May 15, 2017 11:19 am at 11:19 am #1275984
I have two Rabbanim whom I am trying to get in touch with regarding the LH issue. One of them is someone whom I can only get in touch with through an intermediary, so I wasn’t able to go into any details. Based on what I did tell him, he told me that I should ask you who the Rav was who you spoke to so that I can call him and ask him why he thought that this was not loshon hora.
I am still trying to reach the other Rav so that I can ask him the sheilah, but meanwhile, can you give me your Rav’s name so that I can call him to find out why he thought this was muttar?
btw, I am also curious as to why anyone thought there was no loshon hora. The moderators apparently did not consider it loshon hora and it seemed that others felt the same, but no one gave an explanation. It would make it easier to ask the sheilah if I knew what it was based on.
The system does not let me back into the other thread, so please respond here. (btw, I have not been able to read any responses since I last posted, so if this question was already answered, I have not seen it).
Thank you!May 15, 2017 1:13 pm at 1:13 pm #1275999
LU, why does it bother you so much that people don’t agree with you? Not everyone holds the same shittaMay 15, 2017 1:14 pm at 1:14 pm #1276000
I personally don’t think it would be a good idea to share the rav’s name publicly – we don’t even know what the exact shaila was, so it probably wouldn’t be fair to the rav. Additionally, it reduces FuturePOTUS’s privacy.
From FuturePOTUS’s retelling of the psak, the focus of the question asked to the rav was on the fact that the enrollment application and subsequent request to the parent were derided publicly, and the city in which it happened was mentioned. That was not all that was written, however. I found the swipes at a specific institution (whose relevance to a girl’s high school is uncertain) and “klal Yisroel’s” stature to be more problematic than mentioning the city or decrying the incident. No idea whether those additional swipes were included in the shaila, but it wasn’t discussed here, and it seems not.May 15, 2017 4:56 pm at 4:56 pm #1276913
He had already stated he wouldn’t.May 15, 2017 6:53 pm at 6:53 pm #1276943
Avrum in MD – thank you for answering. The issue was the fact that the specific institution and Klal Yisrael were publicly derided. So if you are correct about Future Potus’s question and answer, no Rav in fact said that it was okay. In that case, it is a clear-cut case of loshon hora and it was definitely both permitted and obligatory for me to respond.
It is also obligatory for the moderators to delete it. It is stated on the Coffee Room rules that loshon hora is deleted. The moderators do often delete loshon hora when it is pointed out to them. I had been under the impression that any time that loshon hora gets through, it is an oversight, and that as soon as it is pointed out, the moderators would delete it.
Am I incorrect about that? Is there a reason why the moderators haven’t yet deleted it? Perhaps you have an explanation? If so, I would be more than happy to hear it.
Thank you.May 15, 2017 6:54 pm at 6:54 pm #1276944
There is one other point that is very important to mention. I did research the matter and the entire story was completely false. There is no girls’ high school in Lakewood that refuses to take students whose fathers wear blue shirts.
I also want to remind everyone that according to halacha, one is not allowed to believe loshon hora. How is it possible to believe that the person is lying? The Chofetz Chaim explains by pointing out that anyone who speaks loshon hora is a rasha. He says that since we know the speaker is a rasha by virtue of the fact that he is speaking loshon hora, there is no reason to believe that he is telling the truth.May 15, 2017 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #1276948
“I did research the matter and the entire story was completely false. There is no girls’ high school in Lakewood that refuses to take students whose fathers wear blue shirts.”
This is a very big and very common problem in the CR. The OP said :
I responded that due to the type of work I do, I wear blue shirts. I was told (direct quote with no exaggeration): “please keep a white shirt in your car, and when you leave work, you need to put your white shirt on”.
Nobody said she wasn’t accepted for his blue shirt.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The Mods get many complaints asking us why we posted/didn’t delete things that were never even stated. How much of this argument and name calling is based on things that were NOT actually stated. It is very important, when accusing others of L”H, referencing others posts in a conversation or even just replying, to read carefully and be cognizant of what the poster actually wrote. Perhaps a poster needs correcting, but wouldn’t it make more sense if we actually know what it was he said in the first place?May 15, 2017 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm #1276960
29- I agree with you that one must be very careful when quoting others and/or accusing others of l”h that one clearly understand what was written. I have also seen that to be a problem in the CR.
