Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
CTL: I should’ve been clearer in saying they don’t use non-Hebrew lettering on matzeivas. IOW, no English. Yiddish, obviously, uses the Hebrew alphabet. Although, other than names, I don’t recall ever seeing other Yiddish wording on matzeivas.
“Every chabad house rabbi knows exactly who is Jews and who is not in his Chabad house”
Why would they accept ANY non-Jews?
This endearment language comes across like the “minhag” of leaving flowers at the gravestone.
Kedem makes ligh wines.
In “more heimishe circles” there’s no non-Hebrew on a matzeiva.
People who think they’re Jewish but are not include those
1. Who converted via non-Orthodox
2. Who have a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother (paternal descent)
3. Who were adopted by non-religious Jews
4. With a supposedly Jewish mother (and father) but the mother’s mother (or mother’s mother’s mother, etc.) is one of the above (#1, #2 or #3) or maternally descended thereof any number of generations back.And such people (#4) could even honestly mistakenly think they come from a fully Jewish heritage, on all sides. And will claim as such if asked (for kiruv or marriage purposes.)
And #4 can go back quite a few generations (i.e. five+ generations back) considering that the Reform movement is 200 years old and in the United States intermarriages have been a consistent issue for the last 150 years and false conversions even longer (as those started in 1800s Germany.)
In short, a large percentage of self-identified Jews who don’t come from a straight line of Orthodox descent are, in fact, gentiles.
And identifying who is not Jewish based on maternal descent over the past 200 years is an extremely difficult task in many or most cases, requiring a very large amount of research and investigations that in 2019 may or may not result in a definitive determination.
“the fact the non-frum Jews are increasingly goyim, means they probably should be seen as being “safek goy, safek mamzerim” (cf. Ethiopian Jews) which resolves the problem.”
This does NOT resolve the problem. Because since he’s a safek mamzer, that means he’s by definition a Jew. And a safek mamzer is a much bigger problem than a safek goy.
It’s interesting to note that Syag strongly objects to generic or broad criticisms of Modern Orthodoxy but does the same herself regarding Chabad.
We can quibble whether it is above or below 50%, but it is clearly a huge percentage.
It’s weird that so many billionaires and other extremely wealthy people choose to live in high density New York City.
You’d think they’d rather live in a suburb based on the arguments here against high density housing.
Since we have those saying that Lakewood’s already been irretrievably ruined by overgrowth, perhaps they should propose that half of Lakewood’s population be expelled (which half to be determined by lottery) and the town then raze those homes and make it into parkland.
Gaon, your point is noted but that is a separate discussion than what we’re talking about. And there’s answers to your point. Your point would be no different than regarding the first Chasidim when they went to Nusach Sefard. And they have answers justifying it. There’s nothing particularly unique in this regard with the Oberlanders who became Chasidim.
The discussion here is about changing the mesorah, minhagim and hashkafas from your father and grandfathers mesorah. In that regard, the Oberlanders who became Chasidim are no different than the Yekkes who became Litvaks.
Again, Lit, your not disputing my point. You’re simply discussing to what extent it occurred, not whether it occurred.
Nowhere did I state that there weren’t other Oberlanders who moved towards the Litvish/Yeshivish world.
So tell me, Lit, between those that moved towards Chasidism and those that moved towards the Litvish world, how many are left — especially among the younger generation — that retain the original purely Oberland hashkafa? You know, their havara (which was similar to the Chasidims), Nusach Ashkenaz (like the Litvish) and their other aspects and minhagim.
You could say the same about the Yekkes too, btw. Instead of moving towards Chasidism and to a lesser extent Litvishism like the Oberlanders, the Yekkes mostly melted into the Litvish/Yeshivish world while another contingent (smaller than the former) melted into the MO world. Yes, those that melted away oftentimes still hold on to some shrayim of Yekkishkeit, like wearing a Talis starting by their Bar Mitzvah.
