Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Rabbi of crawley- in my humble opinion, they don’t feel it’s wrong, rather they probably feel it’s ineffective and counter productive as sometimes protests strengthen the resolve of the opposition. I would imagine Charedim Rabbonim would agree with that assessment, but they would argue that they aren’t arguing for the result, but rather they are arguing simply to show that they disapprove and that they are against this- whether it’s Chillul Shabbos or reform or some other kind of public aveirah.
And that’s the question, is the purpose of these public protests to show that the Frum Jews do not accept this unholiness in our land and we will stand up for it, or are these protests for the purpose of actually stopping the unholiness and being mekarev the perpetrators? Charedim seem to prefer the former while Dati Leumi seem to prefer the latter.
ROB- you’re making pointless arguments. As you have seen many, many times, not only does the Anti-Zionist Charedi have a different understanding of the 3 shevuos (which is completely legitimate), they will never admit that there are other ways of understanding that Gemara. To do so would shake the very foundation of their belief that Zionism is pure apikorsus and no amount of combination of religion with Zionism can make it a legitimate form of Yiddishkeit.
Joseph- And while I do believe those who learn Torah contribute more to the protection of EY then the army does, that doesn’t mean they are owed more hakaras hatov for the simple reason that they risk far less to learn that Torah. Their lives aren’t at risk in the same way that a soldier’s is on the front lines even if their contribution is greater. So yes, they each owe each other hakaras hatov, but a Charedi arguably owes a soldier more hakaras hatov, and just because a soldier fails to show hakaras hatov, it doesn’t mean that a Charedi is exempt from it either.
The same is true for money from the government. Just like kollelim show hakaras hatov to those who donate large sums of money and don’t rely on “well, our limud Torah is the greatest hakaras hatov to our benefactors so therefore we don’t owe them any additional hakaras hatov”, Charedim should show that same amount of hakaras hatov to the medinah who gives them a tremendous amount of money. And if a benefactor gave a lot of money to a mesivta and didn’t express hakaras hatov to the mesivta for learning Torah, that doesn’t exempt the mesivta for expressing hakaras hatov to the benefactor who gave them money.
Joseph- hakaras hatov and limud Torah are not synonymous. Does that mean a person who has his nose in a Gemara doesn’t need to express hakaras hatov to anyone?
And just because secular Jews or Jews who are less holy because they don’t learn Torah all day don’t express proper hakaras hatov, that means Charedim don’t have to express hakaras hatov?
Karl- Are you saying that since the Arabs don’t have hakaras hatov to the medinah for subsidizing them, then the Charedim don’t have to either?
Hakatan- My point exactly.
Joseph- factual observations based on first-hand experience is not necessarily accurate or representative of the community at large. And factual observations based on first-hand experience is not an excuse to say loshon hara.
The problem with Hakatan, and many anti-Zionists in general is exactly Rabbi of Crawley’s point… they can never admit to eilu va’eilu on this issue for some reason. Not only do they argue with the DL’s interpertation of the 3 shevuos, but it’s silly and worthless. Any DL gadol who subscribes to that and argues with a Charedi gadol is not a gadol, is hardly even a rabbi. Any legitimate gadol of the past who said things that may support religious zionism didn’t really say it or didn’t mean what the DL community thinks he meant. And they take it even further… anything good that the medinah has done, like increased Torah and yishuv EY, they say it was in spite of the medinah. The Arabs hate us because of the medinah. The medinah causes assimilation. The medinah causes intermarriage. The medinah has caused the death of thousands of Jews. 1967 was not a miracle, but a strong nation beating up on weaker ones. To the anti-Zionist, on this issue there is no eilu va’eilu. It’s all black and white. The medinah is the epitome of evil, of Godlessness. It’s not enough to argue against Zionism, but it must be delegitimized.
DY- I guess you could say no one fights like brothers but eventually they come together. The rift between Chassdim and Litvaks used to be much larger, because they too are brothers. But brothers come back together even if the differences still exist. IyH that will happen soon between DL and Chareidi as well.
Joseph- First of all, DL and MO are two different things. The gender issues is more of a dispute between Chareidi and MO than Charedi and DL.
