Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
zahavasdad,
Like is it Ok to use section 8 to pay for rent on a house owned by your father-in-law, its legal and not against Halcha, but it certainly doesnt smell good.
Can you explain to me why it doesn’t “smell good”?
Joseph,
The point certainly does have meaning once you understand the underlying message. Namely that learning more Torah is better than learning less Torah.
What do you mean by “the point”?
As for your second sentence, I agree 100%. But as I wrote to DaasYochid, learning Torah is an act, whereas the OP is referring to the inherent value of a person.
DaasYochid,
It is functionaly meaningless (or worse) if used to justify life choices, and especially if to be haughty.
It is not functionally meaningless if the values and prioritization of values are used to make life choices.
In your response to me, you’re discussing the value of an act versus the OP, who is talking about the value of a person. In my mind these are two very different things. We can definitely rank and compare actions and lifestyles, but not people, unless perhaps one is a navi.
Avi K says everyone needs to do their job. Okay, but what if someone has the ability to do either? Should he choose to spend most of his day learning Torah or computer programming?
Learning Torah.
flatbusher,
In some recent threads that I’ve participated in, I get the impression that there are people out there who seem to suggest that somehow people who are in kollel are better than Jews than the rest of us frum people. Is there any basis for believing that?
Wait a minute, you mean to tell me that there are people out there who justify their own life choices by insinuating that they are better? I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you!
Welcome to humanity 🙂
Joseph,
The teretz is that all other things being equal, a person who learns Torah more is better than a person who learns Torah less.
I agree; however, it is fundamentally impossible for two separate people to have “all other things” be equal. So this answer is functionally meaningless.
Neville ChaimBerlin,
How can a person argue that a candidate who gets the nomination by popular choice would fare worse in an election than some RNC crony forced on us?
Because in the general election, the “us” expands from just registered Republicans to the entire American electorate. And in a recent Quinnipiac poll, 50% of registered voters indicated that they would be embarrassed by a Trump presidency.
Ubiquitin: “If say, Rubio is forced on them what do you think will happen, they will vote for Hillary? “
I would.
Really?? Seriously? You’d cut off your nose to spite your face like that? And here all this time I thought you were a conservative on principle.
zahavasdad,
There are 2 seperate issues, Preventing a sin from happening and what to do AFTER sin happens and there is nothing you can do about it, and how to react to the aftermath of the sin
So I’ll repeat what I wrote in response to WolfishMusings: After the fact, if “containing the damage” was Hashem’s top priority, why would He permit mamzerim to marry at all?
WolfishMusings,
The question is, should a mamzer(ess) marry and have children. It is commonly expressed how terrible it is to bring mamzerim into the world.
I think the terribleness of bringing about mamzerim you are referring to is primarily directed towards the initial circumstance. After the fact, if “containing the damage” was Hashem’s top priority, why would He permit mamzerim to marry at all?
In other words, what Hashem hates is the behavior that causes a mamzer in the first place, as opposed to the mamzer himself.
1. If a mamzer wants to prevent an increase in the number of mamzerim in the world, can he willingly not marry and have children?
For mamzerim to find permitted and suitable potential spouses would be miraculous; why should they deny themselves happiness due to sins that were not their fault?
2. Should we discourage known mamzerim who do want to marry from doing so, again with the goal of not increasing the number of mamzerim in the world?
I think the focus would be better placed on preventing the sins from which mamzerim originate.
3. If he wants to decrease the number of mamzerim in the world, can he consider suicide?
Umm, what? Where in the Torah is it ever suggested that murdering a mamzer is permitted?
If the answers to any of the above questions is no, how do we reconcile this with the idea that HKBH clearly does not want mamzerim?
I think your focus on this issue is a bit off. What HKBH does not want to happen is the circumstances that produce a mamzer ab origine, e.g., adultery, not the mamzer per se.
akuperma,
milder hurricane seasons due to a decrease in temperature differentials between tropics and temperate climates
Given that tropical cyclones develop in barotropic (i.e., the temperature distribution is uniform) environments, why would a reduced temperature gradient between the tropics and mid-latitudes have any effect on their frequency or intensity?
charliehall,
Because she would be a better President than most of the Republicans running.
Out of curiosity, seeing that you wrote “most” instead of “any”, which of the Republican candidates do you feel would potentially be an equally good or better president than Clinton?
zahavasdad,
I support Food stamps, medicaid Section 8, but more as last resort.
