Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Decoyrebbe:
You wrote: “why in melochim the posuk tells us that Eliyahu Hanavi runs to mount Sinai to escape people chasing him”
It seems that the trek to Har Choreiv was an instruction from Hashem, not the escape route that Eliyahu chose. His intention was to get into the desert where Ach’av wouldn’t find him. This is not stated openly in the psukim there, but the context suggests that. I might offer that the reason why to Har Sinai was that the message of קולות וברקים of מתן תורה has a parallel to the רוח ואש of the experience Eliyahu would have there. Both carried the message that the drama was not a permanent thing, and that קנאות has only a limited place. Since Eliyahu was insistent that this mode continue, Hashem instructed him to anoint his successor, אלישע.
Litvishechosid:
Good question. If there was a halacha of kedusha, there would be a more reliable mesora on the location of Har Sinai. There isn’t any. The locations that can be toured today are identified by people who approach the subject as a piece of history, using landmarks from references in various places, mostly psukim from around Tanach. There are also Arab names for various locations around Sinai desert that are suggestive. Yet, none of these constitute mesora. Yes, there were rabbonim that were impressed by the conclusions of these historians, but they did not opt to travel there, and the information was just something interesting. The posuk states clearly that the kedusha from before Matan Torah until after was intense, and it was ossur for human or animal to breach the borders to ascend even a drop. But במשך היובל המה יעלו בהר, implying that this intense kedusha was no longer.
There is a Medrash Tehilim that states that Matan Torah was on Har Hamoriah. It states that a piece of Har Hamoriah was taken and moved to Midbar Sinai, and it became Har Sinai. As is the case with many midrashim, it may help answer certain questions while leaving others unanswered. For instance, כפה עליהם הר כגיגית can refer to the lifting of the mountain above them, which could have been while it was in transit. Yet, they camped around the mountain prior to that. Puzzling. It may be that Har Sinai was restored to its original location, Har Hamoriah, after that, and therefore no one can identify it in the desert with certainty because it just isn’t there.
With all the research, the location in the desert that is most often considered Har Sinai, leaves us with many questions about authenticity. According to the posuk, there was a river/rivulet near the bottom of the mountain, referred to by the מעשה עגל. In the entire region there, there is not a drop of water to be found. I can accept with ease that the blossoming of flowers was temporary, but a body of water should still exist. Even dried river beds can be identified, and no one succeeded in finding that here.
I am with you in recognizing the feeling of kedusha with regards to objects that belonged to tzaddikim, and one would draw a קל וחומר to Har Sinai. The implication from the posuk does not support that, nor does the complete absence of any mesora suggest that there is what to find. My rebbe once commented that this was on purpose, that Torah does not have a physical address, and that one should recognize the מקום תורה as dependent on the study of it, which can be anywhere.
The desire to locate Har Sinai is the simple curiosity that we all have. There is no residual kedusha on Har Sinai, and going there will not accomplish anything in terms of our Avodas Hashem. Satisfying curiosity is a form of pleasure, and not a bad thing, but it does not become a mitzvah just because it feels good. If there was anything left at Har Sinai, there would have been a mesorah to go there, visit, and what to do there. There is not.
As for the stones that are sold with the image of a bush on it, that exist no matter how you cut it, there is a mesorah on that brought down by R’ Yaakov of Emden, and references the Medrash that states that this is Har Sinai. It is nice to own “a piece of the rock”. But it is not a דבר שבקדושה and one is not better by having one. Our connection to Torah is through learning and studying it, and following the guidance and instructions contained therein to govern our lives. The Torah is the gift, and goes wherever we go, and brings השראת השכינה to everyone who learns it. The original address is irrelevant.
The case of the מקום המקדש is obviously different, and it maintains its status as a מקום קדוש for eternity.
When a potch is administered as chinuch (qualifies as such), and there is an unfortunate result, he is definitely pottur. If the potch was not chinuch, but rage or revenge, the father is chayav. That is halacha lemaaseh.
Joseph:
You cannot create a mitzvah as you are about tying the left shoe first. There are many practices that are in the category of minhag, not mitzvah. It is problematic, perhaps assur, to give them mitzvah status.
Next – your quotes from Rambam and Shulchan Aruch Harav must be understood in context. If the potch is an expression of revenge at a child for having disobeyed, it is ossur. No one ever, ever gave any leniency for that. If it emanates from anger, it is ossur. The Brisker Rov ZT”L stated clearly that the first potch, under specific conditions might be able to be considered muttar. But the second one was never permitted, and was ossur min haTorah. Any discussion of discipline must be able to teach the talmid, not punish. In fact, the concept of עונש does not exist in הלכות חינוך. That includes the potch. If the child learns to associate the misbehavior with negative consequences, that can be educational. If the child learns to consider the one administering the punishment as bad or hateful, that is not chinuch, and the potch was not muttar at all.
Uncle Ben:
You are being ridiculous. The hashkafic aspect is whatever you wish it to be, so that’s not objective. Your hashkafah has no relevance to me, nor mine to you. Emotional is equally not-transferable. I might be able to challenge your hashkafah as being based on inaccuracy, but cannot do that regarding the emotional. In any case, you are entitled to both your hashkafah and emotion, but are not entitled to impose that on anyone else. You keep returning to the argument that I have stated is irrelevant. You address the inappropriate behavior, and look for additional examples, or ways to make it all sound worse. I’m not impressed. I agree that there were plenty of actions of his that were horrible, and inappropriate for someone purporting to share divrei Torah, etc. When I look for works about hashkafah, I can B”H find many resources of gedolim, and I don’t feel any drop of interest in seeking R’ Shlomo’s insights. But again, we are not discussing his hashkafos or his behavior. Just his nigunim. You may feel negatively about them, and are entitled to to do so. But that doesn’t affect how others should feel.
ZD:
You are correct in expecting those purport to be models for behavior to exhibit behavior patterns that are above reproach. Agreed. Again, this has diddly-squat to do with his musical compositions.
K-cup:
Your social responsibility does not include imposing your will on others. It does include Live and Let Live. In the case of rebuking someone committing a sin, that is not your will at all, but Hashem’s will.
