Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Lilmoid Ulelameid: Kudos for an exceptionally written post. Three times I drafted a response to Sparkley, trying to point out everything you so eloquently said – about using labels to justify wrongdoings, about the difference between failing a nisoyon and accepting that – and each time I deleted my post because my tone was too critical, and the only try that wasn’t critical simply didn’t cover the points. Thank you for being able to give mussar directly to the point, without the “You-are-not-as-frum” tone.
Yekke – its TOO HARD to change on your own…
Sparkly – you shouldn’t be on your own, and certainly not around “people who are less religious and may not even be Jewish”. You should have spiritual guidance, and you should have a social support group of people with similar aspirations for growth in Avoidas Hashem. [And I understand that it’s not always possible etc. etc. etc.]
If you are trully recognizant of the fact that you aren not doing as well as you should, you cannot postpone growing or moving on. There is no ???? of “sorry, not interested at the moment”!!
?? ???? ?????? ????, ??? ?? ????… ?? ?? ????? ????…
DY – Gezeila? How can duplicating a digital copy of something constitute as gezeila? You are not taking anything that doesn’t belong to you, you are creating a new item that didn’t exist before.
Sparkly: You mean you recognize that your current way of living is not frum enough, but you are not interested in changing it until you can be bothered?
Sparkly: Anybody who believes in the entire Torah, but is koifer in a single mitzvah is an apikoires. He is not part of Klal Yisroel. And is therefore not Frum. Yiddishkeit is not at all limited to Kosher and Shabbat, and you will not find any posuk or gemara that would say such a thing. [You may be referring to the Halacha that ??? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ???? – this has no relevance to what you mean].
Anybody who thinks that Torah is optional and that you can handpick the parts you like violates the 13 Ikkrei Emunah.
Syag – You were very clearly being facetious. I was worried about NeutiquamErro, because he mixed together one joke and one serious comment. If something interferes with your ‘deeply held principles’, then it should be abolished, regardless of how sensible it may be. This isn’t a joke. The rest of the post, however…
#snort #confusion #clarification #okayifellforit
Basically, the entirely serious and not-at-all jokey message of this thread is that if something interferes in any way with either your comfort or your deeply held principles, then that thing should be abolished. No matter how vital, important and sensible that thing is.
Um… Am I falling for Poe’s law, or did you really mean that?
Right. And you shouldn’t ever make friends, because you may have to say goodbye. And you shouldn’t have children, because they will die one day.
#livinginthemoment #lifeisshort #wheresthegoodingoodbye
Who said that “Bashert” and successful marriage are one and the same? What if it is Bashert for your marriage not to be succesful? Or if you marry someone not bashert (zivug sheni, for arguments sake)?
</sigh>
A male who goes to a beach where there are women dressed immodestly is oiver on many issurim.
If you go to a place where you are certain not to see anything improper, then there is no reason why not.
I don’t think there is any mekoir in Halachah for an issur histaklus for a woman. How can any woman go swimming if they will see others dressed in a manner that a man may not see? Does anyone have a source for this?
I once heard a quote (I think in the name of some great Rav, but I can’t remember who), I can’t remember the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of “A leader who has no enemies is not a leader.”
If a leader has no enemies, it shows that he must be giving into everyone all the time, and that would make him a follower, not a leader. A true leader has to be able to be strong enough to act against the tide and do things that are not popular!
You may mean this:
“You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
Froggies and Frogettes are not allowed on this thread.
Welcome, Person1!
We all know many couples where one side is much louder than the other, yet they have beautiful marriages. There is certainly truth in the fact that having different characteristics to one’s spouse can complement the relationship.
I wouldn’t say, however, that ‘opposites attract’. I think the truth lies more in the fact that being an ‘introvert’ or an ‘extrovert’ doesn’t make you ‘opposites’.
It would be doing an injustice to Homo Sapiens (aka Humanity, to those are Israeli!) to say that you can define the complex human personality in one word. Humans are complicated, multifaceted creatures, and no one characteristic defines the person. So although your ‘introverted’ nature may on the surface seem like a polar opposite, you may be similar in many other ways other than your natural interaction with others.
Some people [especially introverts] deliberately look for a spouse who is louder or more social, to make up for their ‘lack of input’, or to create a balance. As long as they are both comfortable with themselves and each other [i.e. neither of them feel threatened by each others personality], it shouldn’t get in the way of a relationship.