How would such a “last resort” condition be evaluated or enforced?
That doesnt mean you have the right to drive your lexus while collecting Tzdekah. Nobody says you can have a car and get Medicaid, but it doesnt mean you should be driving a Lexus either.
That’s just a restatement of what you already said above. I am asking you why you think that way.
lesschumras,
Why isn’t anyone concerned with maraas ayin?
How is this an issue of maris ayin? What aveira is being committed by wearing nice clothing?
When a forum person comes to a Medicaid clinic dressed inn fancy clothes and jewelry, it raises eyebrows with the other patients.
Probably not with the other patients. Maybe with the clinic staff. Doesn’t make it right though.
The clothes and jewelry most likely were purchased in better times, but shouldn’t be worn to a clinic.
I don’t agree with you, but I understand your reasoning in this specific case (Medicaid clinic). Out of curiosity, do you agree with zahavasdad’s more restrictive notion above, that poor people shouldn’t have fancy things at all, not just at the Medicaid clinic? I asked him why not, and he didn’t respond to me, but if you agree with him, I’d really like to hear the reasons articulated.
coffee addict,
As someone who is about to get off assistance I can tell you firsthand that food stamps create a dependency on it that you get on food stamps when you need it and then you budget your life based off of it.
Of course you budget your life based off of it. That’s why it’s there, to help you make ends meet. In your opinion, would you have been better off without SNAP?
It becomes very addicting to the point that you try to make less money just to stay on it.
Because at the income level considered high enough to be off it it, there is still a risk of food insecurity. The solution to this would be to raise the maximum allowable income.
It has turned into an idea of “spending money for being “poor”” mostly because there are almost no restrictions and it’s on a card instead of checks
Well, according to Avi K that is a great mitzva, because through that spending, you are ensuring that the cashiers and other grocery employees have a job. But given that SNAP generally provides less than $50 per week per person for food, which is not a whole lot, did you frequently have big issues with surplus funds?
Avi K,
child care allowance (and BTW, the US has allowances in the form of tax credits)s have been cut drastically
And do you think this cutting is responsible for Israel’s economic growth?
and health care is semi-private (the National insurance Institute acts as a collection agent for the HMOs and also subsidizes them regarding the basic plan however all offer supplementary policies at extra cost on an actuarial basis).
Still does way more than Obamacare.
Pensions were privatized and converted from an entitlement basis to an actuarial basis.
Pensions!
The phone company was privatized decades ago
“The” phone company? Is there only one?
As for job creation, whether or not you get the mitzva would depend on the machloket regarding whether or not mitzvot require intent.
That seems like a stretch to me.
As I pointed out, it is not only the jobs you personally create but also the jobs that are in turn created. Similarly, when you buy items you have a share in creating all of the jobs that are involved. When you save you also have a share as the bank lends money that creates jobs.
So what I’m gathering is that in your view, the greatest way to perform the mitzva of tzedaka is to amass as much wealth as possible??
Avi K,
A rising tide lifts all boats.
Not always.
I generally agree with everything else that you wrote; however, discussing free market economies does not seem to be related to the subject at hand. Israel has universal health care, child care allowances, and other “entitlement” benefits that the US does not, yet, as you pointed out, the overall economy has grown well over the last 10 years. So the notion that social programs and jobs-based solutions to poverty are engaged in a zero sum game doesn’t seem correct.
Also, I’m not sure that the concepts of tzedaka, which are mitzvos for each Jew individually, would apply on the governmental scale, or even in the case of entrepreneurs. For example, if I started a small business that created 6 jobs, would that count as tzedaka for me? Now, if I knew of a poor Jew, and gave him one of those jobs, that would be tzedaka, but just the general job creation?
Avi K,
In addition, because of the distortion of true tzedaka people with connections prefer to throw money at the needy rather than helping them to stand on their own feet. There is a story about a Jew who knew an evyon but did not tell anybody about his plight because he wanted to be able to give him a mattana every Purim.
There is another story about a Jew who had a lot of money and knew a poor person but gave him nothing because he couldn’t get him a job, and Heaven forbid he stoop to give a lesser form of tzedaka then the best.
I can make up good stories too.
Avi K,
Joseph, they are called entitlement programs because the leftists have so defined them.
