November 12, 2008 12:53 am at 12:53 am #588611
By far the most professional and uplifting video I have veer seen in my life. Totally Kosher. Would highly recommend to everyone man or woman. It really strengthens your Emunah and gives you an inside view of life in Yerusholaiym. Has anyone out there seen it? Any comments?
Can be purchased at amazon (was a huge hit even in the non-jewish world)…November 12, 2008 2:46 am at 2:46 am #624446oomisParticipant
I saw it when it first came out and was delighted and uplifted by it. The main characters are a real-life Baal Teshuvah married couple. they used to be film stars and came back to Yiddishkeit. Their story is somewhat seen here in the movie. It is a tremendous testament to the power of bitachon, and of believing in the idea that gam zu l’tova. The characters were totally engaging, and I feel this movie appealed to a broad spectrum of audience members, not just to Orthodox Jews. there were non-Jews in our audience and they loved it.November 12, 2008 4:58 am at 4:58 am #624447
I had a strong objection to the film — specifically the fact that he spent all that money on the Esrog. He could have bought a very nice Esrog and used the balance to support his family for a while. There is no mitzvah to buy an Esrog for $900 (IIRC, he got $1000, gave 10% to his poor friend for tzedaka and used the rest to buy the “Yahalom”) when you are poor and learning and your kollel is late with the payments. I think that it would have been far proper more proper to spend $100 on the Esrog (or even less) and use the rest of the money to enable yourself to sit and learn for another few months.
The WolfNovember 12, 2008 5:24 am at 5:24 am #624448mamashtakahMember
You’re a little off. The couple received $1000. He gave $100 for tzedaka, some to the landlord, and he paid ?1,000 for the etrog (equivalent to about $380, at a 3.80 conversion rate)- NOT $900. That’s a big difference!November 12, 2008 5:37 am at 5:37 am #624449just meParticipant
I enjoyed the film very much. I sometimes wonder if I davened like the couple in the film, would I get my teffilos answered the way I would like to hear?
I loved the scene where all the men in all the succos are saying kiddush. it was beautiful.November 12, 2008 7:04 am at 7:04 am #624450
I thought the film was very good but somewhat overrated. Don’t get me wrong, I liked it, but with the way everyone I know has been raving about it I was expecting something spectacular. (I watched it in ulpan without subtitles, so maybe that’s part of the problem.) I also had the same objection as The Wolf. Sure, there’s a big difference between $380 and $900, but even so, I think the husband acted extravagantly. I admire his intent and rush to do a mitzvah as perfectly as possible, but for the level of poverty in which they found themselves, it would have been much wiser to buy a less expensive etrog and save the money for basic necessities. I also wondered why he didn’t consult his wife before purchasing the etrog; after all, the money belonged to both of them! Quite rightly, she was shocked when she learned what he had done.November 12, 2008 11:58 am at 11:58 am #624451shindyMember
Time for them to put out another kosher movie!November 12, 2008 2:21 pm at 2:21 pm #624452JosephParticipant
“after all, the money belonged to both of them!”
Incorrect. Halachicly, the money belongs to the husband (unless it predates the marriage.) My point is halachic, not whether he should have consulted her or not.November 12, 2008 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm #624453
Thanks for the correction, Mamashtakah. It’s been a while since I saw the film. Nonetheless, even $380 is too much to pay for an Esrog in the financial state that they were in. He could have bought a very nice Esrog for a lot less, been mekayim the mitzvah just as much, and still provided for his family.
The WolfNovember 12, 2008 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #624454cantoresqMember
Unless Joseph, she says “Eini zan mimcha u’nichsei m’lug sheli” then she gets to keeps her metzios as well. We don’t know if hse did that or not, but in the movie she gave him the money, either as a matana or in light of the basic din that what a woman finds belongs to her husband since he supports her. What I found interesting about this movie was complete lack of comment on it from the rabbinic leadership. entertainment and the venues in which it occurs seems to occupy alot of time among gedolim. The recent flap over concerts, the frive to regulate recorded music are examples of this. Why was this movie, which was shown in movie theatres and other places where genders sit together, ignored? Why was there no fear that the advent of this film might lead to a weakening of the chareidi spirit of seperatism?November 12, 2008 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm #624455JosephParticipant
Wolf, Perhaps the currency exchange, at the time it supposedly took place, was more favorable!November 12, 2008 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm #624456
Just to take it down even further, in 2004 1000 shekels was U.S.$223. And I think it’s trying to tell us that you can never go wrong with spending extravagant amounts to beautify Hashem’s Mitzvos. Wouldn’t you agree?
