Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
It looks like Mishpacha was ineed put in cherem; the question is if the signers backed out afterwards.
happiest:
“Why would it have been?”
Simple; the Mishpacha is extremely tolerant and accepting of just about every movement within Orthodox Judaism. Some hold that Mishpacha has taken this tolerance too far and is tolerating and accepting groups that should not be accepted.
Charn: +1
Toi:
“tell me if im reading between the lines but wouldnt that mean that these desperate measures, taken to insure klal yisroels survival, were therefore wrong, and , as such, should be replaced or better restored, to original orthodoxy, not the watered down version. i dont get it. if its all on his shoulders and he was maskim its wrong now, whose shoulders are all the MO people on? and why dont his “talmidim” revert back to the original?”
Good question. Personally, I think the only reason MO still exists because once somebody gets used to a modern lifestyle, it’s very hard to give it up. After all, as has been pointed out the purpose of R’ Hirsch and R’ Soloveitchik mixing secular culture with the Torah was only to ensure the survival of Torah-true Judaisim; but today’s flourishing Charedi, Yeshivish and Chasidish communities prove beyond a doubt that these compromises are not necessary for Yidishkeit’s survival. So what purpose do they serve?
Sam2:
zahavasdad:
Why do you assume exceptions aren’t made where necessary? I personally know a young man with hearing aids who got special permission from his Rosh Yeshiva to have a cell phone.
GAW:
What I meant to say is that it does not concern me that they can falsely claim that they are right; as long as I can feel comfortable that I’m doing what is actually right I’m happy. I by no means meant that what the muslim terrorists are doing to our brethren does not concern me.
To the OP:
The question here isn’t really whether or not your wife is being “too tznius”, the question is if she should wear something she feels is not tznius in the name of shalom bayis. This is not a question anybody here can answer; you have to go to your Rav who.
“So you do not look on in horror”
Whatever makes you think that?
A computer placed in room which people constantly walk through.
I believe the Gemora brings down a story of an Amora (forgot who) who asked his wife to come great him all dressed up whenever he would come in to the city so he would not be nichshal by looking at other women. This would seem to be a similar case.
But as always, ask your Rav.
cherrybim/apushatayid:
“Hevi dun es kol ha’odom li’kaf zechus…”
shlishi:
“One may not wear perfume outside the home that is noticeable by others.”
Do you have a source for that?
“”it is worse to cause somebody to do an aveira than it is to kill him”
Intentionally cause… Hence the comparison between Chanuka and Purim. This scenario is not equivalent.”
It is not equivalent in terms of blame, but it very well may be equivalent in terms of danger posed.
“”A computer with filtered internet is not a danger.”
Really??! I’m actually working with someone who found those “loopholes”…”
There are safe computers. The person you know may not have had one, but they still exist.
“”the point is how much damage these things are doing”
Ok then, if your claim is to blame the inventor and not the person…”
I’m not sure what you’re talking about; I didn’t blame anybody for anything.
GAW:
“Lishitasam, they are correct.”
Lishitasam they will always be correct, no matter what we do or say. That does not concern me. I only care how I can be right in wanting to wipe out Amalek, while the Muslims are wrong in wanting to wipe out the Jews. And I believe that problem is answered.
GAW:
True. What I mean to say is that relatively speaking, it’s not such a problem.
“You’re not going to believe this. There’s somebody postulating on the Steve Jobs’ thread equating the danger presented by the computer with the gas chambers.”
Well the Gemora does say that it is worse to cause somebody to do an aveira than it is to kill him, so I don’t think the comparison is all that crazy.
“Of course, he’s on the computer himself (what a shocker).”
A computer with filtered internet is not a danger.
“A computer user has the choice how to use the tool, as compared to someone in the crematorium or gas chamber who had no choice.”
The point is not whether somebody has a choice or not, the point is how much damage these things are doing (or did) to the Jewish nation.
“Of course this poster compares the inventor of both these devices, where the gas chamber’s invention was made SOLELY to exterminate people…”
Yes, I think comparing Steve Jobs to Hitler is ridiculous, seeing as one was trying to wipe us out and one was trying to entertain people and make money. However, inadvertent damage is still damage.
GAW:
“Spoken like a true believer. However, the Nazis were (and Hamas is) also true believers. You now have no Tainos against them, as they did what they believe(d) to be “objectively right”.”
No, I have a massive taynah against them; because their base belief is incorrect, everything they do in its name is wrong. And yes, I know they will say the same thing about us. So what it boils down to is who’s beliefs are right and who’s are wrong.
Put it this way: Two people have a first-class ticket on an airplane – for the same seat. The question of who gets the meals, who gets to sit, etc. are all dependent upon who’s ticket is real and who’s isn’t.
