Neville ChaimBerlin

I’m not stranger to harshly criticizing the OU, but I actually don’t think there’s such an issue here.

Like CT said, they could very well be doing stuff in the background. But also, it might not be as obvious as you guys think to ally your organization with the opposition publicly. Where this could be headed is the state offering up a very reasonable number of hours, and having the Orthodox world still fight back against it. It could very well be that exactly what the seculars want is the ability to have a NY Times headline reading “NYS Offers up Only 10 Hours a Week of School; Yeshivas Still Can’t Handle That!” Do you realize how that makes us look to the masses? Have you considered the possibility that people are trying (and succeeding) at getting us to admit in a public arena that Yeshivas teach far fewer hours of secular studies than public schools? You might think that goyim know everything about us and our schools, but they don’t. People hear “private school” and assume it’s a good thing. It’s definitely damaging yeshiva’s reputations to have this discussion out in the open.

If the next number is, as the open letter on the homepage said, 17.5 hrs per week, then that already probably doesn’t concern MO day schools (meaning the OU has no stake in any further debate). So, I don’t see them getting involved any time soon.

“It seems to me that certain people excuse “frum” fraudsters and even those who do much more serious crimes.”

I agree with your basis, but it’s just silly to ask people not to use labels. I know it sounds nice and idealistic to bring it up, but it’s not at all realistic; it would make it virtually impossible to talk about anything.

“Language evolves. Facts don’t. That which generations have deemed to be frum practice remains so”

We aren’t talking about practices, we’re talking about the definition of a word. I’ve already talked about this on other threads, which is why I didn’t really want to rehash it all here. Whether you like it or not, there has come to be a trend of using the word “frum” specifically to NOT include the MO. This isn’t meant in a derogatory way, as is evidenced by the fact that MO people do it themselves and say stuff like “I’m just a normal, observant guy; I’m not ‘frum,'” or, “that community is a bit too frummy for us, we want something more modern.”

As I’ve also said elsewhere, the only community I’ve noticed that uses the word to refer to anyone even slightly observant (like Conservative Jews who actually keep kosherish) is Chabad. I’m not sure this is a dialect difference so much as an overly-sensitive, PC kind of trend. Regardless, it shows there are some people/places that use it more loosely, which seems to be what you’re used to. I really don’t want to have to go through this again as I really don’t find these vocab discussions that interesting. Being upset by others points/ideology is one thing and is pretty par for the course in the CR. But, of all the things to react to on this thread, you reacted to an issue purely of semantics. How is your reaction any different than someone getting upset when a person uses the word “black” when he would rather him have said “African-American?”

And, by the way, as for you not providing a word to use instead: I would have no problem describing us as Charedi if the Zionists and chilonim hadn’t purposely and maliciously succeeded in turning that into a pejorative.

Non Political:

You’re missing my point. Take the way you feel about the Litvish customs and apply that as the feeling Lubavitchers have about not sleeping in the Sukkah. Now take the way you feel about Lubavitchers not sleeping in the Sukkah and apply that as the feeling they have about the Litvish practices I mentioned. Nobody is going to waiver from their side. Obviously, I agree that we’re more in the right; you don’t need to defend our customs to me.

I will say though that what Chossid is implying about shaving being a more extreme heter than being mevatil the mitzvah of sleeping in the Sukkah is completely absurd. The heter of not sleeping in the Sukkah is actually explicitly cited as a retroactive heter (a psak made in response to masses being meikel with no heter) in the S”A. You have no proof that bochrim being clean shaven for bal gaavah reasons is a retroactive heter. We don’t posken, like Chabad I believe does, that there’s a problem of lo yilbash in shaving the face, so it’s not a kulah by us. Sleeping in the Sukkah, on the other hand, all hold is a d’oraysa. The reason it’s getting so much discussion here and because it is quite possibly the only example of a group claiming that being mevatel a mitvah d’oraysa is a chumrah.

I have to disagree with Syag for once.

I don’t think anything Horrified said was out of line at all, unless something else was taken down. When the OP is essentially “yeshiva bochrim should have to publicly apologize to the holy Zionists every time a terrorist murders a soldier,” I don’t see how “I’ll pray for you” is crossing the line.

