Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Is it heresy to believe that asking “Which came first the chicken or the egg” is heresy?
Now for some good ‘ol Halacha:
The Shulchan Oruch paskens (O”C 470) that one may not say “this animal / piece of meat is for Pesach”, since it looks like one is designating a Korban Pesach and then eating Kudshem ba’chutz. The Mishna Berurah says down that the same would apply to saying “buying meat for Pesach”.
Although I’ve heard of most of these. I never heard that buttoning in order or putting one’s hand behind one’s back is problematic (although I think I saw somewhere that there’s an inyan al pi kabbalah not to put on’s hands below one’s waist).
As for cutting nails on Thursday, the Mishnah Berurah holds that the only problem is that one is not mekayaim kavod Shabbos, as SSD said. However, the Elyah Rabbah holds that there is a real Halachic problem with doing this, since it is causing one’s nails to grow on Shabbos.
Before we reflect upon the answers put forward by Mrs. Heshelis, we must first consider the questions that prompted her to write the monograph. Are the questions themselves both accurate and legitimate?
The differences between men and women, although not axiological or ontologically hierarchical, are equally elemental.
is definitely one valid Torah perspective on this
As is often the case here in the CR, both sides of the debate have some truth to them, but not all of the truth. While obviously one should immediately check smoke alarms etc. upon hearing of a tragedy like this, we both as a klal and as individuals also absolutely must do a cheshbon hanefesh in line with the Rambam that DY brought down, and know that ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???. Both are true, and one should not take away from the other.
Sam2, I don’t think a fire caused by a faulty appliance can realistically be called “biyday adam”. Also, even if there had been a smoke alarm on the first or second floor there is no way of knowing if it would have alerted the Sasson family in time (it seems that the fire spread very quickly, lo alienu). This is not a cut and dried case of a lack of basic hishtadlus.
“when an Arab kills Jews I consider that Bidei Shamayim. There are plenty of them trying to kill plenty of us every day… This case, though, I’m not sure why it isn’t more than someone using a hot plate with faulty wiring and not having smoke detectors.”
If there is indeed a greater chance of a tragedy being caused by an Arab than a hot plate, shouldn’t the more likely (and therefore more foreseeable) case be the one where there is room to debate whether or not negligence played a role? Arabs are schiyach, so we must do our utmost to protect ourselves from them; but who views household appliances as a threat? Did you ever check to see if any of your appliances have a faulty wiring? If anything, it is that that should fall under shomer pesaim Hashem.
Barry:
“It’s a function of the Chief Rabbinate. The Cabinet Minister has been there a very short term and is trying to make reasonable changes.”
Again, that is simply incorrect. While the Chief Rabbis set the policy, it is the Ministry of Religious Services that carries them out.
“especially from your last sentence, you are commenting on something you made up, which is the opposite of what I said. I said clearly enough that approved Rabbi’s, who passed the Rabbinate Smicha exams and after the central body confirms their kosher status for marriage.”
I was not commenting on something I “made up”. I was commenting on recently modified Israeli geirus law, passed with Bayit Yehudi’s support, that allows any certified “Rabbi” in the country to perform geirus to his own standards. The Chief Rabbis have both said they will not recognize these said conversions, because it allows too much latitude to individual Rabbis and provides no oversight.
What you are referring to, where any Rabbi could perform the ceremony of the geirus once they have received a go-ahead from the Chief Rabbinate and as per the procedure supported by the Chief Rabbinate, indeed does not have these problems; however, that is simply not what the current law says.
Humor can certainly lighten things, but the question is whether or not everything should be lightened. There are some things that should be taken seriously, even they are more difficult to face that way.
Barry:
“The administrative system of marriages are of the Chareidi making. They’ve always been in control of it and have resisted any change.”
That is simply not true. As we speak the Minister of Religious Services is Rabbi Eli Ben-Dahan of Bayit Yehudi. He has been in charge of all reigious services in the state of Israel for over two years. If this was really some diabolical Chareidi plot to intentionally make marriage an administrative nightmare, not just the standard and infamous Israeli bureaucracy, you’d think he’d have cleared it up by now.