And yes, I realize that until Moshiach comes it will be impossible to convince the rest of the world that their base beliefs are wrong, but ani ma’amin bi’emunah shelaimah that this is the case. Therefore, I can and will live my life knowing that I have the real ticket, and therefore everything I do is completely justified.
Sorry I’m a little late, but here goes:
Pashuteh Yid:
“This is the main problem: People like Avi Weiss and YCT believe that the primary point of the Torah is chesed, which is a very valid belief.
If that is the case, then it raises many difficulties in some of our practices, which are legitimate kashyas, just like any other kasha in any sugya.”
Well let’s think about this for a moment; if there are “legitimate kashyas” about any part of Yiddishkeit if one learns that “the primary point of the Torah is chesed”, then maybe that assumption is simply incorrect?
“For example, they grapple with how one can be commanded to kill a child of certain nations. This is a very serious question. It is compounded by the fact that simple answers like they will grow up to be wicked, is also a justification for the Nazis killing our children.”
I don’t see the question. Wiping out Amalek is right because Hashem said it is. Killing anybody else is wrong for the same reason.
“So it is very convenient for the Chareidi world to just smugly say that our religion says so, end of story. Because that raises questions as to how we look on in horror when an Islamic terrorist kills one of our children. He believes just as strongly that his religion is the only true one, and has commanded him to kill Jewish children R”L (case in point, the Fogel murders).”
He can believe whatever he wants, but he his beliefs are mistaken. Therefore, all of the actions undertaken in the name of these mistaken beliefs are objectively wrong.
“So while one may disagree with Avi Weiss’s answers or his approach to these difficult questions, but I highly doubt anybody from the Chareidi world has any answers at all.”
Well, you’re wrong.
“It is convenient to just ignore things that one doesn’t want to face, and go around smugly patting oneself on the back for being a very religious person.”
Really, it’s only a few days after Yom Kippur; can we try to keep the generalizing/bashing to minimum?
“yes, we cannot change halachos, but excess baggage that has no basis in halacha, like requiring people to dress in black and white, can be discarded for the sake of not turning people away.”
True. And if the most radical thing Avi Weiss did was wear a blue shirt (or a fluorescent orange shirt with pink polka dots, for that matter) then this conversation wouldn’t be happening. But that’s simply not the case.
Feif Un:
“The RCA has said that it doesn’t consider YCT a real yeshiva, and they’ve said that many things Avi Weiss does are wrong. They’ve been attacked for not doing more, not speaking out more often, etc. Why is that different than how chareidim treat NK?”
I have personally heard many Chareidi Rabbonim question the sanity of the NK more times than I can count.
(This is assuming that when you say NK you are referring to the wackos going around hugging murderers, not just the people who disregard the state of Israel. If I’m wrong, please let me know.)
mosheemes2:
“Can you name the Gadol of 1000 years ago R’ Weiss doesn’t respect?”
All of them. By completely disregarding everything that the past and present Gedolim and the Poskei haDor have or have not done, he is clearly showing that he does not believe that their opinions have any more weight than that of him and his ilk. That’s disrespect in my book.
yitayningwut:
“He (Saul Berman) is editor of at least one of the Artscroll siddurim”
Really? Do you know which one(s)?
AYC:
Herr Himmel is a username with a ridiculous, provocative screen-name spewing ridiculous, provocative opinions. I smell a troll; don’t take him too seriously.
Yaela:
“In addition, many women now wear sheitels. So many of them look so real that I can’t even tell if they’re wearing one. What is the point of covering your hair with someone else’s hair?”
Very good point; R’ Elyashiv (may he have a refuah shelaimah) holds the same. I quote:
Harsh Words Against Sheitels
(Tuesday, November 4th, 2008)
[UPDATED INFO BELOW]
The Rav repeated over and over again the severity of the isur of wearing such sheitels, which the wife and her husband share equal responsibility.
(718) 906-6400 [Kol HaLashon NY]
Press 3 for Yiddish
Press 2 for Gemara
Press 19 for Rav Eliyashiv
Press 1 for Pesachim
Press 173 for the shiur
While listening to the shiur, press 6 (skips 5 minutes) 4 times.
There is no need to call Kol Haloshon in EY
As great as it is to have these halachic discussions, I’d just like to remind everyone to ask their Rov what to do Halacha li’maaseh, not rely on an anonymous chat room.
Sorry for the (super) late responses, but here goes:
MP: Thanks.
GAW:
“The Rambam (forgot exactly where) says that anybody who does not believe in thirteen certain principles has no cheilek in Olam Haba.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “don’t bring “Apikores””.
