Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
If the woman gladly went on TV, then I imagine she wasn’t so tznius-conscious after all…
Because you are drawing attention to our religion in a negative situation. You are essentially showing them that we are here with our religion, and they must “shtell tzu” to us.
What about the story about the guy who dropped his iPad and wanted them to stop the ride for him to retrieve it – would that have made the same point?
Actually, I believe a religious Jew trying to force anything through can cause animosity. Obviously, when he is trying to force something related to religion it is infinitely worse.
The OP raises a valid point. Jews running around and asserting themselves in general – and for religious reasons especially – causes animosity towards Jews. Mostly, the hatred is baseless, sadly enough, it is often validated. Even when it isn’t our fault, and even when it isn’t fair, it still provokes backlash.
The feeling of entitlement – that they are ?????? to give you special treatment – is an attitude that brings the most negative attention. Often, with just an apologetic smile and kind request, you can get your way without making the Chillul Hashem.
Food, Family, Philosophy:
HIM: Do you like cholent?
HER: No.
HIM: Do you have brothers?
HER: No.
HIM: If you had a brother, would he like cholent?
NeutiquamErro:
That wasn’t the essence of my point. There may well be a “spirit of the law”, but that cannot take precedence over the law itself. It may be a part of the law, it may not. But keeping the Torah is the job of every Jew, and if your ideals don’t include that on top of the list, you may be a Yisroel Mumar…
I do think that having a relationship with God is more important than the way I eat though… Almost as if the main thing is to love him, the serving him will roll as a result.
You are certainly correct in saying that developing a relationship with HKB”H is important and perhaps commendable – but it isn’t the ikker of yiddishkeit. There are different levels of Avoidas Hashem: Yirah, Ahavah and Deveikus. Somebody on the madreigah of Yirah isn’t missing the point; he just hasn’t yet hit the higher level of Ahavah or Dveikus.
Your job on this world is to fulfill the Rotzoin Hashem, and the Rotzoin Hashem is to learn Torah and be mekayem the Mitzvos. “Developing a connection” is not a mitzvah in itself. It probably comes as a ???? ???? of Ahavas Hashem, but it isn’t the most important thing in Yiddishkeit.
But it goes further than that as well – you are saying that Dikduk Hamitzvos comes as something secondary to “developing a connection with Hashem”: What would you say if somebody kept Shabbos on Tuesday but got all the hisoirerus and felt close to Hashem? Not keeping Shabbos keHilchoso is almost as bad as keeping Shabbos on Tuesday.
I hope you don’t mean anything to do with this…
So you make sure you feel connected to Hashem the whole Shabbos by singing and by saying Divrei Torah and being happy, and hope that Hashem doesn’t mind if you take the bone from the fish or the fish from the bone?
You are probably not the one to rely on in a statement that not all movies are assur either.
Very few truly contentious threads are still in activity, and you’ll find it very difficult to start one in the Modern Day Coffee Room; the Mods won’t allow anything controversial, and for good reason too. Besides for the escalation into personal bickering, as it did in the olden days, controversial posters must remember that the reader base on this website has a wide wide range of people in all shapes, colours, sizes and even religions. Many controversial topics are likely to offend others, whether it is intended or not. People take their views and opinions very seriously, and if somebody were to disagree a touch too strongly, they get upset. And besides for people getting offended, there is the danger of misunderstanding delicate issues when taken out of context, or not properly explained in their context.
Another point is that there are very few controversial areas with two well built sides to the argument. Almost every question has a true answer, and if the posters are eloquent enough to express the answer, the “controversy” will be over before you know it. Somebody will argue because he doesn’t want to accept the tone of logic which is either too fanatically religious for him or perhaps not religious enough – perhaps he will insult the poster as well. The poster then proves his point in a way that his opponent cannot answer, and the opponent then disappears from the thread, which is tantamount to admitting defeat. End of thread.
To successfully have a truly controversial thread, you need to find a topic which is both:
(a) grey enough for there to be no clear cut correct position
(b) interesting enough for posters to enter the discussion
(c) ‘pareve’ enough that there can be an argument/discussion with out either side getting terribly offended and closing the thread through attempting a wave of posts that are blocked, or complaining enough that the Mods will close it.
not sure option ‘c’ causes closings. There is a difference between people getting offended and people being offended, and that would more likely cause a deleted post than a closed thread. IMO.
