Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
One thing that seems to show through many of the comments here is that the protests are masquerading behind the “military registration” issue, and that this is really about letting off steam. I return to a position I shared earlier (I think on another thread on this topic). These bochurim can protest peacefully if they choose to do so. Or they can use the מלחמת התורה and keep themselves busy in the Beis Hamedrash. They have clearly chosen to use this as an excuse for mayhem, violence, and the resulting chilul Hashem. That’s where I oppose the entire thing. I do not have any direct reason to opine about the supposed topic, and can accept differing opinions, being respectful of both. Both are coming from gedolei Yisroel. But the violence thing is not associated with the דרכיה דרכי נועם that should be a hallmark of בחורי ישיבה who are supposedly dedicated to לימוד התורה.
These same factions of כלל ישראל were vocal in opposition to Meir Kahane, who was not actually violent, but openly oppositional. Today’s bochurim, perhaps having learned from movements like BLM and similar groups have decided it is okay to behave so in public, even at the expense of learning. This deterioration of values is alarming to me.
I do not have an answer to the dilemma. But I do note that the efforts of schools and parents to control the friends of their student/child are nearly always wasted. Having made many observations, what typically happens is that the kid simply takes the friendships underground, where there will be the same amount of companionship, just without getting caught. It is sad that parents and mechanchim are subject to the delusion that their efforts are accomplishing something while they are completely futile.
In fact, the range of restrictions placed on adolescents is extreme, and few, if any, are successful ingredients of chinuch. In reality, one who works on helping the kids see the beauty of following mitzvos, appreciating Shabbos, davening, learning, etc., is far more likely to produce a happy child who stays “on the derech”. The rod spoils here, and the obsession with discipline is fruitless pathology.
May I point out the evasiveness of the OP and nearly all of the comments. The true issue worth discussing (well maybe not – it has been chewed out in the CR many times) is whether there is any heter whatsoever to smoke a cigarette. I shudder to think that there are some who are willing to consider it okay to become an addict to nicotine. That issue is addressed very succinctly in several sifrei mussar, notably in the Michtav Me’Eliyahu from Rav Dessler.
I suspect that the issue being raised here is about the single cigarette, and the defensive angle on this is that the dreaded illnesses that result are not seen in the casual smoker, but only after long term smoking. Here again, I must “go off” on the very thought of it. The more contemporary seforim about smoking, quoting many, many mainstream and renowned poskim (with haskamos from many others) addresses the “single cigarette” issue, and proclaims it completely assur. If the regular smoker is committing murder (actually suicide), the small steps that contribute to the tragic end are individually assur. While opinionated, this is not really dependent on my personal feelings. The halacha is addressed quite clearly, and the same poskim we quote or consult have weighed in on the subject quite eloquently.
I am terribly bothered by the smoking that occurs on Purim, where young children are often encouraged to smoke. We would never allow our children to eat something from a hechsher we feel is inadequate. Kal vachomer something with NO hechsher, and even an issur proclaimed by nearly all recognized and reliable poskim should be banned 100%. Yes, it is as bad as the worst on the internet.
As long as we have trespassed into the territory of bad things that we ignore on Purim, in the name of simcha, the use of caps, smoke bombs, and other “Purim shtick” is a huge problem. They are used in shuls, extremely disturbing in many ways, and encroach into danger zones of playing with fire. Anyone with these shtick should be forbidden to enter a shul. If I had a shul, I would evict the parents whose children bring such contraband into the premises.
I do not think there is an age when anyone should consider something clearly assur to be okay.
I do not mean to be offensive, but I am frankly finding the discussion here just a smidgen above useless. Here’s why.
Our experience of tefiloh has deteriorated greatly. We are invited to stand before the ??? ????? on special invitation three times daily. Many of us actually comply with the mandate. But it’s not a mandate! It is a privileged invitation. A goy can’t do it. He cannot approach the ??? ????? at all, ever. We walk into shul, and characteristically use our brains to attend to a multitude of matters that have no role in the davening itself. We might be looking for some precious space to place our tallis bag while we daven. We pay attention to whoever else might be there. Who davens for the amud. Let’s not exclude the socializing that occurs almost routinely. Are we engaged in our hearts with the tefiloh? Are we feeling the emotion in every word or every part of davening? Or are we just going through the rote behavior of reciting the words on the page of the siddur?
If someone is davening with every ounce of his being, his attire is secondary. But being dressed to the hilt, in the most respectful way will not ever replace the emotional connection with HKB”H through a heartfelt tefiloh.
Are we conscious of the relationship we have to HKB”H who is ????? ??????? He wants us to talk to him, out of the love of a parent to us, ???? ??? ??’ ??????. He wants this communication to be direct, not a voice mail message. Hashem wants to shower us with his infinite ??? of all that is good. He wants us to recognize it comes from Him, so we must ask for it. But if we simply mumble through the text as a chore that we need to bypass to continue on with our day, our hearts are not engaged. The smallest baby cries to its parent with more emotion than we typically do in our tefilos.
This sounds accusatory, and I do not mean it that way. But we desperately need to examine ourselves for the sincerity we speak about. Speeches might be informative, and there are many really good books and articles that shed great light. But we need to implement this when we daven. At that point, the discussion about jackets, etc. becomes moot. If I am truly bent on making my tefiloh experience meaningful, I will pay attention to how I dress, as well. But if it is a chore that is a necessary nuisance, I will seek to make it as convenient as possible (or the least possible inconvenient). I would hope a privilege like davening would get better treatment than that.
This myth is repeated every year. I would like to know the true source for this “minhag”. Reb Mendel of Rimanov never, ever said any such thing relevant to Tuesday of the week in which we read Parshas Beshalach. He was quite busy with Parshas Hamon, and strongly advocated saying it daily. This was verified with descendants of Reb Mendel who themselves come from Rimanov. I also heard from a quite prominent talmid chochom who claims that prior to a particular event (post-Holocaust), this minhag was never known, and that he was present when someone suggested he would dare to create this minhag. It is legendary that minhagim in which the segula is parnosoh tend to spread rapidly, or in the current vernacular, “go viral”. There is a reputable source from sifrei kaboloh about reciting it “shnayim mikro ve’echod targum”, but again no reference at all to any particular days. There is no explanation I ever heard (having researched the subject) for why Tuesday of Beshalach.