ZD:
You wrote: “Some Averios people are more willing to forgive than others” I am never able to forgive someone for not putting on Tefillin, missing davening, or chilul Shabbos. Those mitzvos are completely בין אדם למקום, and I have no authority over this. Frankly, someone’s degree of Avodas Hashem is not really my business. My obligation of הוכח תוכיח is a responsibility I have to HKB”H, and I have a mitzvah to say nothing if saying something will not work. Meanwhile, it is commonplace to stand in judgment of another’s status as an Oveid Hashem, and this is a perversion of our role and responsibility. I may be repulsed by the behavior I view in others, but I will never have the privilege to judge. What part of אל תדין is it difficult to grasp? Not even a בית דין has the authority to address these issues. Can you picture a בית דין accepting a defense from a בעל עבירה that he has done תשובה? They cannot, as these are matters that are not in their jurisdiction or domain. It is not up to me whether he should be forgiven.
Remaining with the feeling of disgust some 20 years after he passed away is your privilege, although I wonder if that is in accordance with דברי חז”ל. Once again, this is not relevant in any halachic way with his niggunim as poskim have stated.
Uncle Ben:
You are persisting to connect the nigun with its composer. I also disapproved (and still do) of the behaviors and other things that are unacceptable. I still do not believe that finding a person disgusting has anything to do with a nigun composed by him. And I repeat Reb Moshe’s tshuvah that stated this as well. I do not need to disagree with your statements about Carlebach. They are simply not relevant.
Lastly, we do have guidelines about who is considered an apikores. R’ Shlomo does not qualify for that at all, and I have yet to hear a pronouncement of any talmid chochom who would consider this. To say that he committed aveiros is easy. He was not secretive about that. I simply do not connect the character of a person to the nigunim he composed. End of story. Now, does Reb Moshe concur with that or not?
ZD:
Apples and oranges. We don’t even know who composed most niggunim. Singing them says nothing about the composer, and is certainly not an endorsement. It is related that the Viznitzer Rebbe from Monsey ZT”L once heard a nigun that he liked, and he asked that it be sung for him again several times. Someone approached the rebbe and whispered to him that this was composed by R’ Shlomo Carlebach. The Rebbe answered, “Nu, er lozt nisht?” (So, he doesn’t allow it?) And they were instructed to continue singing it. The problem with the nigun from the rock star is that it has no Yiddishe taam. It sounds like goyishe music, and that would be abominable, very inappropriate for a shul. You cannot make that comment about Carlebach nigunim.
Do libraries have a rule against sending someone else to return your library books on your behalf? No. But there are always strange ones.
Are people who have a tendency to abuse stimulants the opposite of people who are likely to abuse depressants, or are they more alike compared to the general population? Neither.
How much should it actually cost to build a public restroom, and how long should it take? Between 2-2½ million dollars and about 1-2 years. This is from public funds. From private funds, less than a tenth of that.
Why does the shape of a knish affect its flavor so much? It doesn’t.
Did the increased diversity of the characters in mathematical word problems have any discernible effect on society? Yes. But it’s Greek to me.
Why are there no colored contact lenses for astigmatism? Why should there be?
How would people react if they were actually asked to team up with members of their occupation or ethnicity to change a light bulb? Can’t tell. Most would not need to team up with anyone. Those that require teamwork for this have conditions that make their behavior unpredictable
.
Why is coffee not a type of herbal tea? Because it isn’t. Why is a mountain lion not a monkey?
Why are the names of the numbers 11 and 12 different from 13-19? You may say oneteen or twoteen if you choose to.How common are accidental tattoos from pencils? Here’s my numbers. You judge. Annually in US, it’s 58,417, down 3.7% from the previous year.
Are dogs actually 100% colorblind? Actually not true. Their color perception is different from humans.
What are some examples of stores that are furniture stores? How about “The Furniture Store”?
I got them all!
Avram:
If you live out of town, you just might be stuck with the neighborhood shul. As much as I disagree with your implication, you are entitled to your opinion and feelings. However, inasmuch as there is no issur, you need to decide whether you wish to daven there. To enter a shul, and then look to modify the patterns that have developed is problematic. Are you aware that Poskim discuss the choices of niggunim on Rosh Hashonoh and Yom Kippur? They are clear that changing a nigun is frowned upon, as something that has become ingrained in the tzibbur should be left alone. So, if you’re the newcomer, you are free to consider whether you wish to daven there or look elsewhere. If you’re out of town, that may be more difficult. Regardless, the other shuls might not be different.
As for R’ Shlomo’s behavior, no one can blame you for being repulsed by it. But his niggunim are not fraught with those behaviors or midos. Connecting the two may be your emotional reaction, but it is not halacha.
You can always choose to be a shaliach tzibbur, and you can then choose your niggunim.
I happen to have known Reb Shlomo. No, I was not approving a whole lot of what he did. Absolutely not. I recall having a conversation with someone the day R’ Shlomo was niftar. He had commented to me about the petira in a sarcastic manner. I simply asked the fellow if he had as many people being currently Shomer Shabbos to his credit as R’ Shlomo had to his credit. No answer.
I do not approve any form of aveiroh. Negiya is a serious infraction, and there were other behaviors that were questionable if not outright issurim. I do not throw out the baby with the bathwater. And I will not stand in judgment. No problem calling an issur an issur. But I am not a Dayan in Beis Din Shel Maaloh, and I cannot judge him for his character. No, I do not run around calling him a tzaddik. But the opposite is likewise not indicated. He was not an apikores, and he connected to Chassidus in a manner that was helpful to others, but with some compromises (that I reject).
Lastly, the character of a composer is not really my business, and that is suggested in the tshuvah from Reb Moshe ZT”L. Do we calculate the character (bein odom laMakom) of anyone else? Do we examine the business tzidkus of the proprietors whose businesses we patronize? How about our friends and neighbors? Do we examine their dealings to see if they have ever engaged in lashon horah, hasogas gevul, gezailoh or ona’ah? Do we check their (wives’) shaitlach to insure they are not using human hair with issues? How about their stockings? Which hechsherim do they bring into their homes? It’s ridiculous, and that is obvious. We need to create a conception that distinguishes the individual from his behavior, and judge accordingly. We’re not talking about being meshadech with him.
When we study the issue here, will we become more educated, or might we manage to develop ways to make the situation better? I do not think there is a question that looking for parking contributes to traffic. It is probably more a question of whether this is a main factor, and whether intervening in this would effectively relieve the traffic issue.
