akuperma

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1,751 through 1,800 (of 3,447 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Iran's threat #1158102
    akuperma
    Participant

    In addition one needs to remember the following: 1) Iran’s struggle with ISIS/al Queda is a matter of survival for the Iranians – if ISIS wins and establishes itself as the leader of the Muslim world it will be very bad for the Iranians and their fellow Shiites; 2) The Iranians are not kin to the Palestinians and belong to a rival faction of Islam; 3) “100K” missiles may not refer to ICBMs capable of mass destruction but merely to short range rockets that the Soviets developed as a “cheap” version of artillery (no need for a massive artillery piece, but the cost is higher than an artillery shell).

    in reply to: Hebrew And Aramaic Do Not Resemble English! #1158030
    akuperma
    Participant

    lesschumras: The changes were more than a few cursewords. It including “pairs” such as the Germanic cow for the live animal (cared for by Anglo-Saxons, and French beef for when the Normas ate it. Depending on the subject matter, English vocabulary is often half French. Whereas English in 1066 was close enough to German that a translator wasn’t needed, today it is totally foreign to German and probably closer to French. In addition, the whole process resulted in messed up spelling (English is written as it was pronounced when printing was introduced in Europe in the 15th century, and while the language was still forming) and much simpler grammar (minimal use of gender, almost no use of case, almost no use of the subjunctive – though still over a dozen tenses).

    in reply to: Hebrew And Aramaic Do Not Resemble English! #1158028
    akuperma
    Participant

    lesschumras: English is a mixture of French and German, relating to several centuries when the upper class spoke a dialect of French while the lower class spoke English (which at the beginning of the time was little more than a dialect of German, but by the end of the period was an entirely different language). BTW, Yiddish is also a “fusion” language with large amounts of German mixed with large amount of Hebrew and Aramaic (and some slavic mixed in to the eastern dialects, and recently a lot of English and zionist Ivrit thrown in for good measure). “Pure” languages like French, and German, and Arabic are far less interesting.

    in reply to: Hebrew And Aramaic Do Not Resemble English! #1158026
    akuperma
    Participant

    Of course they don’t. They do resemble each other (and to a lesser extent Arabic, Maltese and the Ethiopian languages). If you want to study a language similar English, try French, Spanish, German or Dutch.

    in reply to: Is "Haredism" a Movement? #1207044
    akuperma
    Participant

    Neturei Karta is a political movement. If you define “hareidi” as meaning non-zionist, you end up with many modern orthodox as being hareidi (consider Avraham Burg). If you define “hareidi” based on dress or halachic humras, then you have many fanatic religious zionists in the West Bank who are hareidi.

    One could argue that “hareidi” is anyone that the Modern Orthodox consider to be “too frum”.

    in reply to: WHY ARE DENIM JEANS CONSIDERED BY MANY AS CHUKAS HAGOY #1157662
    akuperma
    Participant

    zahavasdad: Can you refer us to a picture of any of the above wearing jeans at an occasion where one is expected to be formally dressed? Jeans are a cheap but study undressy fabric. They are and were designed for doing physical work. It’s what you wear when you ride horse, not when you ride in a motorcade. It’s what you wear at Camp David when only family and staff are around – not what you wear to a state dinner in honor of foreign dignitaries.

    Most frum Jews will dress semi-formally (respectfully) at all times, and denim is by definition and informal non-dress fabric.

    in reply to: Why people become OTD (with the focus on the "why") #1164756
    akuperma
    Participant

    Surveys can be very unreliable. The authors of a survey usually are looking for confirmation of their hypothesis, and people answering a survey tend to give the “right answer.”

    Consider that based on scientific techniques one would exect that Britain overwhelmingly wants to stay in the EU, Netanyahu and Cameron were both voted out of office in the last election, and Jeb Bush has a lock on the Republican nomination for president.

