Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I love you, Pops.
You seem to agree with me on that; you just feel that once G-d made his ratzon known to us, there is an inherent value in adhering to it. To which I ask “why?”
I think i pointed out before (forgive me if I wasn’t clear!) – I can’t give you a ????? to adhere to ???? ?????. But under the context of production – ie ???? ????, which definitely is a ????? on “Torahdik Ethics” – it does make sense.
Your question is on the entire idea of ethics and morals. This is after that. This is simply stating the ideal manner of perfection to one who is being ????? the ???? ?????, ie doing G-ds will without ulterior motives is the optimal performance of G-ds will.
The point is that we are supposed to relate to Hashem both as avadim and as banim (and the Torah describes us with both terms). From the perspective of avadim, it makes sense to ask why one should try to make one’s master happy if those efforts will not be acknowledged through a reward or a lack of punishment. But from the perspective of a parent-child relationship, this is not a question, because in a normal healthy situation, parents and children want to make each other happy out of love for one another, even without considering reward and punishment. Now, obviously, feeling love for Hashem the same way we do for our close family members is not always easy or simple, but that’s exactly why doing a mitzvah shelo al menas lekabel pras is considered a big madreiga.
You really haven’t answered the question. See above.
I always found: In the chapter Kings Cross, we discover that the “Avada Kedavra” spell did not actually kill Harry, but rather destroyed the fragment of Voldemort’s soul that was resting in Harry’s soul. Harry himself, however, could not be killed until Voldemort was destroyed.
Why, then, did he go to this “halfway point” of Kings Cross, where he is apparently given the option to “board a train” and move “on”? Surely he wasn’t dead and couldn’t die?
It wasn’t an entitlement he had to stay alive, it was simply the outcome of many factors that he hadn’t be killed. So how could he choose to move on?
I agree with PAA, by the way. If I was not Jewish (CH”V, etc. etc.), and I would have no religious obligations, and I would not believe in the Noahide Laws, I would probably steal if it suited me, because why not? I wouldn’t steal from somebody I liked, perhaps, but I might shoplift from Walmart, ??????.
What is obligating one to follow his morals? Why must I do things that are considered right and not do things that are considered wrong? (This is all from a totally non-Jewish perspective)
So far, the only suggestion that holds water is the fact that shtelling tzu to the Rotzoin HaBoireh is the right thing to do.
If the response to that will be “because G-d said so” then I will question what the inherent value of listening to G-d is.
We have no idea, but trust that if He asked us to do so, it must serve a higher purpose.
[PAA, GAW]
I disagree with GAW. The fact that it is ???? ????? is not a ???? that it is a good thing and therefore we should do it, it is a ???? in itself for us to do it.
PAA questions on that that there is no ????? to have morals. But we are not looking for a ????? here. ???? ????, which is [also] a collection of Ethics, tells us that doing something sorely for the reason that HKB”H was ????? us, and not for any other reason, is the ideal way of performing a ????.
Why on earth would somebody risk the tremendous expense of bringing out a CD if he didn’t like his own songs?! Of course he thinks they are good!
There are two types of trollers. The Popa type, who we all love, and the nuisance type, who we all…
Why break it if you can give it away?
If the question was should one rid oneself of it, is “Obviously” not the correct answer?
I think I know what constitutes learning gemara. I don’t know what Chazal didn’t want women to learn, whether it was gemara as a limmud, or the topics of gemara as well. (Discussion about a sugya would not be learning through a shtikel gemara!)
And I think I explained why the two questions are not necessarily related – what constitutes as talmud torah does not necessarily constitute to the kind of learning that women are not allowed to do.
So first I thought; hey! I’m not on the list!
Then I saw that DaasYochid wasn’t on, and nor was Sam2, nor was PAA. So I don’t care.
Your two questions are not necessarily related. If a yid discusses a sugya, or even thinks casually about a sugya, he is mekayem mitzvas talmud torah. (Machlokes if you need to make birchas hatorah on hirhur, but you are definitely mekayem limud hatorah).
There is no issur for women to be mekayem talmud torah. They are not allowed to learn gemara. So I don’t know what constitutes that.
What was so evil about Horcruxes – that makes it so incredibly evil – more than anything else? It seems to be that the actual objective of the Horcrux is not evil at all (although it may not come recommended), because pushing off death isn’t at all Dark, not any more than the Philosophers Stone wasn’t Dark Magic and Nicholas Flamel wasn’t a Dark Wizard. It is simply the means to the end which is undesireable, namely murder.
