Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If the OP is about those worthy causes wanting yenem’s money, we have an issue of בין אדם לחבירו. And many have commented that the money belongs to them to use how they see fit. If they wish to spend it on travel, luxuries, or writing sifrei Torah, that’s all their business, not mine. I am not entitled to what is not mine.
If the question is about whether these donors are doing Hashem’s will by funneling their money the way they choose, then we are out of line for intruding into someone else’s בין אדם למקום.
Either way, we have no business asking the question or worrying about what any of these donors might answer. We are not entitled to the information or their intentions.
The way that Trump tried so hard to make the Wall a mission, Bloomie will most certainly seek to put bike lanes on all interstates, and to levy taxes on all automobile purchases, leases, and rentals that will penalize every driver. Our tax forms, which might no longer collect information on whether one has health insurance, will now have a disqualifier for most deductions- having a drivers license.
Why could he not take retirement more seriously?
There are separate questions being raised here, and they should not be confused.
1 – The philosophy of 12-step programs is accused of being of Yoshke origin. Should that be acceptable or permitted to a Torah Jew?
The premise is incorrect. Just read the Big Book, and you will not find a single reference that recommends or suggests anything about any specific religion. The wording, when referring to G-d, is always qualified with the phrase “as we understood Him”. Religion is not meaningful to 12 step programs at all. What they do push for is “spirituality”, something that we Jews need to make part of our Yiddishkeit. “Judaism” without spirituality is not compatible with Torah. There are a great many articles and other publications that draw distinct parallels between Torah and Mussar and the codified 12 steps. Books by Rabbi A. Twerski are packed with proofs of this, and others have also published on this widely.
Some years ago, there was psak from Rav Elyashiv ZT”L that was disseminated everywhere that 12-step programs should be considered avodah zoroh, and that it is ossur to attend their meetings. It turned out that he was misled by one or more individuals. Several frum therapists brought material to him that refuted the opinions of the original trouble makers. He issued a psak that rescinded the earlier issur.
Much is written about the history and origins of AA. It is not religion, nor based on any religion.
2 – Can information specific to other religions be spread in the rooms of 12 step programs?
Yes, it certainly can. And it can be circulated in the streets, the supermarkets, and in publications. The rooms of 12 step programs are composed of imperfect people who are on a mission to improve themselves. The program does not advocate the giving of advice, and even the “leaders” of groups are volunteers who are also recovering from addiction, not professionals. Suggestions are to be couched in the frame of, “This was helpful for me,” and not as recommendations. Could one benefit from hearing that a recovering person was helped by connecting to his faith, even if not Jewish? Of course. The greatest of our tzaddikim recognized that the truly observant goy is not the same creature as the thugs in the street, not the terrorists and criminals that hurt us. The program teaches to “Take what you need and leave the rest”. We should recognize this as תוכו אכל קליפתו זרק.
Spreading religious literature at a 12 step meeting is against the program. So is relapse. But it happens. And if anyone wants to get riled up about the imperfections of the program, save the energy for those who attend our shuls, talk through davening and kriyas haTorah, get wasted in Kiddush clubs, and limit their observance of Torah to wherever they are seen by others. Stopping these disgraces to our מקדשי מעט and restoring observance of Torah law to בסתר ובגלוי will do wonders for us and our children.
An alcoholic must refrain from going to places that serve alcohol, e.g. bars and taverns. Some recovering alcoholics must even give special consideration to attending simchas where there is alcohol available.
I would assume that a coffee addict should refrain from coffee rooms.
Hope is emotional, not logical. The development of a marriage occurs mostly afterward, not before. The play that occurs before is a charade, a game. No one is doing more than portraying the image intended for the other, and is not real. After the wedding, it is work to connect, bond, and generate the emotional relationship. It is a delicate time. Somehow, most of us navigate it. There are failures, and there are sometimes outsiders (including families) with either noble or evil intentions who try to interfere. It requires major effort to manage this connection plus a huge dose of Syatta Dishmaya.
If a music player plays flat notes, it can be painful as someone who is tone deaf davening for the amud on Shabbos or Yomtov. Not everyone could or should learn an instrument. But for some, it is divine.
MDG:
I agree mostly, as my comments have stated several times. I would hope that one who requires longer time to prepare should start earlier. Where I am not as supportive to your comment is your labeling this as Aveira gorreret avairah. No, הכנה is a piece of Avodas Hashem. It is not an excuse, and using it so is not okay.
MDG:
When someone is engaged in הכנות for tefilo, they are not using an excuse of “getting ready”. Rather, the הכנה is part of the עבודה, and they are in the presence of Hashem. I am not giving anyone a pass for davening late. As much as tefilo is a connection to Hashem, so is living life – if we are doing so in connection. Eating breakfast can be a mundane act, one in which we satisfy our hunger, or a action of seeking energy to be able to get through the first part of the day doing the service of Hashem. This can include anything from learning Torah to working – providing parnosoh to remain connected to Hashem through mitzvos. We can remain connected through many actions that can alternatively be self-serving. While I would hope that הכנות would begin earlier so that tefilo is conducted at the proper time, I still won’t discard actions that are centered around HKB”H with the intent to be closer to him.
What you seem to miss is that HKB”H is present outside of the Beis Hamedrash. As the Rebbe of Kotzk once explained to his talmidim when he asked them where Hashem is, and they tried the lines of מלא כל הארץ כבודו, and לית אתר פנוי מיניה. He responded, “Wherever we let Him in.” If our preparation is with the true goal of Avodas Hashem, His presence exists with us throughout the process.