There are not that many areas of discussion available. Interestingly, many Torah discussions fit ‘a’ and ‘c’, but ????????? ????? not ‘a’.
#KTCRIM
Firstly, how does the wand ignite if he wasn’t using it?
Secondly, why is Harry tried for use of the Patronus but not for the use of the Lumos?
Do these two questions answer each other? The Trace may not be on wandless magic; the trace is on the magical signature from when a spell is produced from a wand. (And Dobby deliberately ‘forges’ a magical signature onto his spell to incriminate Harry; Dobby’s other uses of magic therefore go unnoticed) The Lumos was Harry’s desperation forcing a use of wandless magic; it wasn’t a regular spell.
Was this accidental magic? What was the connection between the ‘nasty throb of pain’ to the magic? Was the throb the headache from the window or was it something to do with his scar?
??? ??? ???? ???? ???
SDD – It apparently depends. If the book is one which is widely accepted, we can refer and discuss with impunity. See Harry Potter thread. I have posted from other books in the past and been blocked. Interestingly, posts about some books have been allowed in the past and more recently been blocked.
It would be a bit ironic for feminists to walk around the men 7 times on Hoshana Rabbah…
“…delicious smell of baking salmon wafted tantalisingly in their direction…”
Surely if Dean Thomas could think of summoning fish, Hermione could have come up with the same genius?
2) I alluded to the theory that Quirrell would be different, and I meant because Voldemort was exempt from the jinx.
“When he took a year off” doesn’t actually sound like a year off from teaching, it sounds like he took off a year from studying books. See the quote above.
I wrote two posts in the Harry Potter thread, but it definitely wasn’t ‘modded’ because I quoted a non Jewish book. They are still hanging yellow, although I posted them on Thursday. Why?
Guess it’s just hard for me to think “Harry Potter” at this time of year
And once we’re on the subject of Percy:
If it is true that there is a jinx on the job since Voldemort applied for it, it must have been Quirrell’s first year teaching. How would Percy know who he was?
I first thought that prefects were given introductions to the new teachers beforehand (in the prefects carriage on the train?), but it is evident in the Order of the Phoenix that prefects are not informed of staffing changes.
It could be that they generally do inform prefects in the carriage on the train, but there was an exception for Umbridge. Remember, the Ministry only have a right to appoint a teacher if the acting Headmaster cannot find an option. Dumbledore was probably waiting until last minute to confirm the position. (Although Defensive Magical Theory was already on the booklist)
It could also be that Quirrell was an exception to the rule. It sounds like Quirrell had been teaching for more than a year already when you look at Hagrid’s introduction:
“Wait until your father hears! Ron, I’m so proud of you, what wonderful news, you could end up Head Boy just like Bill and Percy, it’s the first step!…”—“Well, what will it be? We gave Percy an owl, but you’ve already got one, of course…” (Order of the Phoenix)
Why did Mrs Weasley just mention Percy if she is supposed to go ape every time anybody mentions him?
Contrast this with a couple of pages later:
She stopped dead, catching her breath with a frightened look at her
husband, whose expression was suddenly wooden.
Coffee Addict – I was just quoting RebYidd’s subtitle.
Mazal77, why are you saying that we are not Hashem’s chosen and that we have no right to E”Y?
Not what I meant and you know it!
GoGoGo – the aim of #KTCRIM is not to complain about others interests, nor to hijack their threads – it is to keep other intellectually challenging threads alive.
DaasYochid – You are right, although children have been getting the wrong chinuch regarding this.
#Cos Hippapotomissus and hippapotomisters
have hippapoto-feelings too…
#KTCRIM
I saw in Tshuvos R’ Akiva Eiger, where they bring down his Takanos for his shul, they write that he paskened not to sing anything before Shmoine Esrei. I don’t know if this precedes him or not.
There is a very simple reason why some Yeshivas don’t sing Kedusha: i heard a mashgiach telling a bochur who davened for the omud not to sing Kedusha, because lots of bochurim who are willing to daven for the omud are too self concious to lead the kehillah in singing, and won’t daven. Therefore they prefer not to make a pressure to sing, so no-one sings.
