Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Akuperma- But at one point the Bekisha was “in” style and the Jews decided to be “in” style as opposed to what I assume previous generations wore. Except this time when the Bekisha went out of style, it was chosen as the de facto uniform. Why did we give a hoot what the Goyim were wearing when they wore a bekisha and then decided to stop? Why was the bekisha chosen from all the other fashions throughout history?
Akuperma- What I assume takah’s question is, is that if Moshe Rabeinu didn’t wear it, why is there significance to it? Obviously there is such thing as styles, the current style are pants and shoes with laces as you so eloquently put it. Maybe a button down shirt or even a polo shirt. But the bekeshe was not Moshe Rabeinu’s style nor our current style. It was the style in Europe some hundreds of years ago (by both Jews and non-Jews). Why was that particular Goyish style chosen as the uniform of the Jews (for those Jews that wear it) for all time?
And I have seen shuls that do compose special tefilos in special situations, which I assume (or hope) was the motivations for those who composed the tefilah for the soldiers and I know it’s the motivation for those who say it. Eilu va’eilu divrei Elokim chayim. There is nothing wrong with composing new tefilos. And there is nothing wrong with saying a tefilah that was politically motivated when composed. It is obviously not your Rav’s minhag. It is obviously the minhag of other Rabbonim.
DY- I don’t know if that’s the case- that it’s clear the tefilah is for political reasons. I have heard that Rabbonim in the Charedi communities compose special tefilos during times of war like during Cast Lead or the second Lebanon War. Even though there are firefighters in constant danger, there is room for extra tefilos when facing an enemy during times of war. There is a unique danger present there that doesn’t exist in other dangerous times. It could be that the tefilah was composed because a soldier is in a constant state of war. He is constantly in this unique danger to prevent all of us from being in that unique danger. I can understand why people separate soldiers from other dangerous occupations.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t think it’s poor midos not to say it. I understand why you wouldn’t differentiate one dangerous occupation from another. But I don’t automatically assume that the tefilah was composed for political motivations, and I don’t really care if it was. And I also understand why some might consider a soldier to be in a unique situation of danger.
DY- It doesn’t matter. If you found out that the composition of the tefilah was in fact a genuine prayer to protect those soldiers who fight for us without ulterior motives, would that change your opinion? I doubt it. You oppose it because it practically has Zionist connotations today. It’s not the reason why most people say it. And it may or may not be the reason why it was started. But the connection between a prayer for Israeli soldiers and Zionsim is quite obvious and the reason why most in the Charedi community don’t say it.
Why it was started doesn’t practically matter- those who don’t say it, won’t say it regardless of the motivations of its authors… and those who say it will continue to say it regardless of the motivations of its authors.
Joseph- I guess we agree to disagree, but I think it is pretty clear that it is far more dangerous (physically, psychologically, and emotionally) to be a soldier than a firefighter. Aside from hard numbers which would back this up, it is much easier to create precautions against something dangerous that doesn’t think or feel and who’s activities are relatively predictable. If you are getting a bunch of bullets shot at your head, the control factor diminishes significantly, to put it mildly.
But, again, that is irrelevant. We owe hakaras hatov to both soldiers and firefighters. A mi sheberach exists for soldiers and not for firefighters. Why? I don’t think it matters. It’s the reality. Was the mi sheberach started for political reasons so that Zionism can be injected into tefilah under the guise of hakaras hatov? Possibly, but I don’t think it matters. Now it’s said by many people in a genuine fashion, which is a beautiful thing. And it’s also not said by many people which is also fine. I personally understand both sides (even though I side more with one). But you have to understand that this is not only a logical issue, but a tremendously emotional one as well. Your patronizing attitude towards those who say it is (in my opinion) a bit inappropriate (as is the patronizing attitude of posters who assume that those who don’t say the tefilah lack hakaras hatov).
DY- I didn’t mean that the emotion to say the tefilah is based on a hatred for the enemy. I meant that there is a difference between a firefighter who faces the threat of something that is a dangerous non living thing and a soldier who faces the dangers of a living people who want to destroy him and everyone who he protects.
Come on Joseph, do you really not see the difference between firefighters and soldiers? Yes, firefighting is a dangerous profession, but there is a difference between a fire which, while dangerous, is not actively seeking to kill and destroy as it is not a living conscious being. As opposed to our enemies who would like nothing more than to kill us all if not for the soldiers standing between them and us.
