Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I will try to address the OP: the reason is rooted in the dogfight between the Orthodox and Conservative which took place mostly in the 1940s and 1950s. In that decade, there was a real fight for the soul of the American Jew. Already then, there was a recognition that Reform Judaism was too far removed to be called Jewish and it was a real fight between Orthodox and Conservative for title as leaders of American Judaism. The fight on the Orthodox side was waged mostly by the modern Orthodoxy (as more right winged branches of Orthodoxy was neither threatened by Conservative nor large enough to matter) and YU versus JTS was fought in weekly sermons by the likes of Rabbi Norman Lamm and other Modern Orthodox pulpit Rabbis. JTS and YU fought over Rabbis and students alike and YU/Orthodoxy was losing. Unfortunately, the Conservative movement was slaughtering and shul after shul switched from Orthodox to Conservative. Most American Jews believed then that switching from Orthodox to Conservative still allowed you to remain within the umbrella of the Jewish people while many orthodox Jewish Rabbis prophetically envisioned that Conservative Judaism was going to turn out to be a giant farce that was going to lead to an abandonment of Halacha, intermarriage and soon thereafter the total destruction of the Jewish people in America. A line had to be drawn. As part of this war, YU decreed that any Rabbi receiving ordination in its Yeshiva who takes a job at a Conservative shul (where all the jobs were) is automatically stripped of his ordination. Recognizing that need to essentially place Conservative in complete cherem and niddui in order to save American Judaism, the Orthodox world agreed to take the harshest action against even the most innocent of Rabbis like Rabbis Shaul Lieberman, Louis Finkelstein and Jose Fauer – who were Orthodox but took jobs at JTS. They let it be known that you can be Jewish or Conservative but not both. They declared that just like Reformed was considered by all – not really Jewish – so too was Conservative. If not for those actions, who know how many other countless Jewish lives would have been lost to the fraud that Conservative Judaism turned out to be? It may have been harsh – especially to those like Rabbis Liberman, Finklestein and Fauer but, in my view, it was the only way to preserve what was not already lost.
joseph: you are confusing yazidi people with the city in iran called yazd. two different things.
These Yabia Omer v Joseph/Ashkenazim threads are very entertaining but probably a terrible chillul hashem and gross violation of sinas chinum. For all of the differences, it still amazes me how much we are the same despite having been separated from one another for so long.
Neville: I agree with your statement as a whole but is there really a “sfaradi” havara? Iraqis and Syrians are close to one another but not the same; Moroccans and Tunisians are very different from Iraqis and Syrians, Iranian, Bukharian and Afghani pronunciations are similar to one another but are very different from the rest, etc.
Having studied the subject for a bit, it seems to me (for the little that its worth) that Iraqi/Baghdadi is the most authentic and almost everyone else stands equal-distanced, in one form or another, from the Iraqi pronunciation (except the chassishe pronunciation which stands very distant from Iraqi).
Akuperman: spoken Hebrew is one thing and davening is another thing. I am sure you’re familiar with this from
אין מורידין לפני התיבה לא אנשי בית שאן ולא אנשי בית חיפה ולא אנשי טבעונין מפני שקורין לאלפין עיינין ולעיינין אלפין
charliehall: they were decorations and that is not denigrating to them at all. It denigrates the fools who had sages at their disposal and instead of using them for their wisdom and leadership, used them as decorations.
As to Rav Chaim’s quote, I am sure the Zionists are greatly disappointed that the state did not take on the values of the movement. This is largely due to the makeup of the people of the state and the values they embraced (and which ones they rejected).
Neville/Hakatan: My definition of zionism is an organization formed in 1897 by Europeans and for Europeans that accepted dues and had meetings and held conferences and had a charter and a structural hierarchy and for which there are recorded minutes and whose only stated goal was to create a state. That Zionism does not actually exist any more. Once the state was created, that organization no longer served any purpose. It was replaced by the State which is made of citizens and democratically elected leaders, an overwhelming majority of which were either not invited to be zionists (because they were not european) or were invited but rejected the invitation.
Hakatan:
Zionism was a 1800s European movement whose dedicated mission was to create a state for its followers. Once the state of Israel was created, the Zionist mission, by definition ended. What the Zionists created was a Jewish, democratic state called Israel which the Zionists tried to control (and still try to control) but whose fate ultimately lies in the citizens.
When certain citizens of the state, i.e., non-European Jews and other non-Zionist Jews – use both the democratic process and extra-governmental public programs (Yeshivas, Kiruv) to move the state and its citizens towards a Torah life they lessen the influence of Zionists and their unstated goal to create a new, non-religious Judaism. There is no reason (other than this concept that we are not permitted to anger non-Jews – a laughably silly concept, in my view) why anti-Zionists cannot emulate the non-Zionists in this regard and Chabad so chooses.
charliehall: it is very naive to deny that the movement, as a whole, was rooted in anti-religion sentiment. They may have had religious people as decorations but the Zionists believed that the religious voice will be quashed and eliminated – something that never happened. If you need further evidence of this I suggest you read Shimon Peres’ autobiography. He makes it pretty clear.
