Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Dear FFBBT613,
Your financial problems have been solved. Just send any bills you can’t pay to Rema711 and RabbiRabin. They guarantee you won’t have any problems paying your bills.
If you don’t need to touch it, don’t.
Outside or inside, as per Rabbi Sam.
If you need to touch it to straighten it out, or some other necessary purpose, and no chotzetz is available, then do it.
Akuperma: Accepted. They did not use the word boycott, of course. The word they used is “cherem”.
This boycott was initiated by kollel yungerleit in Israel and is strongly supported by their Roshei Yeshiva. I’m surprised that their opinion (da’as torah) has not been given any weight on this thread.
If you can touch it with a tallis intervening, do so.
If you can’t, then touch it with your fingers.
If you don’t need to touch it, don’t.
I rate them as follows:
1. Rosenblatt
2. Kussevitsky
3. Kwartin
4. Schmidt
5. Hirshman
6. Mays
7. Dimaggio
8. Williams
9. Aaron
10. Mantle
Sam, “ani”, not “anochi”
Randomex:
Clarification. The Ponovizhe Yeshiva has a minhag in how to deal with this issue. Check it out.
I suggest following the minhag hamakom as practiced in the Ponovizhe Yeshiva.
Observer 36:
Only your advice was presumptuous. Your analysis of the yeshivish world is insightful and accurate. Well said.
Dear Excellence,
The water will cause sputtering. Use only oil.
Waiting the wicks will not help, you may have to wait forever. Maybe you’d like to weight them. But no matter, use only oil. If you want to save on the oil, use smaller cups and less oil. No water. Hatzlachah.
“There might be a problem with a hefsek in the Havdalah if no besamim is required.”
No hefsek.
Havdalah begins with the brachah of “hamavdil”, everything before it is an introduction.
The explanation is as follows:
PAA’a quote of the Magen Avraham is obviously very relevant, but missing in the reasoning.
According to kabbalistic sources and led by the Ari Hakadosh, the night hours before chatzot are the hours of “din” and not rachamim. The 13 middot should not be said then, to the point that some sources regard it as close to kefirah (mekatzetz b’netiyot is the term used). Not a single sefardi posek permits slichot before chatzot, and some of them prefer a person sit silently and say nothing if he is “stuck” in a shul where they are saying slichot before chatzot. Until Reb Moshe, there was no Ashkenazi posek who disagreed, as can be seen by the Magen Avraham.
In the old days , this was not an issue, as slichot was always said in the early morning, b’ashmoret haboker, during the entire slichot period, including the first night. Clearly, the piyut of b’motza’ei menucha still applies b’ashmoret haboker.
For reasons that are unclear, maybe due to the advent of chazanut (my opinion) , perhaps due to the difficulty of getting up so early in the morning, something that not everyone did, the first night became an understandably big deal (with outstanding attendance by all measures), and was moved to motzaei shabbat, but only after chatzot.
When it became dangerous for individuals to walk outside late at night in America, selichot gradually was shifted to before chatzot. The reasoning is simple. It is preferable to say it at night before chatzot than not to say it at all. Although this is against kabbalah, Reb Moshe as a Litivishe posek par excellence could find no issur in saying it before chatzot and he reluctantly permitted it as a ho’ro’at sh’ah. Others followed quickly, and saying selichot nowadays before chatzot is a common practice among the halachic-bent ashkenazim. I have never seen it amongst the sefardim, certainly not here in Israel.
A last point. 147 mentioned the fact that we say 13 midot on yom kippur night, in contradiction to what I explained above. Although this is a good question, my opinion is that the “din” issue of those hours falls away on Yom Kippur, in which the sha’arei shamayim are open “m’erev ad erev” through ne’ilah, lechol ha’de’ot.
Dear Mazal77,
Sorry for being, offtopic, but, your excessive and, inappropriate,use, of commas, is making your posts, very difficult, to read.
Other than that, I agree with your comments regarding an obssession some have with mekubalim.
Dear Malbim,
Bash you? I didn’t even write to you.
PAA mentioned he saw a sefer in a store with a certain name, and I thought that was an awkward and redundant name for a sefer.
“Sefer Ba’al Hama’or” sounds redundant and awkward, no?