With regard to Zionism, I guess that’s Rabbi Crawley’s question. The issue of Zionism is regarding a few lines of Aggadeta at the end of Sanhedrin that’s not brought down lehalacha by the Rosh, Rif, Rambam, or Shulchan Aruch. Why doesn’t eilu va’eilu apply to how we understand the 3 shevuos? It seems like such a small detail to create such a large rift.
Zogtbesser- Women dancing without the Torah is not a fulfillment of the minhag Rishonim, but neither is their watching the men dance. They don’t have a minhag Rishonim to keep. So why should it make a difference if they watch men dance or dance themselves?
mw- I don’t have a hard time believing that there are indeed women who enjoy watching the festivities. I have a hard time believing that dancing is an inappropriate way to celebrate for those women who don’t enjoy watching the festivities.
DY- I agree with you 100% on the resisting change. I just don’t see this as much of a change in tradition, more as a cause and effect. The cause is learning Torah and the effect is how to celebreate. Men who don’t learn do the hakafos because they have to, but they don’t really dance. The less they have to celebrate the less they actually celebrate. When women learned less the Torah, the effect was that they didn’t feel the need or desire to dance. When they learn more, they desire to celebrate more. It’s not a change in tradition as much as it a change in metzius and a new cause (more learning) leading to a new effect (dancing). Accepting that women learn more but not allowing them to celebrate that learning in traditional fashion is unnatural and can make women feel distanced from Simchas Torah.
DY- for the record, I’m not talking about Gemara (that’s a separate discussion). I’m talking about Chumash and Navi.
Matan- his reason is, since it’s not traditional, it’s not the way. Did women dance on Simchas Torah in Europe? No. Then it’s not the way it is done nor should it be done. Even though there might be a stronger logical connection between dancing and Simchas Torah then polka dotted shirts and Simchas Torah, since neither are traditional, they are equally invalid ways for women to celebrate Simchas Torah. I don’t agree with his logic, but it’s pretty simple and straightforward.
DY- Dancing is a traditional way to celebrate the Torah. Dancing is a traditional way for women to celebrate things. Not every permutation needs to be played out.
In years past, most women didn’t really learn any Torah. They only connection to Torah was through supporting their husbands and it makes sense that their celebrating of Torah was through their husbands. Nowadays women are learning more and more Torah, their connection to Torah is not solely through their husband and it makes sense that some of them may want to celebrate in ways that aren’t solely through their husband. That doesn’t mean it’s not traditional. It was just never a situation that expressed itself in the past with most women not engaged in personal Talmud Torah as much.
Also, women who don’t support any men in learning Torah (like if they are single) probably aren’t “yotzei” by watching other men celebrate. It makes sense that they should have their own celebrations.
Joseph- I’m sure you would agree that the Torah is not limited to a physical scroll. Why is it so difficult to understand that a woman can dance to celebrate Klal Yisro’els accomplishment in Torah this past year (and might I add somewhat controversially, maybe their own accomplishments in Torah this past year), even if they don’t have the actual sefer with them? What if they would even dance with a chumash, would that be better?
I’m sorry Joseph but the burden of explanation is on you here. Dancing is an appropriate way to celebrate Torah as we see that men do it. Women also naturally celebrate things by dancing as we see they dance at weddings. So, you have to explain why even though dancing is a way to celebrate Torah, and women celebrate other things by dancing, it is inappropriate for women to celebrate the Torah by dancing. Don’t try to avoid the question by bringing up something completely irrelevant.
Joseph- I guess I don’t assume that there is only one way how Simchas Torah works. Do you have a source that the only way for women to participate in Simchas Torah is to watch the men dance, and it’s some sort of chisaron in their enjoyment or love of Torah if they don’t enjoy or appreciate watching other people celebrate?
After Krias Yam Suf, I’m sure some women enjoyed watching the men singing praises to HKBH. Others wanted to sing themselves.
Yes, but watching people celebrate the Torah is only one way to enjoy Torah. Another way is to celebrate yourselves. A third way is just to learn (some people just don’t like dancing- they do their seven hakafos quickly and just learn). Of course I hope most people enjoy Torah more than going to a concert. But the way you think woman should practice Simchas Torah is not the only way to enjoy Torah.
Also, there is a big difference between married women who are watching their husbands and sons dance (which some enjoy and some don’t), to single girls who are watching a bunch of random men and kids (which I assume even less enjoy).
