Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
complaining that there is nothing new is also something that gets rehashed again and again
spot
I assume you were talking to mentsch. while what he said was “so patently false” he was being sarcastic. He doesn’t really mean that this content if the height of maturity and not attention thinking.
Avira didnt say anything remotely false
Shimon
why would that be a question?
Why not?
Magen Avraham, Mishna Berura say drink is ok – obviously as one minOnly organisms and even them only organisms that are visible when born.
Gemra says it is mutar to kill a kinah on shabbos since it isnt born. Rishonim (eg Rashi) explain to mean they spontaneously generate though today the common interpretation is that as far as the eye can see (without microscopic aide) they seem spontaneously generate.
But certainly there is no issur to spray lysol although it is killing organisms or take antibiotics (as far as netilas neshama goes)“Since when is a rebbi off duty from being appropriate?”
Never!
Drinking on Purim though is not inappropriate. In fact it is entirely appropriate
Momma
you ask “Are you speaking of ALL Rabbeim? Do you know ALL Rabbeim???”
I completely agree with Avira.
While obviously he and I do not know “all Rabbeim” Ive visited enough on Purim (and I dont think Ive gone to the same yeshivos as Avira) . NEVER have any of the Rabbeim exhibited any unwanted behavior.
you ask “Imagine if you showed up to school drunk as a skunk? ” This is silly. surely you are familiar with Shlomo’ Hamelech’s L’kaol Zeman va’es Imagine if Rebbe showed up to yeshiva wearing slippers and then sat on the floor? Yet On Tisha’s baav that is what he does. There is a time for everything, yes being drunk on a random tuesday in school is very very inappropriate (bit of an understatement) , that has nothing to do wit h anything.What is a problem is underage drinking particularly when it gets out of hand. A teenager getting a shot from this Rebe and then a shot from that Rebbe. That can become a problem. But as for the Rabbeim themselves you are simply misinformed
UJM
I was literally going to say the same exact thing (though perhaps with a few typos)
SR
“Just because someone is married, that does not prove that he or she is “an expert”.”
for sure true. but that has nothing to dio with anything.
It would be weird for someone poor to give advice “how to become a millionaire” does that mean that EVERY millionaire can give such advice? Of course not some got lucky .
similarly it is weird for a old single bitter gut to give advice “how to get married” does that mean every married person has to what to offer on the subject? OF course not
Square
oy you have a low bar for “accomplishment”
Writing articles online? starting websites?You list as an accomplishment writing a book ” “How to Not Get Married: Break these rules and you have a chance”.” nu, so did the book work did he follow his advice?
now this point is better.
“Its hard to imagine an person with intelligence.”
Lol thats an admittedly funny “sentence”
MDG
I get that but it quickly turns into a long screed, with barely a coherent point.
Shidduch resumes are just a way to keep basic information about individuals straight. Nothing more nothing less. It is not reasonable to expect shadchanim to memorize where everyone who contacted them went to Yeshiva/seminary not to mention their phone numbers. So they are written down. that’s it . That’s all it is.
you don’t like it and want to only use people who know that stuff about you? no problem go for it. n o need to write over 3000 words about it.incidentally this was written in 2018. Presumably he followed his advice and got rid of his resume. did it help?
did A chatbot write this?
Its hard to imagine an person with intelligence.
I especially like complaining that we have shidduch resumes, but also that they are too short
Dr P
The bottom line is I don;t think free market could or should be in charge of healthcare
We have touched on many reasons here are a few:
1) Healthcare is largely not driven by supply and demand
2) The information asymmetry is close to insurmountable
3) When its an emergency you cant exactly price shop
4) Having a business decide who lives and who dies Is as you said “wrong, I agree”So If not the private sector who should run it?
t o that I say it should be the government.The response to that is one of two things:
A – Thats not the government’s role
B- A government run system wopuldnt workTo A I reply hear, I disagree but if you dont view it as the governments role. You favor “limited government” therefore havign a business run it even if it doesnt work because of the reaosns outlined above but “that’s how it needs to be ” I hear completely. disagree, but hear (though be prepared to explain why you give the government other roles like paying for education, roads defense etc I’m not saying you cant provide a difference you just need one)
To B my reply is well Private sector doesn’t work either. so lets make the government system work .