By the way the film has a website at http://www.ushpizin.comNovember 12, 2008 4:10 pm at 4:10 pm #624457outoftownerMember
I was very turned off by the movie. I think it was a chillul Hashem, and showed a very inaccurate picture of Yiddishkeit. Any not frum person could have seen the film and could have conjured a very poor image of what frum people are and what they stand for. The husband in the film had a very poor temper, got angry, and yelled at his wife. Of course it could have been realistic, and nobody has a picture perfect marriage, but there was no reason to advertise that with frum Yidden as the targets.November 12, 2008 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm #624458
It doesn’t matter what the exchange rate was. Clearly, he chose an Esrog that was far beyond what he needed to perform the mitzvah. Heck, it was far beyond what would even be considered a “nice Esrog.” He would have been much better off putting the rest of the money aside to be able to continue learning in Kollel until the regular payments started up again.
And I think it’s trying to tell us that you can never go wrong with spending extravagant amounts to beautify Hashem’s Mitzvos. Wouldn’t you agree?
Absolutely not. One has to learn to live within his means, even if it means he won’t get the nicest Esrog, the most beautiful menorah or the most beautiful k’sav in his tefillin. And, I doubt you’ll find too many rabannim who, given the situation in the film, would agree with what he did.
The WolfNovember 12, 2008 4:19 pm at 4:19 pm #624459
Okay, but in 2004 $223 would also buy more food than it would buy today. And I would not agree with your statement that “you can never go wrong with spending extravagant amounts to beautify Hashem’s Mitzvos.” We are not speaking here of a couple of well-to-do or even modest means who could have cut back on luxuries, but a couple who struggled just to make ends meet. Therefore, the decision to buy the most expensive etrog was just foolhardy in my opinion.November 12, 2008 4:34 pm at 4:34 pm #624460squeakParticipant
I think that the spending is in line and very realistic for many poor people. If you ask a financially sophisticated person what he/she would do with a windfall of say $250,000 the response would likely be to pay off debt, invest/save, use it carefully, or something of the like. Generally, the person would not try to use it to increase his/her standard of living – it is a one time windfall!
Not so a poor person who is not financially sophisticated (which is not true for all poor people, but certainly is for these). The poor person’s response would likely be to get this or that and “live like a rich man for a while”, i.e. use the money extravagantly until it is gone. So he wasn’t buying the 1000 NIS esrog because he thought it was hiddur mitzvah, it was part of his mentality to use the windfall to live like a king for a while. The wife felt the same way (though buying an esrog wasn’t what fit her idea of “living like a rich man”.November 12, 2008 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #624461SMember
I happens to have seen the film too, and I would not call it 100% kosher by far – since when are men supposed to be looking at films with women in it? I would not want my husband looking at this film …November 12, 2008 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #624462
But the women are dressed completely tzniusdik! What is the problem?November 12, 2008 5:22 pm at 5:22 pm #624463
So, S, you would say that films are OK, as long as they don’t have any women in them? In other words, you’d let your husband watch 12 Angry Men and about nothing else?
The WolfNovember 12, 2008 7:03 pm at 7:03 pm #624464squeakParticipant
I think the films could have women in it, based on the standards of the Yated and Hamodia.
As long as the actresses are off screen, and their lines are in muted closed caption, it should be OK. We could probably remake a bunch of films this way. I can even think of a good name for the studio!November 12, 2008 7:39 pm at 7:39 pm #624465
100% Kosher means that there is zero pritzus, violence or bad language throughout the film. Obviously from the front cover you can see there”s a woman in the film so that’s your choice not to watch it which I appreciate but to those of us who are not so makpid it’s perfectly Kosher…
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.