There is certainly nothing wrong with reciting it, but I would be very careful to avoid spreading a lie, that Tuesday of Beshalach is a segulah from Reb Mendel of Rimanov.
If someone can find a reputable source, obviously better than “I saw it on the internet”, I will be overjoyed to see it. Meanwhile, I have addressed this with quite a few major talmidei chachomim. None can verify that there is a source other than something that circulates among “hamohn am”.
Joseph:
You wrote, “if one’s child is a mechutzef to the parent, you don’t think he ought to be disciplined? Or that the parent should teach/uphold kibud av v’eim?”
Please answer for yourself the following questions:
* Will disciplining help?
* Will the child change his attitude or just his behavior as a result of the discipline?
* What will the child learn from the discipline?
These are teaching moments, not opportunities to show who is boss. There are many ways to discipline. Sadly, most of the ones we readily employ are not the ones that the Gedolei Hadoros who spoke about chinuch show us to use. If the child is taught about who is boss, he might repress such behaviors in the future. But it is a grave error to claim that this is the job of the parent or mechanech. All that this will produce is a child who is bottling up feelings, or someone that will figure out ways to do what he wants and not get caught. Neither of these options are helpful, and both cannot be considered a chinuch success.
I suggest that you visit a seforim store, and peruse the shelves for seforim on chinuch. There are several that are likutim (anthologies) of statements and quotes from Gedolei Yisroel of past generations, and some are collections of guiding lights from Gedolim such as Rav Shach ZT”L, Nesivos Shalom – Slonim ZT”L, Pinsk-Karlin Rebbe ZT”L, Rav Gamliel Rabinovich shlit”a, Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein shlit”a, the Chasam Sofer ZT”L, Rav Eliyahu Shalom Berkovitz shlit”a, Rav Aharon Friedman shlit”a, and many others. None of these are students of the Dr. Spock liberal thinking ideology, nor are they students of any secular schools. Their guidance in chinuch is 100% Torah based. None of them suggest the discipline that dominates the chinuch world (sadly this remains so, despite pockets of improvement). You are correct that the chutzpah calls for intervention. But the disciplinary approach has far more risks than benefits, and this changes the mission of the mechanech or parent in such situations.
I learned Kibud Av V’Eim by watching my parents respecting their parents.
catch yourself:
We agree. Thx for the support. Not everything that is technically correct is effective. And without regard for effectiveness, it becomes foolish to try and change things. No one says that Kavod Horav is unimportant. But the behavior of a rebbe demanding it is an almost guaranteed failure. As mechanchim, the goal is the result, not the process. We may debate the matter of how today’s generation is so much weaker in character, with the explosion of chutzpah becoming normalized. But that’s life; deal with it. Joseph’s comment “A rebbe must insist upon his kavod, not because he wants it, but because it’s his duty to teach his students that they are halachicly obligated in it.” is logically correct, but ineffective. In fact, the role of the mechanech is not to teach any talmid to fulfill mitzvos our of fear. Fear is NOT the midoh or mitzvah of ???? ???. The true translation of ???? ??? is AWE. Discipline has nothing whatsoever to do with teaching values. This is accomplished by modeling, which you described in your comment. Teaching Kavod for anyone is done by modeling it, not demanding it.
nyustud:
No disagreement. I do have an issue when the rebbe demands kavod – even if it is exactly what is instructed in halacha. That behavior is problematic, as it nearly always backfires. The rebbe should be teaching about Kibud Av V’Em. The parents should be teaching about Kavod Horav. By demanding one’s own kavod, even if it is precisely what halacha requires, one produces the opposite result. I refer anyone doubting this to the Mesilas Yeshorim perek 20 wherein he describes the mitzvah of tochacha. He states that if the expected or likely result of the tochacha is the opposite, his mitzvah is to remain silent. You can launch all the discussion you wish about the present time’s increase in chutzpah and disobedience. That may deserve a separate post. But being technically right does not always become the mitzvah, as there is a needed result. Chinuch must look to produce the talmid who respects the rebbe because he wants to, not because of a negative consequence for violating the halacha.
Must the CR attempt to address what already exists clearly in Shulchan Aruch? These halachos are detailed. However, there is a painful reality – many are simply not followed, and one may reasonably ask to know the norm.
Here’s my experience. Every yeshiva environment is different. I have observed some where speaking to a rebbe or rosh yeshiva in second person is the standard. I know it challenges the halacha to speak only in third person, but there may be redeeming value to this. Again, my personal experience. These rebbeim and roshei yeshiva are still connected to their talmidim decades later, and remain true to the derech of Torah that they were guided in long ago. There was no real distance between rebbe and talmid. Today, these talmidim do speak in 3rd person, but remain closely connected.
One of the traits of a good mechanech is the ability to maintain the kesher even years later. Sadly, not many succeed at this.
I don’t quite understand the “psak” from RHS. But I tend to believe that his statement is completely theoretical.
If a Gadol gives an instruction based on Ruach Hakodesh, that would be definitive. Without entering the debate on how to interpret the Rambam regarding Ruach Hakodesh, it is my personal opinion that there are those in Klal Yisroel whose gadlus merits them moments of Ruach Hakodesh, and they can achieve a plane of spirituality that is noteworthy. There are virtually hundreds of reports of such events occurring with tzaddikim and gedolim of the Chassidishe and Litvishe velt. Having said that, I am not one of those that believes that everything that these gedolim say is necessarily coming from Ruach Hakodesh, regardless of their greatness. My respect can be unlimited, but I do not need to equate them with the Avos.
Since I cannot assume that everything is Ruach Hakodesh, I must be trusting of the judgment of the Rav. Here lies the problem. When presenting the question, have I made certain that every single relevant detail is accessible and part of the equation? I am assuming that the ability to judge all of these variable falls within the domain of the Rav’s skills. And that may also not be the case. There are simply too many limitations to emerge with a reliable psak on whom to marry. Again, a nice theory. But in practicality, I see it as impossible.