הכון לקראת ה’ אלקיך
While Chassidim appear to give this greater emphasis, the concept of preparing oneself for tefiloh applies to all. And there are different views of precisely what constitutes this הכנה. Among Chassidim, it is close to universal that going to mikvah is part of this הכנה. Others focus on Torah study, others, on tzedokoh. All of these are true, and the variability is by culture and minhag. It is quoted from the Sar Shalom of Belz that eating something before davening, if needed to provide one with the needed energy, is a mandated part of הכנה. He included even washing to bread. IO doubt that this was a psak given for the public, but the concept was clear. I suggest that the הכנה might be considered part of the tefiloh, and as long as this was begun in the requisite zman, one might be justified. Just an effort to find a bit of zechus, not my preference.
However, what I witness is people arriving to shul hours late, then spending time schmoozing, drinking coffee, sometimes talking on their phones. And then they daven at quite late hours. Such scenes bother me. I cannot speak for Hashem, but I would be irritated by someone that prioritizes all these other activities and interests over mine.
GH:
Are the Dems also proposing giving chimps drivers licenses and voting rights? Or is this just their push for Medicare for all?
A sign shaming the tigers.
When you encounter tigers that can read, please make sure to put up such a sign. Until then, these creatures, in captivity, are a source of entertainment, and allow me to stand in awe of some quite interesting features of Hashem’s creation.
Not sure, though the question is whether the bullying is an action that is permitted. It is without question that those engaged in these dangerous and offensive habits well deserve the shame.
But the real question that should be in focus is whether there is a heter according to halacha to engage in these behaviors. That has been debated here numerous times, and probably should not be repeated except for the links to previous threads. So except for the offensiveness, the fact that the halachos are being violated publicly may be a point of discussion – can public shaming be employed as a form of rebuke.
Perhaps some of the CR resident poskim can weigh in on this.
devny:
The Mussar movement was a wonderful thing. But like any tool, it can be used improperly. It is also like any map. If not consulted, it becomes useless. I studied in yeshivos, and we had a mussar seder. It was empty ritual. The alternative was to make sifrei mussar an academic study. Seforim and sedarim are terrific. But until there is applied mussar, the beauty of the seforim and sedarim remains hidden.
Reb Eliezer:
One of the fundamental differences between man and animal is the ability to think. Humans can contemplate a sense of purpose, plan actions, withhold innate and instinctual desires, and make decisions based on a wide variety of bases, including the projection to the future and the outcomes. Those who are swallowed in a hedonistic, pleasure driven lifestyle are hardly better than lower forms of animal life.
It is with a most powerful message that we are told of the severity of הרהורי עבירה and the great value of הרהורי תשובה.
Note that every single physical desire has an end point at which the desire is gone, usually to return after a period of latency. One can only eat a certain amount, after which one is satiated and no longer hungry. Yet, those desires that reside in the brain do not have such an end point. They are, for lack of a better word, infinite. One can remain stuck in them until exhaustion. One of the dangers of הרהורי עבירה is this lack of limits. Even if one doesn’t end up acting upon them, they have captured the consciousness and the control over one’s mental faculties. And the yetzer horah insures that the draw to these הרהורי עבירה never wanes. Once inside, the yetzer horah proudly proclaims, “Gotcha”. This would be quite a solid explanation for the statement of the Baal Akeida.
It is also a statement of warning we should give ourselves, with as much repetition as needed. The yetzer horah is insidious. Of course we can run around banning everything in sight. But the yetzer is crafty enough to find a way inside. What we should never abandon is the quest to build our Yetzer Hatov to a point of strength at which we no longer need to engage in battle to remain Ovdei Hashem. I pray that Elul helps us become proper recipients of the messages of teshuvah and connection to Hashem, which can then last through the days afterwards when we return to the daily life of nisyonos.
Reb Eliezer:
Quite true. My point, which I think you get, is that the inner strength is the greatest ingredient needed to fight off the nisyonos of life. All the externals, as much as we might believe they are needed, do not compare.
A trivial point. The Medrash you quoted is one of those that is quoted liberally, and its veracity is not challenged. However, to date, there is absolutely no known reference for this in Medrash or any other source in Chazal. If you know one, share it. It would be a zechus for the public to know the source.
Come on. We need to discuss this with some maturity. Certainly there are nisyonos with the internet. That is undeniable. And there are ways to cope with them. If we spent our time banning everything just because there are challenges, we would need to put a moratorium on life. Existing without nisyonos is the mission of mankind, and that is the intent of HKB”H in His creation. And He placed us here to survive in that environment. And this environment has undergone massive changes over time, which is attested to throughout Torah. Today’s challenge in the use of technology and its role in overtaking so much of today’s life.
So, yes, HKB”H invented the internet, not different from the inventions that succeeded throughout the thousands of years since Bri’as Haolam. HKB”H doesn;t make bad things. He makes things which present us with the task of overcoming resistance to follow His will, perform mitzvos, and become closer.