“There is no Halachic requirement that prohibits someone from using a local Rov, as opposed to a centralized system.”
True. However, there is a very big problem in allowing every last so called “Rabbi” in the country to make his own standard for geirus.
american_yerushalmi:
+1
Quotes from Mr. Sasson’s hespid on his seven children(NYT/WSJ):
I think that many people, myself included, simply have no words. What can one say in the face of such a horrific tragedy? When one reads of neighbors waking up to a house ablaze and screams of “Mommy, help!”? Of a mother and daughter forced to jump from a fiery second story, leaving their family in the flames? Of a critically injured mother begging “save my children” before collapsing? Of firefighters finding nothing but seven small bodies? What reaction can there be, besides tears? There are no words for this.
?? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ??
simcha613:
“Is that true that they simply represent the religious needs of the nation as a whole?”
As I pointed out previously, some of the primary religious issues that the Chareidi parties deal with are mandating that stores and bus routes be closed on Shabbos and strengthening the Halachic nature of the state geirus system. Neither one of these issues directly affect the Chareidi community, and yet they are heavily involved in these and other such issues because they believe in strengthening the Halachic observance and jewish character of the state.
I once read in R’ Shlomo Lorincz’s book (although I don’t remember the exact details, I think this a pretty accurate re-telling) that R’ Shach once got up at an election kinus in Bnei Brak and spoke about the severity of desecrating Shabbos. He then asked the obvious question “Why am I talking about Shabbos in Bnei Brak, is anybody here thinking of ch”v desecrating Shabbos?! But when you get up to shomayim, they’ll ask you why you didn’t vote for Charedi representatives in the Knesset who would have strengthened the observance of Shabbos!”
“I heard rumors (and I hope they aren’t true) that when they are in charge of funding for yeshivos, it is disproportionately in favor of the Chareidi yeshivos as opposed to the Religious Zionist yeshivos?”
Don’t believe everything you hear. Even when rumors are true, they are often wildly exaggerated.
That said, there is indeed a tendency among politicians to look out for the interests of their voters before the interests of other citizens. This phenomena is by no means limited to Chareidi politicians. (I seem to remember a statement by then Bayit Yehudi MK Uri Orbach that he would like to divert all available funding to Dati-Leumi Yeshivos.) Perhaps ideally it shouldn’t be this way, but it is all too often the reality.
“Not to mention, that they are also involved in dealing with the poverty in Charedi communities (other than career services), but it doesn’t seem like they are involved in dealing with poverty as a whole.”
Shas has always focused on poverty and social issues to some extent, and it has never to the best of my knowledge differentiated between the poverty of Charedim and non-Chareidim (although its campaigns are generally targeted toward Sephardim).
The focus on poverty by UTJ is a fairly recent development, mostly in reaction to the efforts of Lapid to against their community.
However, the primary issues for the Chareidi parties have always been and continue to be religious in nature – be they about Shabbos, geirus, and kevurah in accordance with Halacha or about learning Torah.
akuperma:
“While one can often halachic support for a fashion, one should also realize the frum fashions follow “style”, but that frum communities as someone socially isolated sub-cultures have their own “sense of style.” All frum Jews will find a halachic basis for everything they do (in part, that is what defines being frum), but really the bottom line is “it looks good on me””
+1
As for shaitels in general, I’m under the impression that both R’ Elyashiv and R’ Ovadya Yosef strongly disproved of today’s shaitels, and I seem to remember R’ Elyashiv actually paskened that they are assur.
american_yerushalmi:
“This may not be well known in the U.S., but the Chazon Ish favored sheitelach over teichelach (scarves).”
I never heard about that. Do you know why (or where) he said that?
interjection:
“I don’t know any women who dress for other men.”
“Why are the other husbands looking?”
It is highly unrealistic to assume both that 99% of women have never given a thought as to how men might see them, and that 99% of men will never be tempted to look at a woman walking down the street. This is why being mechazek in inyanay kedusha, both tzniyus and shmiras eynayim, is so important.
“If the rabbanim want the women to dress more tzniusly, they should talk to the men about shmiras einayim”
As DY pointed out, being mechazek in one of these areas does not solve the other. Both are important.