And then there’s the few left over who still stick with the original Yekke/RSRH/Breuer’s minhagim/kehilla.
And like your complaint that the current Vienner Rov made Vien too Chasidish, there are those in Khal Adas Jeshurun who complain that Rav Shimon Schwab zt’l made KAJ too Yeshivish/Litvish.
GAON: Your 100% correct about the תימנים.
ZSK: “The proper term for those communities is “Edot HaMizrach”, although “Sephardic” seems to be the adopted term”
Which communities? How are you differentiating between who is properly Sephardic and who is properly Edot Hamizrach.
Specifically describe each and how you properly differentiate between the two.
(And where “Northwest of Manhattan”? That sounds like some upper scale Modern Orthodox wannabe community.)
Kollelman: What’s your source as to where this is “documented” to a greater extent than the Ashkenazim?
Do you know how and/or when the Sefardim ended up in Spain and/or how/when the Ashkenazim ended up in France and Germany? Or from where each of them originally came from before Europe?
Lit, you’re ignoring my main points and resorting to silly comments such as about how I spelled a last name (ironically enough as a result of how spell check modified it.)
The fact is I gave you numerous examples of how many different Oberlanders moved towards Chasidism — some to greater extents and some to somewhat lesser extents. Mostly after the war though you correctly pointed out one example predates the war.
The examples were, and remain, Dushinsky (einekelech of the Chasam Sofer himself), Vien, Nitra, Kashau, Tzehlim, Krasna and Pupa.
None of your points disputes this.
Who is REC?
Now that Rav Brudny assumed Rav Berenbaum’s seat on the Moetzes for Mir, who will assume Rav Pam’s seat on the Moetzes for Torah Vodass? It seems Rav Reisman is on the way there.
And who has a closer connection to Eretz Yisroel between the Sefardim from Barcelona, Spain compared to the Ashkenazim from Worms, Germany?
Lit: Rav Levovits also wore a shtreimal. The Williamsburg shul switched to Nusach Sefard a longer time ago than the other Viener shuls, I think. And the reason they switched was because the klal was already changing nusach. The shuls changing to Sefard wasn’t what caused so many of the Viener people who switched earlier.
A similar trajectory towards greater Chasidim could also be seen by Nitra, Kashau, Tzehlim, Krasna and Pupa.
Klal Yisroel was forbidden to return en masse to Eretz Yisroel prior to the arrival of Moshiach.
Furthermore, the fact that Rav Moshe Feinstein, Rav Aharon Kotler, the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Chaim Brisker, the Chasam Sofer, the Rema, Tosfos, Rashi and so many other Gedolei Yisroel (the vast majority) didn’t, answers your question.
Rav Aharon Kotler with Torah, the Satmar Rebbe with Chasidus and Rav Moshe Feinstein with Halacha are the three pillars that built the Torah community in postwar America from the ashes of churban Europe in a barren America that had a terribly weak prewar Judaism.
Lit –
“1) The population (Jewish and general) and land area of of modern Lithuania is a lot smaller than that of Poland, where Hasidism was more dominant.”
Are you trying to say that there were less Litvish Yidden that Chasidish and Oberlander Yidden in the prewar period?
Jewish “Lita” refers to more than just modern Lithuania.
“2) Oberlander are like Litvaks in that they both rejected the new Hasidic movement and stuck to old fashioned Yiddishkeit.”
Oberland, i.e. the Chasam Sofer, etc., did not reject Chasidim. They were on very friendly terms and interactions with them even though they never joined the movement.
And after the war large segments of Oberlander Yidden (i.e. Vien, Dushinsky, etc.) joined the Chasidic movement.
ZSK, you’re the hater here. Your comment is patently false and absolutely not what I meant. In fact, never before you posted your comment have I associated the term Mizrachi with kipa sruga Jews.
NC: You apparently never tasted a good cholent and kugel.