All these discussions about the external challenges and nisyonos seem to omit the most important element. When we are small, the smaller challenges overwhelm us, and our risk of falling prey is greater. When we function at a higher madraigoh, these nisyonos pose much less risk. Now, let’s address the least popular thought. How do we score in the eyes of Hashem as successful Ovdei Hashem? Don’t bore me with descriptions of anything external, Clothing do not matter, nor do chumros. Even the intense experiences of a great drosho, mussar schmooze, or a terrific tefiloh. Nor do the huge amounts of tzedokoh, or the roles as guest of honor at fundraising dinners for the most worthy causes. All mitzvos count, but the true tzidkus is about our closeness to Hashem, and how much emphasis we place, in our heart of hearts, on our mission to connect to Him and emulate His midos. This element is blind to the score we would get on a bechinah in Gemora. It is blind to the dollar figures given to tzedokoh. It is blind to the extent of chumros we follow with regards to kashrus, tznius, shiurim, cholov Yisroel, etc. It doesn’t rate us on our exterior appearance (that’s correct, the white shirt doesn’t really matter). None of these say anything true about our closeness to Hashem. Neither does the crying during davening Roah Hashanah and Yom Kippur. What does more to define our reality is what we take away from our Elul, our Yomim Noraim, our performance of mitzvos all year round. What sort of dwelling do we provide for HKB”H Who wants his Shechinah to reside in our hearts?
When we accomplish our building of the interior, we would simply take note of the nisyonos, develop our strategies to cope, and move on with our lives of Avdus Hashem. It is sad that we are obsessed with the judgment of objects and technology while diverting our energy from a far greater purpose, our mission in our existence. I would hope that Elul would awaken us to focus inwardly. But threads like this (yes, a few others that are active now) are busy with the trivia. I know that internet and smartphones are issues. Most certainly. But if we allow ourselves to remain encased in the concrete of obliviousness to the reality of our creation, all that will change is the labels for these nisyonos. I seek to accomplish more this Elul than discuss whether we should ban technology.
Syag:
You are beginning to sound like the “activists” whose agenda avoids helping the kids, treating victims, or promoting prevention. It sounds a lot more like attacking the molesters. In one sense, I agree with you. I have not a single word to protect a molester. I do not wish for their support, and I daven that Klal Yisroel should be rid of these plagues.
But then, you wrote this statement: “Then tell me, what kind of a Yid with NO facts supports the molester? ” I cannot say that there is no one that tries to support a molester. It is not just sad but tragic that there are those that do exactly that. Not me. Let them rot. But the issue at hand is the accusation that creates the virtual truth of the molester. Both halacha and secular law require guilt to be proven. The accusation asks the question, and then there is a process that is mandatory in order to arrive at an answer. But in today’s world, the very raising of the question is accepted as the answer, with NO facts to support it. I am not saying this to protect a molester. I am insisting that there be some verification that the individual is a molester before we trash him, destroy his life and that of his family. And the liberal attitudes that have sneaked their way into our community do what the activists scream – first destroy the accused person, then waste the time on the trial (since the verdict was already implemented). If that is what you are saying, then we part ways. I will not be part of the destruction heaped on an innocent person. I am not even entering the beis din versus secular court issue. The accusation must be credible with some evidentiary basis before I support the kinds of actions promoted by the activists.
And, again, the new law invites this type of injustice.
smerel:
Did you watch the Kavanaugh hearings? There were several women reporting having been victims of Judge Kavanaugh. There was no evidence produced at all. The DemocRats y”sh pronounced this innocent, honorable man a rapist. Later, every single accuser was found to have fabricated the accusations for political reasons, once there was evidence to the contrary. You don’t see that reported in the MSM because they continue to wear the masquerade as honest reporters. But the believability of the victim is basically guaranteed, even when the statements are completely false. That’s the corruption of the @MeToo mentality.
There is zero amount of denial about accusations of molestation that are accepted as possibly true. There is something very wrong with that. Sometimes, an accuser needs to wait for HKB”H to manage His affairs, and we need to leave it up to Him. I shudder that the accusations will be believed simply because they are spoken. And I do hope that perpetrators get the maximum consequences possible. I am not protecting them at all. I just cannot tolerate using the justice system as a weapon. And that is what the current law invites.
AJ:
No strawman. Courts require a burden of proof. True. But at the end of the proceedings, all the old cases will result in the accuser saying he did it and the alleged perpetrator saying he did not do it. In the legal sense, there has not been evidence or other proof, and the case should end in acquittal (I know this is in civil, not criminal court, and I am only borrowing the term). But in the climate of today, the alleged victim is always believed (the @MeToo baloney), and the juries will make awards. That is problematic. The accusation is accepted as if it is evidence, and the denial is dismissed as lying. In the absence of the insane awards of money, there will be the opportunity to destroy someone’s reputation. That is dinei nefashos. That should be done with actual proof, not the MeToo attitude.
Syag:
I am with you about the denial that has existed for decades about the problem. The reason we have the challenge that confronts us all today, with cases for which the statute of limitations expired long ago is because the behavior was present then. No, it was probably not rampant or epidemic, as many of the fanatics claim, but even a single instance is one too many. The denial was tragic, and the protection of the abusers was also tragic. The pendulum belongs somewhere in the middle, and in neither of the extremes.
Joseph:
I have also argued the point about false accusations. If you have ever debated with the “advocates”, you have certainly found them passionate about their position. I have struggled with their focus on the prosecution of those accused, noting that they have publicized things and destroyed lives of innocent people, long before there was any form of process to ascertain responsibility or guilt. But this passion exacts a huge cost. It blinds to fact and truth, and it “justifies” any collateral damage that results from the process. I found the advocates need only a name to use as their banner, with zero regard for unproven accusations. When I state this, their passion turns into blind rage. “No one makes false accusations!” Tell that to Brett Kavanaugh.