But that’s not the point. The real reason we don’t have a mi sheberach for firefighters is because one wasn’t composed and accepted as part of our tefilah. But one does exist for soldiers and it’s a tefilah that is meaningful and emotional to much of Klal Yisroel. By trying to logically explain why their emotional tefilah is unnecessary is hurtful and offensive and I’m sure you could probably think of a less upsetting why to explain why your kehilah doesn’t say it without minimizing those who do say it.
I guess I read that differently.
And I don’t know the facts, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was started for political reasons… but now it’s something emotional for many people which is not a bad reason for saying a tefilah. It shouldn’t be used as a sword to attack those who don’t say it by implying that they don’t appreciate what soldiers are risking and fighting for… but it’s a powerful and emotional tefilah for those who connect to it.
DY- I know that’s what he was doing at first. But then people were talking about appreciating soldiers and he just seemed to be egging them on.
Or, I can reinterpret his firefighter comment- “Of course I appreciate soldiers. Just like I appreciate firefighters for putting their lives on the line to save people. Just like you would be insulted if I implied you don’t feel hakaras hatov to firefighters, I am insulted that you imply that I don’t feel hakaras hatov to soldiers.”
At best, Joseph just wants to annoy people who just want to hear that the Yeshivish and Chareidi community feel hakaras hatov to the soldiers who defend Eretz Yisroel while putting their lives at risk.
At worst, Joseph is trying to rationalize his not feeling hakaras hatov to the soldiers who defend Eretz Yisroel by telling those people that they are just as bad as he is.
If I had to summarize:
I think we all feel we owe hakaras hatov to the soldiers of Israel. The fact is, they do put their lives on the line to protect us from our enemies.
The question is, should we show it and how? Some posters seems to say that what the army does is so important to us, and they are risking so much to do it, that we should go as far to say a special tefilah for them that Hashem should protect them.
Others say, while we should definitely feel hakaras hatov for them in our hearts and minds, we do not have an obligation to change the tefilah for them just like we don’t for other organizations that we feel hakaras hatov for. Additionally, while we should feel hakaras hatov to the individual soldiers, showing it publicly to the Zionist entity as a whole (for those who believe that the Zionist entity is against halachah) would be inappropriate, especially when this Zionist entity is trying to force those who are learning Torah into the army. We should feel hakaras hatov to those individuals who protect us, but we should not necessarily show hakaras hatov to an organization that we disapprove of hashkafically and halachically.
The comparison to hatzalah isn’t exactly equitable because no one says a mi sheberach for hatzalah. If it had become accepted in many communities to say a mi sheberach for hatzalah and others communities did not, yet hatzalah was equally helping everyone, I could see how it might be perceived as a lack of hakaras hatov for those communities who don’t say it.
The fact that non religious Jews don’t value the protective value of Talmud Torah and don’t show hakaras hatov for it does not absolve us of our hakaras hatov towards them for protecting us as well.
The hakaras hatov we show to soldiers is not simply for protecting us. If that were the case, then Bnei HaTorah should be receiving at least equal hakaras hatov. The hakaras hatov for soldiers is also for the sacrifice and risk they put themselves in to protect us. They literally put their lives on the line to stand between us and our enemies. Bnei HaTorah do not risk nearly as much and that should be taken into account when we try and compare who “deserves” more hakaras hatov for protecting us.
Just because we disagree on certain hashkafic or halachic issues doesn’t mean we don’t get along. Machlokles is a part of Torah. Part of accepting each other’s differences is accepting that there are differences and that not every machlokes is sinas chinam.
I always understood the difference to be that emunah is the belief or knowledge that God exists and runs the world while bitachon is relying on and trusting in that powerful God that you know exists. Emunah is more intellectual while bitachon can take many forms. It can have actual practical ramification on decisions you make (actively relying on Hashem can theoretically change decisions you may make regarding health or parnasah for example) or just emotionally (giving strength in times of trouble). Bitachon is built upon emunah but they are not the same thing.
It’s just as bad as living in Saint Louis.