In this case, I fail to see how that applies. The OP stated that when his daughter applied to the school, he was asked if he wears blue shirts. He responded that he does but only because he has to for work. Their response was that he must change as soon as he leaves work.
This was clearly not a random conversation between two people. The OP felt it necessary to mention that it was the school his daughter was applying to and not a random person on the street. He also felt it necessary to mention that the school told him this as he was applying to the school.
It is clear that the school was telling this to him as a parent in the school, and that they were telling him this as a matter of policy – the policy being that if wants to be a school parent, he is not allowed to wear blue shirts (except when he is as work).
I do not see any other of reading his words.
Btw, when I researched the matter, I did describe the situation as it was written (that he must change his shirts as soon as he leaves work), and I was told that they all of the girls’ high schools in Lakewood accept girls whose fathers wear blue shirts (not just at work), and therefore the story can’t be true.May 15, 2017 8:45 pm at 8:45 pm #1276961
Further to the above post (960), in addition to my researching the matter, as I already pointed out, one is not allowed to believe it since one is not allowed to believe loshon hora. So even if he hadn’t written that Lakewood schools don’t accept girls whose fathers wear blue shirts, it would be assur to believe whatever it is he did write, since what he wrote was written as loshon hora (in order to put down Am Yisrael and a particular institution).May 15, 2017 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm #1276962
Most importantly, as I have repeatedly mentioned, the main L”H issue was not the blue shirts and that is not what I was protesting. What I was protesting, and the reason I am asking that the thread be deleted is that Am Yisrael and a particular institution were derided (as I mentioned in post #943 above and as Avrum in MD mentioned).
That is the main issue here and the moderators have not yet responded to that.
Thank you.May 15, 2017 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm #1276963
btw, I did not ask you to delete the thread because of the blue shirt story – I brought that in in this thread only to make the posters aware that it’s not true and they are not allowed to believe it.May 16, 2017 2:49 pm at 2:49 pm #1277281
Wow – I was zoche to an emotican! I feel so honored!May 18, 2017 11:53 am at 11:53 am #1280498
LU, thanks for standing up for what is right in all of this.
29, you’re dancing between the raindrops. The OP [in the other thread] was not written by the Rashba, and there is no reason to splice his words so carefully. The implication of his post was very clearly as LU has described. Even according to your own interpretation, it’s Avak LH at best, and most probably regular LH (or, as LU points out, Motzi Shem Ra).
As far as the question of how it is permitted to read a LH post in the first place, in my case it happens by accident. I rely on the Mods not to allow LH posts, and for the most part, they do a very good job. If I read LH in a post, I would normally protest. By the time I saw that whole thread, LU and others had done a very good job of this, and there was nothing left to say except, “Look at me! I also don’t like LH!”, so I didn’t get involved.May 18, 2017 12:38 pm at 12:38 pm #1280539
“29, you’re dancing between the raindrops.”
I am not dancing between anything. I am stating a common problem that occurs across topics and am asking people to be more careful. In addition to refraining from assuming that they were correct in the first place. This is imperative in cries of lashon hora as well as general discussion.May 18, 2017 12:40 pm at 12:40 pm #1280540
“The implication of his post was very clearly as LU has described.”
People need to be a lot more careful about what they call “clear”May 18, 2017 12:54 pm at 12:54 pm #1280546
Catch Yourself – thank you very, very much for your words of support!!! You can’t imagine how much I appreciate it! It is extremely difficult for me to be assertive and “stand up for what is right”. You can’t imagine how difficult it is for me, and the heart palpitations I have every time I have to do so.
So your support is very, very, much appreciated!