Since when do these apply to a non-jew?”
Fair point. However, I always that since the same reasoning should apply (ie, they are missing the main point of doing “good”).
Kol Daveed:
“This feeling then necessarily is either schar or onesh not based upon eating but based upon what Hashem deems is necessary for this person to experience at this time.”
Perhaps; but then one could say that the only reason Hashem decided to give a non-believer a sense of fulfillment in doing “good” is so the non-believer will continue to do good and benefit others, not because he has done anything inherently worthy.
“I would hasten a guess that this feeling of fulfillment is amongst the “parot” of gemilut chassadim.”
I disagree. I think feeling good is the direct result of doing “good”, even if the main point (to get close to Hashem) is missing.
“we know that from the gemara in Berachos (61b – about a dozen lines down) that reshaiim are repaid their s’char in full in this world”
True, but who says those resha’im are non-believers? Perhaps they believe in Hashem (so their mitzvos do count) but they do bad most of the time anyways.
I don’t know about R’ Schwab, but I would assume that R’ Ahron was referring to the fact that both MO and Conservative/Reform have attempted to change Yiddishkeit to “fit in” with the modern times (note the Modern in Modern Orthodox). But Yiddishkeit should never be changed to accommodate passing fads and societies; we must remain what we always were, what we have been since Hashem gave us the Torah on Har Sinai. This is the basis of the Mesorah, and the basis of the Chareidi philosophy.
LMA:
“I think we’ve spoken enough about MO in recent days. Maybe now its time for us Chareidim to look inwards into ourselves and try to improve”
I don’t see why the two are mutually exclusive.
MiddlePath:
“mw13, I respectfully disagree. I don’t think it is worth nothing. If someone who doesn’t believe in G-d helps another person, and that person is inspired to help others, and so on, the original “non-believer” in my opinion has done something extremely worthwhile… It’s interesting that you mention how someone who doesn’t belive in G-d has no portion in Olam Habah, because that point is exactly what I was talking about in my original post.”
Perhaps he has done something nice, but it still isn’t actually “good” or “moral”. Also, when I pointed out that an apikorus has no Olam Haba it wasn’t to say that Olam Haba is the only point of doing good, only that when one does good they get Olam Haba. (Meaning that if somebody serves Hashem just for hashem’s sake or for any other worthy reason, he still gets Olam Haba for it.) So if an apikorus doesn’t go to Olam Haba, obviously all the “good” he has done is worthless.
GAW:
“Source?”
The Rambam (forgot exactly where) says that anybody who does not believe in thirteen certain principles has no cheilek in Olam Haba.
And I’m not sure what you mean by “don’t bring “Apikores””.
kol daveed:
“Certainly there is schar in this world and this is the reward of the individual in question(I believe Gavra stated this above).”
I wouldn’t call it schar, only a reality; helping others leads to fulfillment. Just like one would not say that being full is schar for eating, being fulfilled is not schar for helping others; its just the natural effect.
“Something we’ve neglected to note (and much more importantly), is that if this person truly does leave a righteous life (albeit without G-d), then potentially through this non-believer’s deeds/morality he merits some siyata d’Shmaya through which he comes to belief in G-d.”
My entire point here is that doing “good” for any reason not involving Hashem is worth nothing. And if this “good” is worth nothing, one cannot merit anything through its.
“Ultimately, I don’t think we can belittle the merit a mitzvah/good deed/moral lifestyle, whether or not he is a believer.”
I agree that we should not belittle it, but that doesn’t mean that it’s actually worth anything.
HaLeiVi, excellent post.
Middle Path:
“I do think that acting properly for the sake of the world IS acting for the sake of G-d… I think acting morally and being giving for the world is something G-d would want, so that IS acting for His sake.”
I don’t think its so simple. As RSRH pointed out above, we should help others to emulate Hashem, and thereby grow closer to Him. This is the main point of giving, helping others, fixing the world, etc. And if one does not believe in Hashem, he is missing this main point.
“After thinking about this a bit more, I realized that there is also a major difference between the following:
I am doing a good deed because G-d said so.
I am doing a good deed because I love G-d, and want to show my love by following His commands.
We should strive to be in the latter group. And I don’t think teaching our children the first method would be too beneficial. What do you all think of this distinction?”
While the serving Hashem out of love is indeed IMHO better than doing the mitzvos just because He said so, both are legitimate ways of serving Hashem. And I think we should first train our children to serve Hashem in the easiest way to understand; which is that we are serving Hashem for reward. Once they accept that and have a reason to serve Hashem, we can try to move on to higher level of avodas Hashem.