I’m also British, but unlike the others here, I can’t say I’m proud to be a Brit.
See Meshech Chochmoh Parshas Bechukoisai.
Patur Aval Assur. Disappeared without a trace.
I have read those Teshuvos from R’ Moshe a couple of times, and it disturbed me a lot.
I understand if he would say that nobody has a natural inclination towards members of their own gender, and that the attraction comes as a result of personal experiences (trauma, abuse, etc.). However, I find it extremely difficult to accept that the actual attraction is fake as well.
I can tell you from firsthand experience about yeshiva bochurim I have helped who had such Taivah, and were in tears about it for months. One especially was distraught at the fact that he was attracted to men, and tried desperately to rid himself of it. The taivah itself is clearly there.
I don’t really understand what R’ Moshe says about the World outlook on gay marriage – obviously, society has changed since his times, but I [a perfectly straight guy] understand them perfectly. As was stated on a previous thread (now closed, I think), Torah aside, there is no reason why one shouldn’t be gay, should one have the natural attraction.
yekke2, I don’t know how you know that about taking away oxygen
Strangulation is one of the documented Torah forms of Misah.
“Be yourself, for everyone else is taken.” (Oscar Wilde?)
Calling a person this because of his personal choice and identity, I reject out of hand. And I want people to hear me say it, especially as a leader in religious Zionism.
There are a few issues the Gay people represent, and they are often mushed together.
1) A male being attracted to other men: There is a Machloikes in the later Achronim as to whether one can be born with this attraction or not. This is also a fierce debate in the scientific world.
Whatever the case is, Judaism respects that different people have different nisyoinos. We do not ostracize somebody because of the tests HKB”H sends him. We must support these people and not make them feel guilty for having the nisoyon – and where possibly, try to end that Nisoyon with whatever means we have at our disposal (eg therapy).
2) Marriage or relationships: This is what we refer to as a Toievah. People who are involved in such relationships must not be encouraged or legitimized in any way. No religious party should be saying anything in support of such people.
Like Non-Kosher food – many of us breath in the aroma outside a McDonalds and feel an attraction. There is nothing wrong with that. Wrong would be to give in to the taivah.
Other things you quoted, however, are terrible. There is clear apikorsus and rejection of the Torah in that speech.
SDD – I have just thought of something so twisted that if you don’t insult me badly enough, I will have to insult myself. So I’ll leave it up to you.
According to what I have written above, somebody who is trying to commit suicide is ???? ?????? ?????. You may kill him in order to stop the murder.
The Rishonim say (Rivash, Levush) that although a bystander may not kill a Roidef in a case which is ???? ????? ???? ??????, the ???? himself is permitted to (The Levush actually extends this to the family of the Nirdaf as well).
This being true – and here comes the really krum part – if somebody is trying to commit suicide, he has a status of a Roidef. Ergo, he would be permitted to kill himself.
Suggested Psak: Suicide is permitted.
You would get a ???? ????? – if you are allowed to kill yourself, then you have no status as a ???? and therefore are not allowed to kill, in which case you become a ????…..
As for the next point about natural process, here I think you could call me an idiot, if you’re not worried about Poe, whoever he is. My point was that eating is a way to sustain one’s self; not eating is merely refraining from sustaining himself, whereas killing, be it passively or actively, is the immediate cause of death.
Breathing is also “sustaining yourself”; taking away the oxygen supply is still counted as murder.
Poe’s law is the adage that without the correct emoticons or background information, parodies of extremism cannot successfully be distinguished from the sincere article.
Hey; you’re right about the litter. People shouldn’t do it. It isn’t nice. It is a major lack of ??? ??? ?????? and it causes a ????? ?. But don’t blame it on HKB”H.
Great job on the Genesis, btw. It was very well written.
That’s assuming we’re talking about a Jew
My [idiotic] application is also assuming we are talking about a Jew, because according to some Poskim, there is no issur of suicide by a Goy. (See Minchas Chinuch 34. Although, I imagine the Poskim who hold it is Lo Sirtzach will disagree with that and will hold a Goy is muzhar.)