As for parnosoh, there are also many variables that are relevant to the decision of which direction to go. Unfortunately, so many of the rabbonim and roshei yeshivos that would be consulted know terribly little about the working world. They likely know even less about the skills and personality of their talmidim, as the pattern of being interested in giving such life guidance is not popular today. What hurts is the quote (I heard this in the names of R’ Chaim Brisker and R’ Yisroel Salanter – whoever said it shared an amazing insight) – the job of the mashgiach in the yeshiva is ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?? ??????. This suggests that the main responsibility is assist those who are downtrodden and depressed – to raise their spirits. You gotta know a talmid well enough to do that. Perhaps these gedolim were addressing only their generation. So the parnosoh thing is actually more realistic than the shidduch, but has been rendered a nice theory. What a shame.
One comment.
Yimach shemo vezichro.
Lenny:
I will not play therapist or Rov. But I will share a few words of wisdom, assuming it has not been done in earlier comments.
There are specific instances in which Beis Din can obligate you to give a get. These are few and far between. If you were willing, and she was not, the situation is similar. As the husband, your giving of a get must be completely voluntary. Biblical Law allows for the giving of a get against the wife’s will. However, the Chachomim (Rabbeinu Gershon) forbade this practice.
Having noted that very few situations of beis din obligating a get can exist, there is a different question to ask. Suppose you appear in beis din, and they cannot order you to give a get. What status follows this? Do you remain in a marriage where you are unwanted and undesired? Will that satisfy you? Will that be healthy for the children? Does such a psak have the ability to make your wife fall in love with you all over again? Will that repair the problems that existed in the marriage that led to the current level of conflict?
Most batei din take the liberty of obligating a couple to seek the assessment and intervention from a trained mental health professional. As nice as this sounds, does a beis din compelling someone to go to therapy create a change of heart? I do not say that changes will not happen, but this would only follow something that led to feelings changing. We can guess what some possibilities are. But a psak beis din would not be a likely reason for someone willing to divorce to reverse the pattern and restore a loving relationship.
This is a website, and you don’t know me at all. But as a word of advice – consider the likelihood of reconciliation squarely dependent on her willingness. You cannot make someone love you, and certainly not by legislating it.
Firstly, this scenario is not rare. Probably less common than 50 years ago, but not rare either.
Secondly, there are other forms of abuse that are relatively commonplace. The use of shame as a tool for discipline is rampant. This can include name calling, saying embarrassing things to a student, punishing a child publicly, and forcing kids to embarrass themselves in front of classmates or other kids. The trained rebbe neither does these things nor feels a need to stoop to this. But the overwhelming majority of our mechanchim have never participated in a program to train them to manage a classroom, build a curriculum, or establish constructive relationships with talmidim. The situation today is much improved over past years, but we are still far from making our yeshivos emotionally safe for our children.
This comment, rash as it is, might throw a different thrust to this thread.
I am keenly aware of the dangers of the internet. Yet, it gets the blame finger for quite a bit more than it should. I have heard the street, as well as noted rabbonim and roshei yeshivos claim that the internet is the cause for today’s OTD population. This is clearly false. There were problems long before the existence of the internet. Ask anyone who works with the OTD population – the kids were going “off” before their internet use. They were on their way “out” and found the accessibility of the internet one of the vices that would accept them. (OTD patterns are almost always to be blamed on REJECTION.)
I am not easy going about the need to filter and place limits on internet access. The Gedolei Yisroel do not need, but have my support for the takanos to accomplish this. And the boundaries are there to protect all of us from a whole lot of toxic experiences. But it is not the cause. It becomes the next step.
If a husband or wife turns to the internet to replace connection with a spouse, we have a bigger issue of the relationship to address, not the internet itself. There are lots of danger zones out there, and the internet is one of them. Why would someone run there if they were happy here? That’s the marriage issue that needs attention. Stop childishly blaming everything on the internet.
DY:
Of course there are real people. And if one surmises that there is a negligible amount of divorce among these real people, I can see the logic and even believe it. The difficulty is that there are many who appear to bed bnei aliyah who are actually rotten on the inside. The true Yir’as Shomayim can be detected when the person is not being watched. The cameras lie in that the scenes are all when the individual is observed. Your implication is correct – that frum, truly ehrliche Yidden probably manage their marriages better. But how many of those we know are ???? ????? We are not privy to the information. And we are left to the judgments based on precisely the information that is not the true basis to judge.
DY wrote, “I guess you don’t think that living according to the Torah gives us a healthier ability to relate to people than does living according to some other system, l’havdil.”
I thought one of my earlier comments was more clear. While I do not know of statistical differences among the various subgroups within the frum community in terms of divorce rates, I do not believe there is any degree of protection from the external appearances of the “Torah lifestyle”. This is not because I question whether a Torah true life is better in all regards, including shalom bayis. It is because I question whether the external presentations as being a “Torah Jew” are accurate. I know of way too many cases of talmidei chachomim, whose knowledge of Torah is voluminous, who also engaged in behaviors that were far the opposite – but in secret. They did what Hillary did. Invested great effort in not getting caught. Yes, illicit relationships, schmutz on the internet, etc. No one should doubt the Torah true life is protective. It involves, by definition, mastery of midos bein odom lachaveiro, and a value system that is unsurpassed. And it bears repeating. There are plenty of these fake “tzaddikim”, and there are a probably equal number of these fake “tzidkaniyos”.
Health:
A few comments beat me to the punch. I was reporting a specific case. The message, which you seem to have missed, was that the external presentation may be quite good, while the internal truth can be much the opposite. As I noted, the correlations for marriage are not those of external appearances. I also know of women who appear to others to be righteous, but have a very different truth. I was challenging the notion that the “Torah” community is more immune to failed marriages and divorce. That is actually a fallacy, but it does feel good until waking and facing reality.
catch yourself:
Catch yourself. I am among those who shudder when I view the use of segulos as a marketing tool. That is certainly not the intent of a segulah. We are certainly told plenty about how HKB”H is available, hears our tefilos, and even invites us to speak to him three times a day. Yet, there are many, many times we find that tefilos can get an extra push.
Why? Because there are such things as ???????, generally ?????? who “ride interference”. They are metaphorically the servants of the King who receive the tefilos and deliver them to the King Himself. One way to image this is to picture an ordinary person seeking to ask the King for something, who is turned away by these bodyguards because his behavior is seen as not befitting of someone who wants something from the King. “He is asking for ?????? But he is in violation of these mitzvos!”