I do want to point out something though. When something like this comes up, don’t assume that everyone else already did a good enough job, so why get involved (even though that is the natural reaction). Every comment by every poster makes a huge difference, and I think that halachically everyone who saw it is required to say something – certainly as long as the post has not yet been deleted.
(This is not meant to be a judment on those who felt it was too difficult to get involved. I am just pointing out that l’chatchila everyone who can should try to do so, and even if one finds it difficult, they should make an effort to get over that.)May 18, 2017 1:17 pm at 1:17 pm #1280569
29, I have a lot of respect for you, based on what I’ve observed from your work in the few years that I’ve been in the CR. In this case, however, I think you are mistaken.
Of course, it is true that posts are often misunderstood, misquoted and conflated. I have even misquoted my own post in the same thread! Certainly, when this happens, it should be pointed out.
In my opinion, however, the particular post under discussion was not such a case. Its meaning and implication were unambiguous, as explained quite clearly by LU above. The distinction between, “They said that if I wear blue shirts they would not accept my daughter,” and “They strongly intimated – in the context of school application – that I should not wear blue shirts, but they stopped short of saying that they wouldn’t accept her if I do,” is specious, especially when the tone (and only possible achievement) of the post is derision of a community.May 18, 2017 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #1280578
Thank you for the compliment and more so for the explanation. I think because it was “clear” to you, it is harder to understand the distinction. I have to say that after 30 years of dealing with schools I don’t think it was intimidation or else anything. It was a request that they consider to be valid, that others consider to be a misplacement of Torah values and priorities. (I am NOT discussing the issue (I add this as a reference point to where this post is coming from), I am talking about the inconsistency of the presented facts.) ThEREFORE the two above comments are not even similar to me, nor where they to various others who read them. Perhaps it was clear to you, but I would not even have seen the connection (which I still see as a speculated stretch) had you not explained it. POINT BEING – (NOT that I feel either way about the topic!!!) that it is important to distinguish between your perspective on words that were stated, and the words themselves when making accusations of l”h, ms”r, disagreeing etc. I wanted the concept to be known, as a moderator who often deals with it on this side, and I was pointing it out. I hope this helps you see where I was coming from.
And if someone decides to derail this post with cries of “that’s how conversations work”,” so do we have to double check all our impressions yada yada yada..” go right ahead. I am talking about situations of rebuke. And I am only elaborating in the hopes of clarifying for the specific poster who asked.May 18, 2017 1:54 pm at 1:54 pm #1280598
First, lilmod, I support your effort to keep these boards L”H free and safe for the rest of us. Although I assumed the mods were doing that already (maybe they want to hire you too?) since they are not perfect, or maybe interpreting words in a different way, it is good there is a watch-dog for when things fall thru the cracks.
There are a couple of things here that bothers me though, perhaps you can explain it to me. From all these threads it really seems you know these Halchos well, so maybe I am missing something.
You stated that “the main L”H issue was not the blue shirts and that is not what I was protesting. What I was protesting,…”
If telling over the blue shirt story was not L”H,- afterall, he was retelling an experience that disturbed him, with no names of any school or administrator mentioned (there are lots of schools in that particular city), and had he ended the post there it would have been a legitimate discussion, then why was it ok for you to call this story out as a lie? I could understand if you were doing so to remind everyone that when one hears L”H one is not allowed to believe it, but this you admitted was not L”H. So why not be dan lkaf zechus that this really happened? With all the research you did, you could not possibly have found out about what every principal told every parent. Maybe your sources told you something different because they were talking about official school policy, or something that applied personally to them, but in this parent’s case, it was different? How can you be so sure it was a lie? (I read what you quoted from the chofetz chaim about a rasha, but that would apply to the actual LH statement, not to everything he ever said, no? Or once someone tells L”H even once, it is automatically assumed that everything he ever says is a lie?)
The second issue is one of tochacha. Elsewhere on these boards people have pretty much come to the conclusion that tochacha can only be given if the person knows that his words will be heard and not do more damage. On an anonymous fourm when one does not know the poster or how he will take tochacha, can one give tochacha? Does he not risk that his words will be thrown back at him and lead to more insults and L”H? Granted that when pointing out L”H one is also protecting the listener (or reader, as it may), but what if it backfires on the speaker/writer leading to worse comments? Perhaps it is better to call attention to problematic posts to the mods rather than confront a poster who may not react in the proper way?