I don’t see anything untzniyus about chewing gum. I also don’t think it’s “nausating” or “cool”. It’s just something to chew on, for crying out loud.
PBA, I believe Rashi on the Gemora says that the Mitzva is only with wine.
Middle Path:
“even people who don’t believe in G-d can be moral, have values”
Being “moral” only because you have decided that it is the right thing to do is worth nothing. If one does not believe in God, they have no chelek in Olam Habba. Nadda, nothing, zilch. Any “good” that they do in their lives is worthless. This is because the only point in being a good person is to listen to Hashem and emulate Him, and thereby grow closer to Him. If one is trying to be a good person for any other reason, there is no point. So yes, an apikores can be “moral” and they can have “values”, depending on how you define the terms, but it simply isn’t worth anything.
anon1m0us, I agree with you that a Yarmulke is not a devar shebikedusha, and there is no Halachic issue here.
“If you want to argue ‘Se Pasht Nish'”
I think that’s exactly the argument that’s being advanced here.
RSRH, I think R’ Dessler means it in a slightly different way then RSRH (the original). If I’m not mitaken, R’ Dessler has a piece where explains that becoming a “giver” is mevatel the self-centeredness that is the main cause of people not seeing what they should be doing. I believe this explains why Avrahom was the first person to recognize Hashem; because he was completely mevatel his “yesh”. (It’s been a while since I saw this, so I may have gotten it somewhat wrong.) This differs from the standard philosophy that chessed helps one come close to Hashem by becoming more “like” Hashem (as the Gemora says, “mah Hu rachum af atah rachum”).
OVKTD:
“Do you say “hanosein layo’eif koach?” The Shulchan Aruch says you shouldn’t.”
Come on, there things the Mishna Berura says that we don’t follow too.
“If you pick and choose different opinions for different things,(the ones that are most convenient for you), you’ll end up with a big mess of a Judaism.”
True. All I was pointing out is that don’t go all “how can you possibly be more machmir than the Chofetz Chaim”, there are plenty of prominent poskim that are indeed machmir in this case.
“More and more rabbonim are starting to come out against getting drunk on Purim. In 2008, the Yated Ne’eman printed a statement from the Mo’etzes Gedolei HaTorah of Agudas Yisroel, condemning giving drinks to bochurim, especially drinks other than wine, (for which there is NO MITZVA), and signed by 47 rabbonim.”
Huh? Coming out against giving drinks to minors is a far cry from saying nobody should get drunk on Purim.
“If your rav says that you should get drunk, then go right ahead.”
Actually, my Rov spends Purim in his dining room completely and thoroughly stoned. He also holds that the mitzva of getting drunk is a din in simchas ha’yom not the seudah, so he holds one should be drunk all day. I kid you not. However, obviously most others do not hold like this.
BTW, I have no problem with people who follow their Rov and do not get drunk on Purim. (Though I have yet to hear of a Possek who does not say to drink at least some wine, so I’m not sure what the people who have a completely dry Purim rely on.) My problem is with people who decide that everybody who does get drunk is doing the biggest aveira in the world and go all hysterical about how bad it is, how there’s no mekur, etc. That’s simply not true. Many prominent Poskim hold it is a chiyuv to get completely stoned, and those who do so have more than enough to rely on.
“You want to be more machmir than the Chofetz Chaim?”
Considering that the Shulchan Aruch is, you wouldn’t be in bad company.
“My point precisely – we shouldn’t dismiss what the Goyim come up with and we should make practical use of it.”
Practical use, yes; but we should not learn it for purely academic reasons.
“Your diyuk is a chidush – maybe a nice shtickle Torah but not the simple Pshat.”
Of course.
“Anyway how do you define looking into it himself?”
Going to the library one tuesday afternoon and taking out several volumes on Greek philosophy.
“Again my point – using Chochmas Hagoyim to further Yiddishkeit.”
No, the Rambam was using chochmas hagoyim to get himself a high-level government position, and that was used to further Yiddishkeit. But if it would have been bodybuilding that would’ve gotten him the position, maybe he would’ve done that. There’s no rayah from here that chochmas hagoyim should ever be pursued for its own sake.
MiddlePath:
Fair point. However, serving Hashem for the reward is considered the lowest level of service, probably because it is kinda self-centered. The highest level is doing something only because Hashem wants it done, with no thoughts about yourself at all.
RSRH:
I believe R’ Dessler held something similar.
Middle Path:
“…if, G-d forbid, a Jew questions G-d’s existence or rebels against the Torah, and he was taught to only do good deeds because G-d wants us to, then he has no reason to do good deeds. If he doesn’t believe in G-d, he will have no problem stealing, murdering, etc., because the only thing preventing him from doing such things is that “G-d said not to”.”