Regardless, we are implying that there is frequently, and in many locations, a shortage of available parking. It would be useful and caring for our elected officials to address this, since they can. I can describe many parking regulations that are oppressive, and manage to make many lives difficult. The only reason these are not being addressed is because the present situation insures that there will be illegal parking that can then raise money for parking fines. This is bizarre, but commonplace.
It is almost amusing to read some of the comments here. The basic knowledge about mental illness seems to be almost completely missing in many comments. Having a diagnosis that is within the realm of psychiatric disorder is not the same as legally insane. In fact, mental health professionals struggle with testimony on court, where lawyers and judges need information that follows the terminology and criteria of the law, which is vastly different from the nomenclature and labels used by the professions. Example: psychotic is not a legal term. Insane is not a clinical one. Someone suffering from anxiety carries a clinical diagnosis of a psychiatric nature. That does not qualify to be exempt from responsibility for the commission of a crime, or from standing trial.
Before making these bold and general statements, a bit of professional study would be worthwhile. Without that, the statements are rather close to gibberish.
Learning mussar is good for everyone. Period. If the question is whether it will alleviate the personality disorders of narcissistic or sociopathic personality, that is rather tough. The expectation I would have, as a few earlier comments pointed out, these people are unwilling and unmotivated to change anything. And, as one comment suggested, the person with these conditions does not lose their free will, and can change behavior.
RJ pointed out that “mussar does not work”. I must believe that this statement was poorly worded, and I suspect a few other sentences in that comment were similarly not well expressed. Mussar works great, and that is why so many works have been written on the subject. That is why reb Yisroel Salanter ZT”L made a bigger issue of it, and the many yeshivos that followed that derech pushed the agenda. I suspect that this has diminished greatly in efficacy because it is being approached incorrectly. Mussar is NOT an academic subject, and it is NOT an intellectual pursuit. It is a derech of how to guide one’s attitudes and behavior to become a paragon of kedusha, encompassing both realms of בין אדם למקום as well as בין אדם לחבירו. I also believe that those mussar works that do not make a greater issue in discussion of the regular חשבון הנפש are simply directing their attention to the content of that process, feeling there was little need to emphasize the obvious.
Basically, mussar, when approached as a practical matter, not simply academic, is a staple in Avodas Hashem, and benefits all who follow it.
Lastly, there is a quote from Harav Shalom Schwadron ZT”L wherein he stated that “Teshuvah is like a washing machine; it makes clothes clean, but it does not sew on buttons.”
moti134:
I think I have אהבת ארץ ישראל to a large degree. I am among those who thinks about it often, concentrate on many references to it in davening and birchas hamazon, etc. So I am not in any way minimizing קדושת הארץ by my comment that follows.
I consider your statement somewhere close to moronic, as it misses the point greatly. You see, the matching of a bochur to a yeshiva is quite similar to a shidduch of a prospective chosson and kallah. The location is irrelevant, and the principal (not the academic one) is what really matters. Someone who is born and bred in E”Y might have his/her shidduch in חוץ לארץ. The בת קול called out names, not addresses.
Every bochur carries a profile of assets and liabilities, a unique combination of traits, history, tendencies, and dynamics that will do best in certain yeshivos while faring poorly in others. But not every bochur belongs going to yeshiva that is a great distance from home. For some, it is great. For others it is a fatal mistake.
Generalizations will not accomplish much when applied to the exclusion of full consideration of matching the bochur to the yeshiva.
One can always locate an AA meeting and donate it. They love supercharged coffee, and will be most grateful for the donation.
Can’t someone post questions about life that actually matter and deserve discussion? One must have an awful lot of free time to entertain conversation about this post.
Baltimore Maven:
This quote from Rav Weinberg ZT”L is not his own line. It is quoted from Reb Naftoli of Ropschitz. He was known to say quite interesting and sharp witticisms. The reasoning he shared for this was that the בן רשע of last year has now become the בן חכם, so a new haggadah is needed. If you can relate to the concept of התקטנות הדורות, this should make sense to you.
Assuming that one covers the entire peirush in this year’s haggadah, one should need a new one next year to add to the database of pirushim. This also assumes near perfect memory.
I question the premise of “minhag overrides halacha”. There are situations in which the significance of minhag is greater than that of halacha. But overrides? For this, there needs to be a halachic opinion or precedent. This can then alter the process of reaching a conclusion to psak, being based on a particular minhag.
Let me give a few examples. One is attributed to the Chasam Sofer, and it is said that this is published (I would appreciate a citation). There was a shul in a nearby city that had a few peculiar “minhagim”. One was that when passing the center of the shul, one would bow his head. Another was that when they recited בריך שמיה prior to taking out a Sefer Torah, everyone would turn to face the back of the shul. The legend goes that the Chasam Sofer did his due diligence and discovered that the shul, prior to renovation, had had a beam on the ceiling, requiring the passer by to lower his head to not bump into it. Similarly, prior to renovation, the rear wall of the shul had a mural with the text of בריך שמיה. Since many lacked a Siddur, they would turn to face it to say that tefiloh.
Common practice does not equate with Minhag. It is quite possible that to assume that something is a minhag could be problematic. We cannot create our own minhagim. And it is possible that something becomes common practice (colloquially called minhag) but is an error. For the latter, there is a reference from a Tosafos on the first amud of Bava Basra.
So I wonder where Minhag takes precedence to Halacha.
Frank:
The word “Agunah” is borrowed from the situation in which there is inadequate evidence that a man who is missing has died. The status of “eishes ish” remains until either there is verification of his death or he reappears and grants a get. The circumstances of a couple where there is refusal to grant or receive a get are unfortunate (for someone for sure), but this is not the true agunah.
Much of the time, when we encounter the contemporary agunah, there is no get for any of a wife variety of reasons. And anyone can be at fault. It is unfair and inaccurate to generalize this as all the man’s fault or all the woman’s fault. each case is different, and should be judged on its own merit (and full collection of facts).
There is frequently difficulty in reaching an agreement for the divorce. Issues can include terms of custodial rights, visitation, child support, division of assets, and similar matters that should all be decided before the get. It is a fact (sorry feminists) that the man has the control to withhold the get. This is frequently used as leverage. However, the woman tends to have the upper hand (not always legally, but practically) regarding the children. This game occupies a great proportion of the deliberations that precede the get. And the contentious get is probably more common than the peaceful one. Regardless, the delay between the separation with the initiation of the plans for the get and the final culmination of that process can linger with the mediation/litigation process.