When I say to take whatever measures are necessary to protect children, they retort that I must adopt their approach to pursue relentlessly the accused to destroy them. When I tell them that a specific incident, while a serious problem, was isolated, they pressure me to insist that the accused is a serial molester, and that my position suggests that I don’t care about kids. Yet, these “advocates” refused to participate in any of the prevention efforts launched by several organizations, as it did not jive with their agenda.
The current law invites false accusations. It comes in a climate that anyone who can produce a story will be rewarded, without a scintilla of evidence beyond their report. After all, who can find evidence from 30 years ago. It’s free money. I bet there are many who have resentments against their yeshivos (and I do not disbelieve such resentments). Now there is an avenue for retribution, where the burden of proof is essentially lifted. It risks becoming, as I labeled it in an earlier comment, a “circus of monetary awards”.
So the advocates had a point, which was really tiny, that the percentage of false accusations was rather small. I still feel that a burden of proof was necessary. And to buy into the utter stupidity of the @metoo mentality is a stoop to the intellect level of a tree stump. But with the ancient stuff rising, the invitation to fabricate is powerful, and potentially destructive. As much as the dishonesty is unacceptable, the fact that it will eventually cost the believability of true victims is a real disaster.
And you are spot on labeling this dinei nefashos.
Syag:
I am actually an avid supporter of victims (or survivors), and I have worked with many of them for many years in a variety of capacities. This is besides for quite a few years of formal study of the field. I made simple statement. Pleasure does not counteract pain. No, I was not minimizing the magnitude of gratification a victim might get from watching his perpetrator get a long prison sentence or other punishments. All I said was that this is not the formula to resolve the problem. Yes, there should be confrontation. Yes, the victim should experience some form of closure to put the trauma into a place in history that no longer affects his life. The invalidation that has been so rampant is horrible, and this must change drastically (it has begun to change, but that fails to help the one who was victimized and invalidated). I have supported personal confrontations with the asking of mechila, providing both parties were ready for that. As useful as one would hope this is, it accomplishes just a little to aid in the healing. These type meetings are rare, mostly because either the victim or the perp is unready for it, and conducting a charade is futile, and sometimes a repeat form of abuse. And I still would push for financial compensation. All that troubles me is the circus of outrageous monetary awards that will only bankrupt yeshivos (for actions that predate the involvement of the current administrations and faculties) and still not accomplish healing for the victims.
Health:
No attacks needed, nor do I take them seriously. One might be able to do the civil divorce first. It is not common practice, and is very much the exception to the rule in NY.
As for the sofer plus eidim, I stated that Joseph was correct. It is seldom done quite that way, because people who expect to remarry prefer to have something that has documentation that is accepted elsewhere. I have letters from well known batei din that certify that they will NOT recognize gittin performed by particular rabbanim. Same goes for geirus. If giyur was done in a manner that was certainly kosher, but the beis din involved is not known in another location, the rabbonim there may reject recognizing the geirus until it is done again by someone they recognize. I have first hand experience with that. Yes, the sofer with eidim can be kosher. But how will the rabbonim or beis din elsewhere know that?
Syag:
Validation and confrontation have their benefits. Money does not. And I am not protecting the pocketbooks of the perps or enablers. All I am saying is that there is a problem, but that this doesn’t solve it. Providing the victims with money may gratify them in other ways, not much different from a good steak dinner or their favorite ice cream. And their pleasure might be nice. But it won’t resolve their problem. Pleasure does not erase pain, and it is not the solution. As for the validation and confrontation piece, it would be at least as useful, if not much more, to have the ability to press criminal charges.
Joseph:
You wrote: A Get requires neither a rabbi nor a Beis Din. All a Get requires is a Sofer and two eidim.
That is correct. Now, this woman receives her get. Who will verify that everything was done in accordance with halacha? She will probably want to remarry. Would you accept her for a daughter-in-law? Or would you want to know that someone with the halachic expertise verifies the get as kosher? That is why it is common practice to use a beis din (either a sitting BD, Zabl”a, or the get BD I described). The kashrus of the get affects the husband as well, as he has the Cherem DeRabbeinu Gershom issue over his head. Unless he got the heter meah rabbonim, the get needs to be known to be kosher.
CTL:
The system you describe might work, but there are drawbacks. I know virtually nothing about your state. But in NY, there is a get law. This requires the obstacles for remarriage be removed prior to the civil divorce. And the typical beis din requires a resolution of the affairs by agreement or by beis din arbitration prior to the get. This is not mandated by law or halacha, but one would need to have his head examined if proceeding to the get without an agreement.
Any beis din with a moral compass will inquire whether there had been effort to reconcile before proceeding with the get. There is just variability how much of an issue they make of this. And one side will often prevent the get from proceeding quickly with the array of delay tactics, among which is the “I prefer shalom bayis – let’s go for therapy”.
But to be clear, there are instances in which a couple makes a mutual decision to part ways, reaches agreement on all issues with minimal fanfare, and seeks a “quick get”. And my experience suggests there are several batei din around that accommodate that quite well. There is also a phenomenon often called a “get beis din” which is convened to accomplish only the get itself. It avoids all the litigation that keeps many other batei din busy. This tends to be the sofer who serves as a dayan, and two others who join in to complete the beis din of 3.