“This is morally wrong but he’s a businessman and makes business decisions. Had he approved all of the claims that were denied the company would either have gone out of business or had to raise premiums much higher than the competition and then gone out of business the next year. It’s wrong, I agree- but that’s how it needs to be in order for it to work.”
YES!!!!!
Though where we differ is if it is “morally wrong” as you agree then lets change it.
It doesnt “need to be” this way. Youve been tricked. It could and should be different.You say it is a business. Yes I get that I don’t blame him. But I think it SHOULDN’T Be a business that is PRECISLEY my point. As I’ve been saying from the beginning. Business leads to morally wrong decisions and outcomes (as you agree). Healthcare as a business doesn’t work.
The way you feel about the Physician who is doing his job same as the CEO. IS how I feel about both of them. Both of them are doing their jobs. Their job is to deny healthcare to people who need it .
“As I mentioned earlier, they cannot raise premiums at their whim and 80% or 85% of premiums must go to providers, any additional premiums collected are returned.”
Percentage alone isnt everything
The Ceo’s and Presidents of insurance companies get paid multiple millions of dollars At one Point Mark Bertoloni received almost 28 million dollars in one year. while running a company that denies claims that could have saved lives. That year I had spent months trying to get a CT scan approved for a patient wit ha suspicious lesion. Renal cell carcinoma is essentially curable if caught early enough before it spreads. by the time it was approved it had spread. (Admittedly there is no way to know for sure if it spread during that delay). The patient is dead now. the few thousand dollars his company should have spent in timely error is a rounding error in his salary. This is but one story I have dozens my colleagues have more.
The truth is I don’t fault him or the company. that is their job they profit by denying healthcare that is there entire business model. I fault the business model.
“As far as the story you mentioned is concerned- I hope that’s the exception and not the norm”
Thanks for reading it.
What I was most outraged about whas the physician who just rubber stamps what nurse had previously denied. what is the poitn of having a physician reviewer if he isnt actually reviewing it?You say you hope its the exception . It is a lot of exceptions close enough to being the norm . It is their business model . Yes they have t pay 85% that still leaves millions and million and millions for their top executives .
DrP
I’d like to apologize for accusing you of lying I did not mean to.
allow me to explain what I meant by backtracking.
With a lot of these “hot button” issues I think the main neukdas hamachlokes gets ignored in favor of more emotinal “fluff” points.
A great example of this is abortion. People get up in extreme cases of incest rape life in danger etc etc. The MAIN question is is fetus a life. Once that is settled most other points fall into place . Yet that point is often ignored, and peopel tend to jump to the extreme cases to make their point.wit hhealthcare the MAIN question in my opinion is what is the government’s role. Once that is settled we can discusss ways to make sure noone takes advantage. but the startign point is there. T ostart with a n extrem example of forcing Mr A to pay for Mr B is silly, Partly becasue that isnt a suggestion anyone is making and because it avoids the main question.
THAT was my point. (I get that you were intentionally starting with an extreme situation and planning to move it towards your specific situation.I didn’t want to leave yo uhanging so I answered your question that no MR A should not be forced to pay for MR B . you then asked abotu a thusand MR A’s paying for a Thousand Mr B’s
To which I replied (using my starting point) that I think EVERYBODY should pay for EVERYBODY. Even if it means raising taxes. Though a 10,000 tax increase was never going to happen.You said it did happen. But this was misleading. I did not call you a liar, but when yo usaid he did “exactly that” this was a mischaracterization The government under Obamacare DID NOT take over healthcare. They did not adopt what I think they should , a “Medicare for all plan” I have no interest in defending Obamacare. I realize that you were caught up on your specific point (which was about Mr. A and B) , and perhaps I was not clear. for that I apologize.