Originally programs like Social Security and Medicare were called entitlements because the recipients had paid into the system via payroll taxes over the course of their careers, and thus were “entitled” to the benefits. Calling programs like Medicaid and SNAP entitlements can be viewed as derogatory, implying that the recipients feel a false sense of entitlement. So no, I don’t think they are called entitlement programs because leftists have defined them. I think “leftists” would prefer to call them a social safety net.
However, according to Judaism the highest form of tzedaka is to create productive jobs.
To give the poor person a productive job.
Thus the real social heroes are the entrepreneurs.
If entrepreneurship lifts poor people out of poverty through employment, then I agree with you here.
zahavasdad,
You dont have to have rags, but it doesnt mean you should have a luxury item either.
Why not?
zahavasdad,
ive seen people pull out their eBT card from their Coach or Michael Kors bag.
So why does that bother you? Do you think they are hiding income from the government and thus receiving the assistance illegally? Do you think that poor people should not receive anything nice as gifts, or if they owned it already before becoming poor, to not continue to use it? And if they purchased it even when they really should not have, are you as unforgiving in the case of other mistakes people make?
The Goq,
today it is far too easy to get government assistance and people who use it think it is a right.
So is your argument that people/families who qualify for Federal/State assistance should not take it out of pride, unless their food insecurity or appearance exceeds some limit that you deem acceptably poor? These programs are designed to help prevent people and families from getting to that point.
In the supermarket where i work as a cashier i see tons of people who don’t look to be hard on their luck (have fashionable clothes, fancy phones and handbags) unashamedly using ebt that should only be for the those most in need.
1. Clothing from thrift stores does not come complete with tatters and patches, and can often be quite fashionable. For years, I purchased my Shabbos/dress clothes from thrift stores.
2. Now that clothing is mass produced and relatively inexpensive, it is rare to see someone destitute literally in rags, unless s/he is homeless.
3. Fancy accessories could have been purchased before the hard times, or could have come as gifts.
4. Even if the fancy accessories were purchased by the person/family while receiving assistance, it doesn’t necessarily make them morally bad. Poverty is frequently brought on or aggravated by poor financial decisions due to ignorance or other issues, including pride and shame, which you are advocating for.
I am not allowed to call it food stamps but must call it ebt lest i shame the customer heaven forfend,
Umm, no. You’re not supposed to call it food stamps because it is not food stamps.
yesterday after a customer used their ebt card there was a small balance and she said how much is my cost? and she did not look at all destitute far from it. Why do these people not realize that they are on ASSISTANCE from the govt? why do think it is a right? why do they have no shame???
What would have satisfied you, seeing her have to remove items from her cart and not purchase them while blushing and blinking back tears? EBT does not cover a lot of food. As you wrote in all caps, it is ASSISTANCE, so people are going to still have to pay for items out of pocket.
ubiquitin,
Please please please, I am asking very nicely.
You’ll have to be patient. Health is writing the textbook now, and won’t know what the final title is until after it’s come back from the publisher.
🙂
Neville ChaimBerlin,
How? By standing by a frontrunner’s national security plan?
No. It was your excuse, when prevented with evidence refuting your claim of the “majority”, that American voters are easily swayed.
To paraphrase our argument:
Neville: The silent majority of Americans agrees with this!
Avram: Actually, recent polling data show otherwise.
Neville: Then they’re just brainwashed.
Really? Do you know what the majority of Americans think better than they do themselves?
It has been shown many times on this thread that Trump’s plan is by no means radical when put into historical perspective.
And as I already responded above, your historical context argument would also apply to slavery, Jim Crow laws, and forced sterilizations.
To put it simply: just because it has historical precedent does not mean it is reasonable or right.
You’re perfectly allowed to disagree with his ideas; Trump’s supporters aren’t the ones doing the censoring here.
Now this is interesting. Who is censoring Trump? Has he been arrested for his speeches? Does he have to wear an ankle monitor because of what he has said? Has the government ordered newspapers to stop any coverage of him?
No. The only thing that has happened is that people who disagree with him have exercised their own First Amendment rights, and you seem to have a problem with that.
Mashiach Agent,
their shaking wake-up call messages from Hashem delivered each down to the world a day or two after each tragedy occurred
That is some good satire there!