Originally Rabeinu Zerachiah Halevi of Provence’s corpus was called “Sefer Hamaor”(and one could call him “Ba’al Sefer Hama’or”), but with time the author was called simply the “Ba’al Hamaor”. It was further delineated by the “Maor Hakatan” on Brachos and Moed, and “Hamaor Hagadol” on Nashim and N’zikin.
I have an idea of how to implement this.
You, yerushalmi in exile, will get on a plane to Israel, and immediately go to Barzilai Hospital in Ashkelon and Soroka in Beer Sheva and ask all the soldiers missing body parts to please support your chosen kollel. Then, you will visit the Goldin family in Kfar Sava and hit them up for another kollel.
After you succeed, come to me for more places to raise money, there are dozens of families who would love to give you all the money that they don’t need anymore; their boys won’t need to be supported or married off, they are dead.
Mod 42
That’s an interesting point. My opinion is that since the tefillah is for Eretz Yisrael, once someone starts saying it, it is improper to stop.
I know a Rav who was flying back to the States the night of 7 Heshvan and purposely did not daven maariv until the plane took off. He did not want to start saying tal u’matar and then get into the safek of whether to stop once he got to the States. He felt he could not daven maariv here and NOT say tal u’matar, after all, the gabbai announces it before shmoneh esreh.
It can be confusing.If someone does not want to stop once he started,and goes to chu”l, he says it as a yachid (my opinion), but if he is a shliach tzibbur in chu”l, there is no doubt he must follow the minhag hamakom.
1. Chumash is essential and must not be skipped.
2. Learning chumash need not be at the expense of gemara.
3. The Aruch Laner is not obscure, c”v.
4. A person who knows chumash cannot be an am ha’aretz d’oraisah, by definition.
Myturnatbat:
White does not attract the eye. Reflection and absorption here is irrelevant, as is snowblindness.
In answer to your question, yes, I am an expert in the field.
Myturnatbat:
White does not attract the eye. Reflection and absorption here is irrelevant, as is snowblindness.
In answer to your question, yes, I am an expert in the field.
Professor Haym Soloveitchik, in his recent Collected Essays vol. 1. illucidated the concept of yehareg v’al ya’avor (YVLY). Essentially:
1. YVLY means that one allows oneself to be murdered rather than transgress, not that one is “supposed to die”.
2. A Jew is forbidden to murder a Jew, hence, YVLY applies to the threat of murder by a non-Jew.
3. Suicide is forbidden.
From the above, it is obvious that when a contemporary Rav uses the term YVLY regarding these issues (shaking a woman’s hand, etc…), he is using it FIGURATIVELY in order to emphasize the severity of the act and/or the obligation to avoid it. The literal YVLY does not apply in any of these cases.
My friend D.W. suggested simply that during the sulfur, fire, sand and salt storm, Lot’s wife was completely covered in salt, her body forming into what looked like a pillar of salt. Since pillars (i.e. concrete buildings) are often described by their exterior (concrete) and not their interior (office space), so too in this case. Her body did not become salt, she was simply covered with it.
Obviously, being covered with salt, she must have died quickly. What happened afterwards I don’t know, but it’s reasonable to assume that the pillar disintegrated over a short period of time (my guess is a few weeks, mayber a bit more,salt is a preservative) and since then has been unidentifiable.
A rational explanation that fits neatly into the pasuk. Take it or leave it. I take it.
I think we analyzed this enough. To Daas Yochid, Sam and Benignuman,
thank you for your comments. To Benignuman I say, I still reject the Rabeinu Yerucham as a source, but then I am left with a gnawing feeling. Assuming it’s a typo, but what a typo! Any other single letter typo would easily have been recognized as a mistake and thrown out. How coincidental is it that the typo is a gimel davka? Is it just that if you add a regel by mistake to a vav it becomes a gimel? I have no satisfying answer. Maybe you are right after all. And maybe one day a scholar will find a tshuva in some archive that will shed light on it.
Daas Yochid,
I read your post carefully and found that I agree with almost all of it.
Therefore, I would like to elaborate on, and even rephrase what I wrote.