Mr. Rebbetzin: No they are not “purer bold” and nor is the mesorah/minhagim of the Jews from Spain (Sephardim) any closer to the Avos than the mesorah/minhagim of the Jews from France and Germany (Ashkenazim.)
CTL: Country Yossi is your age.
How would a Sephardi or Mizrachi know that he’s a Sephardi and not a Mizrachi, or vice versa?
The OP asked for the actual best printer. None of that Brother junk comes close to the AccurioPress C6100; so please stop hockin ah chinik.
Trivia:
Explain how to tell the difference whether a person is a) Sephardic or b) Mizrachi.
“I answered “if there wasn’t what is the point of life“”
To serve Hashem. Even if there’s no afterlife.
He won the debate you little racist.
AccurioPress C6100
@Yankelle – I’m makpid on Chasidishe shechita. Do they make BY with Chasidishe shechita?
CTL: Would you support a Constitutional Amendment or SCOTUS outlawing abortion for purely economic, non-medical, reasons?
Can I start eating kitniyos if I join?
It might just make it worth it despite the extra selichos.
ubiq: On that token you should be advocating for the legalization of homicide since, to borrow your argument, Halacha and lehavdil secular law have very different approaches to determine what is self-defense. The only way to insure that if someone kills someone in a halachicly justifiably self-defense that secular law will deem to be homicide is to legalize homicide much as you advocate to legalize most abortion. Do you support making illegal abortion for purely economic, non-medically necessary, reasons?
CTL: Do you support that abortion in the first trimester for exclusively economic (non-medically necessary) reasons should be legal? If so you negate your earlier argument.
TheFake: You’re opposed to discussing halachic questions that are directly addressed in the S”A?!
Nu, what does the S”A pasken?
1) I didn’t say it cannot make sense. I said in this particular cherem of the GRA it doesn’t make sense since the people it was placed on passed away long ago. (Implicit is that it was placed on specific people.)
2) Your disagreeing with a point does not make your interlocutor obsessed.
P.S. Since Reb Golden brought up the GRA and DY brought up CRG, it is worthwhile mentioning that the GRA wanted to discontinue CRG.
Since you went off topic (which is okay) about CRG, just to continue that line of thought…
1) If someone violated CRG by marrying two wives, a) what are the consequences? Is he in a cherem in the standard way as when a B”D places someone in cherem? b) How does he remedy the situation and exit cherem? Must he divorce one of his wives?
2) If he must divorce, can he choose which one?
3) What if both refuse to accept a divorce. Then CRG prohibits him from forcibly divorcing either and he remains married to both. What to do then?
Mr. Rebbetzin: Do you understand which Litvaks started wearing eyeglasses, Borsalinos and driving automobiles, which you surely similarly view as a break from previous mesorah?
“It makes perfect sense if the cherem wasn’t on a specific person or people, but on anyone who conducts themselves a certain way.”
1) Are you asserting that the GRA’s cherem was not against specific people but rather was placed against all — unspecified — people who conduct specific activities?
2) If so, do you assert that the GRA intended his cherem to remain active indefinitely, for hundreds of years? Rabbeinu Gershom specifically specified a time frame on his cherem. Do you assert anyone who can place a cherem has the ability the place a cherem that remains active for doros doros?
3) If you assert all the above is true, who do you believe today has the ability to formally pronounce which people today fall into a cherem issued hundreds of years ago? And which such entity has pronounced which people today fall into the GRA’s cherem? And who can dispute such a pronouncement?
IiTfT: Explain, because that makes no sense.
If Rabbi Shimon places Reuven into cherem and later Reuven passes away, the cherem doesn’t carry over to Reuven’s great-grandchildren that were never even alive when Reuven was in cherem.
I’ve seen pictures and paintings from Lita and from Germany in the 1800s with the Yidden wearing shtreimals and long peyos.
Not Chasidim.
The cherem is meaningless. It was only applicable to the people alive when it was issued, in any event. Since they all were niftar by now, it is irrelevant by any account.
And see my previous comment.