There are various things that assist us in overcoming this resistance, and many of these are stated clearly in Shas, Shulchan Aruch, and numerous seforim from the early Gedolei Hador to the contemporary. Giving tzedokoh before davening, engaging in preparation before tefilo, the inclusion of baalei aveiroh in the minyan, davening in certain places (mekomos hakedoshim, kivrei tzaddikim,) etc. There are times when the receptivity to our tefilos is more certain, including Yomim Noraim, especially at Ne’ilah, during the process of several mitzvos such as Ner Chanukah and ner Shabbos, and when placed in situations in which we are able to overcome strong influences (example – when embarrassed by someone and not responding).
To challenge segulos, particularly those that come from reliable sources, is blasphemous. If the seguloh is to daven at a particular time, it does not mean to postpone tefiloh until then, or to ignore other responsibilities then. The Beis Yisroel – Gerrer Rebbe ZT”L missed Ne’ilah on Yom Kippur because he was attending to someone who was staying out of shul in defiance of the special day. The problem is not segulos. The problem is that they have been reformed into a marketable commodity. the organizations cast themselves as the owners of yeshuos, and that you can only be zocheh to be granted a yeshuah if you give them your money. That extreme is no more acceptable to me than the trashing of all segulos. And that is the problem with the 9-9-9-9 stuff.
karlbenmarx:
Sorry to bust your bubble, but there is no “protection” from divorce among the kollel community. That perception is plainly inaccurate. There may be divorces that are being withheld by advisers who believe they are accomplishing something with their guidance. But it is simply untrue. Survey the therapists who work exclusively in the frum community. Check out the rabbonim who sit on batei din that specialize in matrimonial issues. Inquire from toanim who work chiefly with divorces. Your presentation of facts is plainly fictional.
It is not a kollel lifestyle that keeps families intact. It is not Torah knowledge. It is also not the trend to avoid professionals and seek guidance only from rabbonim. There are abusive men/women in the kollel community as there are elsewhere. There is a mismatch (a.k.a. bad chemistry) in every community. College education, secular training, attending and following daf yomi, levush, number of hours scheduled in the beis medrash, or even prominent family names are all unrelated to the conduct of a marriage or its failure. The true issues are midos, degree of consistency between someone’s potential and their actual pursuit of success, and the honest level of spirituality. The Torah true baal haboss is more likely to manage marriage well, while the kollel guy who is only following a trend of refusing to pursue a career is less likely.
I enjoy the “junk statistics” that people spout to make points. The conclusions are reached first, then the numbers (usually fictional as well) are painted around them to give an air of legitimacy.
There is a story of a talmid of Rav Chaim Vital ZT”L who passed away. He appeared to Rav Chaim in a dream, inquiring of him why he was given a portion on the next world that was most unfavorable. He claimed he was such a scholar, taught Torah and Kaballah to so many, was meticulous in his mitzvos, etc. Why was he thrust into a negative space. Rav Chaim responded that all his wonderful Torah achievements were obliterated in the face of his home behavior. He conducted his home and family life like a tyrant, being abusive to his wife and children.
I would gladly want to believe that the Torah community fares better with shalom bayis. But the concept you cited of adhering to Daas Torah (altogether nebulous and vague) does not jive with the experiences of those who deal with the problems on a constant basis.
If you choose to respond, please offer a bit more detail on what it is that comprises the Daas Torah that supposedly makes a difference.
147:
I am also involved in quite a few cases. I am impressed with your erudite and more educated comments. Having opinions, I choose to weigh in, just a bit.
I note that there are fathers that voluntarily choose to abandon their children. This may not be common, but it does occur without any pressure or coercion. While these are exceptional, and likely involves factors that are unique, it probably becomes a mistake to insist that a father must maintain contact when he wishes none. Perhaps he is a candidate for therapy. But doing so would gum up the works, and prevent a get when two parties are both willing.
Next – the retaliatory chaining. Sounds appropriate, after all, fair is fair. However, you know that secular law does not consider the two connected, and withholding the children or the financial support as retaliation for the other’s violation is a crime. Neither does halacha sanction it. Beis Din certainly has the authority to coerce one side to cooperate, but as with everything else done by today’s batei din, they have no enforcement authority.
Full agreement about the beating issue. We watched this become front page news in the secular media. Halacha isn’t too fond of it either, regardless of what the advocacy organizations claim.
I guess posting comments in the CR means I am opinionated. Well, so be it.
I am old enough to have met and known enough people to conclude that personality and midos are not correlated with weight. There are great people who are fat or thin. There are some awful people who are fat or thin. I recall something about a personality theorist who created personality types by body figure. His name has become obscure since there was never any fact to support the theory.
Some of the previous comments push the issues of perception and assumption in either direction. I want to clarify this, having assisted some people in shidduchim, and married off my own children.
There is a myth that the thin girl remains thin throughout life. Believers of that have never heard of baby fat. They also deny genetics.
If I was to encounter a fat prospect (girl or boy), I would be inclined to jump to a conclusion. If the thoughts were verbalized, they would read something like this:
“Wow, that person is really fat. He/she must overeat, make food a priority over other things, and must be so lazy that they never work off the calories ingested. Forget looks, which I might associate negatively. I don’t want to marry someone who prefers a plate of food to me.”
These are judgments that are leaps of faith. Inaccurate, unfair, and not even self-serving.
On the other hand, there are few conditions in which extra weight cannot be dumped. It is not easy, and surgical and radical interventions are not under consideration. Anyone (almost without exception) can lose weight if they truly value that as priority for them. If they are accustomed to being heavy, there would presumably be significant adjustment to a new lifestyle, vis a vis food and exercise, that may well require ongoing help and support to maintain.
My 2 cents worth. Obesity is far more common today, and our eating patterns do not testify for improved health or nutrition. Just visit your favorite kosher grocery. Long, full aisles of nutrition-free junk foods, with the range of flavors and packages growing yearly. I have yet to hear about a kashrus organization that refuses to give hashgocho on another needless, unhealthy form of nosh.
