far as I know.
Jothar,
As an MO, I’m pretty sure I can tell you you’re missing the point. There’s no sympathy for Avi Weiss in the MO community and certainly in the MO Rabbinic community (i.e. the people who could split the RCA). What there is is a strong sense among the left wing laity that Rabbinic leadership should be doing something and isn’t. If I were to guess, I’d say the future isn’t a split in the RCA, it’s the breakup of some of the larger RCA shuls, with some of that membership forming congregations that would not be considered Orthodox.
I wouldn’t feel comfortable in a shul where women are leading kabalas shabbos. I’d feel a lot less comfortable saying that a breach of tznius or kavod hatzibur is worse than a breach of halacha.
In any event, I think it’s completely within reason for the RCA to take the position that they will not allow members to allow their sense of morality determine halacha but will allow it to help them determine what is kavod hatzibur.
Popa,
When HIR lets a woman lead Kabbalas Shabbos they do so because they don’t think they have stopped observing halacha. Let’s say for the moment that it’s true that they’re deciding halacha in such a way that they can avoid suffering from the cognitive dissonance that would come from Halacha conflicting with their sense of morality (and I suspect they’d deny that they’re doing that either). I have a hard time defining that as Rishus, or almost everyone would be a Rasha.
The mountain where Ir David was is Har Tzion. It’s also used in Tanach to refer to Har HaBayis. These are not the same mountains.
They’re used interchangeably when Dovid Hamelech captures the Yerushalayim in Shmuel. He captured Yerushalyim by taking the Metsudat Tzion and that becomes known as Ir David. It certainly is not referring to the Mikdash there.
Because it’s bad to believe negative things about people that aren’t true. Especially if you disagree with them. Especially if your disagreements are legitimate.
This statement:”the torah is too hard for me therefore i have no obligation or Command to follow it” does not reflect the doctrine of a single Conservative person I’m aware of.
Mod,
Whatever you were doing while practicing Zen, you weren’t doing it to anger Hashem right? (You can correct me here, but I’m pretty sure the idea of practicing Zen l’hachas is actually a contradiction in terms.) Committing an aveirah because you find it “very rewarding, challenging, and spiritually satisfying” is the definition of not being l’hachas.
I’m now completely confused about your argument. Are you trying to say that Conservative Jews are mumrim l’hachas because whatever they seem to believe outwardly, inwardly they believe something else? Because I’ll admit not knowing too many of them, but that seems pretty obviously wrong. Or are you suggesting that their doctrine lacks depth (that it might look nice, but it’s rooted on a faulty basis), because of course I agree with that (after all, I am not Conservative), but don’t see how that would make someone who does believe in that faulty basis a mumar l’hachas.
Bear,
If anything, that person is pretty clearly a mumar l’taiavon, I’d say, I’m not sure why you’re suggesting otherwise and seriously would appreciate clarification.
I guess the same thing applies to meat, although in that case, the person’s refusal to be a vegetarian instead would make me wonder about the possibility of ulterior motives that actually were l’hachas.
Bear,
You’re not seriously suggesting that a person who keeps halacha in a manner that would be completely acceptable in most frum communities, but davens at a conservative temple because he finds gender separation to be immoral is a mumar l’hachas (and I grew up around several such people), are you?
I’m going to repeat what I said before, since it was mostly ignored. The fact that it’s easy to qualify for food stamps isn’t some sort of loophole discovered by clever Yeshiva guys. It’s part of the design of the program. If you’re poor enough that you need them, the government thinks you should get them regardless of the reason why you’re poor. There are lots of other issues here, but on a basic level, it’s really not more complicated than that.
Having loosely worked with New York City in trying to encourage people to join the food stamps program, I can say with certainty that at least as far as the people who manage the program, it is by design not limited to people trying to find a job, like other welfare programs are. Whatever else you may think about avreichim who are on the program, that is not an issue at all.
Supermajority does not mean what you think it does.
the company manager in los angeles hired a trucker to bring a very important shipment from new york
recognizing the importance of the package, the driver spent hours ensuring that it was in perfect condition
when a single item was found to be slightly damaged, he waited days for a replacement
unsure if the company manager wanted a sign on the side of the truck advertising the business, he painted his own based on what previous drivers had had, but made it the finest sign on the side of a truck the world had ever seen
he checked and rechecked the equipment on the truck to make sure that the ride would be absolutely smooth
four months later he gets an angry phone call “where is my merchandise?”
“You mean you wanted me on the dangerous road with all that precious cargo?”
Mashalim work both ways. Hashem also created the world that He wants us to be separate from.
I’ll never forget one of my Rabbaim running into davening on simchas torah night one year to tell us that the phrase in the song and davening is “Boruch hu elokeinu she’bra’anu l’chvodo” not “she’baranu.” The correct way means He created us to honor Him, the other way means ch’v we created Him
Many members of Chazal (and at times, literally all of them) were involved in open rebellion against their governments. For the last 600 or so years Jewish teachings have been used by non-Jews to justify the idea that people have rights separate from the government. In what sense is Chazal not radical?
This isn’t at all hypocritical. Imagine a religion in which wives were expected to set fire to themselves at their husband’s funeral. I’d say that that religion subjugates women. If it was then explained that this was not a problem, since people of that faith also refuse to dispose of their dead so as to not require the wives to kill themselves, that wouldn’t make me think much more highly of that faith.
If you’re starting from the premise that there is nothing sacred about requiring a Get, and, by definition, all non-Jews do, the concept of Agunah will seem strange and beating people up to avoid it, will not seem like it’s dealing with the actual problem.