Divorce is a process that elicits the most negative personality traits one has. This can include revenge, greed, control, cruelty, etc. It is a shame that people get swallowed up by those traits, and feel that the expense of time and money is worth all the aggravation. Divorce has become an industry, and includes toanim, batei din, lawyers, and various professionals (therapists, counselors, mediators, etc.) I would love to see something change that streamlines the process, making it less expensive and agonizing. Meanwhile, it is often said that, “Marriage is grand. Divorce is a hundred grand.”
I think they should name a manhole that creates a pipeline into the sewage system after Dinkins. It would be appropriate for someone who desecrated whatever New York once was into the anti-semitic, racially divided place it became. That was not based on fact, but on fake news generated by the black hate mongers and supported in every way by this failure called Dinkins. There should never be anything in NYC that is a positive memory to him.
popsi:
1. The existence of G-d is not a scientific question. It is not a mathematical question either. It is a question about fact. There is an old rule – לא ראינו אינו ראיה. Not having found something does not mean it does not exist. It just means you have not found it. There is the old joke about the fellow looking at night frantically on a street corner for something. His friend sees him searching the ground there for something and offers to help. He stated he lost a 20 dollar bill. The friend asked him where he was when he lost it. He responded that he was across the street. So he asked why he doesn’t look there. He responded that there is a street light here, not there. Not finding does not indicate fact. Science can find a lot. But it does not know everything.
2. There are other factors in the “success” of a society other than the perception of morality. We can easily get into existential morality, which refers to the absolute, or the relative morality meaning that we consider it to be. The latter allows Islam to lay claim to morality. My protest to that is that it has no real deity or higher power as a source for anything. It is an ideology, not a religion. So it is a purely animal instinct based religion, and its form of “morality” is only a borrowed word. Furthermore, true success of society is its ability to remain intact for long times. There have been empires throughout history that lasted a good many years. But they imploded, died out, or were conquered. We can look with a narrow scope at what science tells us. It did not tell us that the WTC would be downed in a single day.
3. Mostly in agreement. I doubt that he was busy with opinions about Judaism or Jews.
4. I am not an apologist for Einstein. He was severely undereducated about certain things, hence his opinions about them do not impress me. I did not see any quotes from him that were offensive, just ignorant. Not worse than I would expect to hear from someone who never learned anything about true Yiddishkeit. It is reported that he did spend bits of time in his youth learning Chumash and Talmud. I do not know what experience he had with that learning. It was during the part of his life when he was known as “slow”. In today’s yeshivos, he would have been remanded to a class where little teaching of much substance occurs, or things would be simplified to where no thinking was expected or demanded. For someone capable of far more deep thinking, this might well have been a painful experience, and his finding these studies uncomfortable makes sense. It is speculative, but we do not know much more about that.
popsi:
Item by item.
1. Hawkins was not a philosopher. Science does not prove the existence or non-existence of G-d. Science only studies the physical world, and cannot tell you a single solitary thing about a spiritual world. There are studies that absolutely prove that prayer helps healing in the medical world. However, all that science can say about that is that it observes this phenomenon. Zero explanation (at least anything useful) as to how and why. He was outside of his domain in addressing the origin of the world. In fact, so would we be. We do not know that the Hashem created the world. We are maaminim, and we believe the Torah as coming directly from Hashem at Har Sinai. We were there in neshomoh only, and our physical ears and memory do not access that. To the degree we believe, we feel we know, and that is our mitzvah. In fact, the Rambam guides us to enhance emunoh by observing the wonders of the world, not otherwise explainable in a truly rational sense by the “scientific” approach. Science advances theories, but cannot prove any form of causality to determine anything about the origin of the world. His statements on that are outside of his domain.
2. I explain morality the way a court once explained what constitutes schmutz. “You know it when you see it.” You are correct that morality is not necessarily determined by religion. The “religion” of Islam advocates murder, terror, dishonesty, etc. Can anyone in their right mind call that moral? One can take some pretty good guesses at the universal tenets of morality. Religion becomes the context into which these moral values fit. No, it is not determined by popular vote. I believe that if we did not have a higher source to guide us about moral values, we would likely construct them on our own, and follow the most banal and primitive drives we possess. We would see homo sapiens being glorified chimpanzees, not the human that was created in Tzelem Elokim.
3. Visiting Israel and working with Israelis does not indicate or constitute love or even tolerance of Jews. He did those things for his own needs. As long as he was being accepted to make those visits and work together, he did so. We know more about Israel’s acceptance of him that his acceptance of Israel.
4. Not sure the relevance of Einstein’s connection with religion. Born a Jew, raised a Jew, died a Jew. No, he was not observant, and his parents weren’t either. His Jewish education was very limited, and he lacked the experience of someone transmitting Torah MiSinai as is heralded in Pirkei Avos. He refused to disavow a recognition of G-d, though organized religion was not important to him. I don’t see a connection to Hawkins. Most atheists reach their conclusion, and modify the input of information to accommodate it. I won’t direct anyone to review atheistic writings. But I walked away from several casual debates wondering how they could buy into their positions with such weak arguments. Easy if you shoot the arrow and then paint the target afterward.
yitzyk:
I personally consult with gedolim on many things. I have discovered that one’s status as a gaon and talmid chochom is not synonymous with expertise in everything. I will not cite specific rabbonim and their areas of ignorance (not meant to be degrading, just factual), as that would constitute lashon horah. Generally, they will dismiss the questions respectfully and redirect them to experts. I have no problem with seeking advice on subjects that the rabbonim know as areas of expertise and experience. However, I am appalled when I observe some functioning outside their realm, and giving poor guidance. This has happened with well recognized rabbonim, not just young less experienced ones.
I am also acquainted with many rabbonim, including Roshei Yeshivos, Menahalim, Rebbes, Poskim, and Dayanim who frequently consult with professionals in many fields, and make referrals to their expertise. As they state openly, they lack the expertise in the practical aspects of the shailoh, and defer to those who do have it. As for social issues, I revere those who have opinions based on a broad range of knowledge (I am not including secular or college training), and have no problem seeking their advice or input. I am likewise acquainted with several who give advice about medical issues, mental health issues, kids at risk, and shalom bayis, giving notoriously bad guidance because these areas are outside of their expertise.
