- This topic has 164 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 4 days ago by .
-
Posts
-
To Nope
I’ve decided not to address any of your comments directly. That begins with your latest statements. Feel free to say whatever you want. Hashem knows the truth.
Sorry, I seriously doubt Rav Fishelis approves of having a television and said anything close to that.
To ujm
Please go over to MTJ at your leisure and ask him. Unlike that lowlife Nope I don’t lie. Let’s be clear. He didn’t endorse having a TV and he surely doesn’t have one, he just said that there’s no Issue at all not even DRabonon. Let’s continue the discussion but do so in a civilized manner. BTW, Rabbi Fishelis is in Israel now. He’s stuck there because of the Matzav.
It would still be good to know whether (a) that’s what he said, rather than what one thinks he said, and (b) his reasoning for that. Really, the honest thing to do would be to ask him for a letter over his signature, or a voice note, saying this, so that we can be sure there are no misunderstandings.
(By the way, “Please go over to MTJ at your leisure…. Rabbi Fishelis is in Israel now” – well, then, I guess if you go over to MTJ at your leisure, it can be to learn Torah and talk with the bnei hayeshivah there, but not to actually find out what R. Fishelis has to say on this subject.)
(Not sure if this may have posted already; apologies for repeating myself if it has.)
It still would be good to check (a) whether in fact R. Fishelis said that, or whether one only thinks that he said it, and (b) what his reasoning is. The honest thing to do would be to ask him for a letter over his signature, or a voice note, saying this.
(And by the way, “Please go over to MTJ at your leisure… Rabbi Fishelis is in Israel now.” So by all means it could be good to go over to MTJ, to learn Torah or to talk with the bnei hayeshivah, but to find out what Rabbi Fishelis actually said, you wouldn’t be able to “at your leisure.”)
To the group
And of course Rabbi Fishelis would not only have to sign the letter but have it notarized. What a jerk. His entire existence revolves around challenging every thing I say. As you can see from here it’s not only about Chabad. He’s obsessed with me because of my writing ability. And it’s so foolish because I readily admit that he’s an outstanding writer and he knows way more Torah than I do. Of course it’s also true that he’s an inveterate liar.
TV is a box capable of transmitting various channels. I do not understand how you can get one definite universal answer from a Rav about it.
Is one allowed to watch financial news if he is a financial analyst? I presume yes.
Are there shows that one is not allowed to watch? I did not watch them lately, but I presume that there are still some.
Is one capable to keep to the allowed channels? depends on a person and on a family.
Is it a good public policy for the community? this is a question for a Rav
Is one allowed to pay $100 for the cable TV if he can access the same information via already paid internet? Definitely no, switch cable off and send $100 to tzedokah.How’s about we first get such a letter, or voice note, and then we can go from there and see whether further verification is required. Let’s draw an analogy with how things work in Beis Din – and feel free to check with R. Fishelis, or R. Berel, or anyone else, whether I’m describing things correctly.
Mr. A comes forward with a claim, such as that Mr. B owes him $X. First things first, Mr. A is expected to bring some kind of proof (such as a document). Now, Mr. B might not have a counterclaim, and then that’s that: Mr. A has won his case. Or, Mr. B has a right according to halachah to claim that the document is forged, the witnesses are disqualified, etc. etc., and then the Beis Din may require Mr. A to bring further evidence, such as by getting the witnesses’ signatures validated. Now, you tell me: if Mr. A were to just say to the Beis Din, “Well, then, I can’t be bothered to do that first step, because I know you’ll then put me through the other ones. Don’t you trust me? Why, I’ve told you my whole life story!” then what’s going to be the verdict? “You’re right, we’ll just take you at your word and that’s that. Mr. B, pay up”? Or, “Sorry, Mr. A, if you can’t be bothered to bring any evidence, then case dismissed.”
The analogy, I hope, will be obvious.
You know, it’s a pity. By your own statements in the past (and I see no particular reason to doubt them), you’ve been close with the extended Feinstein family for three generations now, going back to R. Moshe. What a wealth of reminiscences and Torah snippets and descriptions of their middos tovos we could get! Wouldn’t that be so much more productive, and beneficial to the community at large, than this ongoing vendetta across multiple sites and threads? Or at least, you could try for some kind of balance, say 80% of the above, while still reserving 20% for the witchfinding, since after all one does have to let off steam somehow.
To always
I never said that there’s one opinion vis a vis TV. All I said is that Rabbi Fishelis told me it’s permitted. There are others who disagree so one can choose whom to follow. And this is true for so many Halachos.This is true, that there are others who disagree. R. Avigdor Miller being one of them, and indeed one can choose to follow him. Now, I seem to recall some comments of yours – why, yes, there they are, on the previous page of this thread – that took a somewhat different view of the matter:
“Rabbi Miller’s opinion is very far from Halacha.”