I am making a general statement that in no way is directed at any specific Rav. Rabbonim, by virtue of their position or their scholarship, are not necessarily qualified to guide or advise in matters of shalom bayis. That is said, because it would be divine to be able to obtain such direction from a talmid chochom. Having said this, there are many who have great experience, and have hearts of gold that make them terrific resources. They may not replace a therapist or professional, but can certainly be an asset to the resolution of a difficult situation.
There are certain mitzvos that we hope do not come to fulfillment. For instance, ???? ????? occurs in a tragedy. All of the laws of aveilus follow losses. Well, so is the parsha of gett. It is not pleasant, and nearly always involves conflict. But it is a mitzvah to divorce according to the dictates of halacha if that becomes necessary.
There is a major distinction here, and it is often overlooked (and seems to be missed in previous comments here). One can approach a Rav to pasken a shailoh. And when asked for a psak, the rav should provide that. In many cases of divorce, the question is asked whether a husband is obligated as per halacha to grant and give a gett. And often, the answer is that he has no chiyuv. That is the letter of halacha, and a psak that differs is not accurate. However, a Rav is also in a position to inquire about an eitzoh – advice. This Rav must then guide for the ultimate good, as per his understanding of the matzav. Many of these failed marriages would best be ended, and both parties free to pursue their lives independently or with new partners. Often a marriage cannot be reconciled, even if there is no halachic obligation to give the gett. Many wise rabbonim give their psak, and follow it with words of advice. Yet, recalcitrant men claim to be holier by following “halacha”. It is sad in these cases that the halacha of ????? ???? ????? cannot be mandated.
Let’s return to the term “get refusal”. It has more than one meaning. One is the strict halachic definition. If such a husband was not required by psak halacha to give a get, this definition would not apply. But as a mentch, one would be justified in fearing this fellow. It is often the ultimate abuse to chain a woman in a relationship that prohibits her from continuing her life alone or whatever other intentions she may have. The saichel is quite simple. “I do not want to stay married to someone who does not want to married to me.”
Yet, there is another arguable point, and has merit in some cases. The divorcing wife has several resources. The abuse claim, whether honest or not, is usually thrown at the husband, and gets a high score on the believability index. It is easier to ruin a man’s reputation than a woman’s. The custody battles more often favor the mothers, as do the controls that limit visitation and maximize financial awards against the fathers. For such cases, the men have few cards to play, and many choose to withhold the gett. I do not agree with them, but can often understand.
Can anyone start a trend of posting pleasant topics that do not stir up these completely negative subjects with all the hot emotions that follow?
Voting is done with secrecy for a reason. One of the results of this process is that people tend to vote their conscience. I speak for those people I know, among them many who know much about politics, but also many who know very little. What was outstanding was the extent of corruption that became synonymous with Clinton, and basically extended her record of non-prosecuted crime from decades ago into the present. Aside from the claims and conjectures made by the Clinton campaign about Trump, there was nothing remarkable to brand him in similar negative light. An additional factor was the strong perception that Obama was not friendly or supportive to Israel, and was actually supporting Muslim terror. Clinton campaigned on the back of Obama, espousing his legacy, and vowing to continue and expand it. Everyone I know who voted for Trump was frightened to give a vote to support Hillary.
Lastly, the election was perceived as voting for the lesser of two evils. Do we vote against Hillary or Trump? Strange. That’s what I gleaned from so many conversations with voters.
I cannot think of a better use for the New York Times.
From a Rabbi AJ Twerski book:
Not long after First Lady Nancy Reagan launched the “Just say no to drugs” campaign, some researchers were addressing a high school, and learned that many of the students were heavily into drug abuse. They asked the students why they did not pay attention to the “Just say no to drugs” message. Their reply was, “What else is there?”
I understand this to reflect an interesting thought. The knowledge about the dangers of drugs and alcohol can be useful, but are not strong enough to save someone from the pain of a life that is devoid of meaning. The drugs provide momentary relief (actually either distraction or anesthesia) from this torment. That is somehow preferred to the existence without meaning, self-esteem, goals, and feelings of success and achievement.
Not sure how much this matters for the life of the goy, but when we are failing to provide the meaning, etc. for our children, in our frum, Torah based homes, there is a problem. Without a doubt, there are many directions we can point fingers. But it remains incumbent on us to insure our children the most meaningful experience of growing up, where the values we are taught are modeled, where they are given good reason to absorb the recognition that their lives and connection to HKB”H and Torah is valuable and positive. Most people can probably identify ways in which we fail at this. But we can also suggest ways to make these values supreme in our lives.
Torah life is great. The benefit to the follower of a Torah life is (to use Trump vocabulary) HUGE.
To the inexperienced bochur, I can only give a simple piece of advice. Whatever preconceived notions there are about “beauty”, nothing is relevant to how you will live your life. All aspects of appearance are subject to change. It is a grave mistake to base the emotional relationship on anything even remotely related to the looks of a girl. The relevance actually works the other way. If the emotional connection develops and grows, that person will have beauty.
The prevailing notions about beauty are culturally determined, and these involve standards of tznius (even that which is limited to imagery) that are not appropriate for a bochur. It is silly to have Hollywood determine such standards as it is to follow all of Western society’s norms. We look to Torah for guidance, not the street. This is a basic piece of education that is taught by example and by having lifestyles that ignore these “cultural norms” as determinants of our behavior.
This is a really old thread, but the subject deserves to be renewed and placed back on the table for at least occasional review.
Seemingly missing from this discussion is exactly what is permitted as a potch. Here’s my take (verified in countless discussions with rabbonim and gedolim). Virtually everything a rebbe does with a talmid MUST be educational. The rebbe is not a police officer, nor a judge. He is a teacher, one who must teach through speech and through his behavior. If he teaches a child to potch, he has failed his job miserably, and should find another career. This does not forbid the potch. It just recognizes that the potch is permitted under certain conditions. There are shelves of sforim that discuss chinuch, and the material is all easy to find to those interested in what our gedolim had to say.
Among the conditions is that there cannot be any anger at all. If yes, the rebbe is releasing his anger on a target, which is not only outside his job, but at substantial risk of teaching the wrong thing. The Brisker Rov ZT”L, for instance, stated that the first potch can occasionally be permitted, but the second one is “chovel”, an assault, and is Ossur Min Hatorah. The child must understand the potch. No “example making” is permitted. A rebbe who is unsure will not err by not potching. Discipline that is unwarranted is destructive. The inaction is not, even if it means a lesson opportunity was missed.