Most rabbonim possess smicha, and most smichos are based on Yoreh Deah. That qualifies them to respond to many kitchen shailos. This might not include shailos noshim, nor might they be qualified to pasken a question about the kashrus of a mikvah. As long as they function within the realm of their expertise, they are a great service to Klal Yisroel. When they go outside that line, their advice may not be better than that which is obtained from a stranger in line at the bakery for challos on Friday. Don’t start with the Ruach Hakodesh stuff.
GH:
You gotta be kidding.
There is huge documentation that gets ignored by MSM about Hillary’s record. You might choose to minimize the email scandal. I cannot. Handling secret info that belongs to the country is not something to treat lightly when one is in charge. Her convenience matters nothing, and she clearly prioritized herself over the country. Yes, she was a criminal in just that alone, let alone much else. The FBI failing to charge her was clearly a debacle, and is the subject of a new investigation. Achieving high status comes with a higher standard of behavior. She failed dismally.
Benghazi was a crime of murder. No, she didn’t pull the trigger. It was not casual negligence either. You think there was superior intellect involved in her main line of defense being “What difference at this point does it make?” Should that line be repeated for every crime? That is a mockery of the entire judicial system. She was in charge, and she consciously chose what to do or not do.
Her pathological lying is legendary. Being unable to see that speaks poorly of you. Don’t go there. She was “under fire”?
Her ownership and control of the MSM was disastrous, and continues to be a calamity. You can no longer trust anything political on CNN, etc. Every single tragedy in the country is somehow blamed on Trump? really? Is their IQ on the positive side of zero?
I visit neither Breitbart of Alex Jones websites. I do not get information from them. I listen to what is being stated everywhere else, and I discard the trash. MSM spin is easy to detect. When you filter out their additions, you can see what is fact not fiction.
Her record has caught up with her, and her days in politics are B”H over. Now, we would all accomplish something useful in our lives if we stopped paying attention to her. Her utterances are emanating from her bitter emotions, not political knowledge. No, she was never a good politician. She used her position as SOS to advance the Foundation. She placed that in priority to her responsibilities to her job. Personal wealth at great expense to morality and ethics, the safety of this country, and safety of the population is not a virtue. She was not a failure. I consider her behavior, which i would have expected to be the opposite, not patriotic but treasonous. There is nothing terrible that can happen to her that does not merit our joy.
My issue with Hawking (not minimizing the many others) is that he blasted his ideas about subjects completely outside his domain. That is a huge problem. You would not consult you Rov when your washing machine needs repair. Why go to a physicist with questions about creation or politics? He had no right casting himself as expert in territory where he didn’t belong. That is a problem many of us have also. We can seek brochos from our Torah scholars, but need to direct seeking advice from those expert in the field.
בנפל איבך אל תשמח
This refers to a Yid that one is permitted to consider an enemy (as in חמור שנאך). The fall of this goyte, a pathological liar, murderer, cheat, etc. is a true simcha for all of us. We, in golus, all deserve to view the מפלה of our enemies. That’s a major feature that made the miracle of קריעת ים סוף so great, as the posuk states וירא ישראל את מצרים מת על שפת הים. When המן was hung from a public display, the Yidden were in great simcha, ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר. Yes, we recognize seeing our enemies fall as a bit of wonderful news, and we should rejoice.
Kitzur:
I agree a girl should seek what she wants. I doth protest the idea that a girl is capable of deciding who will make a good husband by a grade they would get on a bechinah on Bava Basra. The excellence in learning is a virtue, and that is not deniable. But it is not the criteria of who makes a good husband.
I had a chaver who was intellectually limited, and never got passing grades in yeshiva, both limudei kodesh and limudei chol. I recognized him as a gaon in midos. He married a wonderful girl, and they raised a beautiful family. No, he could not recite a pilpul from the Beis Halevi, neither at the Shabbos table on the parsha, nor the teshuvos of pilpulim on sugyos that are sheer genius. He was infused with stellar midos, and had many friends, even though he was useless as a chavrusa. He was able to get a job, and maintained a status of honesty, providing for his family. His family is as precious to HKB”H as that of the kollel yungerman who produces chidushei Torah, says a shiur, and is able to respond to halacha shailos. Each of them is doing for the klal and for their families as per their potential.
Quoted in the name of Albert Einstein: “Everybody is a Genius. But If You Judge a Fish by Its Ability to Climb a Tree, It Will Live Its Whole Life Believing that It is Stupid. ” Even objectively, the frum Torah true baal haboss is not worse or less than a career talmid chochom. The value we need to teach our girls is to seek that true ehrlicher Yid. Torah knowledge is an asset, but it does not carry its deserved value if the character is not refined. Just how would one expect a girl, graduate of our high school and seminary systems to be that judge? By the touted myth of the “learning boy”? I fear it is the wrong yardstick, and completely useless to the average girl graduating from our schools.
I fail to understand much of the dialogue here. The ingredients needed for a successful marriage include the following:
1. Full dedication, intellectual and emotional, to a Torah life.
2. The ability to provide a wholesome environment for the home, spiritually and physically.
3. Having a Rov, Moreh Derech.
4. Emotional and physical stability.
5. The ability to treat the marriage as an institution of kedusha, respecting one’s spouse, cherishing them, and living a life of harmony with them.I purposely omitted from this list the number of hours and precise subject matter of the husband’s Torah learning – because it makes no difference. If someone is as serious and committed to learning Chumash/Rashi and Kitzur Shulchan Aruch as the proverbial Kollel yungerman is to learning Shas and Shulchan Aruch – b’iyun, we can have a fine family that provides nachas to HKB”H and to everyone else. It is artificial to provide standards that place a premium on the study of Shas and Poskim, as if that predicts the health and beauty of the family.
No, I do not generalize that the typical kollel couple is in trouble. I just proclaim that the extent of the learning is not the variable that matters most. I know plenty of couples who are far happier in the working world, with continuing kviyas ittim than they were when in kollel, dependent, and entitled. That’s why the “learning boy” is a myth when it becomes the ideal value, where the alternative is shunned unfairly.
TOL:
One of your messages in your comment deserves repeating, and some emphasis on it would benefit many.