“at least as much as they talk to the men to convince them to bully their wives to not wear A-line skirts.”
First of all, I don’t think Rabbonim talk about tzniyus quite as much as you seem to think they do. Perhaps you came to that impression because the only speeches that you hear repeated are the ones pertaining to tzniyus, not the speeches about shmiras eynaim (or loshon hara or learing or talking in shul or listening to choshen mishpat etc etc etc). I have been to many, many speeches (approximately two or three a shabbos for every week of my life) and I don’t think even 2% of them were about tzniyus.
Secondly, Rabbonim rarely “bully” anybody to do anything (if only because it usually backfires). The reason that Rabbonim talk to men about tzniyus is simply because they are the ones who are normally present for the Rav’s speech.
I heard that when R’ Meir Shapiro went around raising money for what was essentially the first modern yeshiva (with all of the bochurim’s needs in regards to sleeping, eating, etc. being taken care of) people asked/challenged him with the above Mishna that seems to indicate that poverty is beneficial to Torah study. Supposedly he responded that the Mishna is only trying to show us how far one must be willing to go to study Torah; but is it doesn’t have to get that point, it shouldn’t.
Also I seem to remember a Gemora that says that Rebbi learnt with bars of gold on his table (supported by Antinenus) so he felt reassured and could learn better.
I think it’s somewhat unfair to accuse the Chareidim of only looking out for “Chareidi interests” with out putting the whole topic it in some perspective. Just like Likud and Bayit Yehudi are focused primarily on security issues, Kulanu and Yesh Atid are focused almost exclusively on economic issues, Shas and UTJ are focused almost entirely on religious issues. (Although Shas does focus to some extent on social issues as well.) This includes not only funding for yeshivos, but greater adherence to shabbos (closing down stores and bus routes) and the halachos of geirus as well (which is fully supported by the Chief Rabbinate). Every party has a particular set of issues that is important to it and its voters – I don’t see why the Chareidi parties should be expected to be any different. Why is that when the Chareidim attempt to get more funds allocated towards strengthening the Yeshivos they are accused of only looking out for themselves, while when Bayi Yehudi trys to get more funding allocated towards strengthening the yishuvim it’s considered a legitimate national issue?
BarryLS1:
“While I do want Chareidim and Datiim both to have control of the religious needs of the Country, I have a problem with the way the Chareidim go about it. The overbearing approach, that has nothing to do with Halacha is a big problem that turns people away as opposed to drawing them near to Torah.”
Perhaps the key phrase is “that has nothing to do with Halacha”. When that is indeed true, I fully agree with you. However, I think that we may disagree on what the exact requirements of the Halacha are. The Chareidim are often (though admittedly and unfortunately not always) simply observing the Halacha as they see it.
“The administration nightmare that a Chiloni has to get married, without their having a Halachic barrier, is unnecessary.”
This is unfair. The administration nightmare that any Israeli has to go through to get anything done that has to be sanctioned by the government is ridiculous. It can literally take days to get the simplest forms and procedure completed. This is widespread problem, deeply rooted in Israeli government and society. You can’t blame this on the Chareidim.
akuperma:
“If one holds, following the views expressed in the ???? ???, which is how many if not most hareidim hold”
My best, although admittedly rough estimate puts the followers of Satmar in the US and the Badatz in EY at about 10-15% of the total Chareidi population. They are certainly nowhere near the majority.
assurnet:
“I think the Shas commercial with Deri campaigning the promise to take all the money away from the people who actually earn it and give it to whoever he thins deserves it more is disgusting”
Your issue apears to be more with socialism (which Shas, along with almost every Israeli party besides Likud, unabashedly espouse) than any issue directly related to the Chareidim.
Avi K:
We do not always hold like the Rambam. Does the Shulchan Oruch bring this down?
I do agree with the OP (at least to a degree) that the Yeshiva system has become too much like a cookie-cutter. One size does not fit all, and there should indeed be greater freedom to pursue topics in Torah that one has an interest in (particularly Halacha and bekiyus).