    P.S. Given the strong economic and social incentives to be “off the derekh”, one might want to study why anyone would willingly give up most of their economic prospects and agree to live in a marginalized ghetto just because Ha-Shem told them to 3000+ years ago.

    in reply to: Is "Haredism" a Movement? #1207036
    akuperma
    Participant

    A “movement” implies change, and being “Hareidi” means doing things the way we have always done them (more or less) and not changing — unlike the Modern Orthodox and Religious Zionists, who while staying basically shomer mitsvos make a point of deviating from past practices either for ideological reasons (desire to have a medinah) or laziness (“please can I eat kitniyous and wait only one hour after meat”) or greed (“I never could be a successful banker if I had a beard and pe’os”).

    in reply to: WHY ARE DENIM JEANS CONSIDERED BY MANY AS CHUKAS HAGOY #1157652
    akuperma
    Participant

    I never heard anyone say that “denim” is prohibited by “hukas goyim” but most frum Jews tend to dress in a reasonably formal clothes, but not too fancy since we don’t want to show off or embarass the poor – and denim is almost by definition a fabric for informal usage. If you work in construction you might wear denim, but not to go to shul. You might wear denim when building a sukkah, but not for sitting in it. But that is a matter of fashion. If one arrives at the point where goyim wear denim when dressed up (e.g. lawyers wear it to court, the president wears it to his inaguration, etc.), it will start being worn by more frum Jews.

    in reply to: But tomatoes are fruit! #1156747
    akuperma
    Participant

    Botanists say they are fruit. Consumers say they are veggies.

    akuperma
    Participant

    Joseph, As long as the husband is paying the wife’s bills (as per the general understanding of the kesubah), and if no Beis Din has been involved, and presumably there is civil divorce – why would anyone expect the husband to give a “get”. He’s still married and obligated to support the family.

    Unless your “advocates” are a Beis Din, if the people are not divorced why would they expect him to give a “get”. If the man has abandonned his wife and started civil divorce procedures, the “advocates” go to the Beis Din which order the “get”.

    akuperma
    Participant

    There is no justification for declining to give a “get” when ordered to by a Beis Din, or even refusing to give a “get” while refusing to support’s one’s wife and children. Perhaps the only reason to refuse is in the hope the wife will change her mind, in which case the husband should still be paying her bills, and in such situations once the Beis Din rules on the matter it is over and he has to give the “get”.

    On the other hand, there was a tradion of having a “Theives’s shul” and some prisons are known to have regular minyans, so why not a shul for those who are refusing to give a “get”.

    in reply to: Advice for learning yiddish #1157367
    akuperma
    Participant

    RE: “There isnt exactly anything as “proper yiddish” anymore”

    1. Most languages do not have official institutes, and the one’s that do are usually ignored. For example, the French and Israeli language academies keep trying to invent local words to use rather than words based on English, and fail miserably. YIVO was set up by a bunch of secular fanatics to try to invent a standard Yiddish (taking vowels from one dialect and consonants from others) – they never were taken seriously be actual Yiddish speakers.

    2. By “proper” in a language you mean spekaing the language the way someone spoke 300 years ago? Do speakers of proper English still use the 2nd person familiar (Thou) or the subjunctive (as in “I be”)? Dead language have “proper” rules, living languages evolve because people keep inventing new words without ever bothering to talk to professors or official language commissions.

    3. Yiddish never developed a standard in part since Jews never used it for serious books (though some ultra-seculars tried in the pre-WWII era). Yiddish is/was for fun stuff, the popular press, children’s books and as an aid for those lacking the intellectual skills to read Hebrew. Serious literature was alwayws Yiddish speakers was written in Hebrew, a langauge all children learned and the language used for official documents by Jews (such as court records). To cite an example, the famous sefer by the Satmar Rebbe telling people to use Yiddish, is written in Hebrew.

    in reply to: Advice for learning yiddish #1157351
    akuperma
    Participant

    CTLawyer: But most of the instruction in colleges and online resources will teach you Yiddish the way it was spoken before the holocaust. The war changed a lot. For starters, the “Litvaks” were close to a majority before the war, but only a small minority of Yiddish speakers afterwards. The increased influence of Hebrew and Yiddish seriously undermines a lot of Yiddish grammer (use of “case”, use of the “neuter”). Yiddish as a living language is undergoing rapid evolution, and the texts in most colleges are about as relevant as would an English class based on 16th century “Shakespearean” English.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158065
    akuperma
    Participant

    So was ancient Israel a monarchy? None of the leading kings, the ones we name our kids after, was the eldest son of a previous king?