It would be extremely shallow if all JK Rowling meant was the evil of the murder involved as a means to making the Horcrux. And there are ????? ??????? that that is not all:
Which begs the question (a) What could possibly be wrong with preventing Death? (b) If there is something wrong, what was Harry’s profound response? (“Hallows, not Horcruxes.” – “Hallows,” murmured Dumbledore, “not Horcruxes. Precisely.”) (c) Similarly, what is the inherent difference between Horcruxes and Philosophers Stone?
As usual, such an inspecific question cannot warrant a good answer. You have to explain what sort of box we are talking about here.
Everybody should feel comfortable being who they are. You should not try to be somebody you are not. (Oscar Wilde once said “Be yourself, everybody else is taken”) However, you have to define who you are, and that is where your question begins.
(In other words, you shouldn’t be doing things because others do, and you don’t have the strength of character to stop, you should be doing them because you want to or feel you have to).
What you want to do in regards to in/out the box is obviously dependant on every case on its own merits.
And being out-the-box purely for the reason of not-being-in-the-box – that is ???? ?? ??????, and the rebellious streak that is wron. Being out-the-box because you are isn’t as terrible. (Although “who-you-are” might dictate that you want to be in-the-box, but like I said, we need specific scenarios for that)
arifree – Thank you, stopped me responding.
Lamedvov – You just praised Lipa by saying he is fantastic singer with a great voice, with great songs, and great lyrics. What on earth do you want Lipa’s opinion on that for? He obviously likes his own songs, and he obviously likes his own lyrics, because otherwise he wouldn’t produce them. And I can’t imagine you’d want to hear his own opinion on his voice. So please explain what you want to hear from Mr Shmeltzer regardin your post??!?!
You want to ????? the ???? of ???”?:
a) because you Love HKB”H, [which may or may not be as a result of ????? ?? ?’ ?????, or because of instinctive ???? ????], and you should WANT to do it. [Imagine there was no ???? ????? ?? ???, there are definitely times and opportunities where you would WANT to do something to respect and honour your father, not necessarily because you HAVE to.
b) You also want to be ????? the ???? ????? because ??? ??????, and ?? ??? ???? are created purely to be ????? ???? ?????. (Which is why a ??? or a ??? must keep ????? ????? etc., see ??????? ???? ??????). Which, of course, isn’t ????? you, because you can of course deny the purpose of creation and party, but in obviously SHOULD be ????? ???? ?????.
What sort of thing are you looking for? News? Videos? Shmuz?
There was a story about a car crash in Israel where the chiloni driver was declared medically dead when they pulled him out of the wreckage. Suddenly, and old man with a long white beard appeared in a tallis, and began MTM resuscitation on the “dead man”, who spluttered back into life.
When they turned to thank him, he had disappeared.
Everybody thought it was Eliyahu Hanavi.
In reality, it was the Hatzolah guy from down the road, on the way to Shul for Shabbos morning Shacharis.
I love this story.
In London there is a Gmach for Bentchers which they give out for Chasunas, Sheva Brochos, Bar Mitzvahs, etc. Laminated pages, so they are easy to clean.
Does anyone know the Halacha Concerning Coughin’?
Akuperma – those problems are reasons for the state not to have started in the first place. What do you want to happen now?
PAA – I posted a very similar post some years back, I think. You are right. There is certainly what to debate regarding the setting up of a Jewish State. There is certainly what to mourn that today’s world perception of Jewish State = corrupt irreligious Israelis. There isn’t however, anything to do now. Whatever the ???? was regarding the setting up of the state, now that it is there, and thousands upon thousands of yiden reside in Eretz Yisroel, giving up the state would be 100% ????, as it would cause a terrible amount of bloodshed.
There really isn’t much to debate, unless you are a bloodthirsty Neturei Kartanik with psychological problems.
PAA – I am in total agreement there. If I remember correctly, JK Rowling waxes poetic with metaphors comparing life to a Quidditch game – The game was over, the snitch had been caught, and suddenly Harry remembers the Snitch.
It would have been much more mood appropriate for him to be thinking about Life and Death, Immortality, Master of Death, the Deathly Hallows, and let everything suddenly fall into place. It wouldn’t hurt for him to think of his dying mother.
Is that why mcgonagal is not married? But neither are any of the professors!
Only an unmarried person would dedicate his life to teach in the most dangerous school in the world. It is extremely impractical to have a married person balancing his life and the school. Remember, the Professors all lived in the school during term time. Unless you married a fellow professor, it would be too difficult.
The map had been recovered from Filch’s drawers of highly dangerous items. It sounds like it had been confiscated when they were at school. Neither Sirius nor Peter would have dreamed that it would have resurfaced, and come back into Lupins hands. Lupin himself was quite shocked to see the map again.
I just googled “Avery Harry Potter”, and from the results (i didn’t enter any, just looked!) it seems that it is accepted that there are two Averys, Marauder era and Riddle era.
sirvoddmort – If there is really anything we haven’t argued about before I’ll fill you in. Enjoy zman, and see you next week!