That said, a student must be sufficiently developed in analyzing and truly understanding a text before they can “move on” to other topics, since these skills are critical for any type of learning. This is why younger bochurim are usually taught iyun for the lion’s share of the day, while older bochurim (such as those in Mir and Lakewood) often branch out into whatever field they feel their strengths lie in.
Also, I have to agree with HaLeiVi and PBA that if you feel that a certain mehalach ha’limud is right for you, you have to be able to ignore those who will look down upon you for doing things differently. ??? ?????? ????.
As for Veltz Meshugener’s point that “yeshivas in the charedi world do not tolerate even harmless activities that are not learning”: While it is true that there is nothing inherently wrong with neutral activities or hobbies, Chazal tell us (Avos, 6, 6) that Torah is nikneh ????? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????. And many, if not most American Chareidi Yeshivos do indeed believe that more than 5% of the male population can be koneh Torah.
noname1234:
R’ Usher Areilli gives the largest daily Gemera shiur in the world (to 700+ talmidim) at an approximate rate of 1.5-2 blatt a week (only first seder). And nobody looks down on him.
As for why it is that these options are often only available to older bochurim, see above.
147:
“When someone publicly demonstrates against “Am Bnei Yisroel” and sides up with Nochrim, they take on the Halachic status of “Yotzu MiKelal Amiseicho” and cease to be entitled to the perks of bonafide loyal Yehudim.”
Source?
(Even assuming that demonstrating against the secular state of Israel can indeed be called demonstrating “against Am Bnei Yisroel”)
And would your aforesaid abhoration also apply to somebody is mechalalel shabbos bi’rabim?
Barry:
“Go in the streetsa of Yerushalayim and see able bodied people there all times of day. Not everyone is learning and certainly not learning full time.”
I’ve been in Tel Aviv, and I’ve seen “able bodied people there all times of day” also. Does that mean they’re also parasites?
“Chareidim have the same option as Dati women (some do go to the IDF) by choosing Sheirut Leumi.”
According to the psak of the Chazon Ish, it the same issur di’Oraysa for a women to be Sheruit Leumi as is to be in the army. I’m under the impression that the Cheif Rabbinate concurs.
“your Arab comment makes me question your sanity!”
Hardly a coherent response.
“Lapid had 19 seats and there was no way of forming a government without him.”
Funny, ‘couse the Chareidim had 18 seats and Bennet had no problem making a coalition without them, with seats to spare.
“He also offered the same deal to Shas first and Deri turned him down, leaving him with only Lapid as an option.”
Again, source?
“You have no idea how many things he stopped Lapid from doing that would have been very harmful to the Frum world.”
Name them. Not some vague rhetoric; real, concrete examples (with a source, for crying out loud!) of what Bennet “stopped Lapid from doing that would have been very harmful to the Frum world”.
As for your critique of kollel life, I honestly just don’t have the energy to respond to a whole new minefield of suppositions and accusations. But this I will say; while you are entitled to disagree with the Kollel way of life, you (and Nafatali Bennet) have absolutely no right to attempt to force people to change their beliefs and lifestyles to your personal preferences.
“Don’t imply hatred where none exists. You only show that you’re a fool and ignorant too.”
So you demonstrate a lack of hatred… with insults? Fascinating.
Listen, I think this exchange has fallen below any reasonable bar of intellectual content. Time to call it quits.
PAA:
Again, I’m not sure why you think a Rishon should need to say explicitly that he means what he says literally. If the Rif quotes the lashon of Rava, what makes you think that “we can’t know what there exact position is”?
I looked up the Beis Yosef, and he does indeed bring down several different shittos. However, the words of the Aruch Hashulchan still stand.
PAA:
“I’m not sure if we are on the same page regarding what is considered the literal meaning. I am including anything other than literally not knowing the difference between ???? ??? and ???? ?????”
That explains it. I was assuming that those who take ad di’lo yadah “literally” was everybody who hold’s Rava’s statment is li’halaha, unlike those who hold like Rabeinu Ephraim.
“All these sources, simply quote Rava’s statement. The Shulchan Aruch likewise quotes Rava’s memrah. But I don’t think that proves that they agree l’halacha with the literal meaning of ?? ??? ???.”
I disagree. If a Rishon or Achron says something, I think it’s fair to assume that they mean it pshuto ki’meshmo.
