Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Wolf-ish Myoo-zings.
The Wolf
Wolf, are you talking about generating electrical current in your brain and nerves?
No. I’m referring to the halacha that one is not allowed to be sad on Shabbos. I violate that halacha far more often than not. That makes me a mechallel Shabbos b’farhesia (since I’m terrible at hiding my feelings), even though I don’t want to be so.
The Wolf
If you consider leining-talkers OTD, then yes, you are OTD.
That has nothing to do with chillul Shabbos.
The Wolf
No, since the non-snorer could sleep elsewhere and yet chooses to sleep with the snorer.
And what if there is no place else for the non-snorer to sleep?
The Wolf
Try doing a search at HebrewBooks.
The Wolf
Is a snorer who shares a room with a non-snorer guilty of gezel sheina?*
The Wolf
* Of course, that’s assuming the snorer keeps the non-snorer awake.
They are a Mechallel Shabbos.
What about those (like myself) who are mechallel Shabbos despite not wanting to do so. Are we off the derech?
The Wolf
Why do I think that would make you proud?
Proud? No. Just? Yes.
The Wolf
Absolutely forbidden.
Don’t you think we should define “package” before making such a sweeping statement? One could argue that my closed tallis bag is a “package,” in which case, you’ve just condemned me to death for taking my tallis out of my bag this morning.
The Wolf
But I think as far as The Wolf’s message
My message was concerning me and me alone. I did not mean to imply that what I said has any application to any other person living or dead.
The Wolf
OOM: The Rabbonim decree what they determine is the will of Hashem.
So, is it the will of HaShem that we support the State of Israel? Because there are Rabbonim who say we should do that. Or is it the will of HaShem that we actively try to sabotage it, because there are Rabbonim who say to do that as well.
Is it the will of HaShem to work for a living? Because there are Rabbonim who say that. Or is the will of HaShem that everyone should sit in Beis Midrash all day? Because there are rabbonim who say that as well.
… and on and on…
The Wolf
Answer to the OP’s question: Yes.
The Wolf
Wolf, why are you so cheery?
Simply applying the lesson presented in the OP to my life.
The Wolf
I have no doubt that every particle of air that I breathed, every molecule that I touched, every cubic centimeter of space that I ever inhabit and every person, animal and plant that I interact with will all condemn me with shrill, cacophonous accusations. It matters not whether I thought I was doing right or wrong… nothing is lost and they will all speak against me to their Creator after my lifetime.
The Wolf
My mother has a long-term back problem. I have been davening for her for at least the last twenty-five years and will continue to do so as long as it is necessary.
The Wolf
Oxygen.
The God of the Jews created oxygen and it’s constantly being stolen from us by non-Jews at every moment. Give it back!!
The Wolf
At the very least, even if you don’t say tachanun at all, if you are davening in a shul where they daven nusach Sefard and say the 13 middos during tachanun, you should say them along with the tzibbur.
The Wolf
shnasty
I believe it is shnasty to use the word “shnasty.”
The Wolf
I daven nusach Ashkenaz. I often find myself davening in a nusach Sefard shul. While I consider it nice if there is a NA siddur handy, the bottom line is that, as a guest in the shul, they do not have to have my particular nussach siddur on hand to accommodate me.
In short, if you aren’t going to daven the nusach of the shul, bring your own siddur. Don’t complain that they don’t have your nusach.
The Wolf
Zahavasdad,
That is correct. You do need a license to run a line. You don’t, however, have to be a franchise of the MTA (as this line is). That was the distinction I was making.
The Wolf
But is it even legal to operate a bus route without a franchise? (Like operating a taxi without a medallion.)
My understanding (and I could be wrong here) is that you are conflating a franchise with a license.
The bus route in question is a franchise because it is being run within the MTA system (it’s labeled as “B-110”, it is marked on MTA bus maps, the MTA provides signage, etc.).
You can operate your own bus line (assuming that you have all the proper licenses, etc.) without being a franchise of the MTA, but your line won’t be listed on MTA maps/websites, they won’t provide signs at the bus stops, etc.)
The Wolf
Wolf: I don’t agree that the location is inferior. And I don’t believe the law does either.
If someone wants to sit in the front, then they obviously consider it inferior. Like with the restaurant, you may not consider your “black menu” inferior, but what you want is not what is relevant.
And, in any event, even if they truly are equal, separate but equal is illegal.
And there are other private buses that operate segregated lines as well without any legal problems.
Possible answers:
1. They are not public accommodations (i.e. ridership is limited to a certain group, like a bus that picks up people to take them to a minyan, for example).
2. They are, in fact, illegal and no one has complained about them yet.
The Wolf
The seats are equal. There is no quality difference between them.