That being said, it can be that you don’t feel comfortable with a loud girl, for a whole host of reasons. You may feel the relationship becoming one sided, you may have conflicting interests as a result which make you wary of such a relationship. And that is also fine. You are allowed to not feel comfortable.
Only you [or people who know you well] can advise you whether it is a reason not to go out. The fact that it is redt obviously doesn’t obligate you to go out, it certainly isn’t necessarily a Hechsher from Hashem that you must marry each other. But how much is there to lose by dating an otherwise perfect girl?
“Progress for progress’s sake must be discouraged, for our tried and tested traditions often require no tinkering”
— Rebbitzen D. Umbridge, United Mesoirah Foundation
Weeds are flowers, too, once you get to know them.
– Winnie the Pooh
Not wearing a talis after bar mitzvah! sure we come up with very weak justification such as a “hekish” of ki yikach ish and gedilim taseh
(Though to be sure, there is no halacha you HAVE to wear a talis, so it also might not be the best example)
This ‘weak justification’ comes from Rishonim, so it doesn’t matter if you understand it or not. Again, this isn’t Minhag v. Halachah, it is Halachah v. Your Question.
My minhag is to wear a Tallis from Bar Mitzvah [and a little before], and I too never understand the rationale behind not wearing. The Hekesh, if anything, would apply to Tzitzis as well. <Disclaimer: I haven’t researched the inyan properly>. But the other Minhag has a very reliable base in Halachah, not opposed to Halachah.
Clothes do not merely make the person… Clothes are the person. — Mark Twain
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/interesting-study-possibly-pro-black-hats
I have on my table a violin string. It is free to bend and move in any direction. But it is not free to sing. I bind the string to my violin. It’s no longer free to move and bend in any direction, but now, for the very first time, it is free to sing.
— ? Rabindranath Tagore
and we don’t have to make up an excuse for the excess (like when “Torah” adds up to 611 and we have to explain why it’s just so darn close to 613, but not quite).
Torah being 611, and the excuse why it’s ‘so darn close’, is a Gemara in Makkos 23b. Does that make you like it better?
Loath as I am to write this without a quote, I happened to see this week ?????? that there is a ???? that a Yisroel does not become ??? ?? for no reason.
Its irking me that I cannot remember where I saw it [but whatever it was, it was reliable enough that it shocked me].
Same thing for the supermarket. There are lots of nonkosher food there, maybe one of our children will buy something not kosher. Should we stop them from going there? No! Thats ridiclious. At some point you need to trust your children to make the right choices. And if you can’t then either you aren’t a good parent or you have some serious trust issues.
According to your reasoning, should you not filter your computer, and allow your children free access to the Internet? After all, there are some wonderful sites out there, and can’t you trust your children to stick to only sites that you approve? Are you a terrible parent with trust issues if you take away a ????? from your children?
We daven ?? ?????? ?? ???? ???… ??? ???? ?????. It isn’t the right approach to simply hope that your chinuch is flawless and that you will be able to be ???? ??????; we shy away from the uncertainty of the Yetzer Harah. ???? ?? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???.
There is a world of difference between not allowing kids into a supermarket because they sell non-Kosher food and not allowing kids to read secular books because ???? ????? of them are problematic. For most frum children, going into a supermarket isn’t a ??? ?????; they know it is totally not allowed, they know the Kosher alternatives are fine, that is all they are used to. In most cases, unless the child is out to rebel, there is no risk.
Libraries, however, are a totally different problem. To an avid reader, books are an irresistible pull. If in the middle of a book, in Chapter 20 – just as the plot has thickened, the first clues are there to solve the mystery, there is a page which has some questionable content, a child will need an incredible amount of self control to close the book. This is identical to an Internet device.
This seems to me like one of these things that if a parent wants to censur what books thier children read, thats fine. But to say that these children should not have a library card? Thats pushing it. There are a lot of books that were written by nonjewish authors that are completely fine.
The point of contention here isn’t whether or not the concept of a Kosher Non-Jewish book exists; the discussion is whether to (a) allow our kids to be exposed to the world of secular reading to ensure they don’t fall down from the high standards of Yiddishkeit we expect, and (b) even if we allow our children to read these books, should we allow them to go to a library, where there is such an array of Tumah.