“Specifically when it comes to the Shulchan Aruch, I don’t see it as a stira at all. The Shulchan Aruch is meant to be a succinct summation of the halacha. So he quotes the lashon of the gemara, just like he does in many other places.”
If I remember correctly, the Beis Yosef holds like Rabbeinu Ephraim that Rava’s memrah is not li’halacha. So how could that be an explanation of the Shulchan Oruch, which brings down Rava’s memrah li’halacha?
Also, I seem to remember the Aruch Hashulchan saying that it is indeed a striah.
As PAA quoted before:
“Rema says: ??”? ??”? ?????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????
The Mishna Berura says ??? ???? ????? on the shita of sleeping”
Barry:
“The Chazon Ish said that we needed two generations of exclusive Torah learning to rebuild Torah after WWII.”
Source?
“Poverty is being forced on them by their leadership.”
What are you talking about? The Chareidim aren’t working because either A) they’re busy learning Torah B) Israeli law does not permit them to or C) they cannot find suitable employment in a Chareidi-friendly atmosphere. This is not being “forced” by anybody.
“At the same time, Bennett countered him in every way possible and minimized the damage. “
Happy Purim to you too. Bennet brought Lapid to power by making a pact with him as soon as the elections were over, knowing full and well what Lapid’s positions were about vis-a-vis Yeshivos, conscription, buses on Shabbos, conversions, etc. Then he had Shaked, one of the most prominent members of Bayit Yehudi, write the bill that would have people arrested for wanting to learn Torah, then he used party discipline to force people to vote said bill into law against their consciences. Oh, and then he released some sort of worthless statement to the affect of “we don’t really think it should be this way”.
“There were even articles in the Chareidi press that Chareidi politicians weren’t too upset by the bill despite their yelling, because they knew that it really had no teeth and could have been far worse.”
Name them.
“How is the government forcing poverty on people?”
Until last year, anybody who didn’t go to the army (aka, 99% of the Chareidim) wasn’t allowed to work. How can you blame somebody for not working if you yourself made it illegal for them to do so?
“What you are saying that a Chareidi who is NOT learning shouldn’t have to make the same commitment as everyone else. How is that justifiable?”
Is it any less justifiable than saying that Dati women do not have to serve in the IDF, as per the ruling of the Cheif Rabbinate? Or any less justifiable than the Arabs not having to serve?
There is no equality in Israeli society. I don’t see any legitimate reason why this should the one case where suddenly everybody must be treated exactly the same.
“It’s just an excuse people give to avoid taking personal responsibility.”
“Let everyone else’s children make the sacrifices, afterall, you’re better than they are.”
And here we have it. This is where you’ve given up the charade of presenting facts, and revealed your true motive: bashing the Chareidim. Assuming the worse about their motives, judging them in the worst way you possibly can, insulting them, and do I detect good old fashioned hatred?
Some differences of opinion can be discussed intellectually, but one cannot argue with hatred or disprove contempt. If you just simply hate us, there’s really not much left for me to say.
oomis:
“Does anyone believe it is not a mitzvah to defend Am Yisroel and EY today”
The Halacha (as brought down in the Sulchan Oruch) is that we do not stop learning to Torah in order to do a mitzva if somebody else (who is not learning) can do it.
147:
“I love Israel, and Netanyahu and abhor anyone who even contemplated protesting against Netanyohu, who is such an Oheiv Yisroel.”
So you abhor your fellow Jews, even while talking about Ahavas Yisroel?
Joseph:
If your Rov paskens according to Rema/M”B, he’d tell you to drink more than usual, then go to sleep.
PAA:
That’s quite an impressive compilation, but I’m not sure why you think that most Rishonim do not take ad di’lo yadah literally. Tosfas, Rif, Rosh, and Tor seem to take it quite literally (while factoring in the Yerushalmi that says its not davka arur haman baruch mordechai but rather the whole piyut), and the while the Ramabm does not quote ad di’lo yadah he does pasken “???? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???????”, which is still pretty drunk.
“The Shulchan Aruch doesn’t tell you, but take a look at what he says in the Beit Yosef.”