You noted that aside from the stigma that accompanies a diagnosis and medication, there are countless situations of people who are unable to sustain the challenges of marriage that have no psychiatric labels, have not been subjected to evaluation, and are not taking any medication or therapy intervention. This is responsible for a great many broken marriages. In the Torah world, we tend to refer to this category as having poor midos. And you seem to imply that poor midos might be a characterological situation that will not be affected much by regular reading or studying of sifrei mussar. I soundly agree with you. That is why the homework done prior to a shidduch needs to address the matter of personality. The kinds of questions worth asking include, “How does this shidduch prospect handle stress? What do they do when they get angry? How do they deal with confrontation? How do they manage under pressure?” Responses to questions such as these (providing they are honest) are far more relevant than the individual’s academic record. All marriages will entail challenge. Is there a foundation of character traits that can deal with this? Or are we assuming that things will just work out (e.g. because the boy is a learning boy)?
You alluded to the book “Walking on Eggshells”. Fine book, useful content. Still, living with a spouse that has BPD is a huge undertaking. Kol hakavod to someone that wishes to stick it out. Many do that, and they are praiseworthy. Others jump ship, and often face a lifetime of challenge, nastiness, battles in court, and other forms of suffering. There are other books, too, that are worth checking out. I take a position that BPD is incurable. It can be managed in many cases, but a lifetime of intervention and support is needed. I am witness to cases that entered treatment, improved greatly, but upon stopping therapy, reverted back to their old ways. What Marsha Linehan contributed with her development of DBT was a set of skills that the person could continue to use without continued outside help. Once again, a cheaper way of continuing what therapy would accomplish. Saves lots of money, and provides a helpful strategy to maintain stability. But the condition of BPD never leaves; it just continues to be treated.
The hurtful thing about this subject is that the “working boy” stands at least the same chance of maintaining a Yiddishe home, with the values of Torah as does the “learning boy”. The big difference is that the working boy approaches parnosoh as his responsibility. The learning boy is convinced that his food and shelter are someone else’s burden. I am privy to plenty of couples where the “learning boy” is basically “kvetching a bonk”, and the working boy is doing a fine job in being a star to Klal Yisroel and his family.
People need to enter the careers that are compatible with their skills and talents. These broadbrush statements that everyone needs to remain in kollel are completely irresponsible, and create far more problems than imagined. Likewise, sending everyone to work and/or college is also irresponsible. Not everyone belongs there. I envision, in my utopian reverie, that our Roshei Yeshivos would have individual, close relationships with each and every talmid, understand the range of skills and interests, and be the ones guiding these talmidim how to best utilize their potential. The myth that everyone needs to be a learning boy is not an indication of much thought to the process. This serves the interests of Roshei Yeshivos who get to have larger kollelim, but are too often a disservice to the talmid and his family.
Our community suffers from a pervasive sense of entitlement and dependency. If you approach this objectively, it is simply foolish, and definitely not Ratzon Hashem.
Joseph:
“instead of being a cosmopolitan Jew, try living like a shtetl Yid.”
Not sure what you want. If I lived in the shtetl, and had ch”v a medical issue, I would not seek help from the rov, shammes, shneider, or vasser treiger. I would do as most would do, travel into the city, and consult with a professional.
What do you mean by cosmopolitan Jew?
Most threads have a mixture of comments, some nice and informative, others superficial, and even stupid. I see three comment son this thread, and I have not merited reading something rational and respectable.
Firstly, marriage is something that is dear and precious, a huge portion of the continuity of Klal Yisroel, and a truly holy mission. The Torah also tells us about the failed marriage, with the parsha of gittin. The surrounding issues of marriage, finances, the circumstances of the family, etc. are all potential sources of challenge and conflict, as well as potential sources of great joy, simcha, and nachas. Marriage creates the completion of the individual. All this stuff is plentiful in seforim, and I do not need to copy and paste anything here. We can all find the material.
As for the income, it is not an unimportant issue, but it is a secondary one. Many of us may know someone who was wealthy, but in an unhappy marriage. Gehinom on earth. We might also know someone who has a difficult financial situation, but has a happy family. Who would you rather socialize with? Who would you rather be?
Lastly, the wife’s salary belongs to the husband. There is some truth to this statement. But there is more myth to the way things are portrayed by that statement. This depends on much, it is a takonas Chachomim, but within a context of other takanos. When the “salary belongs to the husband” issue gets raised, there is a troublesome situation going on, and being small-minded enough to deal with that without addressing the need for a couple to live in peace, harmony, and affection, is a disservice. I have observed countless people who consult with non-professionals (such as the overwhelming majority of well-intentioned rabbonim) only to get piskei halacha thrown at them. This is a huge problem that contributes handsomely to the scourge of gittin. Once we enter the divisive approach of “this is mine, not yours”, we feed the barriers between a husband and wife. You cannot call this shalom bayis. It certainly defies the great virtue we speak of every morning when we list אלו דברים שאדם אוכל פירותיהם העולם הזה והקרו קיימת לו לעולם הבא, when we list הבאת שלום בין איש לאשתו. Getting into the mode of “You’re right”, is one of the ingredients of the problem. Am I the only one that recognizes the stupidity of just doing more of the conflict that divides them?
The place we need to be with the financial issues of a couple is, “We have financial burdens that we need to resolve,” not me against you.
“The dating situation is artificial, but if you see someone enough times you’ll get some sort of idea about how they think and react.”
Others commented about some particular number of dates, or whether those who date more vs. less end up in beis din.
Aside from there being virtually zero statistics on this, I question anyone reporting this based on anecdotal data. I do not believe there is anything at all to do with more or less dating. I do believe that mental illness is one of many factors that can become a problem within the relationship, and that the failure to discover or disclose it before is problematic.
But if we recall that the dating period is completely artificial, as noted in the comment from Midwest2, the amount of that contact does not matter at all. It is typical that when one is seeking to establish a relationship with another, that they put on their best face, both in physical presentation and in their demeanor. These two dating people are hardly the real people, and this prevents them from seeing each other under pressure, dealing with negativity, disagreement, etc., all those things that need to be part of managing a marriage. How is he/she when they are hungry, tired, or in a bad mood? That will never be discovered on a date, not the first, not even the tenth.