These questions are not meant as criticisms, but are halachic questions that have come to mind reading over recent threads, and I am looking for halachic answers, from Lilmod or anyone else who knows these issues better than I do.
Thanks.May 18, 2017 4:38 pm at 4:38 pm #1280650
Thank you Winnie for taking the time to comment. I appreciate your thinking about and analyzing what I wrote.
1. “Perhaps it is better to call attention to problematic posts to the mods rather than confront a poster who may not react in the proper way?”
True. That is why I had tried that first. (remember that you don’t see every post that is written).
2. I don’t think that I ever said that the blue shirts story was NOT loshon hora. I simply said that that was not the part that I was saying is l”h and the reason it should be deleted. I didn’t want to deal with that part of the story because the other was the more obvious problem, and I didn’t want to give a definitive statement regarding that part of the story. There are only so many things one can deal with at a time, and I chose to deal with the part that: a) I thought was worse & b) was more clearly l”h.
please note: I am still not giving a definitive conclusion regarding whether or not that part of the story would be problematic in and of itself IF THE REST HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN AS WELL (the denigrations of klal Yisrael and a specific unconnected institution).
3. Regarding the issue of being mekabel l”h, my point was that since the story was being used as a means of denigrating klal yisrael and a specific institution, it became part of the l”h and therefore it seems to me that one would not be allowed to believe it. Since the purpose of the story was to make klal yisrael and a specific institution look bad, it is now loshon hora (the way it is being told) and therefore it should be assur to believe it.May 19, 2017 12:37 pm at 12:37 pm #1281010
Look, 29, I don’t want to belabor the point, but I think you’re right that it’s important to interpret posts properly.
There is a time when schools communicate expectations for students and families associated with their system. Typically, this is during summer vacation in a student handbook or the like.
By (supposedly) mentioning the expectation about shirt colors in the context of application, the implicit message that the school communicated is that wearing the “wrong” short could jeopardize the acceptance of the student.
It seems to me that any other reading of it is a contrivance, concocted, perhaps, in the spirit of Dan Lkaf Zchus, but this was not the intent of the post in question.May 19, 2017 12:45 pm at 12:45 pm #1281012
I hear what you’re saying, (and again am very grateful for the perspective) but in all sincerity I have to tell you I feel the exact same way about your interpretation. Maybe it is my age or my geographical location. I don’t know. But your interpretation, which you call clear and others do as well, is literally a yoga move for a bunch of others of us. Your clarity will convince you, my clarity (and life experience?) tells me that that presentation you give is mucho contrived, so we don’t have to agree to disagree, but we can both walk away knowing more about people and perspectives and how important it is to know that even when you are so sure it is clear, it may not really be so clear after all.
And thank you for the discussion.May 21, 2017 11:04 pm at 11:04 pm #1282227
Lilmod Ulelamaid: I only saw this thread now, I’ve been offline here for a few days, I apologize for the late response. I’ll mention your request to the Rav tomorrow, but from speaking with him, he doesn’t want his name out there. I’ll mention a few more things about this though. He did see the original post, and read through many of the responses. He is fully versed in Hilchos Lashon Hara (obviously), and gave a full logical reason as to why the post did not constitute an issur l’halacha. What he said fully answers the questions and difficulties you had with the psak. I didn’t post the details online, because as I said on the original thread, it’s not for those who don’t have smicha to debate the psak from someone who does, and as we can all see, even though I left out the details, it still became a massive discussion. However, I can tell from the language of your question here that you have a sincere desire to understand this, so I will forward him your question and leave it for him to respond.May 22, 2017 7:08 am at 7:08 am #1282257
Like you said, it certainly is not for those who are not qualified in Psak Halacha to disagree with those who are. Nevertheless, there is no reason to withhold the reasoning of the Psak that was issued. I, for one, would love to gain a better education.May 22, 2017 1:55 pm at 1:55 pm #1282654
Lilmod, I spoke to the Rav, and he doesn’t want his name out there. (He’s not as into controversial discussions as I am.)May 23, 2017 11:16 pm at 11:16 pm #1284025
WTP – I apologize for the fact that I have not yet had an opportunity to respond to all of your questions/comments.