I believe the Aruch Hashulchan points out the apparent stirah in the Beis Yosef and the Shulchan Orach. It is difficult to accept that the Beis Yosef is an elaboration of the Shulchan Oruch since they are at opposite ends of the spectrum.
theroshyeshiva:
“Normative halacha is not to get drunk. period.”
The Gemara, Rashi, Rif, Rambam, Rosh, Tor, Shulchan Oruch all seem to imply that one should in fact get quite drunk. The fact there are many other poskim who argue does not remove these shittos from “normative Halacha”.
“Normative halacha al pi the rema is to drink yoser milimudo, more than usual, which for us is very little.”
AND THEN GO TO SLEEP. It disturbs me to no end that people only quote half of this Rema. In order to be mekayam the shita of the Rema and the Mishnah Berurah one MUST go to sleep. (I’ve seen it brought down from R’ Vozner that one must go to sleep while feeling the effects of the wine. Not that he needs my haskama, but it seems to me this is pashut pshat in the Rema).
ZD:
“Milchig vs Fleishig was not mentioned in this paragraph only that somehow Hemish foods (Chulent , Kugel, etc) was more “Kadosh” than Pizza because our ancestors did not eat Pizza in Europe”
Once again, you are putting words in other people’s mouths. Just as R’ Meisels did not say that pizza is “assur” or that one “must” eat heimish foods, he did not say that the food that was eaten in Europe is “kadosh”. You can disagree with R’ Meisels all you want, but you have to stop distorting what he wrote. I quote (kudos to Wolf for tracking this down):
“It is a custom since time immemorial to have a Melaveh Malkah meal to “usher out Queen Shabbos,” also known as the Meal of King David…It is appropriate to urge people not to deviate from this ancient minhag. One should be cautioned against treating this meal with contempt, by eating non-Jewish dishes such as pizza on motza’ei Shabbos — even if the pizza has a reliable hechsher certification. The melava malka meal should have the character of a Shabbos meal”
It seems to me that R’ Meisels has two separate issues with eating pizza for melava malka. First of all, he believes that eating non-Jewish foods for melava malka is “treating this meal with contempt” – a point that many are sure to disagree with. However, he raises another point as well – “The melava malka meal should have the character of a Shabbos meal”. Pizza is a casual food, and it is not normally eaten at a formal occasion. I have heard from my Rov, R’ Betzalel Rudinsky, that one should not (although it is not “assur”) eat melava malka in pizza store as it is not an appropriate setting for a formal meal, which a melava malka is supposed to be.
FNY:
“But where do others come off spouting rhetoric? You don’t want to go? Don’t go. Is it assur? In some cases, likely. Is it your job to publicly share your unfounded feelings?”
Isn’t that rhetoric based on unfounded feelings?
flatbusher:
“there are also people who are moreh heter in any number of issues, including cheating the government when it comes to taxes or applying to government programs, cheating in business, lashon harah, speaking in shul, and on and on. What about the chilul Hashem when frum people are walked away in handcuffs?”
All of the above is indeed reprehensible, but it has nothing to with the issue at hand. Other instances of wrongdoing do not effect this particular issue.
And again, I’m curious to know if you did indeed speak to your Rav before the aforementioned experience in a mixed gym, and what his response was.
Even if one could provide a source that explicitly prohibits knocking out somebody’s teeth (which unsurprisingly, has yet to happen), the argument could still be made that that is only because some people may feel hatred while engaging in the said act of knocking out teeth. However, if I decide that I will not feel any such hatred, perhaps I should still be allowed to knock out others teeth, especially if doing so will help me exercise.
Sam2, both the OP and the above are obviously satirical, but they are meant to bring out a serious point about being overly resistant to applying general principle to specific cases where they obviously should apply.
And as an aside, whatever happened to “Attacking someone for asking a question is an anti-Torah attitude. Don’t do it. Ever.”? Or do you agree that there are indeed cases where the underlying attitude of question should be vehemently opposed?
I don’t think that the concept of kavod malchus applies to democratically elected president (which is why we don’t make a bracha upon seeing one). That said, I do believe that there is a basic level of respect and appreciation that we should be showing to the head of a state that has been so good to us, which is unfortunately often not the case.
