- This topic has 108 replies, 22 voices, and was last updated 10 years ago by .
-
Posts
-
OURtorah, why are you so intolerant of squeak? Instead of criticizing him, why don’t you try to help him, and draw him in? Just because he doesn’t serve Hashem the same way you do, doesn’t mean you should have a bad feeling in your heart for him.
Why are people from the more leftist view are always told to be more tolerant of those rightist views , but you rarely see people the other way around.
And please dont say one is defending the Torah. One who eats Gebracks or Chalav Stam is not doing an Averiah of any sort (We are talking about real kosher for example)
If you are tolerant of the intolerant you will be in intolerant of the tolerant and you will squeak at the meek. Which will make you a chef in the idf.
Why are people from the more leftist view are always told to be more tolerant of those rightist views , but you rarely see people the other way around.
Really? Did you read this thread, for example?
And please dont say one is defending the Torah. One who eats Gebracks or Chalav Stam is not doing an Averiah of any sort (We are talking about real kosher for example)
And right there is an example of what you claim is rare. Except that you picked odd examples; when was the last time you actually saw someone seriously calling eating gebrokts or cholov stam an aveirah?
I heard over Yom Tov someone happy that the local Young Israel was slowing closing due to declining membership.
I have had heard those who keep Gebrocks or Chalav Stam (Less than Frum)
DaMoshe, squeak: Your first point about chumros is something you should reconsider.
Quite ironically, the rest of your post demonstrates his point very nicely.
We find plenty of examples where poskim say a lashon such as “ba’al nefesh yachmir”, or “hamachmir tavo alav b’rachah”. You tell me; does it make someone a “better Jew” if he acts in a manner which finds favor in the eyes of the poskim?
Or do you think the “better Jew” is one who seems to always take the easier way out, not in accordance with the way preferred by the poskim?
No, of course we cannot look down upon someone who keeps the ikkar hadin. But we can admire someone who spends more money, or effort, or shows more restraint, to keep a higher standard of halacha. And to equate all standards of halacha is a perversion of the Torah. It is simply not the attitude we find in the poskim.
OK, but how do you decide whom to choose as your rav, and how does your rav decide whether to advise you to be machmir or meikil when both positions are legitimate?
Agav, it seems that R’ Blumenkrantz would only allow Tums if no other antacids were available.
DY: I have been told, on more than one occasion, that because I eat Chalav Stam I have no Ne’emanus on Kashrus because “Kol HeChashud Al HaDavar”. They wouldn’t eat meat in my house.
Also, I once heard a great quote from a Rosh Yeshiva ZT”L of mine. He said that when he was growing up, it was a Mechze K’yuhara to follow every “Ba’al Nefesh Yachmir”. He said a Ba’al Nefesh meant R’ Chaim Ozer or the Chafetz Chaim. Nowadays every guy who opens a Mishnah B’rurah suddenly thinks they’re a Ba’al Nefesh.
Sam, of course there are stupid people in the world. What about the lady who tried to convince her friend not to accommodate her son who took on cholov Yisroel? Any better? But you can’t generalize from stories.
DaMoshe, I’m not sure of your point. Is there really a question that some communities tend to be more machmir, and some more meikil, and that the chumros often have solid basis?
“Only if necessary as an antacid” doesn’t sound like a blanket heter to me.
daasyochid- im not being intolerant of squeak. C”V. I’m intolerant of intolerance. that is not only referring to squeak. its referring to anyone who is intolerant.
Like i said before, I am proud of who I am, I am proud of squeak. I dont know him and I dont know how he conducts his life, but I know he cares enough about his standpoint that he is willing to be intolerant of others. Which in the beginning is fine. You should be strong about who you are. but there is a fine line between passion and solidarity, and hurting people around you.
I’m intolerant of intolerance. that is not only referring to squeak. its referring to anyone who is intolerant.
Yourself included, I assume?
Also, the fact that you’re intolerant of not only squeak, but of anyone like him, doesn’t make you more tolerant, it makes you less tolerant.
daasyochid- im not being intolerant of squeak. C”V. I’m intolerant of intolerance. that is not only referring to squeak. its referring to anyone who is intolerant.
Of course. And that makes you also intolerant. You are intolerant of somethings, and we are intolerant of others.
There is no real difference between us, except that we are intolerant of something that Hashem is intolerant of, while you are intolerant of something you decided to dislike on your own.
I didn’t assume that this was a discussion about you personally, especially since you stopped labeling yourself.
Nothing difficult to understand, it just seemed that you presented R’ Blumenkrantz’ shittah as mattir as an antacid under all circumstances, and I’m not sure he meant it that way (although he might have).