Attributing success vs. failure in marriage to these numerical factors is erroneous. It completely misses the core issues that determine whether the marriage has potential. The older ones among us can likely remember grandparents or great grandparents who barely dated, if at all, who enjoyed beautiful marriages for many decades. The parsha about what makes marriages fail or succeed is vast, and efforts to present any single factor are futile. The question here is about the secrecy of mental illness. Yes, it can make a huge difference. And there may well be certain people that should not get married altogether. I know that is a terrible thing to say. But not possessing the basic skills to manage a relationship makes such efforts doomed. People need to spend their lives being happy, and this requires making the other person happy, too.
One must ask Daas Torah!
A big head of garlic.
Purim spirit.
Women should drive so their husbands can sit in the passenger seat and yell at them to slow down.
DY:
I don’t see anything in my question that should be hard to understand. We are privy to the debate about getting drunk every year, and the proponents of shikrus steadfastly insist that they are being machmir by losing all forms of reason. These threads are begun or recycled every year, and some commenters proclaim their holiness by getting completely smashed. Their claim is that this a great mitzvah. I claim the complete opposite. I hold that shikrus to be an abomination, and an affront of major proportion to the kedusha of Purim. The only sane argument these drunks put forward is the chumrah one.
My question is – which mitzvah are they adopting for chumrah? Are they showering Matanos Lo’evyonim on a grand scale, which would be a chumrah on one of the mitzvos hayom? Or are they giving Mishloach Manos on a grand scale, also from the mitzvos hayom? Perhaps they are making a huge seudah to benefit many, also from the mitzvos hayom? Are they engaged in circulating to homebound people to insure they have Mikroh Megillah – another of the mitzvos hayom? Those would be chumros, all about benefitting others, without regard to personal pleasure. The chumrah about drinking to extreme limits (which I already shared that I consider it abominable) is definitely not its own mitzvah, and is secondary (probably to the seudah).
Lastly, this deserves mention. I have often heard people discuss Purim in the context of “letting go”. I protest that. There is never any mitzvah that is about letting go. Not overeating, not overdrinking, not overdoing anything in the way of physical desires and passions. The drinking on Purim, as is mentioned in halacha, is an avodas Hashem that loses any semblance of kedusha or spiritual meaning when we cannot attend to the purpose of it. It is blasphemous to translate “ad deloh yodah” as shikruso shel Lot.
I cannot say this for all medications, simply because I did not study it in that detail. But the heading for this thread is correct – alcohol is a bad ingredient to add to any medication. Peruse package instructions for any medication, including those mentioned in the OP, and any others. Almost every one I have seen spells out that it should not be mixed with alcohol. That means, when taking it, don’t drink at all. Even if the combination is not lethal (and many are), the medication loses its effectiveness. I safely say that halacha exempts anyone on meds from drinking alcohol on Purim, as well as for Kiddush. Find me a posek that says differently.
This is a place to ask a simple question about Purim. The Gemora brings a halacha, which appears to be refuted in the context of the gemora, but was included in Shulchan Aruch, the famed חייב אינש לאבשומי בפוריא. In the Megillah itself, we find 4 mitzvos of Purim – Reading the Megillah, Matanos Lo’evyonim, MIshloach Manos, and Seudah. Nowhere is drinking as one of the mitzvos of the day mentioned in the Megillah. It seems apparent that it is an addition that is secondary to the other mitzvos, presumably Seudah. As such, it is not its own “mitzvah”, and the discussion about how to be machmir on this seems to be baseless.
In the context of the question I posed, the idea to be “machmir” to drink when there is danger involved, becomes quite the opposite.
Am I missing something here? There is great importance to this message from Rav Avigdor Miller ZT”L, and it is not about the concerts, though that is the context. He is guiding us in how to approach many things in life. It is not about making bans or issurim. It is about recognizing the pride that a Yid must have, and that there are many things for which we should refrain because “Es passt nisht”. Unfortunately, the frum community has been using our leaders to create issurim, and believes that this will make us better. It does not. The Torah gives us 365 mitzvos “Loh Saaseh”, and even tells us in the gemora that having more prohibitions than positive mitzvos is the basis for נח לו לאדם שלא נברא משנברא. To simply add to that list is not the way to accomplish things. There is certainly room for our Gedolim to point out to us that there are contemporary issues are included in age old issurim, and I have no hesitation to the occasional levying of a new issur, as needed by the times. But the persistent “Kol Korehs” with new issurim and “standards” is not the way that HKBH wants to run the world. Rav Avigdor Miller’s message is that these concerts are simply not proper, but that creating an issur is not how to manage the community. That is a precious piece of guidance from a sorely missed Gadol.
Sorry, but the entire concept is goyish. I am so offended by the burying into gashmiyus that I refuse to donate a single penny to this organization. I was always bothered by the huge expenses they incur with their overly lavish and costly ad campaigns. To be honest, some have actually been interesting. But this is not tzedokoh. I do not even care whether they consider is cost effective for them. It is plainly disgusting, and has absolutely nothing in common with a Torah set of values.
This next statement is nasty, but here goes. I hope everyone else is so offended by this that we collectively lodge our revulsion, and withhold money from them until this goyish set of values stops. I am not making a statement about the organization, just the campaign.
I heard someone propose the following idea. Democrats like to pass laws that are illogical, but that the words sound right. Try this one. The states with Democrat controlled legislatures should pass a law that all shootings in schools must be done one at a time, no mass shootings. This new law should catch on quickly. Then the armed guards that might be near a school should not be able to eliminate the shooter, just warn them that they reached their maximum for the day, and needed to postpone the rest of the intended murders for another day.
There you go. Another tragedy, another law. Solved.
Yes, it is Adar.
If we pay more careful attention, we will see that the word ליצנות is always used in a negative context, and that it is always אסור, with the exception mentioned in Shas of ליצנותא דעבודה זרה. As mentioned in the above comments, the degrading of evil is a positive thing. Anything else is a bad midoh. We are instructed many times to avoid it.
In contrast, the gemora extols the virtues of מילתא דבדיחותא, with references to being an appetizer for learning, and creating שמחה. There are פסוקים to the effect of כל השומע יצחק לי and the like that are quited to support the virtue of being in a happy mood and laughing. The laugh at the expense of another is ליצנות, and it is a pretty awful thing.
To be specific about the question of the heading on this thread, ליצנות is always bad, except for ליצנותא דעבודה זרה (and whatever is included in that). בדיחה is a positive virtue.