Yes, I know in this context it was meant in a sort of condescending way. Frankly, the phrase “I’ll pray for you” is almost exclusively used in a condescending way. But, to be blunt, Sarah had it coming. What did she expect to get from this thread? An apology from us for terrorists? A promise from us to enroll bochrim in the IDF so that it can do it does best and secularize them?

“akuperma and NCB, did you not see rebbe yid’s post above???”

The only one I see is this one:
“I think he meant sign them up as a threat to bankrupt the public school system. But I’m not sure that would work for the most recent problem, because most of the local school budget is from property taxes (at least outside of NYC), so it would be a nice rough-up to the local school system, but not to the state govt that’s causing this trouble.”

Did they take down another one, or did you actually manage to read that in such a way that you thought he was agreeing with you? We know you meant your idea as a threat to bankrupt the public school system, but it’s not a private institution. What do you not get about this?

There have been laws for probably centuries requiring kids to be enrolled in school until a certain age. Obviously, there are various state requirements on what it means to be a proper school. None of this is new, except for the most recent attempt to ramp up the required hours. You guys are acting like it was legal to never educate your kids before this, and that it would be unconstitutional to require education. I’m sorry but this is as Constitutional as every other law regarding educational standards; it’s not different legally just because we find it harder to keep.

There are 2 things the seculars want us to do right now: change over to public school, fight back with immature arguments to the tune of “we don need no edjukation!” This thread is guilty of advocating both. Stick to the methods of the rabbis are using. There’s a reason they aren’t employing your strategies.

“They’d just force the city to build out facilities and hiring teachers costing hundreds of millions of dollars.”

And, they would care why? It’s not like it’s coming out of the governor’s wallet. It’s not a private institution, and moreover it’s run by Democrats. They would have no reservations about spending millions of taxpayer dollars.

“It is what the seculars want. The suggestion is analagous to saying the solution to anti-semitism is to convert”

Exactly. I’m glad someone else sees the utter lack of logic in “let’s give them exactly what they want! That’ll show ’em!”

This idea that they couldn’t handle us just isn’t true. They would just build new public schools with taxpayer money. They would love to have Jewish brains skewing up their test score averages.

“NCB, are you now seeing things differently than when you said you haven’t seen a rational reason not to bill insurance?”

Not really. The original comment I made was referring to the emotional arguments that were assuming this was for profit, which everyone seems to have decided not to go with. The conversation has now turned to copays/deductables. One person has said that the customer doesn’t get the bill in the towns that have implemented this.

As far as hatzoleh helping the person pay the bill, I don’t see why that would be insurance fraud. I don’t think the insurance cares where you got the money to pay them. As for high deductables, if the deductable exceeds the cost, then it would pretty much be like dealing with someone without insurance, or like dealing in a system where you don’t bill insurance. It definitely wouldn’t put them on worse footing than now.

A copay and/or deductible would definitely deter people. Even if hatzolah offered to reimburse you for it, the shame of having to ask them like that could also be a deterrent. The only way to avoid that would be if hatzalah could pay it without the patient ever even seeing it. I’m not sure that’s possible.

Ubi:
Despite the fact that it’s been specifically addressed on this thread, you seem to be under the impression that Hatzoleh is becoming for-profit. They are not. They would simply be getting money from insurance instead of totally from donors. This is money they need for operations, not profit.

Before you try to somehow spin it that you didn’t mean that, let me point out this quote of your’s: “once it starts making money there will be pressure to cut corners and make more money.” There’s no way that quote is not assuming they are after profit. That’s not a difference of opinion, that’s just you being wrong. They are remaining non-profit. End of story.

I have faith that the posek who opposed the insurance had real reasons. Not emotionalist, idealist opinions like “money corrupts,” and a complete lack of understanding of what the change means.

If currency has this otherworldly power to make its beholder evil, maybe you should publicly advocate that people donate less to Hatzolah. Wouldn’t want them to become corrupt, right?

I can’t believe this thread is back on the topic of tznius. New people join and they can’t be bothered to go back and read the whole thread, so it just ends up repeating itself.