Ah, but there are two points to address here:
1. The seats in the back can be viewed as inferior on the basis of their location alone.
2. Even if they are truly equal, “separate but equal” was ruled illegal. Separate but equal is inherently unequal.
Why is it legally any different than a gender segregated restroom?
That’s a good question, and I’ll admit that I’m not certain of the answer. However, I will take a guess and state that there is a perception that the maintenance of separate bathrooms is perceived as a public good. Gender-segregated seating on a public accommodation is not viewed that way.
Nonetheless, if you feel that strongly about it, bring the suit in court to make separate bathrooms illegal.
The Wolf
Both genders have a right to board the bus and sit on the bus.
True. But saying that people in Group X have to sit in those seats and people in Group Y have to sit in those other seats is considered segregation, and is illegal (if the groups are based on protected classes, of which gender is one). Separate menus is another area where discrimination can occur — you can’t have a a “whites only” menu and a “blacks only” menu. In other words, admission to the facility isn’t the only point where illegal discrimination can occur.
It’s no different than a restaurant saying that “[insert group here]” has to eat at the shaky tables with the wobbly legs and with the chairs that are falling apart, while [other group] can eat at the new, solid tables and comfortable chairs.”
The Wolf
In addition, a private business cannot discriminate based on gender if that business is a public accommodation. So, for example, if you own a restaurant, you can’t hang a sign in the window saying “[insert ethnic/religious/gender group here] not welcome.” Nor can they tell members of a specific group that they have to sit in certain seats.
The Wolf
yechezkel b-n victoria neshama left his body last night. 🙁
Baruch Dayan HaEmes. May you and all his loved ones be comforted and know no more tza’ar.
Do you know his father’s name? Yechezkel ben ????
The Wolf
I saw the name on a blog somewhere…
The Wolf
Dr. Suess,
I believe that you are wrong on this. Governments in the US can and does regulate religious matters, especially when it interferes with the public good. Laws preventing ritual murder/sacrifice, polygamy, ritual peyote smoking, etc. are all valid and have been upheld by the courts. In Reynolds vs. the United States, the SCOTUS ruled:
“Congress was deprived of all legislative power over mere opinion, but was left free to reach actions which were in violation of social duties or subversive of good order”
In other words, the freedom to exercise your religion is NOT absolute. If you find an Amaleki tomorrow and kill him, you cannot then turn around and claim that New York’s laws against murder are unconstitutional because they interfere with the free exercise of your religion.
That being said, a public agency can certainly put a clause in a contract requiring the other party to obey all local laws. Based on your logic, a restaurant leasing space from the MTA can claim exemption from health laws based on freedom of religion and pass disease around to everyone. Obviously, that’s not the case.
The Wolf
Sorry, folks. New job, change in schedule. I can’t post nearly as often as I used to.
The Wolf
One of the things I love about my shul is that *no one* gets drunk.
At night there is no liquor. By day there is, and some people may have a drink or two, but that’s it. In the 8 Simchas Torahs I’ve spent there, I have yet to see a mispalel drunk on Simchas Torah.
The Wolf
Whether they receive monies from the state or not is irrelevant.
What is relevant is that the line is run under a franchise agreement and, according to the MTA, gender segregation on the line is a direct violation of that agreement.
A private bus has a constitutional right to adhere to their religious leaders religious beliefs.
A bus has no constitutional rights whatsoever.
The operators of a bus line, on the other hand, do NOT have the “constitutional right” to put their religious beliefs ahead of their contractual agreements. Example: if you go to Dunkin’ Donuts and want to open a franchise, you will have to sign a franchise agreement with them. One feature of their franchise agreement is that the store must be open seven days a week. You cannot sign the agreement and then claim your right to close for Shabbos and not be in violation of the contract because of your “constitutional rights” to your religious beliefs.
The bus case here is no different. It doesn’t matter if you have a religious belief that transportation must be gender-segregated*. If the bus company signed a franchise/licensing agreement that such acts are in violation of the contract, then they are in violation, their religious beliefs notwithstanding.
The Wolf
* Of course, we all know that gender-segregated transportation is NOT required l’halacha. Thousands of frum people take the subway every day and no one considers them sinners for doing so.
The Wolf
I don’t know if you were just mocking the chovos halvovos or just trying to be funny.
However the chovos halvovos was a Rishon. A bit of respect!
Once again, the fallacy of the excluded middle pops up in this thread. I was not mocking, nor was I trying to be funny. I was being 100% serious. If someone who is M’vazeh Yom Tov, M’challel Shabbos, Moser and an Oved Avodas Cochavim* (as I am), the sin of not knowing the Chovos HaLevovos off the top of my head is rather minor in comparison.