Philosopher:
Phil:
Syag:I happen to be quite up to date on the research, and I still challenge any of you to provide a single citation that supports your belief that these awards of money and punishments result in clinical benefit to the victim. You are correct in noting that the perps and those who protected them deserve punishment. I’m not crying a single tear for any of them. My focus is on what helps. Some of you might invoke to concept of deterrence. Don’t. It doesn’t work. Every one of these menuvalim was aware that if they got caught, they would be in a whale of trouble. None of these menuvalim considered the risks of consequences because they lack consequential thinking. That’s old news.
Precisely who determines what is an appropriate punishment? A jury of 12? I would absolutely obligate every dime that was expended for therapy to be reimbursed. There could also be calculations for other forms of loss, and those should be compensated in full. There was certainly severe damage done, and Torah recognizes the obligations to pay for damages. But how are these calculated? I would be open to proposals. These compensations are not punishments. Again, I don’t give a hoot if these perps and their protectors get punished. They deserve it. But is that in our hands to mete out?
The lawsuits permitted by this law are only about money. Nothing opened up to press criminal charges. And doing something to remove the perps from society is far more advantageous than the money business. It is useful to the victims to never have to encounter them again (although they could relocate to some obscure location). It is more important that they are kept away from society, not just the victim. Bizyonos is also not the answer, even though these menuvalim earned it.
AJ:
I have a question for you. You state a Brooklyn Yeshiva paid a 2.1 million dollar settlement for two victims. I happen to know some details about that yeshiva and the allegations, and I have no reason to either believe their innocence, or to protect them in any way. But that notwithstanding, what was accomplished with the payout? Are the victims healed? Have their trauma effects been mitigated in any way. Did the nightmares stop? How about the anxiety or fears? Did the money solve anything for them?
There is a simple answer. They got revenge, and the moments of joy from the suffering of the yeshiva, its administration, and perhaps the well deserved bizyonos of the perpetrator. But there has not been a single instance of symptom relief to the victims, not from putting them in jail, not rendering them jobless and unemployable, not from money payouts. I am not defending or protecting the molesters. I am directly challenging the notion that revenge has any clinical benefit to the victim. The molesters can rot somewhere away from society, and this protects the public. I support that. But the obsession with lawsuits is both bloodthirsty and greedy. I know today’s world buys that. But I am a rebel here, and believe this is unfair. No, I don’t look to punish molesters. Just protect society. If that means decades in prison, send them. But money solves none of the relevant problems. And such settlements and awards might well punish the wrong people.
GH:
You are not being realistic. There is a huge percentage of the community that earns too little to pay tuition, especially if it is not discounted. Are you leaving these kids out to dry?
There is a desperate need to create mechanisms, other than bankrupting yeshivos, to insure that each child is placed appropriately. One should not shop for yeshivos to locate the cheapest one as one would do for a car or a piece of furniture. Yeshivos should not need to advertise in the media by quoting their tuition prices to compete. That’s absurd. I don’t think there is an easy answer. But your suggestion is so ridiculous it is sad.
Joseph:
You are correct. There should be No Child Left Behind. You are stuck in the ideal. There is a different reality on the ground, which displeases me greatly. The Public School system is a system. If a child a cannot attend School #1, he can go to School #2. They are all under a single umbrella, and the responsibility is not the individual school. And that system is taxpayer funded. Not so the yeshivos. Our yeshivos are private enterprises which compete. If a child is not accepted by Yeshiva #1, there is nothing that presses admission to Yeshiva #2. Nothing. No one accepts the responsibility to insure that every child has a yeshiva. No one. Our community has generous people who volunteer time and effort, without remuneration, to place children in yeshivos. While I doubt the common reason for the difficulty is finances, I bet that happens, too. We should never need such services, but sadly we do. The frequent comment from menahalim regarding such a child is, “Why should I accept that tzoroh? Let someone else do it.”
The reality is that we have a culture of very poor families, and that many will suffer the consequences. I am not justifying the rejection of a Jewish child. I am stating that the system of competing yeshivos, that are competing for reputation and the limited amount of funds available is reality. Changing that would be welcome, but that is a fantasy. And I doubt that the intervention of the richest benefactors would accomplish the goal of revamping the “system”.
Joseph:
I was once extreme in my opinion about this, as you seem to be. But there is a harsh reality that I do not need to face as an outsider to the office of the school. I do not need to pay their bills. I will not be the one cornered by the electric company when the bill goes unpaid, and I will not be the target when the gas bill, the mortgage, and salaries of the faculty and staff fall into default. Who pays the bills? Some years ago, there was a bit more generosity among state and local governments. Not any more. Now what? This is a dilemma. Arguing one side of that equation is a dishonest debate. That’s why I suggest there be some creative minds here to brainstorm for ideas, as the traditional approaches seem to have failed.
Throwing kids out is intolerable. I will refer you to discussions at conventions of Torah Umesorah where the subject has been raised several times, and I recall hearing a recording of one of those presentations. The Roshei Yeshivos were unanimously against expelling a student for inability to pay, and the intensity of their resistance to the practice is amplified when the matter involves midyear. Exceptions for end of year expulsions can be made under specific situations, where the family has obviously spent sizable sums of money for optional luxuries, such as overseas travel vacations, purchasing expensive new cars, and still failed to address the outstanding tuition balances.
Aside from the throwing out of kids, the shaming of children is a tool used way too often in chinuch (sometimes by parents, more often by mechanchim). There is no heter according to halacha for this. Some of the greatest of Gedolim addressed this subject, with minimal impact. Emotional murder, spiritual murder, and physical murder are quite similar in the severity of the issurim involved. Any of these done for financial reasons is a good reason for someone to be expelled from chinuch as a career.