If a Jew ch”v denies Hashem’s existence there’s really very little difference if he does mitzvos or aveiros – he’s not getting into Olam Habba either way.
“Wouldn’t it be safer for people not a such a high level of faith, to be taught the lessons and rules of basic moral conduct that they are simply how a mature, responsible human being should act?”
Absolutely not. We should do the mitzvos not because we have independently decided that this is “moral”, but because this is what Hashem said should do. And if He said to do something, obviously it is the right thing to do. If somebody does the mitzvos only because they fit with his “morals”, he is not serving Hashem at all; he serving only his own made-up morals.
minyan gal:
“There are far more important issues these days than what is on someone’s kippah.”
Perhaps, but since when do we discuss only the most important issues? Any and every issue is worth discussing.
OTB:
“Why do Chazal tell us to believe it? Who cares?”
So that we won’t automatically dismiss anything the goyim come up (especially regarding practical sciences such as physics, biology, chemistry, etc).
“How exactly do you learn Chochma ‘second-hand’?”
I’m not sure exactly what you mean by that, but you seem to be misreading my diyuk. What I was trying to point out is that the reason the Taana phrased the Mishna “if somebody tells you that there is chochma by the goyim, believe them” instead of just saying “there is chochma by the goyim” is because the only way one should be hearing about the goyim’s chochma is from somebody else; he should not be looking into it himself.
“Are you telling me the Rambam learnt his medical knowledge second-hand with no non-Jewish sources?”
Actually, I heard a very interesting speech which explained that the Rambam learnt medicine to become the top doctor in Eypgt in order to gain political power, which he used to preserve Torah-true Judaism that was under attack by reform movements.
Also, the Chovos Halevavos and the Rambam had to go through goyish philosophy in order to disprove any parts that were against Jewish philosophy.
AYC:
“It must be done only with ahavas chinam and without anger”
True; but it still must be done.
“EDITED”
Really? No external links even to shiurim?
OTB:
“The implication is that we should use it otherwise Chazal should simply have said ‘There is Chochma by the Goyim’.”
Again, how do the extra words indicate this? Actually, I think they indicate just the opposite, as I explained above.
LMA:
I’m pretty sure that both the Chareidim and the MO take the standard Litvish position that hergesh is not the primary focus of Yiddishkeit, observing the Mitzvos according to the Halacha is.
“Emotions connect man’s physical being with his soul. Through emotions one can connect himself with the spiritual world. Intelligence is just a vehicle for one’s emotions to express itself in a more sophisticated and broader way.”
Do you have a source for that? Because the Chovos Ha’levavos clearly says that a person’s Neshama is his intellect, and that this is the primary tool he is given to connect to Hashem. Actually, he goes so far as to say that this is why Torah is so important, because it strengthens one’s intellect.
Also, I think we’ve taken the “separation from the goyim” issue as far as it will go; perhaps we should move on to something else (like approach to secular subjects,
anon1m0us:
One of the key differences between the Chareidim and the MO is how to interpret the idea of being an “ohr la’goyim”. The MO may see ohr la’goyim as actively spreading Torah ideals to the world a large, but the Chareidim see it differently. The Chareidim see the role of “ohr la’goyim” as a passive role; by serving Hashem, we are setting an example for the goyim to follow. That’s why the Navi doesn’t say anywhere that we should “go influence the world”, only that we are ourselves an ohr; because our very existence as a nation serving Hashem is being a light unto the nations.
In addition, Avroham Avenu must have been MO too since he stands in the door way interacting with Arabs, offers them meals, and teaching them how to be a moral person.
That was before the Jewish Nation was created; now we only work on ourselves.
Yeah, because he was taken by Bas Paroh. It’s not like Moshe’s parents (or anybody, for that matter) willingly set up the above situation, so I don’t see how one can prove what our ideals should be from here.
“Are you serious when you say “he MO philosophy disregards Hergesh/feelings altogether. “?? Are you saying Rabbi Shamson Rafuel Hirsch had no Hergesh or rabbi soloveitchik had no emotions?? Seriously, where do you come up with this? “
Of course not, nobody ever said anything like that. There is a massive difference between saying that an ideology places no emphasis on emotions and saying that the leaders of the said movement have no emotions. C’mon, think before you bash.
“MO has nothing to do with Zionism.”
No, Zionism inherently has nothing to do with the philosophy of the MO. However, many of the leading MO Rabbonim came out in favor of Zionism, while almost all of the Chareidi Rabbonim came out against it. So I would still put Zionism on my list of disputes between the Chareidim and the MO.