    It seems very clear that David appointed the next king – rather than hereditary sucession.

    in reply to: Advice for learning yiddish #1157347
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. Most textbooks (even the one from a frum source) tend to reflect Yiddish as it was spoken before the holocaust. The language has significant evolved. Assuming you want the modern language (spoken primarily among Hasidim in places such as Williamsburg, Antwerp, Bnei Brak) you have a problem. On the bright side, living Yiddish is heavily influence by English and Hebrew (whereas pre-war Yiddish was influence primarily by German and secondarily by Slavic).

    2. For other languages a good way to learn is through newspaper and mass media (TV, movies). While there are Yiddish online shiurim, newspapers and some videos, they are relatively limited. Considering get Yiddish children’s books (the one’s sold to Yiddish-speaking children, not the translations into pre-war literary Yiddish). Live in a place where Yiddish is spoken by the children on the street.

    3. If you want pre-war Yiddish (e.g. you aspire to be a historian), there are newspapers, recorded radio shows and lots books and textbooks. Arguably Yiddish has three “periods”, an early one in which it was basically German with Hebrew words thrown in, a relatively modern one in which there is a large secular literature, and the post-holocaust “frum” Yiddish which appears to be holding its own (based on the number of children growing up in Yiddish-speaking households).

    in reply to: Trump is a democrat party plant #1190717
    akuperma
    Participant

    A good argument can be made is that Trump is a traditional Democrats in the mold of people such as John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Franklin Roosevelt, whereas the Democrats have moved radically to the left and are now support positions that in the past would have been considered off-the wall radical. If we had proportional representation, we could accomodate more parties but we have a “winner takes all” system. Note that in periods where the Republicans were dominated by conservatives, Trump was a Democrat.

    His nativism and his pungnacious campaign style really don’t reflect his ideological background or his substance. In terms of issues, he’s either a conservative Democrat or a liberal Republican.

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158062
    akuperma
    Participant

    Define monarchy.

    Was Israel a monarchy? David was not the son of the previous king. Shlomo was not the oldest living son of David. Does a monarchy include a system where the king appoints an heir? How about system where the President or Imperator picks an heir subject to confirmation? What about an election by the royal family? is it a monarchy when a person is elected for life and acts like a king (is the leader of the Catholic Church a monarchy or a republic? – they crown someone elected for life)? Consider modern Saudi Arabia? Early modern Poland with its elected king. What about the Holy Roman Empire (also “elected”)? Consider the Roman Empire?

    in reply to: Monarchy vs. Democracy #1158044
    akuperma
    Participant

    Define monarchy. Does it mean a strictly hereditary system, or perhaps one in which the leader is chosen from within a narrowly defined group. For example, the Brits has a strictly hereditary system meaning, other systems are more flexible (e.g. the Saudi monarchy, the Catholic Church, and the way the frum community chooses its leaders with gedolim emerging from a narrow somewhat hereditary class of persons).

    The opposite of a monarchy is a republic. Republics, and Monarchies, can be based on democratic or non-democratic principles. Many Republics are dictatorships, and many monarchies are friendly and democratic.

    From a Torah perspective what matters is what they do. We have had friends (and enemies) who were presidents, and others who were kings. Similarly we have had democratic friends (and enemies), as well as un-democratic ones.

    in reply to: So About Nachal Chareidi… #1155449
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. Its not really Hareidi, but merely frummer than a normal unit.

    2. While this is hard to believe in the Hareidi world, many religious zionists are very frum – meaning frum enough to have conflicts if they were in regular units. Since the army is legally and politically committee to including Orthodox Jews in all units, and can’t admit that it fails to do so, they put the more frum of the religious zionists in units that are called “hareidi”. To call the “frum zionists” would be to admit that the army overall is not accomodating the religious zionists.

    in reply to: Gun control #1155881
    akuperma
    Participant

    It depends on your goal. What do you want to accomplish with gun control. For example, the largest shooting incident in America (involving civilians being shot, and not part of a war) would not have been possible without gun control (several hundred recently disarmed civilians murdered at “Wounded Knee” just over a century ago – if they had guns the casulties would probably have been less). If your goal is to reduce crime and protect citizens, gun control serves no purpose since the bad guys will ignore it. However if your goal is to get rid of pesky minorities, that will be greatly facilitated with an effective gun control program.

    in reply to: Kosher Chalav Yisroel Starbucks #1155320
    akuperma
    Participant

    Will these stores have a hecksher of some sort. Remember Starbucks also serves non-kosher products, so a treff restaurant adding Chalav yisrael is still treff.