Is there a citation for the remark by Reb Moshe Feinstein ZT”L? I am curious what the details of this situation were, and the degree to which he intended this comment to be general.
Now to my comments.
Every yeshiva will have its own formula for its income, tuition, government funds, charitable funds, etc. What works for one may not be the same for another. Yeshivos establish their tuition scales based on the degree of dependence they carry on tuition for their income and operations. To the best we can tell, yeshivos, at least a majority, operate in the red, and struggle with many of their expenses. Some prioritize salaries for faculty, others do not. And most rebbeim and teachers are seriously underpaid. Periodically, the faculty that is behind on receiving paychecks make enough noise to compel the administration to take extra steps to insure they get paid. This is common, and not fun for anyone. Just how many online campaigns for yeshivos did you receive requests and donated? So the lack of adequate funding is pretty much standard.
Now the rub. Fund raising is a gamble, and some do it well, others less so. If there is already a commitment for someone to pay, it stands to reason that this debt should be paid. As earlier comments noted, it is usually the parents that have less and are already struggling themselves that bear the brunt of this pressure. And the only force the yeshivos know is to block entry to the kids. That’s their clout. I think this is cruel and unusual punishment, directed at a purely innocent child, and extremely destructive. The absence from yeshiva is nasty, the shame heaped on children is tantamount to murder, and the whole campaign is ill conceived. Yeshivos do it because they can, not because it’s right or moral.
My income was seasonal, and I had agreements with the administration before the school year that I would not be subjected to this strong arm tactic. And the schools were never without a fully paid balance by year’s end. But they had lied, and did it anyway. This required me to take time off work. No phone calls helped. And even really small outstanding balances prompted the same treatment, as if the greed for the few dollars owed was a valuable lesson for the school.
I suggest that some creative minds propose methods that are better routed in morality, better conceived to avoid use of shame, better focused on the use of education rather than the blockade, that can enable yeshivos to manage their finances without the need to bully parents. I don’t have the answers. I just know that this method is unacceptable.
Doom:
You got a big problem. You are trying to push your theories, conspiracy based, and hope there are enough suckers out there to buy into them. No, the government did not proclaim vaccines as dangerous. At least stick with truth to base your argument. There is a reality here which I suspect you will deny. The current measles outbreak resulted from exposure, and this created a ruckus in locations where there are swarms of kids. It led to a huge spike in numbers of cases in heavily concentrated areas, with the predicted complications. With all your theory, we had statistically large numbers of people at risk. Public health officials need to address such issues from the theoretical view, where they look at the predictability of the illness. During an outbreak, the basis for their actions and policies changes.
No, I do not buy into a penny of your anti-vax theories, and neither do the overwhelming majority of rabbonim and scientists of all specialties. But what you are peddling is inapplicable during an outbreak, and I wish you and the rest of your ilk would just lay down the gauntlet till this all passes.
DD:
You’re back at this again. I have read your analysis of the research, and can engage in interpreting things differently, perhaps even disputing the findings. But I won’t engage in that. It’s bitul Torah, and the parshiyos we are reading now are way too interesting and packed with wealth to sit and rehash the old debates.
All I say is that there is an overwhelming mass of scientists that reach an opposite conclusion, and they are not all being bribed by big pharm. I accept the mainstream conclusion and have no interest in your slant.
Lightbrite:
I found your question humorous, and I first wondered whether you were being serious or sarcastic.
In reality, adults are responsible for themselves, not each other, not anyone else. If someone goes downward, or falls in madraigo, it is their own bechira involved in responding to the challenges of the environment, which may involve others’ behavior. But I found several statements equally appalling, and am serious in questioning whether a real Rav said these things.
“Rabbonim speak of how a wife can bring down a husband’s Yiddishkeit and closeness to Hashem.” Really? Who are these rabbonim, and how did they say this? How can anyone kidnap someone away from closeness to Hashem?
“If a man is struggling in Yiddishkeit, is it always the wife’s fault?” Are you joking? So who says viduy on Yom Kippur – only married women, but not their husbands? What ever happened to bechira?
“Recently, I had a Rav talk to me about how a wife is responsible for her husband’s mitzvah observance. ” So all men’s aveiros are attributable to women? When they divorce, do the women recite “Boruch Sheptorani”? This statement cannot possibly come from anyone who deserves a leadership position in Klal Yisroel who is purportedly a talmid chochom. Are women supposed to be mashgichim over their husbands’ davening with minyan, kviyas ittim, and shmiras einayim? That’s utterly insane, and found nowhere in the Torah. If you can find something relevant in any Torah source, please share it, with citation instead of anonymity. No one says that there is no influence by a spouse, but this never did or will usurp the bechira and responsibility of any Jew anywhere.
Posing such a question might not be disrespectful if asked innocently. But I would personally be embarrassed to ask a question based on a premise that tests the limits of absurdity.
Honest & DD:
Are either of you trained in the sciences to know anything about how to interpret research? Well, I am, and have actually conducted research myself. Syag is correct on this, while you two have reached a foregone conclusion and are desperate to find something scientific to base it on. What you two are touting is junk science, and has been proclaimed as such my numerous experts, whose level you could not achieve in another few lifetimes. You may choose to believe the snake oil purveyors of the world together with all the conspiracy theories. But don’t sell us the “scientific” stuff. You simply don’t understand it, and you embarrass yourselves by projecting a false image of basing your beliefs on “science”.