“I asked Rabbi Fishelis if it’s such a serious offense and he told me it’s absolutely permitted. So we can put this subject to rest.”
“[Rabbi Fishelis’] word is golden and he’s universally accepted. Rabbi Miller was wrong. Case closed.”So it’s good to see that now you’ve abandoned that notion, and are talking the way a ben Torah does, understanding that there can be multiple valid opinions and that eilu v’eilu divrei Elokim Chayim.
To Nope
When I said that Rabbi Miller’s view isn’t Halacha what I meant is the following. Rabbi Miller said that anyone with a TV has no Cheilek in Olam Habo and there is no arguing on this point. I simply mentioned Rabbi Fishelis to demonstrate that Rabbi Miller’s statement wasn’t factual but I certainly acknowledge that many great Rabbis are anti TV. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain what I meant.Now I’d like to ask you two questions. First, since you claim not to be Chabad why do you care so much about my “vendetta”? Second, why is it that I’m the only anti- Chabad poster that you challenge? Yankel Berel is as forcefully anti-Chabad as I am. And there are quite a few others on YWN in our camp but all your rhetoric and insults are directed at me. Checkmate.
Qwerty, right, I have no problem with that opinion. In fact, I have a TV myself but I do not have a service to hook it up. Is this maris ayn?
To Nope and to elevate this discussion: there is a sefer out from R Chaim Mintz, Oorah founder, with his personal notes from R Moshe, R Ruderman and several other Rabbonim. I did not see anything about TVs yet, but lots of other interesting stories. One is that R Moshe did not want to respond to a rov who published a sefer against R Moshe psak on multiple issues – because R Moshe did not want to take parnosa away from that rov. Hope we treat those we disagrees with – with the same kindness.
Very simple: R. Miller’s statement that such a person “has no cheilek in Olam Haba, no question about it,” ***in its totality,*** is his halachic opinion, to which he’s entitled. That should hardly be surprising to anyone who’s studied Torah for any amount of time. We find Torah giants throughout all the generations – in the Gemara, among the Geonim and Rishonim and Acharonim – making such categorical statements, but it’s not “checkmate” when we do find a question or a differing opinion. That is simply how Torah study works so long as we live in a world where machlokes lesheim shamayim (to say nothing of the other kinds!) proliferates. We daven three times a day השיבה שופטינו כבראשונה, that Hashem give us back the Great Sanhedrin that will indeed be the venue of last resort, where they can say “no question about it” and that’s in fact how it’ll be.
Your two questions – I think the second one answers not only itself, but also your first one. Were I a Lubavitcher, then indeed I might find it necessary to tangle with Yankel Berel and ujm and so forth, but in that case I’d also have the “inside information” about the details of Chabad teachings to be able to do so. Well, I’m not, and I don’t. In fact I wouldn’t have come to this forum at all, if you hadn’t practically invited me by misrepresenting what I said on VIN (having previously informed me, in one of those discussions, that you hang out here too). Our previous interactions on VIN were mostly about Chabad and about R. Miller, just as they’ve been here, simply because you seem a bit obsessed with the two of them to the point of crude namecalling; it doesn’t take a Lubavitcher (or a follower of R. Miller) to see that. That’s one part of what I see as your “vendetta.”
(And by the way, kavod chachamim is important to me, and something that I tend to speak up about. If back on VIN you had been hurling those same epithets at R. Yoel of Satmar or at (יבלח”ט) R. Aryeh Malkiel Kotler, then I’d have said something then too, and then you’d be claiming that I must be a closet Satmarer or BMGer.)
The other part of the “vendetta” is that you’ve decided to make it personal about me both there and here, likewise with the crude namecalling and ad hominems. Now, granted, I ought to have been the bigger person about those and ignored them, and it’s a weakness of mine to not do so.
So the solution is very simple. You don’t want me following you around? Drop your compulsion to drag me (with or without mention of my screenname) into your arguments with others. Drop your compulsion to call Jews “kofrim” and other such invective because they understand a Gemara differently than you do. In fact, at least for a while, drop your compulsion to sit in judgment at all on any Jews (cf. Rambam’s advice about going to the opposite extreme for a while, to eventually settle on the “golden mean”). Then, bli neder, you’ll see the back of me.
—
AAQ: I certainly hope so. As I said above, it’s hard for me to resist answering back in kind when being a target of insults based on obvious misquotations of what I said, but I hope that we’re at the end of that now. (There is indeed much to learn in that regard from R. Moshe: he was an ish ha’emes to the Nth degree, and that went hand in hand with his kindness, as indeed they must.)
What is the name of the sefer, by the way? I see where R. Mintz has published “Ask the Rabbi”; is that what you’re referring to? I’ll have to look it up. I also fondly remember stories by Hanoch Teller about R. Moshe and his incredible middos tovos, and indeed I’d love to hear more, particularly from those who knew him personally.