    in reply to: Materialism in the Frum World #1154420
    akuperma
    Participant

    Out of town Jews appear better off materially than New York City Jews since the cost of housing is radically cheaper. In Baltimore, probably the second largest kehillah on the east coast, a one family house, detached, with a yard, near the largest frum shuls, can be found for under $150K. The joke is a Boro Parker asks a Baltimore realtor about houses for sale in the frum community, hears the prices, and says “I’ll take two.” This is not a “frum” issue but reflects the overall housing market since New York is infamously expensive (due to high population, limited land not to mention laws that discourage building new housing). But it isn’t an issue of New Yorkers or “out of towners” being more into gashmius.

    in reply to: Materialism in the Frum World #1154414
    akuperma
    Participant

    Remember that any frum Jew can double or triple his/her disposable income by going off the derekh, whether that means moving from a cramped apartment in the city to a large home in the suburbs, or from a nice home in a frum suburb to a nice mansion, etc. Even the frum Jews who think they are very much into gashmius, are giving up most of their parnasah by being frum.

    akuperma
    Participant

    1. It is unclear that OTD become Reform or Conservative, rather than simply non-religious assimilated Jews who children are not distinguished from goyim.

    2. If a potential Baal Tseuvah can’t trace his/her ancestry back to when the family was frum (still possible for 20th century immigrants, a lot trickier from those whose families came before the Civil War), they are “safek” goyim. This may be a good thing since given the breakdown in “morality” during the second half of the 20th century, as well as divorce becoming common, they are also probably “safek mamzerim” as well, so it may be a good thing to start regarding potential baalei tseuvah as being “safek goy, safek mamzer” as that status (as became clear with the mass migration of Ethiopian Jews) is easy to resolve.

    akuperma
    Participant

    It is a function of how long they have been off the derekh. In the case of the “classic” Reform Jews from Germany who went off the derekh in the early to mid-19th century, probably an overwhelming percentage, especially if they have a Jewish surname. In the case of East European Jews who came in the 20th century, the percentage will be less. I think at this point one car probably assume that a self-proclaimed Reform or Conservative Jew is a safek goy (meaning they are also a safek Yid). Depending on whether one holds that non-Orthodox Jewish weddings are valid, most would be safek mamzerim as well (cf. situation with Ethiopian Jews were were safek goy, safer mamzer).

    in reply to: Liability question, just interested in how people see things. #1154147
    akuperma
    Participant

    Is it not the commercial custom that an estimate of repairs, made by the person who will do the repairs, is in fact an offer to make the repairs, which the other party may reject or accept? The estimate, is really a “bid” (or in common parlance, a “free estimate”). If in fact the person is acting as a consultant, then wouldn’t the consultancy fee have to be arranged in advance?

    Either halacha or American law will look to the local custom. In my experience, estimates are offers to repair at a certain price, not consultations generating a fee.

    in reply to: What is the true "state" of Israel #1153761
    akuperma
    Participant

    The zionists (defined as the majority in the 1947-1949 period, as demonstrated by the vote in the first elections) wanted a place where Jews could live in peace and be as totally goyish as they wanted. For the most part they have been successful. While most of the zionists are disappointed that there are so many shuls and yeshivos (what they were trying to be free of), they find nothing objectionable to “avodah zara” – heck that’s a feature to them, not a bug. How the zionists will react to the “demographic crisis” (frum Jews becoming a majority) is unknown – but remember they control the economy, the military and the criminal justice system

    in reply to: Gary Johnson #1192484
    akuperma
    Participant

    “Jim Crow” (as well as slavery) were the result of state action. Under the English common law (applicable to all states except Louisiana), discrimination was prohibited since someone in business had a duty to serve the entire public. The legislature needed to authorize or mandate discrimination. Similarly slavery was banned in England absent a statute authorizing it (which Parliament refused to pass, which is why in the English quivalent of “Dred Scott”, a slave from America who had been brought to English was declared free by virtue of the fact he was in England). In the United States, the Civil rights law simply preempted the states’ preemption of common law. How important the civil rights law was in ending discrimination against Jews is questionable since by 1964 most (non-Jewish) Americans already regarded anti-semitism as being very un-American (since in all fairness, Hitler gave anti-semitism a bad name among Americans, and religious discrimination was always regarded as un-American going back to the Revolution).

