Yanky55

I agree with Charlie. Talking during davening is something many frum people are not careful about even though the Shulchan Aruch has some very strong words cautioning against it.

The fact is that reform people recognize that they are there to talk to God and that demands respect. It IS sad that they understand that and many frum people don’t.

Baseball Tonight from 10-11PM on ESPN. Gives you a wrap up of every game and updates on those in progress. When I have to give din v’cheshbon, I am confident that HKB”H will be fine with that(and of course the Giant games on Sunday afternoons in the winter…).

Holtzich-

That’s a very good point, but don’t you think that is also a run-on sentence?

I cannot understand why frum people feel the need to give their children English names in America today. There are so many beautiful Hebrew names. People of other nationalities are not embarassed to use THEIR names; we certainly should not be.

It’s definitely chukas hogoy. V’horaya? My UPS driver wears shorts.

Philosopher-

The answer to your question to me about TV is very simple. It is all about choices. The same way you are sitting at a computer and can choose to view MUCH WORSE things than what is on TV, I choose to watch channels/programs that I have no doubt are compatible with being a shomer Torah umitzvos.

There is nothing wrong with the things I watch such as sports, nature, history, science and news.

Eat as many grapes as you can…..works great for me.

Feminist Goals and Halachah: The Teachings of Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik, zt”l

In sum, the axiomatic equality of men and women must be properly understood. Unlike its mathematical counterpart, ontological equality is not expressed in sameness or identity. While the Torah, assuredly, does not discriminate against men or women, undoubtedly it does discriminate between them. The two genders profoundly differ physically, emotionally and psychologically. Though contemporary Western society and thought decry this politically incorrect notion, it remains an unalterable fact of God’s creation.20 Little wonder, then, if the Torah has delineated somewhat different tasks to the profoundly differing genders.

Feminism, by contrast, axiomatically asserts that men and women must be offered identical roles and opportunities. While understanding and empathizing with the struggles of modern women, we must unabashedly and unequivocally teach that this feminist demand within the religious sphere is irreconcilable with Torah norms and values. The vast unbridgeable chasm that divides divine Torah norms and values from, l’havdil, their secular, feminist counterparts has generated and continues to fuel the present crisis. Rampant, misleading rhetoric has confused the contemporary debate on Orthodoxy and feminism and camouflaged the core issue. All disclaimers and declarations of halachic fealty not withstanding, the premise and many positions of feminism are essentially incompatible with our mesorah (tradition).

A fundamental, fateful decision confronts us. Do we seek to manipulate and inevitably, ultimately violate halachah to accommodate our secular orientation or do we strive to acclimate and reorient ourselves to halachah? Case in point: do we presumptuously challenge the provision which disqualifies women from positions of formal religious authority and demand the ordination of women, or do we unqualifiedly submit to halachah and intensify our efforts to appreciate, internalize, and implement its norms and values? Do we allow external contemporary fashions to make spurious demands on the Torah, or do we permit the Torah’s teachings concerning women to mold our thinking and energize our initiatives? In truth, there is no choice. We must forego the popular appeal and instantaneous gratification of the path of religious accomodationism, and opt for the more arduous, yet divinely authentic path of Torah.

Recent feminist pronouncements vividly demonstrate the inherent dangers and ultimate direction of the movement. For example, some feminists have adopted the slogan, “Where there is a rabbinic will, there is a halachic way.” Students of halachah immediately recognize the patent falsehood of this claim; students of history easily discern a classical manifestation of reformist ideology and tactics. The intermingling of bona fide causes, both general and feminine, such as communal Talmud Torah and women’s Torah education with such insidious slogans creates a dangerously deceptive sense of legitimacy for such illegitimate pronouncements. The involvement of Orthodox personages with the feminist movement and its anti-Orthodox slogans has a similarly confusing and deleterious effect. It is incumbent upon all of us to expose and disassociate ourselves from such destructive slogans, as false as they are flashy, which are devoid of halachic validity, historical accuracy, and theological substance.

The issue of agunot is far too complex to be treated within the present article, and thus only the following observation is possible. Undoubtedly there is a halachic imperative which great rabbis have implemented throughout the generations that all legitimate halachic measures be adopted and resources marshaled to rescue agunot by securing a get. Nevertheless, the establishment of an unqualified beit-din (as recently announced) to annul marriages can only yield catastrophic consequences. Spurious dispensations, based on halachically invalid annulments, will not alleviate, but only compound, the tragedy of agunot by allowing wrongful marriages. The result would be (unintentional) adultery and mamzerut.