The SA arguments have all been chewed over. But I do not see much discussion about the result of the potch. If it backfires, it was obviously not warranted, and thus not permitted by SA. Does the average rebbe who uses the potch ever consult with a peer or superior? If not, the potch is reactive, and is not the permitted one.
Additionally, it was mentioned in a comment above, the potch is most often used in a public arena, in presence of others. There is a shame factor that is horribly destructive, even more than the smack itself. Was that part of the calculation? What rebbe is ready to assume the responsibility for ????? ??? ?????? They do take the action. But are they aware that this is not what was ever permitted?
School moment:
Rabbenu Gershom issued 3 decrees:
*Privacy – to be respected, specified mail, but presumably can include other things, too.
*Divorce cannot be forced. The banning of delivering a get to a woman against her will does not nullify the get, but it, as the violations of the other two decrees result in cheirem.
*Polygamy – banned. As noted earlier, this was to the constituents over whom Rabbenu Gershom had authority, which was the Ashkenazic community.
The actual cheirem was not intended to be extended past the Biblical year of 5000. It is continued today by consensus of the poskim of the generations. The Sephardic community was never issued those decrees, though by now, they have been accepted as universal practice.
My take on Wikileaks:
I don’t work for them, and could not justify the morality of snooping in someone else’s emails. But once they are public, there is no longer anything private about them, and I would read them if i had the time to devote to that.
I suspect that this became customary for many piyutim in order to facilitate the continuity of the recitation, as if the tzibbur and the baal tefilah are continually finishing the other’s sentence. Actually, the piyut of V’chol maaminim actually makes more sense the way we recite it.
Is anyone aware that this particular piyut is far older than all the rest? It is reportedly written by Ezra Hasofer and Zerubavel. That dates it to the beginning of the second Bais Hamikdosh. Even the rest of the tefila dates back to the earliest known – Anshei Knesses Hagedola, who were towards the end of the second Bais Hamikdosh. Interesting.
Anyone here old enough to remember celery soda?
One thing that has become obvious. This Lev Tahor thing is a cult. Perhaps one that identifies itself as Torah observant, but that doesn’t remove the cult qualities from its identity. I’m not here to bash, and am limited in having no direct information. I am, however, quite frightened of the implications of all this.
This group, Lev Tahor, has yet to show me some indication that its Torah observance is genuine. I see a highly exaggerated hero worship, and I see the trappings of extremism about their observances. I cannot detect the balances that true Torah life imbues. I see a plethora of allegations followed by complete resistance to any investigations – only the escaping around the world to wherever they can find enough acreage.
I have my doubts about the “Tahor” part of their name, with way too many allegations that suggest otherwise. I see the total departure from mainstream Torah observance with the use of Torah lines as excuses or justifications – as if that makes them holier.
I am not prosecuting or defending them. But they ought to be open to investigation. And their innocence, if true, can be proven. Until then, I have trouble seeing this group as anything but just another cult.
Joseph:
That is correct. But I am not the only one I know with such experiences. Among others I know are schools and yeshivos in other parts of the NY area.
I have no intention of maligning any specific yeshiva/school. I simply am pointing out the casualness that exists with regard to the sanctity of every single neshomoh. I repeat my acknowledgement of the financial concerns of yeshivos. But it is the parents that need to pay, not the children.
The double jeopardy here is that the student who spends much time outside of the yeshiva, under the circumstances of rejection, runs a higher risk of being less appropriate when returning, prompting another reason to expel him/her. I have actually observed this firsthand.
Rabosai, our community has a serious problem. Now that we have some awareness of it, can we address some way to remedy the situation. Some time ago, one of the frum magazines carried a cover story, No Child Left Behind. Are we serious about this or not?
Joseph:
Not true. Maybe you had such personal experience. My experience was different. My kids were not allowed on the bus, or if they walked to school were sent home. I know many others who had similar experiences. I will refrain from exposing names of schools, but they know who they are. What shocks me beyond belief is that they do this rejection shamelessly.
The fact that the wrong person is getting punished, that punishment is being used altogether, that there is total disregard for the needs of the individual student, that ignores the effects and impact of embarrassment and rejection of a child.
We have all heard the excuse that there is justification that one may destroy an individual in order to benefit the public. There happens to be no precedent in Torah for this thinking. Quite the contrary. There are countless anecdotes from the greatest Gedolim of generations that disallow such rejection of the individual. Allow a quote. The Chazon Ish ZT”L stated that the initial mission of opening yeshivos after the holocaust was to replant Torah. In that mission, the goal was to address the directing of chinuch to the masses. However, that transplantation has already occurred successfully. The mission of chinuch now needs to be directed to the individual. So said the Chazon Ish, who left us some 60 years ago. Where, oh, where is the attention to the individual talmid?
Joseph asked, “Which Yeshiva our Beis Yaakov expels children for missing payments on the tuition balances? From everything I know that is a myth.”
There is a very painful answer to this. Many. In BP, re-registration midyear is common, being scheduled 1-2 times, with security guards collecting admission tickets that are provided to parents whose balances are paid. I have seen many cases, various yeshivos and schools, in which unpaid balances result in children being asked to stay home and not attend. I do not fault the schools for demanding their due. These funds are for day to day legitimate expenses, whether salaries, basic costs of upkeep and supplies. The issue of prioritizing these costs is not mine. Borads of directors and administrators know more about that. That withholding the kids from being in yeshiva is the leverage is outrageous. What should a two-parent working family do? Lose a day’s pay to babysit? Why is the innocent child being punished? Without challenge to the need for money, if the talmid is not there, who needs money?
Yes, this is commonplace. Survey parents, if you like.
There is a painful reality. There are many hundreds of kids who belong in yeshivos confined to home or street. There is an entire industry of askanim whose lives are dedicated to placing kids in yeshivos, and there have already been meetings and discussions in high places to address the problem. It is not a small problem, but a huge, troublesome one. There is no easy answer.
Often, kids are cast into the streets because of the insistence on tuition, when parents are struggling to make ends meet. This is a difficult problem. To take kids for free bankrupts the school, and results in teachers and faculty leaving. To punish the child for the parents’ struggles is equally unfair and immoral. Admission policies are based on little bits of rational thinking, and primarily on myth. Expulsion policies are based on the impulsive anger of the hanhala, not halacha or morality.