    akuperma
    Participant

    The “Jihadi Terror” people are trying to overthrow the Saudi government. If any of them end up in Saudi hands, they promptly get executed. ISIS is selling oil thorough various middlemen and some might end up in Israel (the Kurds are doing the same thing, and there oil is very likely to end up in Israel, but oil tends to get mixed up since a shipment of ISIS oil is identical to one of Kurdish oil). The US is now largely self-sufficient in energy, largely in spite of the administration’s efforts to cripple the oil industry.

    in reply to: Gary Johnson #1192470
    akuperma
    Participant

    Charliehall:

    Hillary may have been intervention-oriented in the past but she won her nomination (if she does) by the narrowest of margins, largely due to the un-democratic (small “d”) inclusion of super-delegates designed to thwart the will of the voters. And the one who almost beat her is super-isolationist, which shows which way the winds are blowing in the Democratic party. And of course, no one knows what Hillary believes since her views seem to switch every new poll (remember the Clintons were originally “conservative” Democrats, at least until they were elected).

    in reply to: Memorial Day vs Yom HaZikaron #1153574
    akuperma
    Participant

    While the American Memorial Day was originally honoring only soldiers who died fighting for the United States in the Civil War (important, but we didn’t have a horse in that race), it was expanded to cover additional wars. In more recent wars (World War II, against the Nazis), the Cold War (against the Communists), and the current “War on Terror” (against the Muslims), the Americans were fighting our enemies, and an American defeat would have been very bad for the Jews. While strictly Orthodox Jews are largely excluded (de facto) from serving in the American military (at least in uniform, plenty of frum Jews serve as civilian employees), we have reason to honor those who have died fighting for the United States, since in many ways we are the chief beneficiaries since more than most Americans, we would have fare poorly in a world dominated by the the likes of Hitler, Stalin or Bin Laden.

    If you are a zionist, one certainly should honor fallen Israeli soldiers. If you are not a zionist, it is best to keep quiet since it goes without saying that if the zionism is a mistake, those soldiers died fighting for a big lie, but it is rude to remind the families of those who died of that.

    in reply to: Kosher food on Amtrak long distance trains #1153551
    akuperma
    Participant

    Has anyone actually gotten a kosher meal on an Amtrak train? Cruise ships and airlines routinely serve meals to all passengers, whereas on a train only a small number of people eat in a dining car, though unlike a plane, passengers have a lot of room to prepare food themselves (especially in a sleeping car).

    in reply to: Gary Johnson #1192466
    akuperma
    Participant

    With the Democrats and Republicans both moving towards isolationism, the Libertarians isolationism won’t mean much. The neo-cons have lost (good news for Putin, China, ISIS and Iran, bad news for Israel, Ukraine, Poland, Philippines and South Korea, among others). Even if Hilary tried to preserve the policies of the Obama era (which she made as Secretary of State, and were not exactly oriented towards a muscular foreign policy) her own party appears closer to the Sanders isolationism and opposition to Defense spending. It will probably take something shocking such as the destruction of a major ally (Israel, Poland, or Korea are the most likely to be sacrificed) to make American want to be strong again.

    in reply to: POVERTY IN ISRAEL #1152975
    akuperma
    Participant

    Upper class Israel is a first world country. The rest of Israel (the Hareidim and the peripheral areas) are doing very well for a third world country. Israel has a very sharp class divisions, and will probably self-destruct over that if it doesn’t address the matter which would be hard to do as the secular upper class isn’t about to share the wealth.

    in reply to: Zionist Rabbi: Hareidi Cities should Guard Themselves #1153037
    akuperma
    Participant

    Since this “Zionist rabbi” really wants the Hareidim to make their own security arrangements. It wouldn’t involve knocking on Palestinian’s doors in the middle of the night to drag people away, or shooting people, or seizing property. It would involve making political concessions – focusing on a Torah-oriented Jewish autonomy in return for recognizing Palestinian sovereignity in matters that don’t affect us. Politically, the “ikar” difference between hareidim and zionists is whether it is necessary for Jews to rule over the goyim (something that is totally unacceptable to Muslims). The last thing a zionist rabbi would ever want is for the hareidim to be encouraged to cut their deal with the Arabs.

    in reply to: Other solutions to the shidduch crisis #1161052
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. There was a major change in the American economy just under ten years ago, and many “boys” are reasonably postponing marriage until they are better established financially. Similar behaviors have been observed in the past. Many women probably have similar concerns.