It can make a Chillul Hashem, but disrespect to Hashem? Come on…
Sam2: Mareh Mekomos on the ???? ???? of a ???? ???? ????: [courtesy of the website wikishiva]
???? ????? – ?? ?? ?????, ????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??????, ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ????, ???? ?????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????, ??? ???? ?? ‘?? ???? ?? ?? ???’ ?? ???? ??????[120]. ?? ??? ??????? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?????, “????? ?????? ???? ??? ????, ??”? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ???? ??????, ??? ???? ?????? ???????? ??????”[121], “???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??????”[122]. ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???????, ??? ?? ??????? ???? ‘?? ???? ?? ?? ???'[123], ??? ??? ???? ‘?????? ??’ ??????[124], ??? ?????? ??? ??? ??????[125]
120:
?’ ?????? ???”?, ?”? ?? ?”? ?????; ??”? ?’ ???, ????? ?????; ???”? ????? ?????? ???”?, ??? ??. ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???”? ????? ?? ???? ?”? ??’ ??.
121:
??? ???? ??’ ??? ??’ ? ??? ?; ????”? ????, ???? ??????, ?, ???”?, ??’ ??.
122:
??”? ????? ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ??? ??? ?.
123:
??”? ????”? ?????? ?????? ????? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??????? ???, ???? ??????? ?? ?, ??”? ??; ??”? ????? ???, ??.
124:
????? ??? ???? ????, ???”? ???? ????? ??’ ???; ??”? ????? ???, ??; ???? ?????, ??’ ??? ?????. ???? ??? ???”? ???”? ???????? ??’ ??; ???? ????, ?? ????? ????, ??? ?? ??????, ??, ??”?; ???? ?????? ??’ ?-??; ??? ?????, ??? ????, ??? ??, ???’ ?; ????”? ??????, ??? ?????? ???? ????”? ????? ??”?, ??????? ???”?, ??’ ??-??; ??”? ???? ???? ?”? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??”? ??? ????? ?”? ??’ ?? ?????; ??????????? ???????, ??? ?, ?’ ???? ?????, ??’ 90-89.
125:
?????? ????, ??’ ??? ??”?; ???”? ??”? ?? ??? ?; ???? ????? ??? ???; ??? ???? ??’ ???; ?”? ??’ ??? ????”? ???”?, ???? ??? ??”? ??’ ??? ???”?; ??”? ???? ???? ?”? ??’ ??; ??”? ????? ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ???, ??? ???”? ?”? ??’ ?; ??”? ????? ???? ??’ ??; ????”? ????????, ?????, ???? ???”?, ??’ ??; ??”? ????”? ?????? ?”? ??’ ??, ???????? ????? ??’ ? ??? ??; ??”? ??? ?????? ?”? ??’ ?? ?”?, ??? ?”? ??’ ?? ?”? ??? ?, ??? ?”? ??’ ?? ??”? ??? ?; ????? ??????, ?”? ??’ ???; ????? ??? ?????? ??”? ??’ ??; ??”? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ??’ ?; ??”? ??? ????? ?”? ??’ ??. ???? ???”? ???? ???? ?”? ???”? ??’ ?? ??? ?. ?? ??? ????? ???? ??”? ??? ? – ????? ???.
Oi! Yekke2, your idiocy continues to astound me.
That’s wonderful to hear.
Tosafos say that regarding one who is thrown on a baby, thereby killing it, and are of the opinion that although his role is a passive one, it’s still considered murder. (And R’ Chayyim doesn’t disagree on principle, as he states explicitly; he merely considers the one thrown as not being a murderer at all, but rather a stone in the hands of a murderer.)
You didn’t make yourself very clear. (In fact, if I wasn’t worried about Poe’s law, I would say that your idiocy didn’t even astound me.) You pointed out that even if suicide was ?? ????, “not eating” wouldn’t be included in that. I understood that to mean because it was a passive way of killing rather than an active murder. I brought you a Shittas Tosfos who says that a passive murder is also called murder.
I don’t think R’ Chaim agrees with that principle at all. R’ Chaim points out that in the baby case, you are just a bullet, not the killer. According to R’ Chaim – as is the pashtus, I would say – there would be no such thing as a passive killing.