Before going though, please do read the stroy “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings”
Its not just that it highlights “a few bad apples” it exposes as the title suggests the inner workings of one of the largest healthinsurance companies. Comlete with audio clips, depostions of the Medical directors who are in charge of denieg care (in this case for one, but generally for hundreds a week!!!)DrP
The only point I said wasn’t true was this
““no politiican would dream of raising taxes that much (for the average worker who didnt get a 10 fold increase in salary .”
Do you recall a former President named Barak Hussein Obama? He did exactly that…”That wasn’t true. He didnt Do “EXACTLY THAT”
As you acknowledged in your post. I didnt say you were a liar, becasue you knew what you were saying, I would characterize it as misleading more than lying. I pointed out that what you were saying was “not true” it wasnt and isnt” from my point of view this thread has run its course”
Yep along time ago“I didn’t read the story you mentioned but I’ll agree with you that there can be some bad apples out there just like there is in any industry, that doesn’t mean that the insurance industry is rotten to the core”
you should read it.
I deal with insurance companies multiple times weekly (more often as a provider) . rotten to the core is an understatement“My point was specifically regarding the catastrophic consequences on hard working families caused by the ACA and I explicitly mentioned that.”
Yes I know. I understand that is your point.
“If you were referring to a different point can I respectfully suggest that you mention that ”
Sure! in one of my first comments to you
here it is:
“To be clear I’m not arguing. I think reasonable people can disagree. Your examples though are designed to bias and not really to inform.
If you maintain that it isn’t the Government’s job to get involved whether you worked out and saved (Mr A.) or didn’t (Mr. B) I understand that. I disagree (as to most people Even Trump running as a Republican promised to provide “the best healthcare plan” and Medicare is wildly popular )
But again I think people can disagree as to the role of government…”I am not talking about ACA specifically
rather about general role of govt.“I feel bad for you, it’s definitely not a good situation, but it seems like this issue is caused by your employer and providers,”
Yep, not just me thats the way it is in this country. My employer chooses my plan #Freedom! And I guess I have high premiums, no its not a frum place. Is there anything I can do about it. Again, not really.
AAQ
“Competition is the “thing” that typically stops suppliers from raising prices. Econ 101.”
Problem is after Econ 101 you need to take more advanced courses.
Many basic tenets of Econ 101 do not apply to healthcare.
Take the most basic tenet, that of supply and demand . In Econ 101 you are taught if strawberries are too expensive then people will stop eating strawberries and buy blueberries forcing the price of Strawberries to come down.
If stents become expensive its not like the demand for them (ie Heart attacks) will go down. Furthermore if someone is having a heart attack they can’t exactly shop around for the cheapest care.
Even if it ISN’t an emergency shopping around is almost impossible,. This experiment has been done. One of the most frequent reasons people go to a hospital is for childbirth. OF course there are occasionally complications, but generlaly the stay is pretty routine and predictable. Furthermore you have a 9 month headstart to plan where to give birth. You would think finding he cheapest place is straightforward. Yet it is near impossible. There was an attempt to chaneg this with the Hospital Price Transparency Law signed by President Trump, but it is still near impossible to find this information.
Furthermore there is a Knowledge discrepancy between you and the healthcare system, underming basic economic principals (which assume a level playing field). Yo ucan easily dewtermine the difference between strawberries and blueberries. IT is much harder to determine the difference between getting a few stents vs bypass surgery
DRp
“Again- you’re purposely totally missing the point.”
no, I’m mising YOUR point. yo uare trying to make this about Obamacare and your specific circumstance (not that I blame you)
reread my comments, I am not discussing Obamacare.“Complain to your employer if they keep switching insurers or complain to your doctor if he / she isn’t in enough networks…”
I did but they don’t care. and there is not much I cna do about it other than quit. and a system where you have to quit to keep your doctor is even crzier than finding a new doctor in my opinion.
“Yes, that would get me on board.”
Great We agree then!