This topic has been hashed and rehashed but I would assume that R’ Schachter does indeed paskin like the S”A… he just doesn’t understand the S”A to be saying it’s completely assur as the S”A also says that women receive reward for doing it. I’m sure there are many ways for reconciling how the S”A says women receive schar for doing something that is seemingly assur, but one way of understanding it (and I assume R’ Schachter learns this way) is that the issur is on the teacher if he compels them to learn, but if they do it voluntarily than it is permitted and they receive reward (and presumably, in a situation where they receive reward for learning, it should be just as permissible to teach them. It doesn’t make sense to say that it is permissible for them to learn but they must do it on their own without a teacher).
Joseph- and I’m assuming, that according to those poskim who say that kepshuto is lechatchilah, everyone should strive to do it lechatchilah as long as it doesn’t interfere with any other area of halachah. Where it does interfere, like when it will cause someone to violate any issur DeRabanan (including dina demalchusa dina), then I would assume those same poskim would agree that it is better be yotzei this halachah in a bedieved fashion rather than use it’s lechatchilah performance as an excuse to violate any other halachah.
Joseph- You seem convinced that there are poskim that paskin that you absolutely need to get drunk to be yotzei ad delo yada, and that the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion is not a halachically valid option. According to that premise, I agree with your conclusion that dina demalchusa dina/illegality of underage drinking plays no role in this discussion and the only concern is whether its dangerous or not.
I just disagree with your premise that there are any poskim today who rule that way and I believe that everyone agrees that at least bedieved you are yotzei if you follow the Rama’s and M”B’s suggestion.
We agree to disagree.
Random question- what is the chiyuv of ad delo yada?
I always learned that there are 4 mitzvos of Purim- megilah, matanos la’evyonim, mishloach manos, and seudah.
Is the chiyuv ad delo yada part of the seudah in the sense that you have a big seudah, with bread and meat and wine, but you haven’t hit ad delo yada (according to whichever shitah) then you aren’t yotzei your seudah?
Or is ad delo yada a separate fifth chiyuv of Purim that can only be fulfilled during the seudah?
I don’t think there is any posek nowadays who would say that you are not yotzei if you rely on the “kula” of the Rama and the M”B. Maybe they would say it’s a bedi’eved, maybe they say one should be machmir to be yotzei according to all the dei’os, but it’s not a matter of black and white psak halacha (maybe your posek paskins differently than normative halacha and concludes that one is not yotzei at all that way, but I doubt it). Once we are in the realm of chumros and kulos, lechatchilah and bedieved, and not straight up psak halacha… then other considerations like dina demalchusa dina can come into play.
Joseph- if that’s the case, then fine. But are there indeed poskim that will say it is against halacha for a 13 year old to rely on the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah on Purim? Is there a posek that allows or requires a legal minor (and halachic adult) to get drunk on Purim when they can be yotzei through those shitos? Please ask your posek who requires you to get drunk, if he would allow (or require) a minor to follow the Mishnah Berurah instead of getting drunk.
But, the question I was asking is, does one of the two options I presented indeed violate dina demalchisa dina more than the other.
And again, every chumra is a kula. Is being machmir to go further than what the Rama, Pri Megadim, and Mishnah Berurah require when it is being meikil on dina demalchusa dina really a chumra? Maybe the proper chumra is to fulfill drinking on Purim like those shitos and being mekayem dina demalchusa dina completely. Then you get the zechus of fulfilling two dinim instead of just one.
Underage drinking is illegal and yet if halacha requires drinking, we would be required to follow the halacha against secular law.
Now according to many poskim, one is required to get drunk on Purim. But according to (at least) 3 heavy hitters- the Rama, Pri Megadim, and the Mishnah Berurah- you can be yotzei (and the M”B even writes that it is ideal to be yotzei) by drinking more than usual and going to sleep but there is no need to actually getting drunk.
Now, from a secular law perspective, for someone under 21, both of these options are technically illegal (I think) because they both involve underage drinking. Once you are breaking the law by following the halacha, from a legal perspective, is there a reason to choose the option that requires less drinking?
The Queen- Are we so sure those things will end when Mashiach comes?
DY- I don’t think he thinks there is anything wrong with Eretz Yiroel. That is, after all, the name of the land. I think his point is, that sometimes it seems like people are going out of their way to avoid saying the State of Israel as if they are trying very hard not to acknowledge its existence.