I might get criticized by my camp for saying this but, I don’t see the point in picking on CS anymore. She has pretty much admitted to everything of which she’s been accused. She is not beating around the bush at all anymore. What she is saying about mainstream, respected Chabad Rabbis believing (covertly at least) in meshichism seems absolutely true. I don’t see any reason to doubt her. What more are people trying to get out of her? Her beliefs are all out on the table and nobody is going to change anyone’s minds.

Sechel: I apologize for throwing your learning habits into question on the other thread. As you could see on that thread, there are those who do hold of a concept of being purposefully ignorant of all non-Chabad shittos. I mistakenly assumed this was all Lubavitchers, but it is clearly not your camp. It could very well be only the extremists I had met. I hope you agree that those who do subscribe to that are making a mistake. As for your comment about the S”A HaRav, yes I was aware that it is missing many halachos. Sometimes it says “חסר” where they are supposed to be, and sometimes they seem to just not be there (this is only how it is in my copy). I have a few curiosities from that if you wouldn’t mind answering. I’ll give you diplomatic immunity that I won’t start arguing again.
1) Were the lacking sections never written, or were they written and lost?
2) Why is it that when there is a machlokes between the S”A HaRav and the Baal HaTanya’s siddur, Lubavitch minhag seems to always go after the siddur?

“Money corrupts” is not a rational reason, nor is any other reason given here. I’m not saying the opposition has no basis; they obviously do. I just don’t think it’s been brought up here.

I think the main question is DY’s question. Would the patients be charged the copay now? Copays for ambulances can be in the hundreds. From my limited understanding, if they bill the insurance, the patient will automatically be charged the copay. So, I guess the only way around it would be for hatzolah to actually give the patient the lump of cash they need to pay it if they aren’t able. But, like I said, I don’t know much about this.

Tango learned a valuable lesson about the internet today: sarcasm does not always come across in writing.

I don’t get the news. It was previously legal to be an accomplice in child abuse? Obviously not. Seems like puff-legislation that sounds nice, but doesn’t actually change anything about the law.

I’m sort of lost. What point was tango trying to make? It seemed like he was satirically responding to people who were upset about this law, but I see no evidence that such people exist.

I choose to identify as a robot and I am offended.

“It shouldn’t be”
I agree, as I said in the post. But, those who drink chalav stam either hold the heter is still active or hold that it’s OK to hold by the Pri Chodosh now, so there’s not much of a difference l’maaseh. If, theoretically, something were to happen with the government that for sure ruined Reb Moshe’s heter, it would be nearly impossible to get the bulk of the population to go chalav Yisroel overnight. If that situation were to occur, I think an emergency heter to hold by the Pri Chodosh would emerge as the end of that article seemed to imply.

“Davar she’eino miskaven isn’t a heter for cholov aku”m.”
I hope you don’t really think that’s what I meant. People know whether or not they rely on a heter. If they do, they do. They don’t think about the reasoning behind it every time to buy milk. Chalav stam anti-vaxxers aren’t thinking “I trust the government here, but not here.” They’re thinking, “I hold it’s mutar to drink chalav stam because I don’t hold by those who say it’s assur. I hold it’s mutar to deny my kids basic medical necessities because I don’t hold by those who say it’s assur.” It’s not a battle that can be won on a religious or logical front.

Here’s the article:

“It is interesting to note, however, that, apparently in response to the new reality, the OU’s policy, as told to this author, is now to rely upon the Pri Chodosh.”

As the article admits, no official OU statement of this can be found on the web, but I don’t see why he would lie. This is a bigger and frankly more interesting discussion than how it pertains to anti-vaxxers, which was kind of silly to begin with.

Cholov Yisroel versus Cholov Stam

CT:
I respect and agree with almost everything you said. I would say everything, but I’m personally a fan of fireworks 🙂

I don’t want you to think I’ve never met moderate liberals like you before; I have many in my own family. But, the extreme, new-age liberals have become very prevalent in the press and among young people. The people like Joe Lieberman and Jim Webb are being phased out, unfortunately, and replaced with crazier, loonier liberals. This is just my perspective, of course.