Just because a person enjoys going to a concert doesn’t mean they would enjoy listening to their spouse or a random person. Concerts are performances by professionals. Simchas Torah hakafos are not. There are some women who enjoy watching it. Others don’t. But it’s not comparable to a concert of a world famous professional entertainer. There are many ways to enjoy Simchas Torah. The way I’m assuming your wife prefers is just one option.
Simchas Torah is about celebrating the Torah. It should be enjoyable, like any celebration. I mean, happy is in the name of the holiday. I don’t think there is one correct way to do it. Some women celebrate the Torah by “dancing” vicariously through their husbands and watching. Others would be bored by that and want to dance themselves. Eilu vaeilu divrei Elokim chaim.
I really hope you aren’t serious. If you are, it doesn’t sound like a smart idea at all. Without training, and with only adrenaline leading the way, you’re probably more likely to accidentally kill someone innocent, and endanger those around you, then you are to actually protect yourself. Carry pepper spray instead.
“how do you vision your life after moshiach comes”
I think my vision of life after Moshiach is similar to how the Rambam perceives it. On a global scale, it would be vastly different. There would be world peace and universal recognition of God. The non-Jews will continue their lives observing the 7 Mitzvos Benei Noach, but they will still have politics and governments and things like that (I do not envision a new world order with a universal government centralized in Yerushalayim and led by the Melech Yisroel and the Sanhedrin… but who knows?).
On a personal level, other than Kohanim, Levi’im, and those living in Yerushalayim itself, our lives will be similar. We will still have similar halachos to what we have today (with the addition of tumah and taharah, aliyah laregel, and others), but we’ll still have to wake up for minyan, and balance working for a parnassah with Torah, and shalom bayis. The ultimate goal in life is not the coming of Mashiach, it’s to get closer to Hashem through Torah and Mitzvos. The coming of Mashiach may change the means to that end, but the goal will still be the same. We will still be trying to earn our place in Olam Habah even after Mashiach comes.
newbee- who says we won’t be able to give in to taivos? Will those violent taivos that you described exist? I have no idea. But our Gedolim have taivos and challenegs, so I’m sure we will too, even if it’s not the same taivos that exist today.
A neshama has no guf or yeitzer hara, so it’s much different.
And I think Techias HaMeisim is a one time event. I don’t think it means death will no longer exist when Mashiach comes.
Do you know that God exists? Is it not obvious to you? Does that mean you don’t have challenges? Just because there will be a giluy shchinah doesn’t mean there will be no more challeneges. There was a giluy shchinah at Har Sinai and we still had challenegs. Knowing that God exists and runs the world doesn’t take away our yeitzer hara.
When Mashiach comes, we will still be human, with ta’avos, and with yeitzer haras. After you die, you will no longer be human, and will be a pure neshama. There’s a big difference.
I heard that that the “s” sound for the saf is actually based on the Teimani pronunciation (a “th” sound) but in Europe they couldn’t pronounce the “th” sound (like old Europeans would say “sank you very much”).
I don’t agree with your premise, that we will lose all bechirah when Mashiach comes. Our challenges will certainly be different, but why do you assume that we will all become robots or angels? We will still have to earn our way to Olam Haba.
The Hebrew Nationals (I don’t want to take credit for that one, it was someone else’s idea)
It’s ba’al kriah not ba’al korei. Korei means reader. Kriah means reading. It’s master of the reading (ba’al kriah) not master of the reader (ba’al korei).
There are other situations where some poskim would allow abortions like in the case of certain genetic disorders of the fetus. So, unless there’s an option only permitting halachically valid abortions, then I’d rather take the more permissive stance which would allow Jews to have abortions when they are halachically acceptable, even if this means more Non-Jews violationg issurim.
Joseph’s analogy to stealing doesn’t fit, because the few Jews that would benefit from halachically permissible stealing would be far less than the Jews who would suffer from being victims of stealing should it be allowed. By abortion, Jews don’t directly suffer if non-Jews violate the issur of having an abortion. But we benefit when there is a legal way to get a halachically permissible abortion.
Joseph- I don’t think that’s a fair statement. No one here wants to support infanticide. The fact is, there are legitimate poskim like the Tzitz Eliezer who give heterim for abortions in the very early stages for reasons other than danger to the mother. For example, he allows first trimester abortion of a fetus that would be born with a deformity that would cause it to suffer, and termination of a fetus with a lethal fetal defect such as Tay Sachs up to the seventh month of gestation.