Abba:
Don’t be ridiculous. This is not about personal hate. It is silly to characterize it as such. No one is dehumanizing people for not being vaccinated. They are free to make their stupid choices, just not at the expense of others. Their ideology poses risk to others. We can debate the ideology, but the matter at hand is the public health issue. And NYS has every right to exercise its responsibility to protect the student populations. It only diminishes Torah learning if you want that to occur. You are obsessed with the fatal error of invoking Torah here, which is מגלה פנים בתורה שלא כהלכה.
You draw attention to the home schooling issue, noting how complicated it would be. Either put up or shut up. You may choose to keep your kids home and educate them there, but that is not my responsibility. It would be yours. And the government would provide tutors, at the very best, for secular subjects. It would be insane to expect government to cross church-state lines and provide tutors for Limudei Kodesh.
As far as which diseases should be the focus for banning unvaxxed kids from school, it would be wise to defer to the public health experts on that. Your perception of risk may have no overlap with what they know from scientific study. Stick with subjects where you actually have knowledge.
Abba:
You wrote: “The state can’t force them to vaccinate if they claim they are not doing it for religious purposes. ”
Stop it. You are out of line according to Torah by insisting that it is a religious issue when it is not. Is it a mitzvah to drive a Toyota? You might feel it is unacceptable for the dealer to charge you so much for a new car that is outside of your range. and that he is denying you the right to own a car, as if there is some sort of Torah obligation to provide you with one.
Whatever my opinion about vaxxing is, you are blasphemous to claim that you have a Torah given privilege to make that choice.
Take it from the Gedolim: There is ZERO basis in Torah to avoid vaxxing. It may your preference. But there is NO religious exemption here.
Abba:
Come on. You’re sounding foolish. The issue is not about the anti-vax kids getting an education. It is about them posing public health risks in public places. You should have enough smarts to understand that. Don’t change the truth by pushing a fictional narrative. Frankly, if we want to hear that kind of junk, we would just read and watch the media where they broadcast and report the inane drivel from AOC and her squad.
The mod was perfectly correct. There is NO religious exemption in Torah Law. It is nothing more than buying into an ideology of fake science. It is your privilege to do that. It is not okay when you create risk for anyone else. And it just might be an issur to deny that protection to your children. So, cut it out. If you want to make a good argument and have a debate or discussion, begin with some truth.
Some Chassishe Rebbes are. Just check out the many photos of them, many of which appear on the pages of YWN.
YY:
Foreign aid is not tzedokoh. It is always to satisfy a vested interest. US benefits greatly from Israel, and in a variety of ways. It is in America’s best interests to support Israel. If your memory of Obama is near accurate, we witnessed someone who denied that, and limited support in many ways. Fortunately, Congress spoke up bipartisan, and Obama was forced to sign bills of financial support. But the optimism was short lived, as he found ways to condemn Israel at every opportunity, refused to condemn Arab terror until days later and mountains of pressure, and he looked for means to funnel monies to the terrorists all through the Middle East. He sold Israel down the river with the Iran deal, and threw Israel under the bus with one of biggest financial donations to Iran in world history, fully aware that Iran supports terror.
It is not about blocking foreign aid. But to just send money because there is poverty there is foolish. Remember donating to the Clinton Foundation because of Haiti? The Haitians testified many times that they never received a dime. You need to know your target is reached, and that you are taking steps to resolve a problem.
YY:
You take absurdity to new heights. You have a tiny point that the improvement in the poverty situation in Central America would likely result in smaller numbers of asylum seekers. But the US has enough poverty of its own to worry about before seeking to address foreigners. They are not our problem. There are quite a few charities that raise money for poor people in other countries, and you are free to support them. But our government has no obligation to take care of citizens of other countries before our own. Humanitarian aid wasn’t reaching its targets because of the political situation there, and Trump did the most reasonable thing.
חייך קודמין.
Amil:
That’s what I advocate. We Americans, who appreciate our country and the values upon which it was founded, need to address the problem of these rogue politicians in the way designated by the Constitution.
1 – Pursue the actions that were uncovered in investigations that suggest that these squad members are far from guilty of crimes. If that is not enough to impeach them or to lock them up, then it will serve as a strong basis for a candidate to unseat them in their next shot at elected office.
2 – We should apply effort to insure that there are viable candidates from either party that will be well funded to launch campaigns against them now. These campaigns that would give the rogues a run for their money should hopefully distract them from their anti-Trump obsession, from their endless bills that are anti-American, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic, anti-law enforcement, and anti-open borders, and their dishonesty being splattered all over the media. Then we would hope to see these candidates get into office, and put a full stop on the socialist rebellion that will destroy the independence we hold so dear.
CTL:
I think your emotions blinded you to the obvious. ICE is enforcing immigration law. That’s their mandate. It was so under Obama y”sh, and will remain so. Among their tasks is to deport those who have such orders from a court. That court already involved due process, so no one can challenge the legitimacy of the deportation order. The current “sweep” is to implement those orders. Interfering with that is to promote lawlessness. If someone disagrees with the law, then the thing to do is to change the law via Congress.