I did not intend to claim that a community loyal to halachah “made a change”. Quite the contrary. If there was a “change made”, why do we not find one German posek who cites this change and explains it? We are met with German halachic silence, that’s why we are having this wonderfully civil discussion.
In any case, changes in minhag, even takanot, evolve over time, and are accepted in varying degrees in various locales over time. Even a cut and dried takanah like Rabeinu Gershom’s outlawing bigamy, was not accepted immediately, but was gradually accepted in most places over a few generations or more.In many areas it was only partially accepted. It takes time. For the record, it is highly likely that Rabeinu Gershom’s takanot were mostly not decreed by him, but that’s a separate topic.
In essence, your comments strengthen my theory. This gradual change over time (50 years? 100 years?) was so gradual that it never happened by psak or decree or halachic decision. Otherwise, we would have known when, how and by whom. There would have been some sort of halachic discourse. But there is none.
It could very well be that the six hour European minhag was not iron clad ,the fact that the Rama thinks it’s a good idea testifies that it was not uniformly practiced in his time. If so, the Mizmor L’Dovid’s referral to meal intervals (If I remember correctly, the Pri Chadash says sholosh oh arba sha’ot?)would fit my theory perfectly. Same for the Chayai Adam’s wonderfully ambiguous “aizeh sha’os)
So I’ll rephrase and I hope this is an improvement. There was as yet no clear cut axiomatic number of hours in Europe, with many keeping six and many less than six. In Germany the change in meal times did not allow for more than three, and so eventually, over several generations, the German minhag was set to three, while the rest of Europe gravitated towards the Rama’s preference for six. The Germans, not feeling bound by the Rama, and never considering six because that just didn’t work into their lifestyle, settled into three-ish. Eventually, people defined the minhag by the specific time period of three hours, but that was for the convenience of setting a defined time interval. Of course, according to my theory, it just as well could have developed into four, or two, or two and a half. It just didn’t turn out that way, or as I say it, it happened by sociological necessity and convenience. And that is why it slid into general practice under the radar of the written psak.
In conclusion, this is my theory and everyone is welcome to accept it or reject it. It will definitely remain a halachic curiosity.
Hello Sam,
I corresponded with a fine young fellow who is writing a doctorate on the Chida and asked him whether he thought the Chida’s hesitations about the sefer Adam V’chava were because of the poor copying, or because there is nistar in the typos and people who are spiritually unworthy should not be using it.
Naturally, he was very familiar with all of the Chida’s writings, and mentioned the Chida’s affinity for Rabeinu Yerucham’s Adam V’chava.
He is convinced that the Chida’s comments on the copying accuracy of Adam V’chava are all in the nigleh (as you said yourself), and he saw no evidence of typo = nistar. The Chida was wont to warn people about poor copying standards, and he especially emphasized this in the writings of Rabeinu Yerucham, which were to him, loaded with mistakes. Bottom line, the Chida valued greatly the writings of Rabeinu Yerucham provided that one use extreme caution.
If you want, I’ll copy-paste his comments to me.
As to the discussion, I have no doubt that the “gimel sha’ot” is a typo, and that this typo was not the source or even an asmachta to the German minhag.
Dear Haleivi and Sam,
Thank you, I am honored
Dear benignuman,
As I said, I have no definitive proof, but I will address your points.
1. Rabeinu Yerucham’s sefer apparently is well known for its’ typos. It is for that reason that it was hardly studied until recently.
2. It is a mistake to assume that just because there exists a position by a Rishon, that everyone knew about it. Rabeinu Yerucham was from Provence and after the Jews were banished from France in 1306, went to Spain and lived out his life there, writing toldos adam v’chava towards the end of his life and dying in 1350. As I noted, zero Influence on German custom. I would be shocked if his sefer was available in Germany at any point in time.
I will add to this point that because of the incessant geographical wars that were part of life in the middle and modern ages, there was often little if any communication betwen relatively large geographical areas; actually, insulation was the rule. This of course resulted in strong and unwavering, but very different minhagim developing in different areas. This point emphasizes the unlikelihood that Rabeinu Yerucham’ s influence was felt anywhere outside of Spain and Spanish custom, even after the expulsion in 1492 .