Medicare for all!!! Huzzah“If you can’t afford a chasunah, you should not be in shidduchim.”
It is impossible to beleive that a ben Avraham V’Yitzchak could say something so insane..
To say you shouldnt have a chasuna ie just get married in shul with a minyan is one thing (it would be wrong but not crazy) .
But not to be involved in shiddduchim ??? impossible that a frum Jew could suggest such a thing“but my health insurance costs skyrocketed by around $10,000 a year.”
Yes health insurance companies are greedy. I hate them too. Not sure why you blame that on Obama.
If you dont mind my asking what was the change in benefits? Why dd it go up so much?
“Do you recall a former President named Barak Hussein Obama? He did exactly that. It may not have been in income tax or sales tax but it was a forced tax on the hard working makers to pay the premiums for the lazy takers and yes, my salary remained relatively the same but my health insurance costs skyrocketed by around $10,000 a year.”
This is not true
The increase in tax was $695 that is ti . And it ONLY applied if you dindnt have health insurance .“Once you don’t get insurance through your employer you’re not in that same group anymore.”
right , a complelty insane system. so if I change jobs I may need a new doctor. If my employer gets a better deal I and chanegs companies I may need a new doctor it is crazy.
what on Earth does my insirance have to do with my employer“I’ll mention again what I’ve been writing all along. The government should be involved in health care … Not for lazy people who want society to do everything for them.”
Yes youve said that the problem is it isnt the just the “lazy” who get cancer . Read the recent Propublica story “UnitedHealthcare Tried to Deny Coverage to a Chronically Ill Patient. He Fought Back, Exposing the Insurer’s Inner Workings.” The fellow involved doesnt sound lazy.“Again, this will not work until people start taking responsibility for themselves and the ratio of avoidable medical expenses to unavoidable expenses gets flipped.”
and Again if it got you on board, Id support increased oversight on halthier diet/excerices increased regulations on smoking etc“There’s got to be a line drawn here as well. …Where do you draw the line?”
oh fur sure theres a line.
Though probably more of a percentage than a real number. MEaning
If a person makes 100,000 one year then 1,000,000 then next year yes his taxes should go up by > 100,000.you say “How about $10,000 – Possibly. How about $100,000 Definitely not…”
no politiican would dream of raising taxes that much (for the average worker who didnt get a 10 fold increase in salary .However as I mentioned before there is an easy solution
I pay > 11K in premiums my boss pays the same
My boss pays me that money I sto ppaing private company. My taxes go up by 20K I pocket the remaining `3 K win win winAgain. I f you dont think the government should be involved in health care this comment is crazy. As I said that is the starting point
…”the money needs to come from somewhere and we seem to disagree on where it should come from”
Exactly s Ive been saying I think it should be government run with the money coming from taxes, think of an expanded medicare
DrP
“Next question- could the government collect to the extent that a hard working family would lose their house?”
I have a pending answer
to be clear, this isn’t limited to Healthcare
The Government can raise taxes for los of things that fall into their purview. If the government feels they need to raise taxes to better arm Ukraine, even if I don’t care about Ukraine they can do that.
Same thing here IF (big IF, as I said this is THE key to all the other questions) it is the governments role to fund healthcare for all. then they can raise taxes even if an overextended few may lose their houses“Next question- could the government collect to the extent that a hard working family would lose their house?”
No
Though taxes will go up if as a result of that Their mortgage is too expensive then I guess yes.
Of course some would argue that Having gotten a mortgage that leaves Them so vulnerable to a tax increase is irresponsible behavior what we would expect from Mr. B not A. nonetheless even though some would call him irresponsible I still think he should have access to affordable health careDrP
Glad to hear things are doing better
To answer your question
Yes without question We should collect from the A’s (and the B’s) to fund the healthcare of the B’s (and the A’s).The reason for this is I don’t think there is any realistic way to ensure the B’s behave. Nor is there a real way to sepperate health costs based on “irresponsible choices” vs “bad luck” That said, As I mentioned I could be convinced to have more government oversight on behavior to ensure the B’s “behave” perhaps some financial penalty for smoking, not excercising , eating too much meat etc etc .