Neville ChaimBerlin,
Of course after days of non-stop liberal media articles claiming that agreeing with Trump equates to racism, the polls will be a bit skewed. You think if an anonymous poll had asked Americans about limiting Muslim immigration days after the Boston marathon bombing or after 9/11 the numbers would be under 50% in support? It’s common sense!
1. The poll I cited was conducted before Trump’s Muslim immigration ban statement and the subsequent media furor, so sorry, your point of attack does not even apply.
2. Trump’s supporters by and large despise the “liberal media”, so the more he’s attacked, the more they like him.
3. After ranting about liberals thinking that the majority of Americans are “too stupid” to govern, it’s truly ironic that you turn around and make what is essentially the very same argument.
The “Fundamentals of Talmud” method developed by R’ Ayson Englander, which is used for teaching Gemara learning skills at Yesodei Hatorah (Baltimore) and other places may fit what you are looking for.
Neville ChaimBerlin,
There’s nothing “fascist” about representing a majority of a democratic country. The only fascists on this thread are the ones saying their opinions outweigh the majority of the country.
Can you supply any proof that Trump’s statements or positions are in line with a majority of Americans? Especially when a recent NYT/CBS News poll found that 64% of respondents were concerned or frightened by the prospect of a Trump presidency and what he would do as president, including a third of registered Republicans?
Neville ChaimBerlin,
Also, the US isn’t defined by a plaque on a French-made statue. We’re defined by our past actions, and what Trump is proposing is totally consistent with them.
1. The poem was written by Emma Lazarus, a Sefardic Jewish American poet whose family lived in the Americas since Colonial times. Part of her motivation for writing the poem was the plight of Ashkenazic emigrants from Russia due to pogroms. Nothing French about it. And the fact that it was selected for a plaque on one of the quintessential American national symbols speaks to the fact that it does represent American ideals.
2. Past actions of Americans include slavery, Jim Crow, massacres of native Americans, forced sterilizations, etc. Does that define us in your mind? And since those atrocities were committed in the past, would that legitimize someone coming along and advocating for it today?*
* NOTE: I am not implying that Trump has advocated for any of those things, rather I am applying your logic.
I think this thread is interesting because it provides what might be the biggest trove of crazymaking and countering I’ve ever seen in writing.
This point by 2scents:
Also, it’s important to point out, in an MCI it’s one patient per crew the care the pt gets is the same in a single car mva as would be in an MCI.
combined with this point by DaasYochid:
Maybe if you tell them to follow protocol, they’ll read your post and follow it.
provides the check and mate to this discussion.
scared driver delight,
What does that have to do with anything???
Beats me.
popa_bar_abba,
In many crashes you can tell who is at fault. So is a rear end collission like a 1 car collission? Or if one car veered into oncoming traffic?
Probably.
2scents,
The same is for Patients from a one car or multi car MVA. the fact that you believe (and could very be true) that pts from single car MVAs are more likely to have an underlying medical that caused the accident does not change the assessment or treatment at all.
Yes, I understand your point, and the reasoning behind the protocol you are describing. Diabetic shock probably doesn’t matter so much if the person is not getting oxygen due to trauma. I wasn’t intending to comment on the EMS/ER protocols in this thread, just that the notion that a single car crash may have a higher probability of a medical/intoxication cause makes some sense to me. And I don’t have empirical proof either way.
Avi K,
do the repair people accept pledges?
Maybe if they’re done with the little fold-up tabs.
And I’ll point out that I am not a medical professional nor do I study traffic accidents, so I cannot comment on what the protocol is for treating accident victims. I’m just saying that the idea that the potential for dealing with medical impairment in the case of a single car accident is higher makes sense to me.
popa_bar_abba,
That doesn’t make any sense. There is no more higher probability of driver impairment causing a 1 car crash than a 2 car crash, and even if it is higher, I don’t believe it would be so significantly higher as to make checking for impairment protocol in one and not the other.
You’re making this up. Give us proof.
Assuming the first responders do not know the cause of the crash and are just transporting patients to the hospital, in the case of a single car crash, the patient you are transporting is more likely to be the cause of the crash than in the case of a multiple car accident.