Shulchan Oruch even ha’ezer, siman chaf aleph (previously cited by DY):
???? ??? ?????? ?????? ? ??? ??? ?????
????? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ???????
????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????
Rambam hilchos tsheva, perek daled halacha daled:
?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ????? ????. ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????
Then there’s the famous Gemera that a man who walks down a path where there are inappropriately dressed women is called a rasha, which has also been cited in this discussion. I’d like to add that I’ve seen it pointed out more than once (although unfortunately I’ve forgotten where) that the the Gemora calls the person a rasha just for putting himself in a situation where will be tempted to be oiver on “lo sasuro acharay… eynaychem”, regardless of whether or not he was actually nichshal.
One is not allowed to put himself in a situation that will cause him to be tempted to sin. And anybody who thinks that he can be in a room with women dressed for the gym working out and not see anything inappropriate is only fooling himself.
flatbusher:
“I l know from my own personal experience that some of things said here are just not true, especially concerning how people dress and interact at mixed gyms.”
Did you ask your Rav before your embarking on your “experience”? What did he say?
the plumber:
“Im just saying one line:
The chevra here are hocking about mixed gyms.
Do all of you have your internet blocked?
If not then going to a mixed gym is probably better for your neshama than staying at home”
I wholeheartedly second that.
(At risk of derailing this thread:)
ROB:
“If we accept your views, we are not better than the Taliban.”
Are you serious? Can you really not see the difference between editing a picture and mass, wanton murder? How could you even say such a ridiculous thing? It’s people with attitudes like this that shout “Nazi!” at Israeli soldiers. Comparisons like these are A) ridiculously stupid B) highly offensive C) have all the intellectual weight of insulting somebody’s mother and D) cheapen true evil by equating it with anybody and everybody who disagrees with you.
Wolf, the fact that some have applied a concept incorrectly is no reason to discard it entirely (particularly when the said concept is God-given).
Kol kevuda bas Melech pneimah – a woman is not supposed to put herself in the spotlight, regardless of how she is dressed.
In June 2010, the Economist ran a cover showing Obama surveying the Louisiana coast after the BP oil spill. However, it soon became apparent that in the original photo, Obama was actually speaking to somebody else (a woman, as it so happens) that the Economist had edited out of the picture. The Economist’s deputy editor Emma Duncan explained to the NYT the photo was edited “not to make a political point, but because the presence of an unknown woman would have been puzzling to readers. We don’t edit photos in order to mislead,” she continued. “I asked for Ms. Randolph to be removed because I wanted readers to focus on Mr. Obama, not because I wanted to make him look isolated. That wasn’t the point of the story.”
If a picture is edited in order to mislead the readers into thinking differently of the events depicted, it is indeed falsehood. But if a picture is edited to remove either a distraction or something that readers may find objectionable, it is no deception.
Would anybody suggest that had a pornographic poster been in the background of the said picture, any newspaper editing it out would have been deceiving its readership?
(Yes, I understand that many here do not think the a picture of Angela Merkel is inappropriate in the least. However, the distinction between a newspaper editing a picture to change the narrative of a story or merely to remove something that its readership will find inappropriate and still stands.)
That being said, the newspaper should indeed have tagged the caption with an (edited).
ZD:
“The photograph is likely copyrighted and belongs to someone. You need that persons permission to alter it”
That statement is likely (or almost certainly) made up. You need to check your facts before insinuating wrong-doing.
And besides, hevai dan es kol adam li’kaf zechus – when in doubt, we are supposed to assume the best of our fellow Jews.
MDG:
If I’m not mistaken the Hillary photo was an official White House press photo, which may not be edited.
CR10, I’m not going to start weighing the importance of the various mitzvos, but suffice to say that to peg only one particular mitzva as “our ultimate goal” to the exclusion of all others is a mistake. It is Hashem’s will that we keep all of His mitzvos.
AZOI.IS:
“What a troubling discussion….. Do ANY of us underlings, including those we hold in very high esteem, really know for 1000000000% certain what Hashem desires of us and considers of utmost importance, causing us to feel superior and judging others to be inferior, because of level of observance?”