I think the whole premise of this topic is in incredibly bad taste. Tachnun is a Teffila to Hashem and should be treated as an opportunity, not a burden. And skipping Tachnun should most definitely not be a cause for a “party”. Really, have a little bit of respect.
“How come all the American yeshivos learn so slow?”
I believe the theory goes that although learning bikiyus is really the way to go (at least the first couple of times through Shas), in today’s day and age when people have difficulty sitting down and learning it is good idea to learn the more “exciting” iyun. However, some Yeshivos go too slow and the bochrim lose intrest in the sugya, defeating the entire purpose of learning bi’iyun.
“Rabbi Rudinsky in Monsey, is fairly young and at an even younger age (shidduchim) had already completed learning much of Shas (if not all. I don’t remember).”
I’m pretty sure he finished all of it. But either way, he currently makes a siyum on Shas Bavli and Yerushalmi every year (in between running a Shul, an elementary school, a high school, a bais medrash, a kollel, paskening shailos, and giving about 6-8 shiurim daily on everything from iyun and halacha to Navi and Yerushalmi).
“Try Yeshivas Ohr Reuven in Monsey.”
As an alumnus of Ohr Reuven (R’ Rudinsky’s yeshiva), I can tell you that they do indeed “move”. In first seder they tend to cover about an amud a week, sometimes more; and second seder is an amud a day, Israeli style.
Also the Yeshiva recently began a Semicha program in Yoreh Deah which learns regular first seder but learns Yoreh Deah bi’iyun halacha li’maaseh.
EDITED
zahavasdad:
C’mon, traffic laws aren’t chochmah. And even if it was, learning secular knowledge in order to be able to do something is quite different than learning it just to know it.
anon1m0us:
“According to that logic, one really does not need to give Tzedaka or feel bad for Kollel people because as you pointed out “Hashem will help them”.”
Are you serious? We say Hashem will help the poor – does this mean that we never give any tzeddakah?! According to your logic, we should never have to help anybody – after all, doesn’t Hashem help everyone?
But obviously despite the fact that Hashem is indeed the One who is truly helping everybody, He wants us to help others too.
aries2756:
“For instance “I can’t” is NOT in my dictionary. My mother a”h always taught us that you never know what you are capable of until you are challenged with it, so never say I can’t, try and see what you CAN accomplish.”
I think that’s a great attitude.
“Can you even imagine why this foolish UO vs MO controversy is so stupid and hurtful to me????? And probably to so many other second generation survivors? Women in the camps would give the men a whole precious potato not caring if they were chassidim, misnagdim, Frum or frei and here in the CR, some are forcing a debate between MO and UO and the moderators don’t shut it down. The Nazis YM experimented on twins, do you think they cared if they were MO or UO twins or what their philosophies were? Get over yourselves already!!!”
I’m sorry, but just because two people are debating hashkafos does not at all mean that they would ch”v not help each other if the need arouse. It is entirely possible to disagree, even vehemently disagree with somebody, and have absolutely no animosity towards them as a person. A disagreement is not necessarily a fight.
If Lomed Mkol Adam and Feif Un would have been together in the Holocaust, there is no doubt in my mind that they would have helped each other in any way possible. Having a Hashkafic argument with somebody in no way means that one’s Ahavas Yisroel is lacking.
Reading through this thread, it seems that many here think that as a goyish long as song is “clean” (ie, it has no profanity or adult themes) there is nothing wrong with listening to it. I’d like to dispute that.
Just as words are the language of the mind, music is language of the soul. Words transmit the author’s thoughts and ideas; music transmits the writer’s attitudes and raw emotions. Words make you think; music makes you feel.
Therefore, just as we should not read words that convey un-Torahdic thoughts, we should not listen to music that conveys un-Torahdic emotions and attitudes. And I think that many, if not most of the “clean” goyish songs have attitudes (be it towards romance, how to treat others, or just attitude towards life in general) that a Torah-true Jew should not have. Therefore we should not listen to these songs, or we may become infected with ideals and attitudes completely foreign to the Torah-true Jew we should all strive to become.
Chochma bi’goyim ta’amin simply means that the Goyim do posses some wisdom. It does not mean that every thing every Goy writes should be considered worth learning.
“Also does it mean a mitzius- a statement- that chochma exists by goyim or is it an active tzivuy to go learn from them.”
It sure sounds like a statement to me.
Also, I think it’s interesting to note that the Mishna could have just said “there is chochma by the Goyim”, instead of the longer “if somebody tells you that there is Chochma by the Goyim, believe them”. Why use the extra words? I think it could be to show us us that one should only be hearing about the Goyim’s chochmah second-hand, not investigating himself.
lesschumras:
“So, does than mean Artscroll goes back to using scrolls because goyim invented ptinting?”