Writersoul actually gave me an idea – It could be that the map didn’t actually show transformed animagi, like it didn’t show people under the Polyjuice Potion, and thats why Fred and George and Harry didn’t notice Wormtail.
Lupin, however, was one of the creators of the map. He might have been able to use it in ways nobody else could. I imagine there was a way of activating it to show animagi, and Lupin did just that. Remember, Lupin was using the map because he thought they might go to Hagrids, and therefore wanted to make sure nothing happened to them. Knowing as he did that Sirius was a animagus, he would have activated it to check if Sirius was anywhere on site. Suddenly, he saw Peter Pettigrew as well. You could also say, a slight variation of this, that even though general animagi would show up, the Marauders coded that map to show nobody but a fellow Marauder their own animagi, because their animagi were illegal and secret!
I almost loved this one. The first ten chapters or so were fantastic. But he took it too far and it felt like it got very boring and dry very quickly (which is a shme, because he can be hilarious when he wants to be…).
The problem was that it wasn’t written as a book, it was released chapter by chapter in serial form, so every chapter had to be something of its own rather than being something in the bigger picture. I find the writer highly intellectual and pointing out things about Harry Potter that I never noticed I noticed, as well as an excellent parody.
Only someone with originality can create a Harry Potter parody where, sadly, the troll does get to eat Hermione. And she doesn’t come back to life.
Fizzing whizbee… Sherbet lemon… Acid Pops!!
“Dumbledore would act surprised”
Nope. Dumbledore clearly had not anticipated the name Dumbledore’s Army until he heard it; he only came up with his plan of action then. And Dumbledore cried when Harry told him that he was Dumbledore’s man through and through. He wasn’t faking.
“And Dumbledore, as a highly gifted wizard, probably had numerous methods to find invisible objects”
Don’t like that either. The Invisibility Cloak, you have to remember, was one of the Hallows, and the most powerful of its kind. The only thing known with the ability to detect it are Moody’s eye and The Marauders Map. And that itself is exceptional; one would think that such a powerfully magical cloak could not be thrown by a map created by some gifted teenagers.
Another confusing point is the ages of the various characters from the older generations. James, Lily, Sirius, Lupin, & Snape were all in the same class in school. [We see this in many places, the most obvious in Snape’s Worst Memory] Snape was also in school with Avery. . So Avery is minimum of two years older than James, because he was in school at the same time, and this conversation takes place in James’ fifth year (OWLs).
However, we see that Voldemort was in school was Avery [see Slughorns memory of Horcruxes, Avery is present, with Rodolphus Lestrange]. Meaning that Tom Riddle was in school with Harry’s parents, in the same class or within two above.
Which is strange, because we have no mention of that. Not from Hagrid, not from any teachers, not from Madam Rosmerta [book 3].
Worse still, Dumbledore says “Very few people know that Lord Voldemort was once called Tom Riddle. I taught him myself, fifty years ago, at Hogwarts”. That doesn’t make sense at all, because Harry’s parents were married young and were just starting off. (Can’t be bothered proving everything from quotes, but if you got any problems you can just ask!)
When Dumbledore is going through the Pensieve with Harry, he shows Voldemort working in Knockturn Alley, and then a disappearance of ten years “which we can only guess what he was doing”. So Voldemort didn’t rise to power (his Death Eaters were still a secret at that moment, see further in that chapter) for at least ten years after he left Hogwarts.
Even worse is that Arthur and Molly apparently got married when Voldemort was rising to power (“People eloping left right and centre”), meaning that they would have to be younger than Voldemort, and have been in school with James and Lily.
Another point was that Riddle left the school with Dippet in control; Lupin announces that Dumbledore became Headmaster when he was in school. And Dumbledore himself (in both Riddle’s memory and his own) was much, much, younger, and merely a Transfiguration teacher.
(The only real problem is Avery being in school with both Lily & Tom Riddle. If you ignore the instance of Avery being with Lily, and put him with Tom Riddle, everything makes more sense.)
The Delluminator always confused me. After its first name-change from Put-Outer to Delluminator, it was used as a tool to darken areas by absorbing the surrounding light. That is how Dumbledore and Moody used it.
Suddenly, we are introduced to a new use of it – some sort of guide that allowed Ron to hear them talking about him, and then enable him to apparate to where they were.
Is this something Dumbledore custom designed for Ron and just as a matter of style (#phineasnigellus) put it in the deluminator, or did the deluminator always have that function?