I cant say I love it, but if this would get you on board I’m in. Is that your suggestion?
DrP
first I’m sorry to hear about your hardship. ACA ws a while go, I hope things have improved .
I still think you are approaching this backwards. As I think the more FUNDAMENTAL question is one on the role of government. But Of course you can approach it the other way as well.
to answer your question, no, no one specific person whould be forced to support another specific person.
What was the next question going to be?
DRP
“..to admit that there are times when the govermnent shouldn’t step in (i.e. when Mr. A and his family would suffer the loss of their house and savings due to the shear utter irresponsibility of Mr. B).”
I don’t think anyone here has ever suggested anything like that. that you needed them to “admit” they wouldn’t support that. T ohave one neighbor “chosen” to sponsor his neighbor ? Thats a made up thing that doesnt happen in any socity and I dont think has ever ben seriously suggested to happen
UJM
Azoi vi di Rebbe hut geteichet: Ut bin ich greit!
DP
“I agree that the government is supposed to help the population”
Great so we fundamentally agree.
We can hammer out nitty gritty details another day, if you want the Government to deter people from smoking, deter people who don’t exercise or eat too much red meat, I can get behind that. It makes me a bit squeamish (I love government oversight but even I have my limits) but if that ‘s what it takes to get you on board, I can get behind increased government oversight on diet/exercise etcUJM
The post is what can be learnt from THIS scenario
“Huh? The child was already safe and sound with the mother before she called Shomrim and the police.”
Exactly thus my bringing up a what if is silly.
And in this case the accused abuser was already set free. Thus your bringing up the “what if..” is equally silly. IT was a crowded room there were witnesses. The system worked.
Again, does it always work? perhaps not. But THIS is a case where it did. This post is lessons learnt from THIS case. Not the collected musings of the artist formerly known as Joseph. THIS case is one that highlights going to the police first is the safest approach. Again is there another case that shows the opposite ? Probably but not this oneAnd what’s this business about you deciding not to ask a Rov since “the Rav didnt care”? You do things, in general, without asking since you don’t trust Rabbonim?”
If I don’t have a question of course! Why not?
AAQ
Happy to help
Explain to your kid that society needs certain things to function. roads is an easy example that he can see. We all need roads, to get to school, work fun places. Even someone how doesn’t have a car needs roads for the bus that he takes.
Even someone who says I’ll never take busses still needs roads for deliveries to his local store, and of course for emergencies like fire department.so how should we pay for roads? We can’t just hope everyone will on their own understand this. Many have trouble with this simple concept. so we have the government in charge they collect taxes from everybody and use that money to pay for things that we all need including roads.
S oalthough it feels free to use roads, they do in fact cost money, this is a cost that is paid by all of us
where it gets a little trickier is what “jobs” fall into the governments purview.
Many believe healthcare is such a thing. Just like we all pay taxes to be used for roads that we as a society need, regardless of how much you personally use the road. Same thing for healthcare we all pay taxes to fund healthcare that we as a society need.now before you get nervous that this would cause taxes to go up by a lot, keep in mind we already pay a ton for healthcare it isn’t “free” I pay 11,000 in premiums my employer (boss) pays the same for me. My taxes could go up by a bit over 20,000 dollars and I’d still end up ahead
hope this helps, Once your kid gets it have him explain it to you.
“I’m not sure if you’ve read any of our conversations before but our opinions are diametrically opposed. I was hoping to start a conversation on common ground”
I did read the conversation but you are approaching the conversation exactly backwards.
THe starting point is a question of role of government. Nitty gritty as to what to do about free loaders who take advantage is important but secondary, since if the goverment has no buisness helping Mr A of course they shouldnt help Mr B. If you think they should help MR A, THEN we can discuss what about Mr B.
The first question ishould be , Is it the role of government to help Mr. A. The model citizen who behaves has his insurance.