The answer to op is quite simple: unlike everyone else who remains beholden to politics, Chabad (in this arena) strove for emes. They recognized that the zionists were wicked people and so they were anti. they also realized that after the creation of the state, zionism ended and was replaced by a sovereign, democratic, Jewish state that will be what WE make it and decided to work hard to make it a place of Torah and Emes. BH, they were widely successful while the pro and anti Zionist remained stuck in the past.
joseph: no they cant because ein me’arvin simcha besimcha!
Why can’t you have a full time job and also finish shas?
וחי השם יתברך כי הכת הזה מאבדים הדרת התורה ומאפילים זהרה, ומשימים תורת ה’ בהיפך המכוון בה. לפי שהשם יתברך אמר בתורה התמימה “אשר ישמעון את כל החוקים האלה ואמרו רק עם חכם ונבון הגוי הגדול הזה”, והכת הזאת מספרים משפטי דברי החכמים ז”ל מה שכששומעים אותו שאר האומות, אומרים “רק עם סכל ונבל הגוי הקטן הזה”
How on Earth are you supposed to know whether or not you will be willing to marry someone without knowing what that person looks like? Seems to me that receiving a picture prevents an unnecessary waste of resources.
Z-dad: I think you’re missing the point. Obviously, ArtScroll has an important role to play in the learning of Gemara in general. The question posed was whether a student developing his skills should ever use an ArtScroll. The obvious danger that this boy will never develop those skills is obvious. More than that, like akuperma stated, learning from ArtScroll even occasionally, by someone who has not yet developed the skills can impart misunderstandings about Gemara that will be very hard to reverse.
Here are the most egregious ones I find most often (other than the first pasuk of k”sh as stated above):
Asher Baranu Lichvodo (see midwesterner above) (changes meaning from who created us to who we created)
Lishnei Ufur (as opposed to Lisheinei Ufur) in the second bruchu (changes from sleepers in the dust to two pieces of dust)
Hodoo al Eretz Veshumayim as opposed to Hoddo al eretz veshumayim (in psukei dezimra) (changes from his glory is over the heaven and earth to praise for heaven and earth)
Ki Lo CHAlu rachamecha instead of Ki Lo chaLU rachamecha (in modim) (changes meaning from because your mercy never ends to because your mercy never takes effect)Zs dad: are you sure that all of the rabbis in great neck are part of the vaad of queens? the website for the vaad appears to list all its member shuls and lists none in great neck (although i did find something that showed that the rabbi of young israel in great neck was once a president of the vaad). aren’t most jewish institutions in great neck persian?
the vaad website also only lists one bukharian shul in queens. is there only one bukharian shul in queens? are there no other sefaradic shuls in queens? i thought that queens had a very large bukharian jewish community.
considering the fact that queens has such a large bukharian community and that great neck’s persian community far out numbers the non-persian community i am not sure why the vaad of queens is at all relevant to this discussion.
I love all people Jews and not Jews. I also love the reformed but let’s stop pretending that they are Jewish. They are Jewish only in their own minds. I suggest everyone read the article by the reformed rabbi Clifford Librach in response to the speech by Michael chabon.
The “community” needs to find a new spokesman as the person they sent for the Fox News story was a foolish embarrassment. I am sure that the editing made him look worse but a good spokesperson understands that editing can be harmful and takes measures to account for it.
to address the OP:
Cannabis is mentioned throughout the gemara, rishonim and achronim. The gemara menachos 15b, for example:
דתנן
היתה שדהו זרועה קנבוס ולוף לא יהא זורע על גביהם שהן עושות לשלש שניםThe Shulchan Aruch says to beautify the shabbos candles use a wick made of cannabis (although he probably meant hemp).
There is also discussion in the rishonim about using cannabis for skhakh.
All of the above most probably point to hemp being used but was cannabis used the way it is today?
There are some suggestions that yes.
The late achronim debate whether it is kitniyos. The Radbaz, when describing uses of cannabis in relation to kilyaim laws says its used for hemp and also gives a person simcha.
The Rambam talks about cannabis as it relates to kilayim but in his medical writings writes extensively above using it for medicinal purposes.
Rav Moshe, of course, assured it in Yoreh Deah 3:35 for dina demalchusa and also all the reasons given in the comments above.
“The only question is, what nussach will they daven? Nussach S’fard, or Nussach Ashkenaz?”
That’s rich! Why aren’t Nussach Ari (which is what chabad uses), Nussach Teiman, Nussach Morocco, etc. options?