3. Even a Rishon needs a source. As Sam has vehemently argued ( I disagree with him, but his arguments are coherent and strong), innovative halachic positions still require a textual springboard. What was Rabeinu Yerucham’s textual basis for three hours? And why was he alone? After all, he did not live in isolation. Best answer: none, it was a ta’ut sofer and he never wrote it.
4. I would greatly hesitate before suggesting that three hours is a nice compromise between one (or none) and six, as neat as it sounds. Some may have escaped me, but I cannot recall a quantitative halachic decision that was settled by splitting that quantity in two. We may argue ad infinitum how large a zayit is , but no one says “let’s take the minimum opinion and the maximum opinion , average them, and presto! There is our exact halachic quantity”. One can hardly imagine a scenario where one opinion is that something is batel b’rov, another is that it’s batel b’shishim, and someone coming along and saying, “let’s stop fighting, just call it batel b’shloshim and we can all go home”
I spent some time investigating the three hour yekke minhag, and Prof. Sperber told me he thought my theory is reasonable.
I’ll make it short.
The position that the minhag comes from Rabeinu Yerucham is far fetched, and in my opinion, untenable. As is known, he specifically says six hours in another sefer of his. Two, it’s very likely that the letter gimel was a ta’us sofer, it’s only one letter. Three, and more important, Rabeinu Yerucham was French, a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz of Corbeil (south of Paris), and until proven otherwise, had zero influence on German custom. He could not possibly have taken an entrenched German custom and single-handedly, without talmudic proof, changed it to three hours, and that only in Germany and not in France or C’na’an.. No way. Four, no one else mentions it.
The minhag is only several hundred years old, as witnessed by the Mizmor L’david’s dealing with it, a first in rabbinic literature. To base it on the Pri Chadash is interesting, but irrelevant, the Italian Chezkiyah de Silva had no authority or influence in Germany.
In the 1700s ,the eating patterns of the Germans , Jews and non-Jews alike changed, and with it, meal times. This has been documented. The evening dairy meal gradually moved earlier so that it would be served in the daytime. Considering that the winter days are short, if earlier in the day there was a meat meal, which certainly occurred on shabbat and yom tov, there were only approximately three-four hours left in the day. Hence, by sociological neccessity, and without changing the halachah (Ashkenaz psak according to the ba’alei hatosfot was not to wait at all,so it’s a minor change mid’rabanan to cut from six to three), the wait was cut to three.
This theory answers several important questions, namely:
1. Where is the source for three hours in the rishonim? There is none, nor was one necessary.
2. Why was it never mentioned until the 1700s? It didn’t exist yet.
3. Why only in Germany? That’s where eating patterns changed.
I have no definitive proof. It is a theory, even conjecture if you desire. You can knock it down, be my guest. But it makes more sense to me than anything else I’ve heard.
Correct. It was not written by Rabeinu Gershom.
Source: Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim, Professor Avraham Grossman, pg. 165-174
To hal,
I don’t draw any conclusions from the gemara with acher.
Different time periods require different attitudes towards these issues. Everyone has their own border they won’t cross, everyone has their own slippery slope and everyone thinks they know who the bad guys are and who the good guys are.
Today I read a pashkvil put out by a well known and large chassidic sect, forbidding listening to or reading the seforim of someone who Rav Kaniefsky shlit”a himself proclaimed to be the godol hador. What does one make of that?
Unfortunately, the Torah observant world has expended so much energy in paselling everyone else, that no one is left. We’re all pasul. Kofrim. Assurim b’maga u’tmei’im b’ohel. Sad, isn’t it?
Dear secretagent,
Oh, no one claimed it was a proof. The historians would call it a reasonable conjecture. If you like it, fine, if not, not. Considering that it’s pretty much agreed upon that these tosfos were written towards the tail end of the tosafist period, this tosfos fits neatly into the pattern. But proof? No.
To mobico,
We have no verifiable perushim of Rabeinu Gershom. In that period, anonymity was the rule. It was written by Chachmei Magentza, a loosely defined group in the period of Rabeinu Gershom and afterwards for a generation or two. Their perushim were rendered obsolete by the greatness of Rashi’s perush.