R Mintz book is
זקניך יאמרו לך
Publisher
ספרי עץ החיםTo the group
I didn’t plan to share this tidbit but Nope’s latest post in which he tries to portray me as a monster and himself as an innocent victim who was dragged against his will to YEN is just too much. Over a year ago on VIN Nope was spouting Menace Friedman’s Kefirah that no one can be punished no matter what sin he does. Nope wasn’t quoting Menace this is his Shitah which leads me to believe that he’s Chabad..In any event I said to him, “Are you guaranteeing that if I eat a pork sandwich on Yom Kippur that nothing will happen to me? ” Fe said yes. So I figured I’d have fun with him and I told him I’d do it. This psychotic sent me his contact information and told me to make a video of myself performing the act and then I should send it to him. I kid you not people. He can deny it but Hashem knows the truth. BTW have you ever seen Nope or any other Lubavicher use the word Hashem? Checkmate
Reminder
A] the following is somejew’s “psak” :
this is somejews language , copied and pasted :
In (very) short, that means that if goyim – chas v’shulem – threaten masses of jews, our kosher responses are: make peace, give gifts, run away, and pray to G-d. What we are not allowed to do is organize an army and physically fight the enemy.
[somejew]
——-
B] the following is maran habet yosefs psak in his halacha sefer the shulchan aruch :
halacha mandates , violating Shabbos to physically fight against an enemy that attempts to seize even ‘kash vateven’ —since it begins with kash and ends with lives (Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, siman 329).
Will repeat again :
mandates to …. physically fight against an enemy.
—
This is the question mr somejew –
How do you fit A with B ?
.
.You know, qwerty, speaking to “the group” and not directly to me doesn’t prevent me from seeing what you wrote. And since you’ve already broken your self-imposed statement at the top of this page (“I’ve decided not to address any of your comments directly,” on June 23) by doing just that (“To Nope,” June 26), why then you might as well continue doing so.
Now, R. Friedman’s statements did come up at the time, but the focus was on something else altogether: the possibility of teshuvah for various classes of reshaim (and, intersecting with that, whether today’s porkei ol are in that category, or are tinokos shenishbu). I stated that no matter how far a person is gone, teshuvah is always possible and is accepted by Hashem. You had, as I recall, pooh-poohed that notion, and said, in essence, that just because we find such examples in the Gemara doesn’t mean that it can actually happen in our times. (I can’t promise that I’m quoting you precisely, since those comments on VIN have long since disappeared, but that’s my recollection.)
You know, I was always taught that the Torah is eternal. Check with R. Fishelis whether that’s correct. Now, the Torah pretty clearly states that there is the potential for teshuvah, that Hashem looks forward to us doing so, that one who does teshuvah is thereby spared punishment for his aveiros, etc. etc. None of these are R. Friedman’s, or any Chabad person’s, chiddush; you can find them in pesukim throughout Tanach, in Gemaras and Rishonim and Acharonim. Start with the first page of Rabbeinu Yonah’s Shaarei Teshuvah, for example.
(Furthermore, reliable Torah sources also make it clear that even before the person does teshuvah, and even if he is to be branded as a rasha, then there is still room for Ahavas Yisroel towards him or her, again contrary to your position in those debates. בהשגחה פרטית I just came across something along those lines in Artscroll’s Ein Yaakov, Sotah 47b, quoting Noam Megadim by R. Elazar of Tarnogrod, a famous early Chassidic (not Chabad) rebbe: “…the premise that a tzaddik cannot love a grave sinner is mistaken… No one is entirely wicked – nor for that matter is anybody wholly perfect. Even great and saintly people contain some small measure of evil within themselves. And so, just as when it comes to ourselves, we must love and draw close that which is good within us while hating and rejecting our evil side, that same attitude must be employed regarding the wicked… we must realize that the sins they commit do not define their essence. Every Jew has some spark of goodness and holiness within him that remains untainted by sin, and we must make every effort to find and love that spark.”)
Now, somewhere in the course of that argument you brought up the notion that you’re going to eat something non-kosher (a McDonald’s cheeseburger, as I recall, not “a pork sandwich on Yom Kippur,” not that this detail is material to this conversation), and I’d have to take the blame for it, since I was insisting that teshuvah is possible no matter what. As I recall, I had said I’m willing to take that onus, and to be answerable to the Beis Din Shel Maalah, if you send me a video of you doing so, but not just on your say-so that you had done it. See, you may want to look up the concept of “calling one’s bluff,” something that any normal person comes across at least once in their lifetime.
—
AAQ: Yasher koach. I’ll be sure to look it up.
To the group
I’m absolutely amazed that Nope confirmed the story I reported last week. He even conceded that he urged me to commit this heinous Aveirah and to send him a video to prove my guilt. If this doesn’t say all you need to know about Nope you can fill in the rest.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.