Of course not. There is no question about using the products of Goyim’s chochmah, only about whether or not it’s a good idea to learn them. (In this case, if one should go learn exactly how to make the paper.)
on the ball:
Where do you see such an implication?
I believe that “nu”ing is (in some cases) considered less of a hefsek than speaking is. That’s why we are noheg to say “nu” instead “please get the knife/salt/etc”.
Abe Cohen:
“If someone asks you in middle of the tefilla (when you can’t speak out) whether your glasses are old or new, can you say “new”? How is that different than saying the same “new” (nu) to signify something?”
Because by “new” you are intending to say a word, and by “nu” you’re not.
Feif Un:
“The debate thread is a joke. The mods aren’t allowing any MO stuff through.”
To be fair, there’s probably lots of attacks on the MO also not getting through.
WIY:
Thank you for bringing this up; it is a very important issue that we absolutely must work on. Remember, there is no kaporah for Chillul Hashem…
mikehall12382:
“I beleive Rabbi Hillel said it best…”What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation of this–go and study it!”….. “
Sorry for being nitpicky, but Hillel was actually not a Rabbi. Just thought I’d point it out.
WIY:
“Most people are not open to being told that they did something wrong and I can’t go over to every person and “straighten them out.”
First of all, there is chiyuv of hochaich tocheach es amisecha even in a case where you are not sure the person will listen to you (as I have pointed out numerous times).
Secondly, even if the person does not listen to you, any observers will be shown that we’re not all lazy slobs, and that some of us do care about those around us.
Adorable:
“but remember as a whole we are a group of good people who make mistakes. i feel like there is a lot of “jews” bashing here lately.”
Mod 80:
“yes there is a lot of Jew bashing in the Jewish world in general, something which is close to non-existent in other cultures. we have become a nation with an inferiority complex. generally the less religious the more Jew bashing.”
You guys are right; nothing productive comes from bashing frum Jews just for the sake of bashing frum Jews (which is all too often the case). However, I don’t think that’s the case here. WIY was not doing this for the sake of bashing; he was pointing out a very real problem so that the members of the CR would be aware of it and try to stop it. He was giving out some constructive criticism, not just negative bashing.
inspiredteen:
“I live out of town and I have to say that when I am in an “in-town” community, the things mentioned above drive me crazy. When in a restaurant out of town and I take my tray and put my stuff in the garbage, people look at me like I feel off the earth!!!”
I think I live pretty in-town (Monsey), and not only do I clean up after myself in restaurants all the time, but I would say that it is the norm to do so here.
kol daveed:
“we need to recognize that the only individual we can control is ourselves.”
I simply don’t think that’s true. We can and should influence others to act appropriately as well. Kol yisroel areivim zeh la’zeh, we are all responsible for each other.
“Moreover, the most effective way we can change others is to first change ourselves and serve as an inspiration for others.”
That is definitely one effective way to change others, but far from the only way.
“I believe it’s said by the saintly Chofetz Chaim ZTL that as a young man he wanted to change the world, then resigned himself to only changing Poland, then Radin, and finally only himself. Yet, in perfecting himself, he revolutionized Radin, Poland, and the world.”
“when we Chas v’Shalom see one of our own fall, we need to give them the benefit of the doubt and think maybe on their madrega, this action simply wasn’t one of bechira (for more on this refer to Michtav M’Eliyahu – R’ Dessler).”
Agreed. However, we must try to raise our collective bechira-point in regard to this particular issue.
“There’s a story I read of a BT who years before returning to Yiddishkeit witnessed a few Torah Jews walking together on Shabbos. He how happy, fulfilled, and at peace they were. That small insight into what a frum life should be was enough inspiration for this man to change his own life and come back.”
I would assume that there are far, far more BT stories that result from active kiruv. The bottom line is that while leading by example is one way of influencing others, actively influencing others is far more effective.
minyan gal:
“I am not ashamed of anything, nor do I regret anything that I have posted, so if I were ever outed, it wouldn’t bother me.”
My thoughts exactly. Actually, there are several people (both members and lurkers) who know who I am.
Sorry for derailing this topic, but:
1818:
“Hashem Yaazor means those who are willing to help themselves.”
Call me an extremist, but somehow I think Hashem will also help those who give up helping themselves for learning Hashem’s Torah.