Charlie,
That’s not really the point. If you’re arguing for deterrence, so long as the system worked (killed murderers and kept innocent people alive at some acceptable ratio) imperfect deterrence would still be ok. It’s just to use this case for that argument is not just arguing by example, it’s arguing from an example that actually suggests the opposite.
That did not answer my question at all. It would also kill a large number of innocent people, but that’s totally besides the point.
I’m genuinely curious if anyone here, regardless of their general views on the death penalty, actually thinks it would have worked to deter the crime committed here. Unless we’re missing a tremendous amount of information, that just seems impossible for me to believe.
The London Beis Din lists no shortage of products that are not Chalav Yisrael that are permissible to eat. I can choose to rely on them or not, but in what sense does their being meikil on the issue not qualify as a legitimate kula?
Obama yesterday:
“Ultimately, it is up to Israelis and Palestinians to take action. No peace can be imposed upon them, nor can endless delay make the problem go away.”
Doesn’t sound like he thinks Israel can be dictated to at all.
When did Bush ever say a resolution to the refugee issue was a precondition to negotiations?
Where in his speech did he say anything like that Israel should recede to 67 borders before there’s an agreement? He said the 67 borders should form the basis for negotiation and that that negotiation will need to resolve the refugee issue. If that issue is unresolvable, then the negotiations are as well, and it really doesn’t matter at all where they start.
I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that even people not boycotting the Jews should refrain from treating their toothaches with cocaine.
You do know FDR is on the dime right?
There are a large number of people who are alive right now who would be dead if Nelson Mandela did not exist. If you disagree, you can feel free to look at how well Zimbabwe’s done and wonder if he can’t be a lot of the difference.
Mandela is not an anti-Zionist in the sense I think you mean it (meaning someone opposed to the continued existence of the current state of Israel in its form as a Jewish State, as opposed to someone who is not in favor the concept of a Jewish homeland or is broadly sympathetic to the Arab population between the Jordan and the Mediterranean), let alone an anti-Semite. (Again compare the trajectory of the Jewish population of South Africa to that of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, it’s not close.) There’s no possible justification for putting a YMS after his name.
Re 600 Kilo Bear,
A few years ago I read a diary written in the 1930’s by a lawyer who was clerking on the Supreme Court at the time who has a digression about his friendship with a group of Civil War veterans who came to Washington. He goes on at length about how he doesn’t think anyone in his time would be capable of the sort selflessness that those (now very elderly) men had had. 10 years later, it was clear he was wrong. People do rise to the occasion when their times demand it.
Really for that reason also seconding the 180 nuclear scientists in Japan. I almost cry thinking about it.
I’d also throw out to Ctl Alt, that I think Wolf generally knows the answer here, but is interested in how people arrive at it. It is interesting that everyone here thought Wolf didn’t need to repay the money, but we had different reasons for it.
“ALL the terrorist acts of the past several years have EXCLUSIVELY been committed by muslims!!!”
This is, of course, not even a little true. (Jared Loughner’s back in the news and still not a Muslim, so let’s start with him.) I can’t speak for all Muslims, but I’m sure some because hearings like these will reinforce the impression that out-and-out falsehoods like the one written above are accurate.
I’m a little unclear on one fact here, although I’m not sure it matters.
It sounded like you volunteered to photograph an event and that that event was supposed to last five hours. If so, you’re agreement was not time-based, but was a promise to do a reasonable job of photographing the event. In the same way your “employer” would have been out of line in suggesting you’d failed to live up to your agreement by using the wrong shutter speed (unless you’d done something unreasonable in choosing one), it was also up to you to determine how best to take pictures of the event. You did this, even if you were not shooting for all five hours.
Even if your agreement was to shoot for five hours, it sounds like you stopped shooting when the event was over. So long as that’s the case, I can’t imagine that your agreement could reasonably be interpreted to say that you needed to spend 15 minutes shooting caterers packing up, just so that you hit your five hours.
Think of it this way, if the event had just run 15 minutes short, would you still have owed them?
Just quickly, this comment: “The fact is that the LSAT is a decent predictor of Law School success,” makes no sense. Outside of Yale and a few other places, generally where it doesn’t matter, law school grades are curved. Since most people in law school have similar LSAT scores especially at the top schoos, and law school success is usually determined by GPA, unless you go to a significantly lower ranked school than you can get into, which, if Biglaw is your goal, is a really bad idea, especially in this market, you’ll likely have roughly the same LSAT score as 75% of your class regardless of where you finish.
Dunn v. Blumstein (disclosure: found it through Wikipedia) creates strict scrutiny for durational residence laws (on equal protection and right to travel grounds). I’m assuming the same principle would apply to requiring a domicile. I don’t think the state interest passes strict scrutiny, because of the cases that have been brought up here. As for the second point, disenfranchisement is possible, since there’s certainly no requirement for New York to allow people to vote there just because they have not lost their New York domicile.
RSRH
Once again, not an expert, but there’s no compelling state interest in requiring that a person be domiciled (as opposed to residing) in a state in order to vote there, since domicile is more a legal distinction than a practical one. As such, limiting voting to those domiciled in Illinois would probably violate equal protection.
Zahava,
That’s actually because of a different federal law protecting voting rights of Americans overseas.
Popa,
My point is that I see nothing in the decision saying that. Saying that someone who has established an Illinois domicile is an Illinois resident for the purpose of voting is not the same as saying that one must establish Illinois as their domicile in order to vote there.
Again, I have to admit to having not read the decision too closely, but intent to stay would be an entirely constitutional criteria, provided you defined permanence as meaning “not actively intending to reside in another state.” And that seems like a legitimate interpretation of the word.
The court’s point was that intent to stay has always been a requirement. The question of how that will be adjudicated remains open, but reading it the way you are would (I think) fail on a Constitutional level pretty easily.