PBA: I think the point is that he (she?) is claiming that squeak is claiming to be intolerant on Hashem’s behalf when, in actuality, Hashem isn’t against the same things that squeak is.
only if necessary as an antacid
To me, it’s not necessary as an antacid if there’s another effective antacid available.
I think the point is that he (she?) is claiming that squeak is claiming to be intolerant on Hashem’s behalf when, in actuality, Hashem isn’t against the same things that squeak is.
I don’t think she argued the substance of the issues.
I think she’s singing kumbaya.
Sam: gufa al zeh anu danim.
PBA: Right. Which is why that it should be an acceptable starting ground to not dismiss other peoples’ opinions outright without clear disproofs.
I agree that theres a problem looking down on people when youre being machmir. I disagree with the notion that people dislike the chumrah keepers because of this. It does seem from this thread that the main ill feelings towards them are because people feel inferior and afraid they will be looked down at eventually, mixed with a bit of mutated kinas sofrim.
Sam: I think I have clear disproofs. It should be just as taboo for him to be intolerant of me for disapproving, without clear disproofs of my position.
DaMoshe, why do you insist on personalizing this? Maybe my rav holds it’s muttar either way, maybe he holds it’s assur either way, maybe I’m the rav, maybe my rav doesn’t follow R’ Blumenkrantz’ book, maybe my rav is R’ Blumenkrantz’ son, maybe I’m Sefardi, or maybe I don’t get heartburn.
I was simply commenting on what it seems that R’ Blumenkrantz meant.
PBA: Disagree. I think that, until such time as you can clearly disprove the other opinion, the opinion which is dismissive of others is in the wrong. Once you give a clear disproof, then whoever still holds to the disproven opinion is in the wrong. But until you present said unanswerable disproof, the opinion excluding others is to be considered in the wrong. I think that’s the only legitimate way to have any discussion (see what I did there?),
wow. I wish that every comment wasn’t so hostile one towards another. Beis Hillel and Beis shammai disagreed over and over but at the end of the day they were friends. They simply disagreed and rightfully so. Everyone needs to love and fear Hashem in the best way possible.
Our purpose is to take all these challenges and make the most of them, by doing so learning about our kochos and bring ourselves to IyH a newer spiritual level.
You don’t have to listen to anything I’m saying, but as someone who grew up exactly the way you are describing. I have true insight into the modern orthodox community, if we are going to put titles on it. I know there way of thought. I feel that as someone who understands both ends of the spectrum I’m trying to fill the gap. There are many flaws in both, but there are beatiful things in both as well. And im sorry everyone on this planet fails to see beauty in one another. But at the end of the day, even if the beauty is simply, they are doing what they know best to make Hashem happy, and so are we. wow we have something in common. amazing. and if you think that what they are doing is wrong, then intolerance, hating, spitting, talking badly (and i;m talking to bboth sides of the spectrum-everyone is at fault)are no going to change anything.
Hashem might not want them serving him the way they are. maybe they are wrong. but if you beleive that they are wrong and simply want to excommunicate them, then you are wrong too. Hashem doesn’t want that- Hashem doesn’t want sinas Chinam. It says in the Torah, something both sides of the spectrum understand VEAHATVA LERAYACHA CAMOCHA. everyone gets that. so start from there. If we learn to love each other, we will not only have more tolerance for one another, but we might have a hashpaa on people who need it.
again, please mochel me if you took what i was saying the wrong way.
see what I did there?
Lol, you did a nice job of demonstrating the hypocrisy of being intolerant of the shittah of intolerance.
OURtorah, I know you mean well, and I can appreciate that you simply want everyone to just get along, but consider the possibility thst you are being just a bit presumptuous in assuming that you are the only one participating in this discussion who has a multilateral perspective of the issues.
DY: I made the final sentence a little stronger than necessary for the sake of humor. The fact is, any argument about intolerance can be turned on its head. It shouldn’t, though, because intolerance is often a bad thing and blanket arguments about “you’re saying I’m wrong” hurt good and decent people.
To actually explain my last line, sans the humor. I am taking it as a given that it is impossible for honest discussion to begin if your assumption from the start is that my position is wrong. If you can prove my position untenable, you have won the debate. If you can’t, and I also can’t prove you wrong, then we clearly both have acceptable positions. My point wasn’t that you would be wrong with the inherently intolerant position. It’s that you’re no longer playing by the same rules. I wasn’t saying you can’t do that. I was pointing out the position of dismissal out of hand (which we’ll call the inherently intolerant position) does not presume to be involved in a debate. Therefore, someone taking that position is claiming an a priori moral superiority without even deigning to prove it (or at least to begin by citing others who have proven it). I won’t tell you that such a position is wrong without proving it (though it seems fairly self-evident), but I will say that it is obvious that someone has the right to defend himself, and strongly, against the inherently intolerant position. Prove me wrong. That’s fine. But dismissing me out of hand is, well, pointless.