Upholding traditional Torah norms and values does not bespeak insensitivity to or disrespect for women. Accordingly, the Torah’s perspective of dissimilar equality must forever guide and permeate our educational efforts. We must elucidate the vitally important, heightened spiritual dimensions of the feminine role, as delineated by the Torah and our Sages. Understanding the true dimensions of the feminine role will, God willing, help foster genuine satisfaction and contentment in women who assume this role. Moreover, as discussed earlier, educators also must nourish the minds, hearts and souls of Jewish women, young and old, by providing advanced opportunities to study Torah. However, we must do so in an attempt to foster the growth of wise, sensitive, modest, kind, traditional b’not Torah, not to create a unisex, egalitarian, inauthentic Orthodoxy.

Similarly, we ought not orchestrate Bat Mitzvah celebrations to simulate Bar Mitzvah observances. Sincere intentions notwithstanding, we are guilty of a grave disservice to our daughters if, by way of example, we manipulate halachah and create the impression that the bat mitzvah is reading from the Torah, as bnei mitzvah do. A Bat Mitzvah convocation celebrates Jewish womanhood. How sadly ironic if the occasion is abused to blur the differences between a bar and bat mitzvah. Our daughters are heiresses to an abundantly rich matriarchal legacy, and can anticipate a singularly rewarding destiny. Should our Bat Mitzvah celebrations deprive them of their treasures, and deflect them from their destiny by a misguided egalitarianism?

In all areas, we must strive to implement halachah, not God forbid, manipulate it to advance our non-halachic agenda. Postponing women’s recitation of the daily birkot haTorah and then reciting them prior to reading from a Torah scroll so as to simulate an authentic public Kriat HaTorah, does not conform to, but rather distorts halachah. Accordingly, Rav Soloveitchik zt”l expressly opposed this practice.21

The Rav also provided clear, unambiguous guidance on the issue of women’s tefillah groups, but unfortunately misrepresentation and misinterpretation of his pronouncements have generated clouds of confusion. We must dispel that confusion, and restore the clarity of vision he provided.

Many rabbis approached Rav Soloveitchik for guidance on the issue of women’s tefillah groups. On every occasion, the Rav unequivocally opposed such groups.22 Nevertheless, in some instances the petitioners and/or their constituencies were dissatisfied and simply refused to accept the Rav’s decision. The Rav was then confronted with an entirely different question: if such tefillah groups will be formed over his objections, how should the local rabbi respond? At this stage, unable to prevent the impermissible formation of these groups, the Rav indeed provided guidelines to prevent additional problems.

Unfortunately these guidelines, cited out of their original context, have been trumpeted as proof of the Rav’s acquiescence, if not outright support for women’s tefillah groups. In fact, the Rav provided these guidelines reluctantly ex post facto to prevent additional infractions, despite his consistent, unequivocal ruling that such groups are halachically wrong.

On other occasions, after the Rav stated his unequivocal opposition to women’s tefillah groups, the questioner persisted. “But, Rebbe, is it asur (legally forbidden)?” While resolutely opposed to such groups, the Rav was reluctant, at times refused, to label them as asur. Proponents of these groups have inferred that the Rav deemed them to be permissible and dismiss his adamant objections as non-binding, unauthoritative suggestions for public policy which they “respectfully” decline to follow. This analysis is flawed, as will be explained.

Halachah is a complex, precisely nuanced divine system of law with its unique indigenous conceptual and juridical categories. Only by virtue of constant, wide-ranging and in-depth study of halachah, both its principles and minutiae, can one become fully attuned to authentic halachic categories, thinking and methodology; such detailed macrocosmic study is indispensable for an accurate understanding of any microcosm within halachah. When halachic statements or pronouncements are interpreted within a non-halachic mindset in non-halachic categories, inevitably distortions result.

Regrettably, such distortions plague the flawed analysis of the Rav’s position on women’s tefillah groups. The analysis fails to consider the range and variety of halachic categories. When judging the acceptability or legitimacy of a particular action, halachah does not speak only in terms of mutar (permitted) and asur (forbidden). Many actions are not labeled asur, and yet are absolutely halachically wrong and unacceptable. The Talmud and Shulchan Aruch are replete with examples. In the case of one who fails to honor a legally non-binding oral commitment to give a present or finalize a transaction, the Talmud does not classify his conduct as asur. Rather, the Talmud says, “The Sages are not content with him.” And yet the Talmud explicitly states that his behavior, while not classified as asur, is impermissible.23 Similarly, “Rav would administer lashes to one who betrothed a woman in the marketplace or without prior engagement…”24 although this practice is not technically asur. Chazal rejected some forms of behavior as asur, others as wrong. Conceptual differences not withstanding, both categories are inviolable. In fact, at times, Chazal censured wrong behavior especially harshly and even imposed severe punitive measures on people who were guilty of such infractions.