There are also other tasks that are the mandate of ICE. That includes to apprehend those who are here illegally. Those cases will be processed, and some will be dismissed, others will proceed. Have you ever been pulled over by a police officer for a traffic offense? Sometimes this results in a citation, which is a summons to appear in court, with an option to plead guilty and pay the fine. But you have the option of going to court to defend yourself. Other times, you interact with the officer, explain yourself, and can be dismissed with no consequence. That’s the rule of law. ICE can and should question anyone that it believes may be here illegally. In fact, any police officer should do so, if not for the liberal disease. And if you are okay, wonderful. If not, your luck ran out. That’s not collateral damage. That’s law enforcement doing its job. If your papers are not in order, you won’t get deported. You’ll get your day in court.
CTL:
You doth think too much. The sweep is to round up those with deportation orders and enforce the law. I may feel bad that an Israeli happens to have broken the law and gets sent home. That’s too bad. There are legal ways to remain in the US. They do require some effort, but the situation is not really that bad. And the immigration system requires overhaul, including the laws. This is not about Trump. It is about the Dems deciding that they want to interfere with anything Trump does.
Joseph:
You wrote: “Certainly gender does play a large role in one’s qualifications for a job. To deny that is to r”l deny the Torah, which unambiguously defines gender roles. Advocating a position of gender-neutrality is emulating the Mitzrim who forced men to do women’s jobs and forced women to do men’s jobs.”
That’s not my point. You cast me as a feminist, and I am not at all advocating gender neutrality on many things. The Torah specifies responsibilities of men and women, and that supersedes anything. I never implied that I would overrule that. No, a woman cannot be a rov, nor should she learn Torah as proscripted by Chazal. And I would never stomach the swapping of roles between men and women. I know my thinking might sometimes get on your nerves, but I do not ever side with absurdity. The reality is that there are countless matters that have zero involvement with gender, and introducing that as a factor becomes an obstacle. For instance, can you provide me any rational basis to limit voting to men? I am not receptive to the notion of “that’s how we do things around here”. Can a woman be a doctor or lawyer? Why not? Should a woman have a job outside the home? I am as aware as you about כל כבודה בת מלך פנימה. But that did not stop דבורה הנביאה from sitting under the tree. (I doubt the tree was in her living room.) Is it okay for the men to sit in kollel and send their wives to work to support them? What about כל כבודה?
Yes, there are things that are gender specific. And there are things that are not. Today, most matzo bakeries have men working there. The gemora speaks openly about women baking the matzos. Wow! They worked outside the home! Don’t cram into my statement nonsense that was not intended.
This entire discussion is weird. One’s qualifications to do public service are not determined by gender, race, or anything else. They are inclusive of one’s experience, set of skills, and desirability based on positions relevant to politics. It happens that culture does determine, to whatever degree, the roles of men versus women, and this changes the pools from which public servants will be chosen.
Frankly, I have witnessed quite a number of women, racial minorities, etc. who were eminently qualified to represent me in government. Just the same, there were quite a few who were disastrous. Shall we spare the sharing of names of those in elected office who are brain dead, or espouse policies that are totally destructive? There are men taking such positions whose morality and intellect are similarly deficient or absent. Same goes for races.
I fail to understand how a thread on this subject got so long, as to extend to a second page.
PuhLease:
A bit of correction is needed. Pharmacological solution is an option for many conditions and diseases in which there is a chemical substrate. Yet, there are times where even with this, there can be mind over matter. However, making general statements fails every time. Each case must be judged on its own merit. Some kids are resilient, and cope with difficulties, others are not and cannot. To the degree that the chemistry is the culprit, the meds will do the trick. What we need to recognize is that patterns of behavior develop as a result, and these may be incompatible with educational progress. That’s the role of therapy, aside from helping with those aspects of the condition that are not affected by the medication.
It should be unnecessary to stress that treatment with medications should only be performed by someone with proper training and expertise. For that reason, I am rather untrusting of the average non-psychiatrist physician regarding prescribing many of the medications intended to treat a mental health condition.
Misty:
You bring out a crucial point. It is too often that the use of meds for ADHD and its variants is with the purpose of molding the child to the school. And Shlomo Hamelech, in Mishlei tells us that this is opposite of what we should be doing – accommodating the chinuch to the child.
Having noted this, it is important that we remember that ADHD exists on a spectrum, with variations in symptoms and severity. Meds without other interventions is of minimal value. And there are cases in which going without meds is close to useless. There is an individual decision to make for each and every case. I recall a number of years ago when there were debates in our orthodox media, ADHD – pro- or anti- using medications. My reaction at that time was to laugh. It’s like pro or anti oil change. Either you need it or you don’t. It takes careful evaluation to know whether it is indicated or not, and this is also not with 100% consensus where to draw the line. Using meds without the real need is foolish, and actually caries some risk. These discussions about the general approach lack the needed individualized approach.
Yeshivish:
Good point. Many of these kids should be medicated. And some should definitely not. Here’s the rub. Who ends up making decisions on this question? I am comfortable with an educator (providing that he/she has had some training about the subject matter) asking a question – this child needs to be evaluated and there needs to be a plan for how to handle the situation to maximize the child’s success in school. The professional makes the ultimate decision, not the school or its staff. When yeshivos threaten mothers to keep their kids at home until they are medicated, resulting in these mothers doing their best to push the pediatricians, we have kids who might not need medication getting it.
No teacher, rebbe, principal, or menahel should ever develop the treatment plan for a child. They need to be ready to create a learning environment that will benefit the child. This can be a huge challenge at times, and more yeshivos are taking keen interest in working to do this.
In short, medication is the answer to certain problems and not for others. Who is assessing the situation and making the intervention plan?