Toi/LMA:
While I must admit I’ve never studied RSRH’s interpretation of Torah im Derech Eretz in any depth, I always thought that the MO hold he meant that Secular Studies have inherent value, while the Chareidim hold he was just showing that Torah can if necessary coexist with the secular world. Therefore, according to the MO their philosophy is very much based upon R’ Hirsch’s teachings.
simcha613:
“I’ve hear stories of people who suffer from substance abuse issues (and I imagine the same story exists for people suffering from psychological problems and family issues) whose families refuse to acknowledge the problem. I was told that one reason for this problem is because the families involved didn’t want to expose their families to secular society who would be able to provide the help necessary.”
I would imagine that a far greater contributing factor is good old-fashioned denial.
“I’m sure there are also people who refuse to get jobs and acquire a parnassah for their family because they don’t want to be involved in secular society.”
OK, that I agree to. However, I still think it is far better to run the risk of people not getting jobs than it is to run the risk of being too affected by the secular society around us.
kollel_wife:
“There’s something I’d like to add here. Yiddishkeit in America in the early 1900’s and in the 40’s,50’s,60’s,70’s was weak. Many mitzvos weren’t observed properly. As Yiddishkeit has come of age in America, with the growth of education and yeshivos, there has been much improvement. The “behavioral” modern orthodox are an outgrowth of a lack of knowlege and lack of Jewish education.”
That’s a nice theory, but according to that there would only be older people in the BMO fold, which is simply not the case. So what you write may indeed be the cause of the older generation of BMOs, today’s generation doesn’t have that excuse.
mikehall12382:
kollel_wife wasn’t making a “sweeping generalization” about all the MO – this was said exclusively about the Behaviorally Modern, those who are lax with the halacha. And I think she’s judging them very favorably.
Feif Un:
“Modern Orthodoxy advocates learning secular education for 2 purposes. First is for parnassah… Second is to better understand things. For example, learning trigonometry can better help someone to better understand parts of Maseches Sukkah.”
Really? I thought that MO attributed inherent value to secular knowledge.
“For example, most halachic medical experts come from MO circles, not from chareidi circles.”
True, but its only fair to point out that most halachic experts come from Chareidi society.
Toi:
“can any1 address my conundrum above? Why does the MO camp have co=ed camps and mingling; and its considered accepted and not dangerous. I’ve never heard of an MO rav coming out against it. please explain.”
Actually, I was just talking to somebody who grew up MO then “flipped out” and became a Rebbi about what exactly constitutes MO, and he told me that his MO 11th grade Rebbi said that there are three things the MO have “different views” on then the Chareidim – college, Zionism, and inter-gender relationships (as in a friendly relationship, not a romantic one). So not only are most MO Rabbonim not condemning the co-ed Mo institutions, some are (or at least were) actually condoning them.
(I apolgize for the longness of this post, but it is addressing about a page and half worth of comments.)
One should never rely on “second-hand” Daas Torah; ask your Rov what you should do in your situation. You’d be shocked how much a psak can be changed in a game of telephone.
apushatayid:
“Would it be proper for me to walk into TOI’s store and when he/she wasn’t looking, take $50 from the cash register?… Would it make a difference if I claimed Daas Torah allowed me to take it?”
No, but it would make a difference if you actually did have Daas Torah that allowed you to do so. (I believe the exact difference would be changing the action from “wrong” to “right”.) And seeing as this person thinks that they have Daas Torah being matir this, they think it very much makes a difference.
yacr85:
“I would like to throw a shailoh here!… I will let you scholars decide!”
Don’t. A shailah should be asked to a Rov, not an anonymous internet chat room.
From the OP:
“May the best team win.”
Actually, I don’t see anybody “winning” here. As LMA pointed out, this is (or at least should be) about comparing and contrasting our respective hashkafos, not trying to prove that “we’re better Jews than you are”.
gavra_at_work:
“LMA: Before you start, please define UO & MO. No one yet has been unable to define the terms definitivly”
That’s because the terms themselves aren’t that definitive. Many people with many different hashkafos fall under the Chareidi/MO umbrellas. That said, I believe there are several key arguments:
1) Attitude towards the secular world. The Chareidim view any influence from the secular world as inherently dangerous, while the MO view the (intelligent parts of) the secular world as having inherent value.
2) Scope and bindingness of the Mesorah. The MO are much more willing to add or change things in (non-Halachic) Yiddishkeit than the Chareidim are.
3) Zionism. The Chareidim are against it, while the MO are for it. But that’s a little bit of a side issue, and I don’t expect it to receive much attention here.
Mod 80:
“im personally curious – does anyone posting here actually think that somehow the representatives of these two sides will be chosen by an unknown force, and that this friendly, informative debate will actually take place?”
No. But some of us were hoping that the mods would pick “teams” (for want of a better term) from the members that have been nominated and open a thread where only they would be allowed to post. What would you say the odds of that happening are?