I have no interest in trying to change your opinion and outlook. If you think it isnt the govermne’t job, then thats what you think . IT isn’t objectively wrong.
To be clear I’m not arguing
I think reasonable people can disagree.
Your examples though are designed to bias and not really to inform.
If you maintain that it isn’t the Government’s job to get involved whether you worked out and saved (Mr A.) or didn’t (Mr. B) I understand that. I disagree (as to most people Even Trump running as a Republican promised to provide “the best healthcare plan” and Medicare is wildly popular )
But again I think people can disagree as to the role of government.so make your case. no need to make it seem as if Mr B “deserves” it. that is entirely irrelevant. If Mr. B did work out , and never smoked and his insurance won’t cover because xyz. STILL not the governments job to provide
“my question was if the government can take money from one person to pay the medical bills of another person.”
Yes I got that.
I think the answer is obviously yes. (though not from “one person” rather from society).My point is that you set up the question to bias agaisnt Mr B, as if its all his fault and if only he never smoked and worked out more, he would not have had Lung cancer. while Mr A is a hero. Of course that was an question for you to answer.
The reaility though is not like that. S that is my question to you. Should the government have society step in to help Mr A when is insurance doesnt come through (or force his insurance to come through) ?
Dr Peper
While on vacation ponder these not-hypothetical situations:
Use your same Family A and B only instead of Family B getting sick
Mr A suffered a heart attack. Ambulance took rushed him to the hospital a stent was placed and he did well beiung discharged 3 days later. Unfortunately the hospital was out of network. His Three day hospital stay now costs him 250,000. (His fault for not chckign with his insurance while having his heart attack, I mena how lazy can he be!?)
Does the government have the right to put a $250,000 lien on Mr. B’s house and seize the $10 he has in savings in order to save Mr. A?
Or
Mr A. gets diagnosed with Colon Cancer. It is operable but needs to be done quickly. His insurance company denies the claim because they looked bakc at hsi application and he wrote no medical condions yet as a child he had asthma (“grew out of it” and wsn;t on meds for years when filled out form)
Does the government have the right to put a $3000,000 lien on Mr. B’s house and seize the $10 he has in savings in order to save Mr. A?
(spoiler alert they didn’t, and by the time he got insurance company to agree to pay the tumor had spread and was no longer operable)We could go on. but the point is , Health problems are more driven by “bad luck” than by how prepared you are (thats not to say living a healthier life style doesnt play a role)
So it has to work both ways if Mr B should help Mr A then the reverse is true.
Now you could argue no in those cases too bad on Mr A. It’s each man for himself. Consistency is keyUJM
“then this completely innocent Yid could very well still …”
Again “if …could”
And if he did abuse the kid and the mother delayed and asked a shailah and the Rav didnt care then he could abuse others.
My point is “what if’s” are silly. We can always create all sorts of what ifs to satisfy any preconceived opinion. THIS case shows the criminal system worked. does it always work? maybe not. But this case shows if you are concerned for a child’s safety notify the authorities
UJM
“We once again learn, the hard way r’l, the valuable lesson against Mesira. An innocent Yid was falsely accused and reported to the goyim. …”
how did we learn that?
don’t we see the opposite?
He was falsely accused and walked home free that same day? You say “Something that could have potentially …” yeah but it didn’t. how do you see the opposite? IF anythign we see the system works. If concerned for a child’s wellfare report first. If in fact he was innocent he’ll walk that same day.“What saddens me isn’t just that people think that the YWN Coffeeroom is a place for a Halachic discussion ,”
The exact opposite saddens me.
Every silly topic is fair conversation. But chas veshalom some Torah should be discussed all of a sudden “well meaning” people come running No no No Torah allowed!don’t worry no torah here just dreidel
If you are genuinly worried about the “overwhelming Am Haaratzus” share, contribute correct the mistakes
Avira
As far as I’m aware the first amendment protects you from government compelled speech not employer
Whitecar
its a bad assuption an employee can make almost anything hhe/she wants a requirement. unless it discriminates based on a “protected ” group so cant have you profess belief in yoshke that would discriminate based on religion(same for gender etc. Unless you argued that putting in pronouns was against your religion.whitecar
“If any employer makes you, I think you have grounds to sue.”
under what grounds?