If there is a bill that would allow abortion when a competent Rav permits it, and forbids all other abortions, I’m all for it. I don’t want Non-Jews having abortions that are assur to them. But if that option isn’t available, I would rather Non-Jews be allowed to have abortions that are forbidden to them if that means Jews are allowed to have abortions that are permitted to them, rather than the opposite. Like I said, it’s the lesser of two evils.
I think I lean more towards pro choice on this one and I’m surprised that more frum Jews aren’t. Pro lifers want to make all abortions illegal, even in situations where halacha would allow it. I would rather live in a society that allows us to get abortions when halachically acceptable then that prevents us from getting abortions when it is halachically acceptable. It’s the lesser of two evils.
I always understood that Gan Eden and Gehenom are the same place- it’s a completely spiritual place. As an analogy- take a classical music concert: if you appreciate classical music, it’s amazing, but if you don’t, it could be torture. Olam Haba is a completely spiritual life, an existence as close to possible to HKBH as could possibly be- the more we spend of our life engaged in spiritual pursuits (and learning Torah/God’s wisdom is the ultimate way to get close to Him and achieve spirituality), the more we’re able to appreciate and enjoy spirituality, then olam haba will be gan eden. The more we spend in this world engaging in physical pursuits and becoming physical beings- then we will spend the rest of our eternity in the gehenom of a spiritual existence that we can’t appreciate or relate to.
In a vacuum, I find it hard to argue that, all other things being equal, there is no ma’aleh to eating only CY from the fact that R’ Moshe was matir chalav stam (under government regulation of course), still says that a baal nefesh should be machmir.
Practically however, all things are not equal. Sometimes being machmir for CY will impose hardships on their family, will impact other areas of life (a lessening of simchas chaim can make it harder for a person to be a kove’a itim, or harder to control other middos like patience and ka’as, sometimes it will give a person an unhealthy amount of arrogance (holier than thou attitude). Maybe being machmir in this will make it harder to be machmir in other areas (like yoshon which is probably a more important area to be machmir in).
So yes, pashtus is, all things being equal, it is better to be machmir about CY. But all things are never equal and people have to speak to their own rov and make a personal cheshbon hanefesh to determine if this chumra is right for them.
I highly doubt medical schools and law schools are considered yeshivos and seminaries.
Ben Levi- He’s disagreeing with it, as I do, because it’s pretty weak. The facts on the ground is that marriage is not equal to a means to building a family. You claim all the other cases are exceptions… well, when there are too many exceptions, you begin to question the rule. And while you say 4 Supreme Court justices agreed with it, the rest, the majority, seemed to say it’s pretty weak.
I am against gay marriage. I am disgusted by it. I wish it wasn’t legalized. I’m just being honest with myself, I can’t think of a good reason without invoking religion, God, or the Torah why it shouldn’t exist. The arguments made here are pretty weak. Honestly, I think if gay marriage wasn’t against the Torah, no one here would have a problem with it, despite all the non-religious secular arguments given here.
cent_cent- while those numbers are pretty staggering, correlation does not equal causation. One can argue that those numbers are a result of having to hide, to “be in the closet”, feeling ashamed, etc… One can argue that recent legislation will reduce those numbers by promoting acceptance and equality.
MDG- Who says anything about need to be married? They want to be married because it’s important to them. Should older people who can’t have children anymore not marry (or remarry) because they “don’t need to be married”?
Also, many non-Jews aren’t faithful to their spouse. From what I’ve heard, adultery isn’t uncommon among non-Jews. Maybe there shouldn’t be marriage for them either? Yes, they have a different definition of marriage than we do. They aren’t having halachic marriages. They are having secular marriages or Christian marriages or whatever it is that they are having. Our definition of marriage has no relevance to them.
DY- What I mean is that it’s not the government’s job to enforce morality (at least in a government that’s not a theocracy). The point of government is, as you said, pragmatic. To make sure that society functions and there is no anarchy. Morality belongs to the rabbis, imams, pastors, etc…
We know from the Torah that gay marriage is destructive to society on a physical level. Chazal talk about gay marriage in reference to the mabul. But from those who don’t accept our Divrei Chazal as authoritative, then gay marriage is purely a moral issue. It should be legal as the government should not be legislating morality.