Dear Sam,
Your funny anecdote about tosefta kifshuta being on a seforim shelf has been verified many times. It was known (can’t verify it for modern times) that many serious yeshivas had it on the shelf without making a fuss about it. Most people learned it without knowing they were supposed to have first dissected the hashkafic kishkes of the author.
But I’d like to go back to Rebbe yid’s comment to me above. If we get past the ignorance and adolescent kana’us of the comment, it represents a legitimate point of view. Many yeshivishe hold that emes can only be brought forth from a kosher source, and one must avoid any contact or even appearance of it with one deemed a “rasha (sic)”. This is a legitimate point of view.
The other side, held by many if not most world class lamdanim, is that emes is emes no matter who says it. They may or may not feel comfortable learning R’ Lieberman’s scholarly works, but they know genius when they see it, and their intellectual drive and thirst for truth far outweigh any possible hashkafic discomfort. For the ones who avoid it at all costs, one can’t help but feel for them, their depth of understanding will necessarily be compromised. But my feeling is that the abstainers are a small minority.
Dear Secretagent,
The explanation of the tosfos and the black plague is thus:
The black plague, in addition to killing many millions across Asia and Europe, was especially devastating to pig livestock,what chachamim and others called “dever”, pestilence among the livestock .To a large degree, the pig population infected the human population. Needless to say, this affected goyim on a large scale, but relatively few Jews.
The halachic question then arose, was there enough danger to Jews to warrant a ta’anis? On the one hand, Jews were not really being affected much. On the other hand, since according to the gemara, pig intestine is similar to human intestine, then,certainly a non-Jewish human intestine would be similar enough to a Jewish intestine to justify alarm, and hence, a ta’anis.
Note that tosfos uses the phrase, “Umikan nireh”, a phrase used when tosfos is extrapolating from the gemara to a current halachic decision. So it appears that tosfos is dealing with an actual case where the ta’anis decree was being considered due to dever- the black plague raging at that time, 1348-1353 or so. Since the circumstances of the black plague fit this scenario, this tosfos is considered to have been written around that time, the mid 1300s.
I’ll just add that the actual microbiological cause of the black plague is being debated even today, so the above conclusion is not absolute proof. But it fits.
Dear secretagent,
Yesterday I wrote a long explanation about the relationship between that Tosfos and the Black plague, and also about Rashi on Ta’anis and Chachmei Magentza. Then they found the boys, the computer was taken over by the news, and my comments were not saved. I and many others will be at the heartbreaking levayahs today, and I don’t have the koyach today to reconstruct what I wrote. But I will, eventually.
To save yourself time, if you can get a hold of Ohrbach’s masterpiece “Ba’alei Hatosafot” and Grossman’s masterpiece “Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim”, what I have to say is taken straight out of there.
Dear Sam,
Again with all due respect, but you grossly understate R’ Shaul Lieberman’s torah knowledge and influence. His torah knowledge was considered to be equal or greater than Rav Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik, the Chazon Ish (his first cousin), Rav Aharon Kotler, or any other larger than life Torah scholar of that generation.True lamdanim learn everything he wrote, and true lamdanim who for hashkafic reasons cannot be seen reading what he wrote do it anyway, in private. Admittedly, there are those who maintain that one is forbidden from studying his works, but that stems only from hashkafic concerns and is unrelated to the consensus regarding his genius. Occasionally, he is quoted by a yeshivishe lamdan who simply doesn’t know who he was, and therefore doesn’t know he shouldn’t be quoting him. Life’s little ironies.
Dear Secretagent,
Sorry, my typo. Due to my old age, I accidentally typed Eruvin when I meant Ta’anis, which is the mesechta we are discussing. So again, see tosfos Ta’anis 21:, d”h Amru, where according to the historians, tosfos seems to be referring to the Black Plague.
This discovery is not a shock. Ohrbach quotes the Maharshal (Shu”t Maharshal 64) at the beginning of his discussion that tosfos on Ta’anis is “?? ?????????”
Dear secretagent,
Duly noted.
I’ll check again and get back to you.