Avira
youre dodging a bit on JO.
Yes not everything was run by the moetzes, I said that. But future moetzes members worte for it. the Novominsker, Rav Elya Svei.“It could be the question never dawned on them to ask.”
you are probably right, I don;t think anyone had a hava amina that there was somethign wrong with picturs of Tznius women (there once was a complaint for a picture deemed non-tznius was a small picture in piece of dress from around the world ).
You discuss the growth of Torah Judaim, which is great but not the subject at hand.The subject is kedusa
“Most frum jews had a TV when the JO was at its peak; they were seeing women, and untznius women, everyday. Not to mention the mixed kiddushin, etc..”
So yes our generation has greater kedusha than theirs (less exposed to TV etc). thats fair
thanks for the replyIf you dont mind I asked a third question above
(labeled third question)Avira
“The simple answer…” But that isnt what Rav Acha said. Rav Acha said that he had no hirhurim whatsoever from it. Or put another way she didnt make a roshem it was like holding a beam, he didnt notice her
If I understand your correctly NOT having a yetzer haraah, ie viewing a kallah as a beam is LOWER than havign a yetzer harah. It means less kedusha. Im’ asking on his “beam” response not on his action. If he said “I have a huge yetzer hara for her – bigger than yours! but bmkom mitzvah its muttar” or somehting like that , I’d hear. but that wasnt his reply.Avira
Second question
you say “The holier one is, the more sensitive he is to all matters of kedushah and shmiras aynayim.”
The Jewish Observer had pictures of Women, as you must know it was published under the auspices of Agudas Yisroel. I doubt the moetzes was too involved in the month to month publishing, but it is hard to imagine they opposed the practice.
Not to mention many Rabbanim did regulalry contribute .Was Torah True Judaism tm on a lower level of kedusha then than today?
Avira
Third question
Most people have zero yetzer harah when they see pictures of men. If someone does, does that mean he is on a higher level of kedusha?
I’m guessing you’ll say “No that isn’t a normal yetzer harah” (I’m sorry if that isnt what you would say I don;t mean to put words in your mouth just seems like an obvious distinction – in which case ignore rest of post and if you could provide your own answer please )
Then though that means that a yetzer harah for 10 year old girls is normal (otherwise your story with the chofetz chai is weird)
So it really just comes down to what is and isnt considered normal
Is it normal to have yetzer harah when see pinky?
Sure if a person looks intending to get hannah of course thats assur, but stam azaoi there is no issur. So is it a higher level to be the type of person who gets hanaah from pinkys ? That seems a bit pathologic. Of course if that IS a person’s yetzer harah he needs to deal with it. but if it isnt to say he has a lower level of kedusha seems funny .So this ends up being the fellow who draws targets then shoots arrows.
Whatever you dont want to exclude is an abnormal yetzer harah and NOT a sign of kedusha if you struggle with it and whatever you want to ban anyone who doesnt struggle with it is less kadosh.
There is no objective standard men? children? babies? Old women? pinkys? you just get to decide what is and isnt normalAvira
Rav Acha would carry Kallah on his shoulders, when talmidim asked if they could do it he replied if she seemd to them “like a beam” (Kesubos 17a) Was he on a lower level of kedusha than they ?
Halevia
I’m not big on telling people what to dobut I have to say I winced at your calling tzedaka a “a money receptacle.”
And while his view is a few steps away from Communism. yours is close to “eat drink and be merry for tomorrow we die”As an aside ‘v heard the OP’s idea from Rabbi Resiman many times. I’ve also heard him say that Eretz Yisroel is Artzeinu hakedosha, not a place to go on a vacation
Vyesh leyashev
I love learnig new things!
The Hellenists tried to benefit tzsedaka?