Regarding the tochacha issue, you wrote:
“Elsewhere on these boards people have pretty much come to the conclusion that tochacha can only be given if the person knows that his words will be heard…”
“The commandment הוכח תוביח את עמיתך “You shall reprove your fellow”, requires a Jew to inform a sinner that his behavior is improper, and attempt to convince him to mend his ways. In voicing his disapproval, one must be prepared to endure embarrrassment and insult and should continue to voice his disapproval SO LONG AS THE FORBIDDEN ACT IS BEING REPEATED. EVEN IF ONE SEES LITTLE OR NO CHANCE THAT HIS WORDS WILL BE HEEDED, HE MUST NEVERTHELESS CONTINUE TO PROTEST.” (“Chofetz Chaim, A Lesson A Day” by Rabbi Shimon Finkelman & Rabbi Yitzchak Berkowitz, Day 93).
(emphasis mine. Please note that one is halachically obligated to protest as long as the act is being repeated even if there is NO chance that your words will be heeded. If something is still online, it is still being repeated and everyone who saw it is obligated to continue to protest until it is removed. In any case, I don’t think there is NO chance here, and I think that if enough people protest, something will be done.)
(There is more to say about the tochacha issue, but this post is long enough).May 24, 2017 12:30 am at 12:30 am #1284116
Winnie “Elsewhere on these boards people have pretty much come to the conclusion that tochacha can only be given if the person knows that his words will be heard and not do more damage. On an anonymous fourm when one does not know the poster or how he will take tochacha, can one give tochacha? ”
The Halacha is the opposite. One must give tochacha unless he’s sure he’ll be ignored and the sinner will continue sinning. If he’s unsure how it’ll be taken, he must give tochacha.May 24, 2017 11:02 am at 11:02 am #1284358
One must give tochacha unless he’s sure he’ll be ignored and the sinner will continue sinning.
Great! You both have had more than ample PROOF that your “tochacha” has been met with “continued sinning” (more of the same posts), by your own claims this has been the case. THEREFORE I expect, starting this VERY minute, that you both will put a STOP to your tochacha and cease from causing further sinning.
THANK YOU!May 24, 2017 11:03 am at 11:03 am #1284328
I’ll mention a few more things about this though. He did see the original post, and read through many of the responses.
Thank you for the clarification of this at least.
[He] gave a full logical reason as to why the post did not constitute an issur l’halacha. What he said fully answers the questions and difficulties you had with the psak. I didn’t post the details online, because as I said on the original thread, it’s not for those who don’t have smicha to debate the psak from someone who does
I, for one, don’t want to debate a psak you received, but to understand the reasoning. Unlike many Internet denizens, I can be convinced. 🙂 I understand why you wouldn’t post your rav’s name; I’d personally be upset on his behalf if you did, but I do not understand why you refuse to post the reasoning.
and as we can all see, even though I left out the details, it still became a massive discussion.
I think it became a “massive” (27 posts is massive?) discussion largely because you left out the details.May 24, 2017 11:10 am at 11:10 am #1284367
“Great! You both have had more than ample PROOF that your “tochacha” has been met with “continued sinning” (more of the same posts), by your own claims this has been the case.’
When did I ever claim that my “tochacha” has been met with continued sinning? I never made such a claim.
Actually, I see that more people are being made aware of the issue. I see many posters being made more aware of the issue and I am sure that there are thousands of readers as well.May 24, 2017 11:22 am at 11:22 am #1284381
“When did I ever claim that my “tochacha” has been met with continued sinning? I never made such a claim.”
Sure you did, go back and look.