One other thing, I am glad to see most people around here are sensible about gun-control, but I think people could be even more hardliner. Certain weapons should get a wholesale ban given that mass killings is their only purpose. I personally don’t agree that “protecting hunting” is a plus for guns rights either. I would point out that when it comes to hunting as it pertains to gun control, the pro-gun posters here conveniently forget about the halachah.

CT:

Saying you want to change bad laws is generally how liberals say they want laxity. I highly doubt when you said that you meant “these laws are bad because they aren’t strict enough; we should make them more strict.” The only exception I know of being gun control. On that issue, I agree with the liberals as do many frum posters here.

In NYC, for example, they claim crime has gone down, which a lot of people (including Democrats) are skeptical of. They’re clearly labeling fewer things as crimes. They’ve de-facto legalized drugs. People just walk down crowded streets smoking pot, which I don’t even think you’re allowed to do in the states where it’s officially legal. They clearly aren’t pursuing dealers or gangs, probably because they know almost all the individuals would be members of liberal’s protected groups like illegal immigrants or really any minority.

Are you serious? Your coping mechanism is to scapegoat Dick Cheney?

You’re an extreme liberal and yet you, and many others, are defending the Bush’s simply because Trump had the guts to say they made terrible decisions. Your rationalization of your rampant inconsistency is to blame the vice president?

My point isn’t that you have to like Trump. It’s that you’re basing your entire outlook on the world on believing the opposite of what he says, even when he says things that YOU were probably saying a few years back like criticizing the Bush’s. It’s as though a liberal college professor wrote a simple IF THEN statement and called it Gadolhador and gave it a CR account.

Other posters like CT and the other Democrats on that midterms thread had actual points and substance to their stances. You have never made any attempt at this in political or religious threads, and don’t pretend I’m the first one to point this out. Now matter how many of us point it out, you only seem to get worse.

I’m kind of bored of Chabad wars, so I’m with Joseph on putting this in a different direction:

Zionist Meshichism is just as bad as Chabad Meshichism.

“What Hetter is there, in Shas or Poskim, for Yeshiva Bochurim to not daven a proper Chazaras HaShatz by Mincha”
I don’t have any idea what you’re talking about. Litvish Yeshiva bochrim are notorious for davening dramatically long shmoneh esreis.

“What’s the Maaseh with Brisk and fasting”
I’ve only heard that in regards to JB Soleveitchik. He does not represent Brisk despite his yichus. Also, I don’t know if it’s true.

“What’s the deal with shaving? Yes, I know that most Litvishe Poskim are Mattir, but there are places which say that it’s Assur.”

You clearly have your answer. You want us to be choshesh for every opinion we don’t hold by? You guys most certainly aren’t; why should we be? We hold it’s mutar, so we shave.

“That’s not from the Frierdiker Rebbe. That’s from the Alter Rebbe’s sons in their first print of the Shulchan Aruch HaRav.”

I never said it was from the Friedriker Rebbe; I just said we don’t hold of it. Don’t you think if that was widely accepted you would see other Chassidim holding by the S”A HaRav? The story exists only within the Chabad mesorah and it is constantly promulgated as historical fact. In your defense, I don’t think it’s out of malicious intent. I think there are things/stories that Lubavitchers believe that they assume everyone else also believes (or at least all other Chassidim).

“We don’t rely on big-city Eiruvin, and only the litest of the lite Crown Heightsers rely on its Eiruv. And the same applies to other cities.

And while I do admit that all this is fairly normal in the Chassidisher world, it definitely isn’t in the (American) Litvishe world, and definitely not by many of those who criticize us for not being Frum enough.”

I do laud Chabad’s strictness with regards to eruvim. And, you are right that–on average–Lubavitchers are more likely to be machmir here than American Litvaks. Just one fact check: you said it’s more normal in the Chassidish world to be machmir on eruvin. This is not true. Most Chassidim have a mesora to be meikel in this halachah. Even to the degree that many hold by the Brooklyn eruvin.

“Not only a chumash, but they won’t even put Likutei Sichos or maamarim on top of it!”

Lol. I noticed that too.