The author is correct. No easy answers, but there can be little tolerance for ignoring the issue as a serious problem. The future of Klal Yisroel is at stake.
I direct readers who wish to address this from a more factual position to review a sefer ???? ??? ?????. The author is Horav Yechezkel Escheik, and was published in Bnei Brak around ???”?. The haskamos span the spectrum, including Rav Shteinman, Rav Moshe Shmuel Shapiro, Rav Michel Yehuda Lefkowitz, Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner, Rav Yerachmiel Gershon Edelstein, Rav Boruch Dov Povarsky, Rav Matisyahu Salomon, Rav Shimon Bedni, Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein, aside from the numerous quotes from other Gedolei Poskim. There are as serious problems with the single cigarette as with the habitual smoking. Once that sefer is reviewed, one may comment with some education behind the comment. It seems clear from the countless quotes throughout the sefer that the issur is without compromise. The offense is great, and the popular tendency to minimize it is without Torah basis. I cannot be the one who weighs to separate issurim of the Torah when a choice is needed. But it is not a chumrah, but rather a simple, direct issur. I have also heard from witnesses that Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky and Rav Aharon Kotler both pronounced the issur on smoking to be d’Oraysa. A posek is not needed for that, as the scientific data is clear. Poskim needed to speak out about it, not because of the shailoh, but because of the public’s tendency to reject a halacha that challenges the addiction. One may also wish to review what Rav Dessler writes in Michtav Me’Eliyahu.
LU:
Your statement is totally false. I am impressed with the logic pattern here. First, one declares a position, then one looks to find a way to justify it. That is backwards thinking.
I have posted on other threads here on this, and won’t repeat myself. There is an extremely long list of universally recognized poskim from the present and previous generations that openly wrote that smoking is an issur d”Oraysa. There are a few seforim dedicated to the subject, and present all the information, with detail and precise references.
No, Gedolim do not need to tell us that chazzer is forbidden. The Torah does that. If we have a question, related here to the health risks, that shailoh is decided by the scientific experts. The purpose of Gedolim weighing in on it is because there are many who wish a different psak, and will challenge the scientific findings. We all know that to be either primitive or plainly stupid, but that is the logic I referred to at the beginning, where the arrow is shot, then the target painted around it. Enough Gedolim have issued their clear, definitive psak, so no one should be left with a question.
Telling us that a talmid chochom smokes does not impress me at all. It does not pasken a shailoh. It just attests to an addiction which that individual cannot overcome. I cannot declare him to be a baal aveiroh, just a choleh. Like I would not mimic going for surgery or medical care because a talmid chochom did, because I don’t need it, I will not accept that his smoking does anything to change halacha.
Lastly, a research finding indicated that smokers had a lower incidence of Alzheimers Disease. Preparing to fund massive research, the discovery was made that smokers tended to die of other illnesses long before there was a chance for AD to set in. To consider smoking muttar is simply foolish, and clearly against halacha.
The assumption is that the “kollel” lifestyle is somehow related to ruchniyus, and that no other lifestyle approaches that. Such assumptions are so buried in the ideal, that reality has escaped completely. Whatever the original developers and advocates intended of the “kollel” lifestyle intended, it has evolved into something far more monstrous and completely different. It has become a preoccupation with dependency, rooted in laziness, avoidance of challenge, and topped with delusions of being closer to Hashem.
Here’s what kollel should be. First and foremost, an arrangement where those endowed with the skills, talents, and motivation can further their Torah knowledge in order to serve as leaders for the coming generation. This includes dayanim, rabbonim, roshei yeshivos, magidei shiur, etc. It also affords a place where baalei batim can congregate to participate in learning, shiurim, etc. It can also be a place where a newlywed can spend a limited amount of time learning Torah with the kedusha of marriage.
It is NOT place of refuge, to avoid entering a career, to live off the fruits of someone else’s hard labor. It is NOT an ideal for the wife to work, while the husband hides in the beis hamedrash. It is certainly NOT the place where a yungerman can claim to be more “ruchniyus” than the baal haboss who is adhering to halacha in his career while being koveya ittim. There is this image that “kollel” tries to pump into the value system of the entire frum community. Every girl has been conditioned to seek a “learning boy”, and every boy must direct his life to lifelong kollel in order to be considered a frum prospect for a shidduch. This is a huge embarrassment, as the sheer amount of falsehood that empowers this mirage is staggering.
And for those who have the delusion that the “kollel” lifestyle is founded on being “mistapeik be’mu’ot”, look around, and you will see this is not true. Some are, others are clearly not. What is universal is the dependency, and that is not a Torah value, certainly not for the masses.
There is no truly honest way to answer the question. The matching of a child to a yeshiva is a challenge not unlike that of a shidduch. Perhaps a slight difference is that the couple expect to find the other dissimilar, and are somewhat aware of the need to learn to adjust. And that adjustment requires each of them to participate in the changing. With yeshivos, it is considerably harder (for good and bad reasons) to adjust to the talmid. All change requires adaptation, but yeshivos are more apt to insist that the talmid adapt to them, and rarely, if ever, the other way.
So, without knowing the child, and all the issues (besides the trouble with the past hanhala), it is impossible to give an intelligent answer.
oomis wrote: “The Torah refer to man as an eitz hasadeh (hope I got that right), and just as a fruit tree halachically is not shorn of it fruit for three years, there arose a minhag therefore, to not cut the hair until age three.”
Here is the reference:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14573&st=&pgnum=377
The Medrash states that the posuk of allowing the trees to be unshorn for 3 years refers to a child. This is very close proximity to the posuk that prohibits the cutting of peyos. This juxtaposition is interpreted to suggest that the chinuch for peyos be at age three, and that the fourth year will be marked by the fruit being “kodesh hilulim laHashem”, holy to HKB”H.
I possess the original letter that is published here from the Lubavitcher Rebbe ZT”L in response to the question of the source for the minhag.
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=15952&st=&pgnum=345
As the Rebbe notes, the minhag is not found referenced in niglah. I personally hesitate from accepting the reference from Poliakoff above with any seriousness, as he clearly avoided nistar. No clue whether he is otherwise reliable, but is certainly not authoritative about matters outside his domain.