The Rav consistently advised all who inquired that women’s tefillah groups are, at best, halachically wrong. When such groups are unfaithful to halachah by promoting misconceptions that the participants are actually reciting devarim she’b’kedushah or receiving authentic aliyot and the like, they clearly violate the precept of truth.25 Under such conditions, women’s tefillah groups are indeed asur as well. Even under the best of theoretical circumstances, i.e. when everyone is informed that the participants are forfeiting the substantial advantages of public prayer and it is clear that no attempt is made to confer or simulate true aliyot, the Rav opposed such groups. Perhaps not technically asur, but unequivocally wrong and unacceptable. The queries regarding women’s tefillah groups and the Rav’s response were halachic. And as such the Rav’s negative response was, and is, binding.

Looking Behind the Mask

“Your child born of a Jewess is considered yours, however your child born of a Gentile is not considered yours.”26

The halachah of matrilineal descent is of paramount significance, substantively and symbolically. In distinguishing women as the determinant of Jewishness, it speaks volumes about women’s standing within Judaism. It also symbolically hints at the primacy of the feminine role: the mother exerts the formative influence which ultimately ensures Jewish character and continuity.27,22

The portrait of monolithic, mindless, monotonous feminine domesticity and enslavement in an “androcentric” world, which has been the object of vitriolic, secular, feminist barbs misrepresents the multi-faceted, pivotal, educational, spiritual, divinely ordained and beloved role of Jewish women.

“The reward which the Holy One, blessed be He, has promised to women is greater than to men.”28

Our assertion hitherto that the Torah values men and women equally, and accordingly cherishes and rewards their divine service equally, has been understated. In fact, the Torah rewards women more bountifully. The guiding principle for the divine system of remuneration is that “Reward is commensurate with the pain and distress involved in fulfilling the mitzvah.”29 The Torah recognizes that the feminine role, oft-times private and supporting, is more difficult and demanding than its masculine counterpart.30,24

Let us be forthright. Modesty often masks the true dimensions of grandeur. Accordingly, a woman’s contribution, though immeasurably important, is often underappreciated. She toils selflessly, oft-times in relative solitude. At these private moments, she cannot be energized by the excitement and acclaim of public life. A life characterized by modesty and self-effacement is sublime, but exceedingly challenging. Throughout the generations, Jewish women have responded heroically, at times demonstrating a greater capacity than men for heroism.31 The heroism of Jewish women merited the Exodus at the dawn of our national history; so may it speedily herald the denouement of that history with the advent of Moshiach.

Another classic yogism:

“when you come to a fork in the road, take it”

HIE-

Even R’ Moshe ZT”L (who was opposed to an eruv anywhere in Brooklyn)wrote in Igros Moshe, that those who made the Flatbush eruv have “yesh al mi lismoch”

Mod-

Mind telling me what you thought was so bad about my question to Sam? I merely asked him how he knows what the cheshbon of HKB”H is i.e. saying that bad things happen to other Jews because of what happens in E”Y?

My point of asking him about the pasuk was, that the same way he cannot quote a pasuk correctly, he certainly doesn’t know why HKB”H does things.

There is a very good support group online for all kinds of medical conditions including depression.

It is called frumsupport.com

Been to Newport, RI. Excellent vacation!

Volvie-

The Rema was a Rishon? News to me…..

#42-

I ask mechilah for being choshed you…..

Yanky

Esther-

There is a website called frumsupport.com. People share chizuk and advice about medical and emotional issues. I think you will find it very helpful.

Refuah Shelaimah!

Pas- What happened to “al tadin es chaveircha ad shetagiyah limkomo”?

When you are a single girl, then get back to us about what is correct hashkafa to be thinking.

True Bas Yisroel knows what she is talking about. At the same time the comment that Ooomis made is right on. It IS sad that a 20 year old KID is lamenting the fact that she is not married yet!

Responding to Critics of Israel

????? ? ??? ? ???? ?