According to Professor Ephraim Orbach in his seminal book “Ba’alei Hatosafot”, pages 615-616, the Tosfot on Eiruvin were probably compiled in the middle 1300s, by a talmid of Rav Yitchok of Tresson, who was a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz and the Rosh. Another possibility is Rav Yitzchok of Keinon (sp.?). Prof. Orbach mentions curious possible references to the Black Plague (21: d”h amru) , which began in 1348.
According to Grossman in his “Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim”, Rashi on Ta’anit is still a mystery. There was a claim that a ktav yad was found in Spain, but no proof that it was Rashi’s, nor do we have this ktav yad. The consensus for now is that it was written by “chachmei Magentza”, a loosely defined group in Magentza (Mainz)in the eleventh century, who were the predecessors and teachers of Rashi.
According to Professor Ephraim Orbach in his seminal book “Ba’alei Hatosafot”, pages 615-616, the Tosfot on Eiruvin were probably compiled in the middle 1300s, by a talmid of Rav Yitchok of Tresson, who was a talmid of Rabeinu Peretz and the Rosh. Another possibility is Rav Yitzchok of Keinon (sp.?). Prof. Orbach mentions curious possible references to the Black Plague (21: d”h amru) , which began in 1348.
I have been reading this thread quietly and with interest, but now I must intercede.
Dear Sam2,
Your vast halachic knowledge and derech ha’psak has caused you to steer yourself into a corner.Your insistence on written sources will lead you to a black hole once you investigate the issue.
Charlie Hall mentioned Haym Soloveitchik’s essay Rupture and Reconstruction. That was a short piece. If you take the time to read his new book Collected Essays I, and in addition, Jacob Katz’s Hahalachah B’meitzar, Yisrael Ta Shma’s books on medieval halachic literature, Auerbach’s Ba’alei Hatosafot, and Grossman’s Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim and Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim,(this is a short list) you will see two phenomena:
1. Mesorah trumps the written word
2. Halachic innovation and Derech Halimud innovation trumps Mesorah
But Rupture and Reconstruction will be a good start.
My opinion: Keep it simple. You are in chutz la’aretz and in chu”l there are two days. Keep them.
I have never been to a kiddush club and my shul does not have one.
That said, it seems that these kiddush clubs in America, although not a new phenomenon, have grown in size and number lately, and I will propose an explanation. It cuts across modern, yeshivish, or whatever flavor the shul subscribes to.
Yiddishkeit in America is flourishing to an astounding degree. Whether it is in torah study, financial success, or political clout, it has never been better. The result is that the frum/orthodox social structure is so confident, stable and secure, that simply belonging to it is enough to ensure personal and familial stability and satisfaction.
The ultimate consequence is that what counts is whether one is considered a member of that social structure, and not whether he observes all of its rules. If one wears the right uniform, sends his children to the right yeshiva, gives tzedakah to the right institutions, walks the walk and talks the talk, he is “in the club”, accepted, respected, even admired.
The social system will then not require him to do business honestly, be modest and humble, and have true love of Jews even if they are “not unzerer”. If he has money, his kid will never be kicked out of yeshiva for being chutzpadik. His kids will get good shidduchim. And finally, the system will certainly not demand from him to get to shul on time and listen to the leining and haftorah. After all, why should he? He is “in” and that’s what counts, for everything. He has stability, success and kavod.
This is how yiddishkeit runs in America and probably worldwide.
It’s all about the image and not the substance. Get used to it, the kiddush club is not going away so quickly, it is only a symptom and not the disease. If it does, rest assured something else, maybe more sinister, will replace it.
I didn’t miss any posts.
If a Rosh Yeshiva doesn’t want his bochrim to go to the stadium, common sense dictates he say that a stadium is an inappropriate place for a yeshiva boy for such and such reasons.
Once the Rosh Yeshiva, Rebbe, or Posek feels that that approach won’t work, he is liable to attempt one or both of the following: Either ridicule the act (hevel) or label it assur al pi halachah by invoking the always available chukos hagoyim argument.
Ridiculing the sport reflects poorly on the Rosh Yeshiva, as it shows how out of touch he really is. The chukos hagoyim argument is a feeble attempt at attaching a prohibition to an innocent act. It can be ripped to shreds by any beginning Talmud student, as has been pointed out by others here.