Because Goyish governments never tortured Jews or murderers or terrorists before. I’m obviously not trying to validate the Israeli government if they did in fact torture these boys, but I don’t think that’s a difference between Goyim and Frei Jews.
Health- Why is that a problem? Why is it better to live in a country with Goyim running the country than Frei Yidden running it? And we’re not comparing two equal countries… we’re comparing Eretz Yisroel to another country. So not only are you saying it’s better for some reason to live in a country run by Goyim than Frei Yidden, it’s SO much better that it even outweighs the benefits of living in Eretz Yisroel.
DY- “Don’t confuse Zionism with the mitzvah to live in Eretz Yisroel. “
This I think is one of the biggest problems with anti-Zionism. In an effort to separate Orthodox Judaism with Zionsim (which while I disagree, I understand. There are many problems with Zionsim), the anti-Zionists have separated Orthodox Judaism from Eretz Yisroel as well. Because Zionists have prioritized Eretz Yisroel so much (possibly too much), to counter that Anti Zionists have delegitimized Eretz Yisroel (definitely too much). It has come to the point where people have even suggested that the mass return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel might not have anything to do with the geulah! Crazy!
DY- Do you really believe that? The physical return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel has no connection to the geulah? It’s like we’re so used to the idea of being able to return to Eretz Yisroel, we try and conjure up ways to lessen its significance. If you went to the European Gedolim 400 or 500 years ago and even suggested that the mass return of Klal Yisroel to Eretz Yisroel has no connection to the final geulah, I would guess that you would be laughed right out of the Beis Medrash.
DY- Why wait?
Squeak- Of course geulah is not only about returning to a physical geographic location. Which is why the geulah will not be complete even if every single Jew returns to Eretz Yisroel. But part of the geulah is returning to the physical geographic location of Eretz Yisroel and that is currently happening.
DY- You’re right. I spoke too strongly. But kibutz galuyos in its literal sense is happening. Klal Yisroel is returning to Eretz Yisroel. How much credit goes to the Medinah and how this is connected to the geulah is a judgment call.
I think it’s pretty clear that the Hakamas Hamedinah is at least the beginning of the geulah. One of the signs of the impending geulah is kibutz galuyos which has happened/is currently happening. Almost 50% of Klal Yisorel now lives in Eretz Yisroel and Medinas Yisroel with its right of return is a large reason for that. So unless you believed the Jews have to leave Eretz Yisroel before the geulah happeneing, it’s hard to deny that this is hatchala lege’ulasa.
Re: question #1 and title of the thread
The Gemara on Chagiga 5b says that HKB”H cries three tears: “over him who is able to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does not; and over him who is unable to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does; and over a leader who domineers over the community”
Each one is ideal for those who it is ideal for.
The Gemara on Chagiga 5b says that HKB”H cries three tears: “over him who is able to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does not; and over him who is unable to occupy himself with [the study of] the Torah and does; and over a leader who domineers over the community”
What’s the deal with Yaakov only having 3 female descendants that made it to Mitzrayim among 67 male descendants. That can’t be natural. It must have been a miracle, but if so… there must be some message behind it.
You gotta love global warming!
Maybe Yosef thought Yaakov was part of the plot to sell Yosef. I mean, Avraham rejected Yishmael, Yitzchok rejected Eisav, maybe Yosef thought that he was the rejected son of this family. Yaakov did send Yosef to the brothers by himself without any escort (which according to the sugya of eglah arufah [the last sugya they learned together] is equivalent to killing him). Maybe Yosef thought that the brothers were acting under Yaakov’s instructions and he didn’t contact Yaakov for the same reason he didn’t contact his brothers… he assumed they didn’t want him anymore and they wanted him out of the picture.
Maybe he thought Yaakov was in on it. I mean, Avraham rejected Yishmael, Yitzchok rejected Eisav, maybe Yosef thought that his sale was his rejection. Yaakov did send Yosef to the brothers by himself without any escort (which according to the sugya of eglah arufah [the last sugya they learned together] is equivalent to killing him). Maybe Yosef thought that the brothers were acting under Yaakov’s instructions and he didn’t contact Yaakov for the same reason he didn’t contact his brothers… he assumed they didn’t want him anymore and they wanted him out of the picture.