    2. Due to changes in medical care over the last century, it isn’t such a big deal. When a woman finds out she is pregnant today, she can assume that she will be marrying off her offspring in 20-30 years. In the past, the liklihood of both her and the child being alive in 30 years was not very good. Indeed, the chances that both the mother and child would be alive a year after conception was troubling (many mothers,and most babies, didn’t make it). The bottom line, relevant to our discussion, is that people who delay marriage until their late 20s or early 30s can still end up producing a “house full of children”. There is no reason to panic.

    3. If one looks at the cost of raising a child, even paying tuition, and compares it to the life time income of the child, it is clear that having children is a good investment. It would be tragic if people give up having children since they think it would cost too much. There are some cultures and countries (as a country, Japan is a good example, as a sub-culture, secular Jews are an example) in which people prefer to maximize their enjoyment of life by not having children so they have more money to spend on themselves – which in the long term is disasterous since you end up with a community of old people with no next generation and no future.

    in reply to: Gary Johnson #1192452
    akuperma
    Participant

    1. Gary Johnson (former Republican governor of New Mexico) and his running mate William Weld (former Republican Governor of Massachusetts, who dabbled in New York politics) have respectable records, and the Libertarians might get more votes than ever this year, but they aren’t in any way close enough to win. This means all they will do is draw enough votes away from the Republicans to guarantee that Clinton will win (similar to how Ralph Neder drew enough votes from Gore-Lieberman in 2000 to elect Bush-Cheney, something Nader’s supporters afterwards were quite unhappy about).

    2. If you truely believe that Clinton is no better than Trump, fell free to cast a protest vote for the Libertarians.

    in reply to: Putting on teffilin without saying shacharis? #1152858
    akuperma
    Participant

    Depending on one’s commute, it may make more sense to to briefly put on tefillin at the earliest time, say Shma, and then daven without being rushed on the train (works better on a long commuter or intercity train than on a crowded subway) ESPECIALLY IF THE ALTERNATIVE is to quickly daven before rushing out the door. It’s only a minhag, at best, to wear tefillin while davening but it is a halacha to daven with kavanah.

    in reply to: Putting on teffilin without saying shacharis? #1152850
    akuperma
    Participant

    Until recently, many people wre forced to daven be-zman,and put on tefilln whenever they could. Baruch ha-Shem that we live at a time when tefillin are cheap enough, relative to incomes, that everyone can afford one. The mitsvah of tefillin and davening are separate, but its much more convenient to do them together since they come at the same time.

    in reply to: Gee thanks, anti-vaxxers #1155964
    akuperma
    Participant

    How much is attributable to “anti-vaxxers” and how much is attributable to limited access to adequate primary health care?

    Given that Williamsburg’s Jews tend to follow their rebbe, are any rabbanim telling them to avoid vaccines? If not, that would suggest ideology isn’t a factor.

    in reply to: Afford life insurance? #1151958
    akuperma
    Participant

    Joseph et al.: There are many people who live modestly, and are also quite poor (meaning they have no choice but live modestly and have trouble making ends meet). If you are on an economic level where any fall in income simply triggers more “social safety net” entitlements (think in terms of WIC, food snaps, medicaid, Section 8, seriously discounted tuition, etc.), you are probably better off spending your money on things such as food, shelter and clothing rather than life insurance.

    in reply to: Afford life insurance? #1151952
    akuperma
    Participant

    It depends on one’s economic situations? Are you in a country with a generous safety net or not? If you die, what benefits will you get and from whom, and how will it affect expenses. In the United States, survivors’ benefits from the government can be very liberal in some cases, or non-existent in others. In the US, renters may need life insurance more than home owners since often a mortgage includes (i.e. mandates) a term insurance to pay off the loan. Major employers usually offer liberal death benefits, but not a self-employed businessman or a family in hinukh. If you are poor to begin with, your family will still be poor without you, and may actually be better off since they will gain benefits – in which case spending money for life insurance that might better be spent on food and shelter and hinukh is a questionable deal. The higher one’s standard of living, the more you many need insurance (are you a family that assumes each wedding will cost in the tens of thousands of dollars, or are you content with getting married in the shul basement at minimal cost – the wedding in each case is halachicly the same, but the socio-economic differences are great).