Tosfos, however, disagrees. I don’t understand Tosfos, I never have understood it. Why you should be considered a murderer – enough to say ???? ??? ????? – I don’t understand. (I wanted to suggest that Tosfos doesn’t mean ?? ????, but Tosfos is saying that the same logic of ??? ???? applies even in that case. But I don’t think it worked…)
I would say that Tosfos applies to any passive murder as well.
(BTW – I have no access to the ???? ??? at the moment; would you care to post a link, or summarize his points?)
That has nothing to do with someone not eating, where he’s merely allowing a natural process terminate his life
Everything is a “natural process”. Strangling a person kills by stopping the oxygen intake; stabbing him in the heart simply stops all heart function and therefore via a natural process will die. Dropping somebody into a pit of fire is a very natural process. What murder isn’t natural?
(There obviously is a line; where do you draw it?)
Not force feeding is a D’Oraisa violation of Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha.
That is a big controversy whether “Lo Sa’amod Al Dam Reiecha” applies to a self inflicted problem. The Minchas Chinuch says that there is no chiyuv. Many Achronim disagree.
Can you please cite where this is halacha? I would be very interested in reading such a ruling.
yekke2: When else do we kill someone due to ??????? ???????, in situations where ???? ????? is inapplicable?
I will look for the exact Mareh Mekomos when I have a chance. It is muchach in Sanhedrin 73a. The Ketzois also writes mefurash that you kill a ???? because of ?????? ??????? in Meshovav Siman 3.
I haven’t answered your questions directly. I haven’t seen any Mareh Mokom about this exact case; what I wrote above was my own application that if it would be ?? ????, you would have to kill him. (The Minchas Chinuch in Mitzvah 237 disagrees with me, but he is clear in ?? that there is no issur of ?? ????)
sorry if the insult sounded like a compliment–let me make it clearer: Have your head checked, because the cerebral cortex within seems to be malfunctioning.
I understood the first time that it was an insult. I was merely pointing out that any insult in an intellectual discussion not written together with a logical argument is paramount to admitting defeat.
I’m not aware of anyone who says suicide is an issur of ?? ????.
I think the ??? ???? ??”? ??”? brings from the ?????? ???? on the Posuk “?? ?????” = “?? ????” that ???? ???? ???? is ???? ??? ????. There is an ?????? in the Achronim about it; I don’t have many seforim with me on holiday to check it up. See also ???? ????? ???? ?”? who says it ISN’T ?? ????, and in Hagahos R’ Yerucham Fishel Perlow there.
See also ????? ?”? ??’ ? who apparently entertains a tzad that suicide is muttar [Lo Lemaisah!!].
Secondly, even assuming it is, he wouldn’t be a rodeif–if there’s no nirdaf, there can’t be a rodeif.
As I wrote before, it isn’t about Roidef or Nirdaf per se, it is about preventing him being oiver ?? ????.
The Brisker Rov, and perhaps others, does indeed say there are two dinnim, but ???? ????? is definitely needed, as is evident from the ??? of ???? ???? ??????.
Which Brisker Rav are you referring to? I remember one about ??? ????? ???? ?????, but that is referring to the ???? himself, and that actually doesn’t need ???? ?????.
What is evident from the din of ???? ???? ??????? Even if it is to stop him from transgressing the issur, this will not allow you to kill him if you can do it any other way. (There is a third tzad that it isn’t to stop the issur, it is an ????. [see ????? ?? ?”? ??’ ? and R’ Chaim Stensel] – your point of ???? ????? might be a ???? on that third tzad). I’m not sure what you see from ???? ????? regarding ???? ?????.
I forgot to say that not eating isn’t a violation of ?? ????.
If suicide is considered ?? ????, why should starvation not be suicide? I would have said like you logically, and I think R’ Chaim in Sefer writes that there can be no such thing as ?? ??? ???? by ?????, although Tosfos clearly argues with that. Tosfos holds that you can be ???? ????? ??? ??? ????, but it just isn’t ???? ??? ?????.
Disclaimer: I have not seen inside many of the Mareh Mekomos I mentioned before posting. Some of these are from memory, other’s I have seen quoted but not checked up. Use at your own risk.