About time- Those aren’t really good ta’anos.
1) The term marriage is important. If it’s just semantics, why does it bother us so much? Obviously, just like it’s meaningful for us, it’s meaningful to them as well.
2) Other societies had slaves. Other societies tortured prisoners. Just because marriage wasn’t understood a certain way in the past, doesn’t mean it can’t evolve into something more inclusive and moral (as they would argue)?
3) Maybe polygamy is illegal because a woman will inevitably become a victim in a marriage where she is not the only spouse. Or maybe, according to their logic it should be legal, but we haven’t reached that point yet. Maybe one day they will. Maybe there just isn’t enough demand for it yet. Tafasta merubah lo tafasta. Blacks and women didn’t receive the right to vote on the same day, even though the same logic should apply to both.
DY- Morality can change over time when there is no Torah as an objective source. And maybe one day society will give that argument. But nowadays, it seems that society understands that if stealing, or murdering, or hurting other people directly is allowed it will lead to anarchy and the breakdown of society. Bekitzur, the secular morality of today is, anything is moral unless you are directly hurting someone else. Stealing hurts the victim and is immoral. Murder hurts the victim and is immoral. Gay marriage involves two consenting adults and is moral. Without Torah you lack bein adam lemakom. You can still understand bein adam lachaveiro without Torah.
Matan- I agree with you 100%. I value very much how in this country, the Christian majority was never able to force their religion on us and allowed us to grow. I find it a little hypocritical that we now turn around and try and impose our religious beliefs on others. The fact is, most of the people on this site, if they didn’t have the Torah and religion to guide them, would probably be influenced by the morality of the times and support it.
That being said, I completely disagree with the Supreme Court decision on a legal basis. The point of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution which is clearly a historical document. That should not be influenced by politics, as the constitution has not changed since it was written (other than with the addition of amendments). If the people who wrote the constitution wouldn’t have allowed gay marriage (as I’m sure they wouldn’t have), then it’s not a constitutional right. If you believe the constitution is outdated (as it probably is), then it is congress’ responsibility to add amendments and change the constitution. But the Supreme Court should be objectively interpreting a document that was written over 200 years ago, not first making a decision based on their political leanings and only then trying to fit it in to the constitution.
Here’s an argument:
We see from the ma’apalim how wrong it is to try and rush the ge’ulah. They tried to enter Eretz Yisroel when they weren’t supposed to. Their fate? They lost Hashem’s help in war. They were destined to lose. It doesn’t matter how strong they are or how weak their enemies are. The fate of those who rush the ge’ulah is the loss of Hashems protection and help, which will inevitably lead to military defeat.
We see from the victories of the 1948 War of Independence, the 1967 Six Day War, etc… that G-d did not leave the Zionists and that they weren’t rushing the geulah. Had they been rushing the geulah, they would have met the same fate as the ma’apilim, loss of Hashem’s protection and military defeat.
This proves that we are not rushing the geulah and that Hashem wants us back in control of Eretz Yisroel.
It would certainly solve the shidduch crisis.
mentsch- It could be argued that the wedding takanos were for the purposes of the people who couldn’t afford as much and felt inferior. It wasn’t to force people to higher level than they were ready for, it was to help those who couldn’t afford much.
And, many communities did not adopt wedding takanos possibly for that reasons, that it’s not beneficial to force people to a higher level of tzidkus than they are ready for.
I try and say Shabbos Shalom and Chag Sameach only because I think a berachah is probably more effective in loshon hakodesh (but I do try and say it in havarah Ashkenazis).
1) we aren’t gedolim or rabbis of communities that have reshus to give tochachah to entire communities, and certainly not to do it publicly.
2) the people we are referring to aren’t on this site, so the tochahcha is not addressing the intended recipients
3) and I think we can discuss the halachic issues of such a dinner, but the impression I’m getting (and I hope I misunderstood) is very disparaging at those who did partake in this meal.
I mean, with your logic, any public loshon hara can be rationalized.
apushtayid- dan lechaf zechus is a concept discussed in Pirkei Avos. Don’t forget about loshon hara, motzi shem ra, and disparaging the rabim in public. Unless you somehow think that this is tochachah and that the people you are targeting will actually benefit from your criticisms, it’s pretty clear that denigrating them in this public forum is probably far more assur than what you condemn them of.