After all aren’t we the people of the book.
Lehavdil. I hope that was a joke.
Another thing, if we say that nonjewish books are all bad what message does that send to our children about the nonjews? We need to work with these people.
We would only say that non-Jewish books are bad if the content was non desirable, and in that case, you cannot worry about the ‘message that sends to our children’ – on the contrary, this is message we need to send them – we are different, we are an Am Kadosh, and pastimes, activites and thoughts are totally different. We may have to ‘work with these people’, but that is no reason for us to become like them. We are not trying to integrate with the goyim, we are trying to survive a golus.
Health – You can continue your arguing as long as you like, but please refrain from insulting people who haven’t insulted you.
I saw it in the ???? ???? ????, which is a Mosdos Rav Kook production of the pirushim from the rishonim on Haggadah.
Comlink – What were you referring to when you mentioned this song? If you listen to the second part of both Track 1 [Shiru Lamelech] and Track 6 [Kulanu Echad] of that albulm, you’ll notice every note is the same; it’s amazing how he got away with the same song twice on one albulm.
what were you pointing out?
The ???”? in his Haggadah writes ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ?? ?????.
Apparently, there is a mekor for the competition.
Wow, somebody else noticed that “Kulanu Echad” and “Shiru Lamelech” – Track 1 and Track 6 on the same albulm are the same song! I don’t know if it’s better; it’s certainly different. It is faster and more upbeat than the “Kumzits Style” Shiru Lamelech
Avi K: I don’t know who wrote the book you mentioned, nor if it reliable or not. I don’t consider myself well versed in Halachah. But does the fact that the object can be used in a permissible manner mean there is no problem even if you know the person is planning on using it for a forbidden use?
Lulworths Cove and Durdles Door are really beautiful [if the sun is out!!] – the sort of view you find on the front page of a glossy travel magazine advertising somewhere exotic [see Google images]. But it is a 4 hour drive from London. I definitely reccommend it for anybody who happens to be along the coast – in Boscombe, or Bournemouth.
mw13 – You are correct that there is a distinction between an issur that he can do with or without your assistance and an issur which he needs you to enable him to do. This is in regards to lifnei iver.
I believe that ‘mesaya liyeday aveira’ applies even when he has the capabilities, but you are making it more convenient for him.
However, this distinction is not unequivocal; in a situation where you are creating a ????? which wouldn’t exist otherwise, there is a problem of lifnei iver.
There are at least two sources for this: 1) Lending somebody money without proof of the loan is assur, because the borrower may deny the loan. 2) A father may not hit his older son, because the son may get angry and retaliate. The son can hit the father at any time, with or without the father’s instigation, yet it is assur because you are creating a situation of ?????.
This plays a role in issurim where the person wouldn’t do it [even if he has the capabilities to do so] without your involvement.
MA: Thats the KEY to success in Judaism if you have faith in Hashem, Hashem has faith in you
What on earth does that mean?
I am a Popa chassid
ROB – Your posts are making less and less sense. Let’s say your right; all sinners are considered ‘leteiavon’ not ‘lehachis’. Would you call someone who doesn’t keep any mitzvos at all ‘religious’? Obviously not.
I don’t believe that you can’t understand a difference between someone whose ideologies and principles are in the right place but slips occasionaly, and someone who doesn’t keep entire parts of the Torah.
Define frum…
ROB – I think you are just proving your tendency to [deliberately?] misunderstand as a result of bias.
I quite clearly debated two points in this thread, both of which were left without any direct answer which didn’t evade the question.
1) One cannot bring a proof pertaining to the position of a Gadol on any issue from the activites and ideals of their children/grandchildren.
2) Taking offence to what Avi K claimed that the State of Israel is ‘religious’ [ignoring totally the context of the debate within which he wrote this claim], I argued that a government who do not subject themselves to Halachah, and run the country in a way that contravenes God’s will cannot be called religious.
You will find no trace of “Hostility to Eretz Yisroel”, nor to the advances of Yiddishkeit, nor any denigration to any leaders who advance Yiddishkeit.
ROB – Where did I say anything about a requirement to have a religious leader? I just argued with Avi K and explained that the State of Israel is irreligious.