???????????? ????????? ????? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ????????? ????????? ???? ??? ???????:

The Haftorah for this week’s double Torah reading of Tazriah-Metzorah is lifted out of II Kings Chapter 7.

In a speech delivered at New York’s Yeshiva University forty four years ago by HaRav Aharon Soloveichik Zt”l on the 18th anniversary of the State several key arguments were addressed. What follows is an excerpt of this lecture from 1966 (printed in Gesher, Vol. 4) captivating the creative message so relevant to contemporary times as well.

“Those who do not recognize the importance of the establishment of the State of Israel (????? ?????) give several reasons. The first argument raised is that non-observant Jews led the movements which culminated in the establishment of the State. They argue that the results of such leadership cannot be of great historical significance for the Jewish people. These results cannot be considered a step towards redemption (?????), but rather as a step away from redemption.

Chapter seven of II Kings has a bearing on all these arguments. Samaria (??????), the capital of the northern kingdom of Israel, was besieged by the mighty armies of Syria and was in the throes of famine. Ordinary food was unobtainable and articles of food which, under normal circumstances, would have been considered repulsive were obtainable only at fantastic prices. Samaria seemed doomed.

Desperate as the situation of the inhabitants of Samaria was, the condition of the four lepers outside the city (II Kings 7:3, above) was infinitely worse. According to our Sages, these four lepers were none other than Gechazi (????) and his three sons who were afflicted with physical leprosy as a penalty for their spiritual leprosy [described by Rambam as heretics]
[??????????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ????????? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????????? ???? ??????????? ????????? ??????????? ??? ???? ???????? ??????????? ?????? ???????? ????? ????????? ??????????? ????? ?????????:] Consequently, they entered the city of Samaria and conveyed the good tidings to the inhabitants. We thus see that the miracle of deliverance of the inhabitants of Samaria was carried out through the medium of four lepers: physical lepers, yes, but above all, spiritual lepers.

The first argument as to how any relief to the Jewish people could be realized through the medium of heretics can easily be rebutted by the precedent of the deliverance accorded to the people of Samaria through the medium of the four lepers. This episode shows that no Jew can be excluded from the grace of G-d, that “????? ??”? ????, ????? ???”, and that there is an innate tendency towards altruism even in the hearts of spiritual lepers; it also shows that G-d does not exclude any Jew from salvation and He may therefore designate even spiritual lepers as the messengers of relief and deliverance for the people of Israel. Consequently, we cannot ignore the significance of the establishment of the State of Israel simply because Jews who stand a substantial distance from any form of observance of Mitzvot were in the forefront o the movements which established the State and are in the forefront of the State itself. Perhaps the fact that non-observant Jews are in the forefront today is a penalty for Orthodox Jewry’s failure to play the most important part in the formation of the State.”

“The State of Israel represents not the “break of dawn” (“???? ????”) of redemption, but the “appearance of the morning star” (“???? ????”) of redemption. The “???? ????” of redemption must be part of the actual day of “?????”. Unfortunately, we have not yet attained that. Perhaps, if in the course of the last fifty years all observant Jews had dedicated themselves to the up building of the land and would not have allowed spiritual lepers to take the lead, then we might have attained the “???? ???? ?? ??????” (“the dawn of redemption”) and perhaps even more.”

Moderator 80-

I am Yanky. A “Yankee” would be Derek Jeter 🙂

In Parshas Lech Lecha, Avraham says to Sara “Heenay nah yadati ki ishah yifas mar’eh aht”.

Rashi comments that because of the tznius between them, up to that point he did not know how beautiful she was!

As someone else posted on a different thread, look at the hechsher on the bottles. It clearly states that this grape juice is kosher for Kiddush and Arbah Kosos.

If it were muttar for health issues only, the hechsher would need to state that, just as is done on boxes of egg matzah…”Muttar rahk le’cholim oh zikaynim, ki’mivuahr b’Rema”.

Grape juice is yayin, lechol hadayos. That’s why you make a “borei pri hagafen” on it. The Shulchan Aruch states you need yayin for arbah kosos.

Moderator-

Care to explain why you edited my post? I was being melamed z’chus on those who do that…..

I don’t get it.

I don’t know. If you still have the original post, email it to me and I’ll take a look.

[email protected]

Good one.

Don’t be so sure about people getting them so quickly…..

Okay. Here’s a hint. One of the others is in Sefer Bereishis and the other in Sefer Shemos.