Halacha is halacha, are you telling Joseph he is wrong? If halacha says to stop if sinning continues, and does not include a disclaimers for others it is not within your right to bend halacha to fit your perception.May 24, 2017 11:36 am at 11:36 am #1284385
I do not understand why you refuse to post the reasoning.
Agreed. Frankly, it invites skepticism that there was such a psak for this situation.May 24, 2017 11:36 am at 11:36 am #1284386
BTW, is there s’micha in Hilchos Lashon Hora?May 24, 2017 11:55 am at 11:55 am #1284399
“Sure you did, go back and look.”
I went back and looked, and I never wrote such a thing. If you are referring to the fact that there was more l”h after I posted ON THE ORIGINAL THREAD, I never claimed that was as a result of anything I wrote. In fact, I think it’s possible that there was less l”h after I posted.
In any case, I deliberately left that thread, and since I started posting on this thread, there has not been more l”h posted, and in fact, there has been more awareness raised.
As I was planning to point out in response to WTP’s post, yes, one does have to be careful when giving tochacha that it doesn’t lead to more sinning. It is a judgement call that one has to make. When I first responded to the original thread, it was with the hopes that it would be immediately deleted. After all, your rules claim that you do not allow l’h to be posted. Once I saw that the thread was not being immediately deleted and the possibility existed that more damage could be caused by my posting on that thread, I switched to this thread in order to avoid that very possibility.May 24, 2017 12:20 pm at 12:20 pm #1284419
“Agreed. Frankly, it invites skepticism that there was such a psak for this situation.”
I disagree. seeing how quotes get mangled, misquoted, misunderstood and disrespected (sometimes) I would be hesitant to put too much out there.May 24, 2017 12:21 pm at 12:21 pm #1284408
“Halacha is halacha, are you telling Joseph he is wrong? If halacha says to stop if sinning continues, and does not include a disclaimers for others it is not within your right to bend halacha to fit your perception.”
As I already wrote, the sinning is not continuing. Also, I think there is a disclaimer that does apply in this case. I would look it up, but it’s irrelevant, since the sinning is not continuing in any case.May 24, 2017 12:46 pm at 12:46 pm #1284407
I have been trying to be dan l’kaf zchus that YWN does in fact care about hilchos loshon hora and the loshon hora posted was an oversight and would be removed as soon as it was pointed out.
I see now that is not the case, and in fact the moderators don’t want anyone pointing out it out and are trying to get posters to stop pointing it out. As such I would like to ask that my account be deleted (at least until and if I ask a sheilah and find out if it’s mutar halachically for me to be here now that I am aware of that fact).
According to the halachos of lashon hora, you are supposed to turn the person who is doing the aveira first and try to get him to stop before you tell others about it (others who can do something about it). I deliberately tried turning to the moderators and editors first hoping that would be enough, and that I would not have to go elsewhere. Apparently, that is not the case, and this will have to be taken elsewhere (unless you still want to change your minds and delete the loshon hora, so that won’t be necessary. I am still hoping and davening that that will be the case!)May 24, 2017 12:59 pm at 12:59 pm #1284445
Perhaps you should be dan l’kaf z’chus that whoever made the decision that it stays does care about hilchos lashon hora but disagrees with you about this being assur.May 24, 2017 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #1284473
I disagree. seeing how quotes get mangled, misquoted, misunderstood and disrespected (sometimes) I would be hesitant to put too much out there.
I can certainly relate to that. I prefer not to share personal psakim that I have gotten from my rav; it just feels wrong. In this case, however, FuturePOTUS declared that a thread I was participating in was among the most ridiculous he had ever seen, stated that “my” position was wrong (he has not directly addressed me, but addressed another poster with a similar, albeit more extreme, position), supported his position by revealing that he asked a shaila and got a psak that clearly answers “all” of my difficulties, but refuses to divulge any of those answers because the CR participants are not worthy of discussing the psak. I don’t feel like I’m being untoward in any way by asking for the reasoning that would allegedly clear up my difficulties. I’m genuinely curious and open to expanding my knowledge of hilchos lashon hara.May 24, 2017 1:31 pm at 1:31 pm #1284474
Then they would have to explain why. They have been given many chances to do so.