So as a simplistic model, let’s say that 20% of the people who cause wrecks do so because they are impaired in some way, and 0% of the people involved who didn’t cause it are impaired. Next, you have two incidents, a single car (1-occupant) crash, and a crash involving two vehicles (1-occupant per vehicle). In each crash, there is one injury. For the single car crash, there is a 100% chance that you are transporting the person who caused the wreck, so there is a 20% chance of impairment. In the second case, there is only a 50% chance that you are transporting the person who caused the wreck, so there is only a 10% chance of impairment.
I would also argue that impairment is more likely in the single car crash, because you remove a component of human error from the potential causes.
Joseph,
What is the best methodology in disciplining a child?
Connection and boundaries.
zahavasdad,
additionally davening is always the best option of them all.
You dont just daven for the job, you apply for the job and then daven.
Did you read the rest of assurnet’s post? Why are you disagreeing with him by stating exactly what he stated?
He wrote:
The way I see it if you do both then at least you covered all your bases and did the best you could
Joseph,
How can we identify the modern-day eruv rav
1. The eruv rav may sometimes be seen along the edges of a frum community on Fridays.
2. If a particular rav declares “down!” on Friday before Shabbos, and then nobody carries anything outside on Shabbos, you’ve found your man.
and how should they be dealt with?
I think they like donations. Eruv repairs can be costly.
2scents,
Feivel that is not correct, first as Popa pointed out, all of these factors can be the cause of a multi car MVA.
I see that point, but wouldn’t the probability that a patient has some sort of medical impairment, such as diabetic shock, be higher in a single car crash?
DaasYochid,
In a matter of time, they will no longer care to be considered Orthodox.
I think that has become more likely after the Moetzes statement (which was likely part of the purpose of the statement). For the time being, however, they are attempting to redefine what Orthodox Judaism is, so being considered “Orthodox” is important to that end.
DaasYochid,
Coffee addict is right. Their approach to halachah is agenda driven. At some point, when there is enough driving them (pardon the pun) towards chillul Shabbos, they will do that, just as conservative, which was supposedly halakhic, did.
True, other things may fall first, but it’s just a matter of time.
I agree with you and coffee addict that they are capable of this. If they decide down the road to drop the “Orthodox” moniker, then all bets are off. If they try to keep the label, however, they will preserve some tokens of observance in order to say, “hey! We’re Orthodox!” I personally think that driving on Shabbos would be one of those tokens, since it’s perceived as a “challenge” to do, but is uncontroversial in the secular liberal mindset.
B1g B0y,
What aspect of online behavior are you studying?
coffee addict,
now you see how it’s possible for them to matir driving on shabbos?
The more I think about it, the more I think it is less likely that the Open Orthodox would pick driving on Shabbos as a battleground. Driving on Shabbos outside of a life threatening medical or dangerous situation has been more or less a universally accepted dividing line between Orthodox and non-Orthodox Judaism for decades. Non-Orthodox Jews are not offended by the restriction or that definition of Orthodoxy.
So I think it is more likely that Open Orthodox leaders would keep these type of restrictions (driving on Shabbos, some level of kashrus), using them as a pretense for Orthodoxy, while grinding down or pushing past other dividing lines such as mechitza, taharas hamishpacha, and marriage issues.
coffee addict,
Let’s say open orthodoxy eventually had its congregants move to auburban areas then what would happen?
I don’t know.
Oh, did I say capacitor? I meant caprachinator.
Meno,
No, and neither is “cometandic.” I’m waiting for B1g B0y to tell 2scents that he needs to move his brefentic processor to the cloud so he can install the correct flux capacitor in order to install W10 through the tractor beam.
Sam2 and coffee addict,
They could drive on shabbos without batting an eyelash and still call themselves orthodox, at least reform an conservative changed their name
ca: Nah. They’ve been more “halachic” than that so far. I don’t see that coming.
Driving on Shabbos was a big issue for the conservative movement, because the vast majority of its adherents were suburbanites who did not cluster around synagogues. Note that the ruling permitting driving on Shabbos came in the 1950s, but counting women as part of a minyan did not start until the 1970s, and the first conservative female rabbi was ordained in the mid 1980s.
Open Orthodoxy at this point seems most active in more urban areas, where walking to synagogue is more feasible (and as an aside, in line with environmental activism), so that is not where the pressure to change is coming from. So I agree with Sam2 that we are not likely to see a blanket permission to drive on Shabbos ruling from the Open Orthodox movement in the near future.
DaasYochid,
In that situation, leave a note.
Exactly what I was thinking.