My point is simple. The Rosh Yeshiva doesn’t want his bochrim going to Yankee Stadium? Then he must present arguments that hold up under scrutiny. After all, his Rabbeim trained the boys to think, didn’t he?
Dear Yeshivaguy,
My comment about the value of sports includes being a spectator at the event itself. Many non Torah aspects of life have value, whether it be spiritual, aesthetic, monetary, or utilitarian. Sports, both playing and observing is one of them. To say that sports is “hevel” is an individual opinion, and one may disagree without any disrespect, and many do . To each his own.
Unfortunately, you chose the easy way out of this discussion, bringing circular proofs from roshei yeshiva claiming that all must agree with everything they say because they are roshei yeshiva. The merits of the different opinions in this discussion were ignored.
I am an old man with enough life experience that these claims do not impress me anymore. I request that when debating a point, that I be given concrete arguments that I can evaluate and respond to. If someone, even a Rosh Yeshiva,has an opinion and I disagree, let the best argument win.
I maintain that sports is neither “hevel” nor inane (without value). A portrait by Rembrandt, a Beethoven symphony, and a baseball hit off the bat of Ted Williams all have value to many people. As I said, to deny the validity of this expresses ignorance rather than wisdom.
Roshei yeshiva who poke fun at professional sports, whether it be football (22 goyim beating each other up)or baseball (ein mentsch varft a pilka), are displaying ignorance rather than wisdom.
I could say the same thing about chess: what a silly game, moving funny looking wood on a board with silly boxes, and thinking so long about it before they move a piece! What nonsense!
But anyone who understands football, baseball, chess, or almost any sport, realizes that there is a great deal of intelligence, reasoning and strategy involved. And understanding sport is to appreciate it. Is it Torah? No. But it has value, and each person can determine that value for himself.
Why make fun of something one knows nothing about? Rather than presenting a convincing argument, it reflects rather poorly on the commenter himself. These Roshei Yeshiva, as is said in sports, are shooting the puck into their own net.
1. Tel Aviv and Jerusalem are not “international cities”. They are just cities.
2. From Tzomet Maccabim till Malcha, a distance of some 35 kilometers, Route 443 has no traffic lights. Going towards Tel Aviv, from Tzomet Maccabim, there are 5 , one of which is almost always green (Adam). Hardly “governed by traffic lights”.
3. Considering the large volume of passenger traffic,Ben Gurion airport is extraordinarily accessible and efficient, with plenty of parking. Far better than Kennedy,LaGuardia and Newark.
4. For better and worse, God provided us with a Homeland that is full of peaks and valleys, making the construction of high speed roads extremely difficult. Going only 90 km/hr. on 443 is not really a serious problem, is it?
5. I can get from Modi’in to Katzrin in the Golan, 200 km (120 miles), in two and a quarter hours, not speeding. Lousy infrastructure ? Hardly.
6. Been lately on Thirteenth avenue? On the Belt Parkway? Crosstown Manhattan? Good luck. (yes, I know you are British) So who can’t “think in front of their noses” in traffic planning?
7. Route 38 is indeed dangerous, granted. They are working on it, but please pay no attention to that.
8. A snowfall in Jerusalem like we saw last week comes about as often as a Hurricane Sandy. Ready to invest the whole bank account in preparing for it? That would be foolish.
Methinks there is more Meraglim-ness in the OP than objectivity .
Farrockgrandma:
Regarding your first point, researchers from a major Israeli university developed a mathematical model to predict the future carrier rate of the Tay Sachs’ gene in the case that no two carriers ever marry. The result was that yes, the carrier rate will increase , but will take at least 500 years for it to be worth any consideration, and even then the effect will be miniscule.
Regarding your second point, you are absolutely correct, diversifying the gene pool is extremely helpful in reducing the incidence of genetic diseases.
The OP’s story is obviously false.
I have a life.
You have a serious problem. You can deal with it in two ways:
1. Ask advice from semi-literate adolescents whom you do not know and do not know you.
2. Go with your wife and get professional counseling.
You’ve done #1.
Now do #2.
Secular frummy:
You mean tahor , not tamei. Read the psukim. Boy: 7 days t’me’ah, then 33 t’horah. Girl: two weeks t’me’ah , then 66 t’horah.