Avi K:
I have also seen the official shusher system. It was barely effective.
The cell phone issue is not relevant on Shabbos and Yom Tov. It is a huge problem, as the ringing is only a part of the problem. The answering, talking, running out, etc., are all disruptive to others. I choose to not have my phone with me when I go to shul. We have mini-lockers (with charging cables) where we can leave the phones while we daven. Just think how distracting the vibrating phone can be when one is trying to focus on davening.
Instead of boring holes in ears, how about a dab of super glue on the lips?
Avi K:
Let’s examine the halachos you cited. If we are in a state of needing to release pressure on someone, as in pent up rage, and we find someone talking in shul, we should be free to empty our wrath on that fellow. Correct? Obviously not. Whatever path we choose to enforce the decorum of the shul, it is about achieving the result of the shul being a place that shines in its kedusha, without the chatter and such that detract from this. So our focus is on the result. The means of how to achieve this are simply suggestions of these various Gedolei Yisroel that were appropriate to their communities and experience. The Mechaber (Beis Yosef) states גוערין בו. If you review the commentaries, there are several ideas proposed, and despite several that repeat or quote from others, there are varying opinions. The bottom line is that one needs to focus on the result, not the process. The public shaming is not a mitzvah of its own. It is simply a means to the achievement of the proper kedusha in the shul environment. If that shaming stuff yields a different result, it loses its “mitzvah” completely. Shul police is a useful idea, and it has been implemented many times in the current era. The yelling and shaming has not accomplished much, and is more likely to drive someone away from davening there or altogether. I would wish that not be the case, but my wish does not change reality.
I am not someone who favors talking in shul, nor am I ignorant of the halachos. Ultimately, the best outcome is the more people that are truly involved in tefiloh in shul, the better. At this point in time, there is far more to gain with “Praying with Fire” and “Praying with Meaning” than all the admonishment and punishments. Keep your eye on the goal. The terrain changed.
lesschumras:
In contrast to a school, where discipline is imposed and made into a huge part of the curriculum (for another thread), and even the courtroom where there are rules that are enforced by court officers, the shul is a free for all. The expectation is that the person entering the shul is doing so with a level of self discipline that is appropriate for the ongoing conduct of the shul and its tefiloh activities. Unfortunately, the expected level of maturity for this is much less than we might hope for, and we get disappointed by many who use the shul as a social meeting place (which it should be, except before or after davening).
You also noted correctly that too many do not understand tefilos. It is still quite exceptional for a yeshiva to offer a regular class on tefiloh. For the most part, we count on the command of Lashon Hakodesh that was gained during yeshiva years to understand the translation of much of what we recite. But that does a poor job in helping us understand just what we are saying, and it completely misses our need to be emotionally involved with a heartfelt tefiloh experience when we have zero understanding. Teaching tefiloh is a challenge, as it is not academic or rote. It should be unnecessary to provide worksheets, homework, and tests. Rather we should be sharing the beauty of each tefiloh, how it expresses our praises to HKB”H, how it spells out our needs, and how to include the core of kavanah in each part of the davening. As long as we are preoccupied with the decorum of how and where to stand, etc., we are stuck in the chitzoniyus of the davening. It may be a valuable part of it, but distracts many from the core of it. And when this nucleus of the tefiloh is missing, engaging in davening is a chore that we seek to fulfill to check it off from our task list. In reality, it is nothing of the sort. We should be seeking the chance to daven all day, anticipating the opportunity. Yeshivos cannot do this using their tried and true methods of education. It requires a form of teaching that is emotional, not rote, and is experiential. I can note that I have begun to encounter yeshivos that have allowed academic time for teaching tefiloh, and I laud that baby step of progress. I hope it continues and accelerates into a pattern of frenzy in tefiloh that spreads everywhere. Our children need it desperately.
I am willing to accept any subject for debate. If the outcome is that we fail to settle our differences, so be it. But that applies to menchliche debate. When your difference of opinion with me goes beyond protest, and enters the abyss of violence and intentional harm to person or property, we are no longer debating but at war. And war means that the stronger force will win. Maybe not the correct one, but the stronger one.
The issue with the protests is not that these groups adopt an opinion that is worth questioning, or even unpopular. It is that they deteriorate into the jungle mode, mob mentality in which there are no longer any barriers to their most animalistic and primitive drives. These protesters, who are touting the banner of Torah learning, kedusha, etc., are behaving in a completely goyishe manner, abandoning the Torah learning they profess to value, and engaging in harmful activity and chilul Hashem. These protesters do not bring awe and reverence to their lifestyle, but rather disgrace and humiliation. One cannot look at this and feel any positive feelings for those that taught them this behavior.
The mentality of their violence is not excused by the merits of their issue. Sorry, but I judge this trend by the ugliness of it, not the cited reasons for it.
I do not take issue with the approach to talking during davening as a disruption to the tzibbur, a descreation to the kedushas hamakom, etc. Sadly, the focus on these very real aspects of the problem of talking in shul has not been completely successful in stopping it.
I propose a different focus (not to eliminate the above mentioned ones). My perception is that the talkers are erring seriously in not davening. One needs to recognize that tefiloh betzibbur is a privilege, that we can have a minyan to beseech the Creator of the world to grant us His blessings. We are invited to this unique gift, to speak directly to Him three times a day. Why would anyone want to waste such a precious opportunity? The issue with the talkers is more than the talking – it is the not davening. If we truly recognized the invaluable gift of tefiloh, we would cherish every minute of it, and not replace it with the foolishness of schmoozing that we can just as easily have at another time and place.
BaltimoreMaven:
I follow the same minhagim I addressed in my comments, and I struggle to insure that they achieve what they are intended for and not a pressure and imposition for others. I claim moderate success, having failed to keep things short and sweet.
I am still of the firm belief that what occurs today is only photographically similar to what the original minhagim were, and that we have progressed greatly in the image of it. It is tough to look for a single factor to blame, the musicians, singers, badchanim, caterers, photographers, guests, etc. What does seem to cover all these bases to some degree is that we have swerved to the chitzoniyus and away from the pnimiyus, which lends undue importance to the trivial and trivializes the real stuff.
I never challenged the sources of these minhagim. I cherish them myself. I am horrified when I see the stark contrast between what they were established to be and what they have become. I retracted nothing, and I do not think i was short on politeness.