But if you want to say that I was mocking a Talmid Chochom, fine, whatever. I don’t want to argue the point, so I’ll concede it (even though it’s not the truth).
The Wolf
* Mechallel Shabbos — one is not allowed to be sad on Shabbos. I violate that on a regular basis. Ditto for the mitzvah of Simchas Yom Tov. I am a moser because I called the cops on someone’s car when the alarm would not stop in the middle of the night. I am also an idolator because I take pictures of the sun — all of these (with the exception of Yom Tov) were discussed on these boards earlier.
It’s libel against Chareidim, as that is one of the various attack-dog claims the anti-frum hurl at them.
I fail to see how it’s libel, as it is not defamatory. It may (or may not) be false, but I fail to see how it’s libel.
The Wolf
And does anyone today know they descend from a shevet other than Levi, Yehuda, or Binyomin?
I feel sorry for any shevet that is forced to claim me as a member.
The Wolf
722 BC
You should use CE and BCE, not BC and AD, as the latter two have Christian religious meaning.
The Wolf
And, again, the idea that anyone claimed that Gedolim are not human or are infallible is libel.
Just whom is it libel against? It may (or may not) be false, but not everything false is libel.
The Wolf
Not according to the chovos halevovos (tuna fish is probably healthier, unless yo had a couple that week, but jelly is all sugar so I’d still probably go with the tuna)
Oh well, so I was wrong. I guess according to the Chovos HaLevovos that’s another aveira on my part. Well, compared to the blatent chillul Shabbos, Mesira, Bizui HaChag and other acts I do, this one is really minor.
The Wolf
So I’m taking a poll of how many times in your dating career you did “one and done” based on looks.
Never. But then again, considering the fact that I married the second girl I ever dated, I suppose I don’t really count.
The Wolf
Whatever you do, don’t grow up to be like me.
The Wolf
Anything that is good to do is a mitzvah (The other choice is an aveira)
You missed one – the third choice, which is neither a mitzvah nor an aveira. (This is known as the fallacy of the excluded middle).
For example, the choice between eating a tuna fish sandwich or a peanut butter and jelly sandwich. It’s my option which to choose and neither choice is a mitzvah nor an aveira.
The Wolf
I just want to make a point which is not up for debate
Wolf’s Maxim:
When someone starts off a debate by stating that their premise is “not up for debate,” it often is, indeed, very debatable.
The Wolf
We don’t say BDE on a non Jew
Why not? Is God not just when He ends a non-Jewish life?
The Wolf
Now that I give it further thought, the book’s author missed Jimmie Reese, who played with Babe Ruth in the 30s (and who, IIRC, was the last surviving teammate of Ruth’s).
Other pre-1980s players include:
Elliot Maddox, a convert* who played for the Yankees in the 70s.
Ken Holtzman (1970s)
For the record, my favorite Jewish-themed baseball nicknames are:
Mike Epstein (SuperJew)
Moses Solomon (The Rabbi of Swat)
The Wolf
* I have no idea about the halachic validity of Elliott’s geirus. However, I doubt that yitayningwut’s book would have been too worried about that either.
Interestingly enough, I actually had a book once that listed all of the Jewish baseball players ever, and it noted that the Yankees have never had a Jewish player. This was a little while ago however, and they may have had one or two since then. The Mets have had a couple though, including Scott Schoeneweis and Sean Green.
Must be a very old book. Off the top of my head, I thought of Ron Blomberg, who played with the Yankees in the 70s.
The Wolf
I didn’t know He was such a baseball fan.
Of course He is. In fact, He’s such a huge fan that He started off the bible with baseball.
Genesis 1:1 “In the big inning…”
The Wolf
that is not to academic </em?>
I should hope not.
with very good girls
You mean as opposed to the ones who advertise that they have rotten girls? 🙂
The Wolf
I also have a hard time with minyan, but I try very hard to get to a shul for Rosh hashana.
Twice over twenty three years is pretty weak.
I’m sorry, I don’t see how my statement says that I made it to shul only twice in the last twenty three years.
The Wolf
I have spent Rosh HaShannah in two different shuls over the past twenty three years. Both daven Nusach Ashkenaz. One shul blows during the silent Amidah and the other does not.
The Wolf
That’s what I meant that it has no basis in Judaism.
Eating peanut butter and jelly has no basis in Judaism either. That alone doesn’t make it forbidden or even inadvisable.
The Wolf
I might sound like an apikorus asking such questions
Speaking as the resident apikorus, I can tell you that you are not one for asking why people die on particular dates.
The Wolf