    in reply to: Chief Rabbi: Could we sit and study Torah without soldiers? #1151793
    akuperma
    Participant

    We’ve been sitting and studying Torah for centuries (really millenia) without soldiers, and doing quite well. The decision of the zionists to start a war with the goyim has hurt, not helped, those who want to learn Torah in Eretz Yisrael (not to mention the devastating effect it had on Jews in many countries elsewhere).

    in reply to: The Zionist Independence Day Is A Day Of Mourning And Fasting #1151604
    akuperma
    Participant

    If Israel manages to survive and over time evolves into a Jewish state, this period will be remember as the beginnings of a Jewish state. This isn’t impossible since once the hilonim realize they are dying out they might agree to be a tolerated minority in a frum state – and once you have the medinah run by people interested in prioritizing Torah and Mitsvos rather than seeking fulfillment by ruling over others, peace will become possible.

    More likely it will collapse, given the overwhelming long term prospects of the Islamic countries becoming more developed and military competent, and given the tensions between the secular ruling caste and the the growing hareidi population – in which case it will be remembered along with Shabati Zvi, and will be something we don’t talk about.

    in reply to: The Future of the State of Israel? #1151456
    akuperma
    Participant

    Will the ruling class in Tel Aviv tolerate Israel being turned into a Jewish state? What happens if the hareidi majority gets to pick judges, and laws start getting overturned from a Torah’dik public policy perspective (n.b. Tel Aviv is world reknown for the sorts of tourism we can’t even talk about on YWN)? “Start-Up” Israel is largely secular, and militantly so – will they tolerate the change. If Chareidim have jobs, ask how many hareidim hold senior positions in the army, government, or private sector other than those dished out as patronage to the frum parties?

    in reply to: The Future of the State of Israel? #1151452
    akuperma
    Participant

    It is unlikely that the Israeli ruling class will give up power, suggesting they will try to coerce the hareidim to leave or perhaps will try to change the political system to minimize hareidi influence (e.g. limit voting to veterans of the army, etc.). If push comes to shove, remember who has the guns and who controls the economy. If the typical Palestinian was secular the zionists could ally with them, but most secular Palestinians are already Israeli citizens and vote for zionist parties, and what’s left would never ally with the zionists.

    The demographics suggest that Israel’s future is fairly grim unless the secular zionists can reconcile themselves to living in a Jewish state, and unless the hareidim can “get their act together” and get prepared to take over and run a 21st century state.

    in reply to: Vote third parties #1152290
    akuperma
    Participant

    In the American system, a third party votes is usually the same as abstaining. If you are a conservative that would be dumb since Trump (who is basically a middle of the road, centrist Republican with a loud mouth) is clearly preferable to Clinton (who is very far to the left, and whose party is even further to the left).

    The only time a third party candidate won was in 1860 but that year both parties split so there was a four way race (won by a candidate with under 40% of the popular vote, and BTW a civil war ensued).

    in reply to: What to do (law school question) VERY IMPORTANT #1152878
    akuperma
    Participant

    and what if the hedge fund you are working for is doing something crooked, or part of the agreement is to rip off other investors (and while big investors are probably ripping your off if they can, even hedge funds end up selling to small investors who may not be able to realize they are being defrauded)

    There are plenty of people in prison who used to work on Wall Street, and all of them had lots of lawyers helping them

    in reply to: What to do (law school question) VERY IMPORTANT #1152875
    akuperma
    Participant

    popa bar abba: An attorney’s duty is to assist the client. If you restrict yourself to clients who are tsadikim, you will have no ethical issues. But most clients are normal people, who often get into all sorts of mischief. How often does a client tell an attorney: Figure out how much I injured the other person in the accident and I’ll pay? How about, negotiate a fair price (not the best price)? Many people who need a lawyer have real problems, sometimes of their own making – and the lawyer’s duty is to provide them all lawful assistance. Justice and fairness and morality are all good, as long as they benefit the client. — Halacha avoided this problem by not allowing lawyers (in the “barrister/litigator” sense) and requiring judges to protect the legal rights of all parties (rather than requiring each party to know the law and assert their rights, and to lose them if they don’t understand the law).

Viewing 50 posts - 1,751 through 1,800 (of 3,447 total)