For those who have the mesorah of this minhag, they should follow that heritage. I am not among those who would push it on someone who does not have such a mesorah.
The title for this thread is objectionable. the OP has the right to question, not declare it shtus out of ignorance.
Here’s the reality. There may well be kabalistic aspects to the practice/minhag. I cannot address that (out of ignorance). But the upsherin is a milestone of chinuch on “peyos harosh”. Aside from the lo saaseh of cutting the peyos, there is the initiating of the tzurah of a Yid, having peyos. This hopefully remains with the child for his entire life, and this is worthy of a celebration. The minhag is actually referenced in quite early writings. As with many things, it was primarily a minhag adopted by the chassidishe community, but has spread to the yeshivish communities as well. The typical ceremony is the learning of aleph-beis, a valuable piece of chinuch. It is worthy of a celebration. One commenter was appropriately irritated when witnessing the purchase of an expensive dress for the occasion. True celebration involves so much else that the obsession with fancy clothing is a distraction, at the very least.
I hope the mods can fix the heading to be more informative and inquisitive, not degrading and disgraceful.
Is one allowed to pay taxes to the IRS? Our current president is looking for every loophole to send money to Iran, Hamas, and any other terrorists he can find. Kerry’s first statement when Israel tried to fight back against the flood of Hamas rockets was to offer Hamas $47 million. Is this coming from his personal treasury, or my tax dollars?
I will chime in on the misleading headline to this post. TAG is an incredible organization that does not serve in order to make profit. They openly charge for certain mechanical services, such as removing internet access from certain devices, etc. These are intricate professional services. The volunteers there do excellent work, and I have needed their guidance many times – they passed all tests.
The filters that they charge for are commercial products. The payment does NOT go to TAG, but directly to the company that makes and sells the product.
The debate here about which filter to use is out of place. I discovered that different phones have different operating systems, and require filters that are matched. Likewise, people have different needs for their phones, and filters to accommodate those needs are a challenge to match. TAG has done a spectacular job for me (and for many others I know), and I commend them with the highest praises.
It was noted in an earlier comment that anyone desperate to violate the standards of shmiras einayim can find a way to do so. We cannot legislate and close every single avenue that the yetzer horah uses to tempt us. But we do need to take as many measures as we can. Meanwhile, we all have a pressing need to improve ourselves (a lifelong task) in our Yir’as Shomayim, so that our brains are involved in kedusha, and less prone to stray into the domains of tum’ah.
May we all be zocheh to rise higher in kedusha with our avodah in sefiras haomer and with the upcoming kabolas haTorah.
Just logged in, and began reading the comments about OOT. I was scratching my head trying to figure out what the acronym means. I thought it a label for a community that is Out Of Touch. To me, that would refer much more closely to Lakewood, Brooklyn, Monsey, and other concentrations of the Frum world. But it seems that it does not refer to that.
Pulling my tongue back out my cheek, there are clearly advantages and disadvantages in communities that are OOT or in the T. It should be the option for the individual to evaluate and make choices. Appealing to elders for their input is often a wise idea to assist in the process of making a potentially long term decision that affects so much.
Having lived in both places, there is much to say for the community out of town that is diluted to nearly nothing in the concentrated shtetlach. There is more attention to the things that really matter, instead of the trends to do what appears similar to others. Money isn’t everything, but in the in-town communities, the only way to finish that sentence is to add, “But it sure beats whatever is in second place.”
The ready access to the full range of products and services that in-towners come to depend on is a clear advantage to these communities. Being in closer proximity to so many friends and relatives has significant value.
These are individual decisions.
I see no problem with the legitimate uses for it. But we are blinded by another aspect. It is the exception that someone has Whatsapp and spends hardly any time on it. In reality, having this app already robs 1-2 hours a day, at minimum, from one’s day. Our perception of technology as having saved us time is inaccurate. It actually fills much more of our days (and nights) with utter trivia. Just how many of the messages we send or receive daily are important? I estimate that the percentage is somewhere between 5-10%. Is the rest of the time being stolen from our parenting time for the children, taking care of our tasks at home or work? How about bittul Torah?
At present, I blocked this app on my phone through my filter. I can fathom reasons that are not relevant now to open it, and may do so when it will have legitimate use. Meanwhile, I am way too stingy with my time to the beeps that will apprise me of some foolishness. Humor is wonderful, but it has its time and space.
For everything else, there is email and a phone number. That has proven to be quite adequate. Technology has served me well, but has often threatened to impinge on my life in too many ways. B”H I have withstood the challenges. I cannot understand why we would take such extensive precautions to protect our valuables but are ready to squander our time on narishkeit.
As far as I know, the minhagim of when to observe the restrictions of sefira are not intended as the practice of aveilus. These minhagim are simply to make a remembrance of the talmidei Rabi Akiva whose deaths were the result of their failure at maintaining proper social relationships with each other – despite being talmidei chachomim. There is a powerful lesson in this. That is, without a single challenge, the most significant aspect of the restrictions of sefiras haomer. In order to make this mark, the chachomim enacted certain restrictions. One was the refraining from making weddings. The music thing is not one of their takanos. The Mishna Berura makes specific reference to ?????? ????????, which essentially refers to live music and dances. Recorded music is not part of that. It is common practice to refrain from recorded music, especially as the quality has improved to the point that one can conduct dancing with a DJ playing recorded music. Similarly, the slow music, like the nigunim of dveikus and hisorrerus would not be included. The presence of musical instruments is at the best, a secondary issue. Vocal presentations that are actually simcha-type nigunim that are realistic enough to make someone dance would likely be problematic in the spirit of the law.
I do wish there was more preoccupation with the matters of tikun hamidos that needs to characterize sefiras haomer, with the inherent preparation for Kabolas Hatorah. The issues with music are a far second to the preparation for Kabolas Hatorah.
An addition, if one follows the minhag of the Ram”o (s’iff 3) who describes the “second minhag” in which the time range for these restrictions goes from Rosh Chodesh Iyar, one may attend a chasunah that is made by someone who follows the “first minhag” that extends only until Lag baomer, and vice versa. It is about making the remembrance, not living in aveilus.