btw, being dan l’kaf zchus doesn’t mean being stupid and thinking that an aveira is not an aveira. This is clearly assur according to Hilchos Loshon Hora. If they have some svara why they think it’s mutar in this case, they must explain to all readers.May 24, 2017 1:35 pm at 1:35 pm #1284480
Lilmod, you seem too rational a person to have this much of an emotional response to an issue. Why are you so attached to this issue? It seems to be taken too far at this point.May 24, 2017 1:48 pm at 1:48 pm #1284487
Then they would have to explain why.
I don’t think they need to explain every decision they make.
btw, being dan l’kaf zchus doesn’t mean being stupid and thinking that an aveira is not an aveira. This is clearly assur according to Hilchos Loshon Hora.
You are entitled to your opinion that it’s assur. I happen to think you’re probably right. You’re not entitled to say motzi shem ra on an organization by saying they don’t care about lashon hora, when you know quite well that in the past, they have deleted (when pointed out) lashon hora and probably delete a whole lot more which never got approved to begin with.
Again, I’m not telling you to change your opinion about whether this particular case was (is) assur, rather to not accuse YWN of deliberately violating hilchos lashon hora.May 24, 2017 2:34 pm at 2:34 pm #1284513
The halacha is that if you give tochacha one person will stop sinning while a thousand others will laugh at you and continue sinning, you must give the tochacha.May 24, 2017 3:28 pm at 3:28 pm #1284585
Backpedal much?May 24, 2017 8:17 pm at 8:17 pm #1285229
“because the CR participants are not worthy of discussing the psak. ”
I don’t think he said or meant that, and I don’t think you think he said or meant that.May 25, 2017 4:06 pm at 4:06 pm #1285863
I don’t think he said or meant that, and I don’t think you think he said or meant that.
It was not a quote of what he said, but I do think that it was his meaning. Also, I’m uncomfortable that you’d think I would write something that I knew to be inaccurate. And I’m curious as to why FuturePOTUS seems to be ignoring my posts.May 25, 2017 4:24 pm at 4:24 pm #1285866
im so sorry to make you feel that way! I just thought it was an emotional “outburst”, sounded like frustration talking. Didn’t mean to say you were lying, although presented your way it sounds like I was saying that, but I wasn’t.
I didn’t hear him saying that. And he doesn’t post daily as you may have noticed from an earlier post so I wouldn’t call it ignoring as much as he just has not yet responded.May 25, 2017 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #1285893
im so sorry to make you feel that way! I just thought it was an emotional “outburst”, sounded like frustration talking. Didn’t mean to say you were lying, although presented your way it sounds like I was saying that, but I wasn’t.
Thank you for such a nice post, and for clarifying what you meant. Upon reflection, I have felt frustrated a bit by a perceived pattern of some posters acting like the CR is populated by undesirables. You are right that it probably would have been better for me to directly address the quotes that bothered me rather than interpreting them via my own words.
I didn’t hear him saying that. And he doesn’t post daily as you may have noticed from an earlier post so I wouldn’t call it ignoring as much as he just has not yet responded.
That’s true, and although he has responded subsequently to my posts, perhaps he has only a short time to be on. Thanks for the different perspective.May 25, 2017 5:30 pm at 5:30 pm #1285915
That’s true, and although he has responded subsequently to my posts,
I meant subsequently to other’s posts.May 25, 2017 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1286044
The reason I haven’t responded as to the reasoning of the psak, was because the Rav I asked the question to felt that it should not be posted here. I thought I made that position clear, and didn’t feel a need to further defend it.
As to why I didn’t respond to Avram in MD’s paragraph by paragraph analysis on my post in the original thread, I didn’t feel that I was able to write anything that could better defend my position than what I originally wrote, and felt that if I wrote anything further it would detract from the original message I wished to put out there. I wrote the post in a moment of focus, and I’m not able to write on that level at most other times to accurately defend my position.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.