DY- your right, there are definitly others who know the perspectives well. This is just how I feel coming from my understanding. I want to hear others perspectives, Im well aware mine is one in 7 billion!
So Sam is now imposing a requirement on all frum jews to be experienced debaters in addition to being ovdei hashem. If an individual cannot debate on par with the challenger, he must accept the challenger’s opinion as equally valid. Hmmm, we’ve had that standard imposed on us in the past, too. Shall we be given 3 days to leave or is that too generous?
squeak: I’m saying that if you’re going to reject someone’s opinion, you should either know how to or at least be able to cite someone who successfully rejected that opinion. Otherwise, how do you know that you’re right? And if you can’t dispute the opinion but believe you’re right, just walk away and say, “That’s not for me”. What’s wrong with that? That’s not a dismissal nor an acceptance. That is an admission that you are not well-versed enough in the issue to have an opinion either way. You just know what you believe in and that that is acceptable, but you don’t know enough to preclude someone else’s opinion.
Great point, squeak.
What I was going to respond to Sam was that once we establish the hypocrisy of being intolerant of any intolerance, we can debate when intolerance is acceptable and when it is not.
But the one who claims intolerance of intolerance has admitted that intolerance has its place, and the holder of a position of tolerance in a given debate is not necessarily the muchzak.
DY: What point did squeak make, other than to misrepresent my position and insult me? I have not claimed intolerance of intolerance at all. Rather, I have claimed that the inherently intolerant position doesn’t gain anyone anything. It might be right, but if you can’t back it up then it is essentially meaningless to hold.
Sooo… how about some haroset for everyone to eat and relax with.
Sam, he made the point that one’s inability to “back it up” doesn’t automatically make him wrong.
I did not mean to agree to any possible implied insult.
is anyone gonna go to sleep tonight and feel good about how they are talking to each other. your clearly hurting each other.
I frankly have no idea what any of you are talking about anymore, but the “I’m intolerant against intolerance” line boils down to “I’m intolerant, but I even go further and claim the moral high ground of calling my opponents intolerant.”
DY: But that wasn’t what I said. Being unable to back up your opinion doesn’t make you wrong, but it does make it foolish of you to dismiss someone else outright.
OURTorah: I thought most of us were talking pretty nicely.
Now you’re confounding two separate degrees of dismissal. For example, I reject Reform judaism outright simply because they do not believe in the Torah or Hashem. I do not need to analyze and refute every argument or precept of theirs, it is enough that I disagree with their main ideals. There is no need to search for glimmers of truth to learn from them. The degree of dismissal you are talking about, i.e. welcoming dissent and giving it fair review, is reserved for dissent coming from an acknowledged (theological) ally who brings a challenge. I hope you agree, because if not we are back to choosing to follow the Church if their debater is more skilled than ours.
In this case, since I do not want to insult you, I will further explain that I was speaking in general terms in the above paragraph. In this thread, it is not because I view you as a theological non-ally but because your challenge was ab attempt to turn a mainstream accepted practice on its heels based on a pilpul that you’re not the first person in the world to have heard of. It is both rather arrogant and myopic. Myopic that you believe you understood the entire issue and all the possible issues following the discovery of that pilpul all the way up to cancelling a wide spread minhag. Arrogant that you believe you are the right person to bring this light to klal yisroel. I’ll say no more at this point unless you still think I am being unclear.
Sam, maybe it’s not what you meant, but this is what you said: PBA: Disagree. I think that, until such time as you can clearly disprove the other opinion, the opinion which is dismissive of others is in the wrong.
DY: Yes, that’s an oversimplification. It’s “in the wrong” in the sense that, in this limited debate, it is the position that has chosen an unfair debate. It is unwilling to meet the other position on even terms. It could be the correct side of the debate, but in terms of having a fair discussion it’s not playing by the rules.
squeak: People turn mainstream accepted practice on its heels all the time when they think they can prove that the practice came from a mistake or an improper reading of the Gemara or something like that. I am not bold enough to posit this on my own (certainly not in absolute language, though I’m not sure that I’ve used absolute language about horseradish either), but there are certainly Ashlei Ravr’vi that agree that you might not be Yotzei with horseradish.
It could be the correct side of the debate, but in terms of having a fair discussion it’s not playing by the rules.
When it comes to keeping the Torah, it is more important to be right than to win a debate.
People turn mainstream accepted practice on its heels all the time when they think they can prove that the practice came from a mistake or an improper reading of the Gemara or something like that.
I’d love to know which practices you refer to, but when it comes to things like horseradish and oats, which seem to have a clear mesorah, it’s very disturbing.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.