Joseph- where does the Torah prescribe a subservient role? In Parshas Bereishis for Chava’s curse? It also curses Chava with difficult childbirth. Does that mean a woman is not allowed an epidural to ease the pain? It also curses Adam to work for a living. Does that mean it is assur for a man to rely on the financial support of others?
One can argue that a curse is not the same thing as a command. One is not required to make sure that that curse comes true. Maybe a curse is just a statement that a new reality exists but it does not impose any new active restrictions. Like if man used to have the ability to fly and God cursed man by saying “you shall not fly” and took away the ability… that just means there’s a new reality that man can no longer fly. That doesn’t forbid man from building a balloon or an airplane.
The new reality is that it will be much more difficult for man to earn a living, but it does not forbid one man from making it easier on another man. The new reality is, is that childbirth will be much more difficult, but it doesn’t forbid a woman from making it as easy as possible. The new reality is that there is a new natural dominant relationship between man and woman, but it doesn’t forbid a man and a woman from having a different dynamic if they choose to.
Joseph- if it’s against halacha for a woman to work, why is a woman allowed to break this halacha to support her husband in learning? Usually the husband could probably find another source of income other than kollel that would allow his wife to not break this halacha.
And, I would like to apologize for using the term “relegated.” There are many women that find much fulfillment and menuchas hanefesh as a full time wife and mother. But not all women fit that mold. Are there contemporary poskim that say that it is assur for a woman to have a career if not completely necessary for financial reasons? I would love to see contemporary sources that say that explicitly (other than the S”A that you mention).
Bookworm120
+1. I agree wholeheartedly. Being a frum woman does not mean you are relegated to being stay at home or working at a dead end low paying job just because she’s female. And being a feminist doesn’t necessarily mean a desire to destroy all role differences between men and women especially in the realm of religion.
Joseph- you mean they aren’t supporting their husbands in koillel??? I’m not mekabel!
“A mention of the miraculous wars was inserted into the prayers, but it seems that the Sages were concerned mainly with remembering the miracle of the oil.”
I think the premise of the vort is wrong. It’s not a mention, the tefilah just talks about the war and a passing reference about the oil. The Chachamim seemed to incorporate BOTH miracles, the oil in our actions (with a little reference to the war Maoz Tzur) and the war with our tefilos (with a brief mention of oil at the end). I don’t think the war was downplayed at all in our Chanukah observance.
Why do you assume there is a modern day equivalent?
DY- I say halachic problem because I think we have a halachic responsibility to show hakaras hatov. If we don’t show hakaras hatov in this case, that means there is a competing halachic problem with doing so- like in the story you brought, there was a potential halachic problem of ribis in that case which is why he couldn’t express hakaras hatov.
DY- I hear. But that begs question, do those who feel they are not allowed to show hakaras hatov to the medina and to Tzahal… does it really bother them that they can’t?
And is it really true that there is a halachic problem with expressing hakaras hatov to the medinah (for the funds to yeshivos) and to Tzahal (for protecting us)… or that there is no way to show hakaras hatov without giving the impression that you agree with them hashkafically?
I don’t know the answer to one, but I am skeptical about the answer to two.
DY- Feeling hakaras hatov without showing it? Is there such a concept? And there is no way to show hakaras hatov to the state without giving the impression that you agree hashkafically with it? I don’t think my showing hakaras hatov to a Christian implies that I agree with him philosophically.
DY- What about Tzahal protecting Israel or the Israeli government giving money to yeshivos? Shouldn’t the Charedim show hakaras hatov to the medinah?
Just like Hashem protecting Israel is not an excuse to not show hakaras hatov to the tools that Hashem uses (the US government), so too Hashem protecting Israel and funding Torah is not an excuse to not show hakaras hatov to the tools Hashem uses (Tzahal and the Israeli government).
“Is using American citizens employed in American national security to spy against America on American soil or the Israeli prime minister coming to America to speak against the president a form of hakaras hatov? “
Probably not. But I think Israel’s responsibility to keep its citizens safe is probably more important than hakaras hatov. And Israel has other ways of showing hakaras hatov as other posters mentioned- intelligence sharing and a strategic ally in the hostile Middle East.