While it is indeed incorrect to judge people as inherently inferior for being unobservant, it is also incorrect to pretend that Hashem’s will is clear as mud. We have a pretty good idea of how Hashem wants us to lead our lives; it’s spelled out in minute detail in the Torah that He gave us. Our job is to keep these directives. “Es haElokim yira vi’es mitzvosav shimor, ki zeh kol ha’adom.”
While we’re at it, what about the stigmatizing that comes from the MO/DL left (even if one doesn’t associate too much, they do associate in the yeshiva world) that comes along with dedicating one’s life to learning Hashem’s Torah?
Both learning and working lifestyles are perfectly compatible with avodas Hashem; nobody should be delegitimizing either.
I believe our ultimate goal in this world is “es haElokim yira vi’es mitzvosav shimor, ki zeh kol ha’adom”. Vi’ahavta li’rayacha kamocha is certainly one of those mitzvos, but only one of many.
OURtorah:
You make some very valid points about how one may not judge or hate a fellow Jew. But please realize that criticizing somebody’s actions, lifestyle, and even their beliefs fall into neither of the above categories. In Judaism we believe in loving all Jews, but we also believe in standing up and declaring what is right and what is wrong. Bais Hillel, Bais Shammai, and the rest of the Tannaim and Amoraim certainly did not hate each other; but they did spend the vast majority of their time and effort vehemently arguing with each other about what is muttar and what is assur, what is right and what is wrong. One does not have to take away from the other.
DaMoshe:
“Modern Orthodox people don’t tell people to be less machmir.”
Al regel achas:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/gebrokts-on-pesach#post-517222
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/gebrokts-on-pesach#post-517935
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/gebrokts-on-pesach/page/2#post-518043
“If someone wants to accept a chumrah, go ahead. Just don’t try to impose it on others, and don’t look down on others who don’t keep that chumrah!”
It is absolutely true that one should not look down on others who are not holding where he is in avodas Hashem. But one should look up to those who are on a plane of avodas Hashem that is more elevated than that which is demanded by the Halacha. Going lifnim mi’shuras ha’din should not be regarded as compulsory, but it should be praised and celebrated.
CR10:
I’m assuming (correct me if I’m wrong) that you agree that it is indeed far “better” for a Jew to observe Torah u’Mitzvos than chas vi’shalom the alternative. While it is obviously not our place to judge any fellow Jew, and certainly not to feel that we are inherently “superior”, we do believe that some actions are better and that some are worse.
So while we do not believe that we personally are better than anybody else, we certainly do believe that that living a religious lifestyle is far superior to living a secular one.
hodulashem:
“I really want a learning boy but I don’t have the financial means to support… so I want someone that’s a real ben torah, sticks to daily sedarim, and is connected to a rebbi, and also works for a parnassah…”
I think the label “learner/earner” has a connotation of somebody who tends to view college, degrees, etc. as a somewhat of an ends unto themselves. I think what you’re looking for is commonly referred to as a working ben Torah.
zdad:
“The reason why people care is because “no man is an island” People mix with each other and Gebroach eaters and non-gebroach eaters will usually mix in some form either a family event. Shopping at the same store etc.
You are forced to pay more as the store for example needs to only stock non-gebraoch items which can cost more making it more difficult for people who dont observe to celebrate Peseach”
I’m sorry, but it’s simply ridiculous to expect people to give up their family minhag for such a far-fetched reason.
Do you believe that it is wrong for people to be vegetarians since “The reason why people care is because “no man is an island” People mix with each other and vegetarians and non-vegetarians eaters will usually mix in some form either a family event. Shopping at the same store etc. You are forced to pay more as the store for example needs to only stock vegetarian items which can cost more making it more difficult for people who are out of shape to become healthy”?
oomis:
“Those who hold by a chumrah typically tend to see themselves as more frum than those who don’t.”
Such sweeping generalizations seem to prove the point that the negativity may indeed be in the mind of the meikeil. Contrary to all-too-popular opinion, being dan li’kaf zechus applies to those who are more machmir than you just as much as it applies to any other Jew.
“they do not have a serious secular studies program.”
Why is this not loshon hara?