I heard from somebody (I think he saw it online, didn’t sound like his own!) that Dumbledore always used that to “spy” on Harry, which is how he knew – often without any rational explanation – where Harry had been and what he had done. [Think Book 2, where Harry is under the Invisibility Cloak in Hagrids shed, yet Dumbledore knows exactly where they are, and talks to them.]
This would enable him to listen to anything they said while mentioning his name. This theory, however, has many holes. Firstly, it would be a stupid way of designing that he could only hear when they said his name, because many conversations he would have wanted to hear he couldn’t, because they wouldn’t have mentioned his name.
Secondly, why would it only work when Harry mentioned his name – it would surely work when anybody in the world mentioned his name, which would surely be all the time! And if it were keyed in for Harry only, how does Hermione’s voice suddenly come up?
[This could be explained that the person closest to the heart of the owner would be heard; Harry was closest to Dumbledore, and Hermione was closest to Ron]
Thirdly, there are certainly things that happened while mentioning Dumbledore’s name that he didn’t know about. For example, Dumbledore’s Army – Dumbledore clearly didn’t know the name until he heard it, at which point he instantly came up with a plan. Another point would be where Harry tells Scrimgeour that he is Dumbledore’s man through and through, which Dumbledore didn’t know about until Harry told him after that.
I don’t buy that. But honestly, it seems like far-to-big a coincidence to have these two functions rolled into one!
“Yeshivish” would define the sociological situation of Yeshiva students in Yeshiva environments. This, obviously, has many different aspects, which changes as often as the students do.
It describes the mode of speech, the mode of dress, the way of thinking, and the things yeshivish people do and have.
What it should mean is where ones learning impacts on every facet of their life. That is to say, not just the the way you speak and the way you interact, but the way you think.
This seems to be an accurate definition of ?? ????. Yeshivish, Sir Voddmort wants to say, should mean simply the same thing.
In my circles, there is a pretty clear pattern about this – the older the generation, the more chance of calling with a title. In my family, my fathers siblings are much older than my mothers (my father is youngest, mother is second), and we call all my maternal uncles by first name but paternal by Uncle/Aunt title. It is simply got to do with how casual the relationship is, and the younger they are the more casual (and automatically less respectful) the relationship is.
Josephs.
It sure can’t hurt. Probably ???? on a ?????? ??????? if the ????? of ?? ??? is only ???? at ???? or not. Big ??????. Rashi seems to hold that father is from conception, mother is from birth.
Lior – you are entitles to follow other shittas, but not to write a list of things you like and don’t like doing! “Kel adon is all right” is an interesting way of saying ??? ?? ????? ??.
“Lived”? Not such a compliment!
Please explain why you said any of the things you said?
In the new Tshuvos R’ Akiva Eiger (thats where I saw it!), they bring a list of ?????? that he paskenned for his shul about various different things; it is extremely interesting. He brings that that one shouldn’t sing anything before Shmoina Esreh.
The problem raised with loud music at weddings is a result of the fact that there are generally elderly people at weddings and/or those with hearing impediments, and the loud music can be terribly detrimental to their hearing. A similar problem is the belief that it can cause damage to the hearing of everybody, not just the elderly.
What on earth can that have to do with modern music?
Sirvoddmrt – I just noticed this thread; I am backing you all the way! ENGLAND!
The only thing I disagree with you about is the Moderators. Our moderators are an excellent bunch, with great senses of humour, and there is no reason to complain.
Stop being so nationalistic, voddmart. Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I get the impression that you have more pride in your country than you have in being a member of the Jewish nation.
Firstly, take everything sirvoddmart says with a pinch of salt; you wait until you him arguing the other side of the coin!
And if you look, there was no pride at all, it was simply pointing out that we invented the language. And you haven’t heard him talking about Jewish nation either.
I think your attempt at a slight on sirvoddmrt’s singlehanded defeat of the CR American Contingency, and you owe him an apology!
Angry birds.
Lol. Lol. Lol
Firstly, Sirius Black was a famous murderer, and it is a bit of a stretch to say they wouldn’t recognize him.
Sirius Black was a murderer when Fred and George were likely to be toddlers. So they wouldn’t remember from the time. The only way they would know would be from hype afterwards, or from Daily Prophet articles etc. It is likely that they wouldn’t have known the story as detailed as we do, and didn’t know the name of his victim. Especially as he was only one of many victims. Note, Fred and George were unlikely to sit and read newspapers, nor were they likely to listen to Molly’s reminiscing. So where would they have found out about it?
Unlikely that I’ll be the only one to point this out…
P.S. I’m pretty sure yekke2 will post the exact extract at some point, so I will neglect that particular duty.
The way the CR is designed, all posts that you get to see are first approved by the moderators, which takes some time. Therefore, during the time until your post actually arrives onscreen anybody can post, and with certain posts pretty much everybody responds the same!