And why can we not retain different styles of prayer anyway? I.e., instead of looking at them as all bad, why can’t we view the, as all good?
Also not sure why the Rav zt”l thinks that the default will be the Anshe Knesses original. One can argue that the Yemois Hamoshiach will be an Oilam where the Nistar becomes Nigleh and so that Ari revisions will be more appropriate for such a world.
In any case, some portions, i.e. Lamalshinim, will no longer be applicable. So we may switch to the original and redact that prayer, but not because anyone did anything wrong all this time.
Yaakov: one thing i can tell, if you are dealing with a NY purchase, under NY General Construction Law § 20, the day of the purchase is not included in the computation:
“The proper method when computing time periods is to exclude the day of the event and to include the last day up to midnight of that day.” Bacalokonstantis v. Nichols, 141 A.D.2d 482, 484, 529 N.Y.S.2d 111, 113 (2d Dept. 1988) (citing New York General Construction Law § 20); accord, e.g., Austrian Lance & Stewart, P.C. v. Rockefeller Ctr., Inc., 163 A.D.2d 125, 130, 558 N.Y.S.2d 521, 525 (1st Dep’t 1990) (where period for tenant to cure default was “denoted in days rather than hours,” period ran until midnight on the last day designated for the cure) (citing New York General Construction Law § 20); Antine v. City of New York, 14 Misc. 3d 161, 172-73, 830 N.Y.S.2d 430, 439 (Sup. Ct. N.Y. Co. 2006); Alvarez v. Warden, 178 Misc. 2d 254, 255, 680 N.Y.S.2d 153, 154 (Sup. Ct. Bronx Co. 1998) Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Kevie, 17 A.D.2d 109, 110, 232 N.Y.S.2d 678, 679 (1st Dep’t 1962), aff’d, 13 N.Y.2d 971, 194 N.E.2d 686, 244 N.Y.S.2d 777 (1963).
So if you had, lets say, 10 days to return, you get 10 days starting the day after the purchase. Other states have similar laws.
Gaon,
I am afraid you may be confusing two different issues. The first, which is what the S”A you cite is discussing, is giving gifts to a Nochri around Yom Eidum.
A totally different issue is participating in an act of A”Z when that act is part of the way of the worship. With the issue at hand here, the problem is that giving the sweets is part of the act of the A”Z and so the section of the S”A you cite is not relevant. Even if there are many nochrim who no longer understand why they do the specific act of A”Z that they do, it is still prohibited.
Imagine, if you will, that people still performed Peor to Baal but most of them did it today because it was a fun thing to do and not because they believed Baal was a deity. That is the issue – not stam gifting within three days of Yom Eidam.
ubiq: you missed my point. Whether it is Muttar is almost irrelevant. There are two dozen “stretching your imagination” reasons it is muttar. What concerns me more is that we are living the curse.
Joseph,
Giving candies on Halloween is much worse than giving gifts on Christmas as giving Christmas gifts is prohibited only derabanan because of the oved avoda zara may thank his maker (see, Moed Kuttun 9b) while giving candies on Halloween is actually participating in the ritual of avoda zara which is tantamount r”l to Avoduso Darko Bekakh. See Sanhedrin 63a
Educate yourselves (this is not mine):
Idolatry consists of endless rituals associated with superstitions, magic and mythical beliefs. “Death” was always considered the most terrifying mystery, and it triggered extreme anxiety and agitation. Dead people, their invisible spirits, were often the object of fear, reverence and especially of worship. Halloween is not an exception. “All-hallow-even” celebrates the “day of all (dead) saints”.
The ancient Celts celebrated Halloween at the end of summer, because they believed that the evil spirits and the souls of the dead were visiting the world of the living at that time. The pagans considered the dead more or less as Hollywood considers the “zombies”: bad and dangerous. The dead returned to this world angry, vengeful and with the desire to recruit new members. The pumpkins, which resembled the disfigured faces of the dead, were carved to welcome them and appease their spirits. Great bonfires were also lit to illuminate and thus help the dead finding their way into the world of the living. Food, particularly sweets, was left outside the doors to feed the ghosts. All these favors for the dead were made out of self interest: people believed that those who did help the spirits of the dead would not be disturbed by them (“If I pacify them, they will not take me with them”).
Cats were especially important on Halloween because people believed that cats could smell and warn about the presence of invisible bad spirits. However, black cats were avoided (or killed) because witches or evil spirits reincarnated in black cats.
The devil appeared on Halloween night from hell itself. The Druids, the Celtic priests, wore masks to make the dead believe that they were one of them. These priests knocked on the doors to claim human sacrifices for the devil, or to satisfy the vengeful spirits. And if one did not want to become a human sacrifice, at least, had to appease the evil spirits with sweets.When ehrlich yidden insist that you SHOULD give out candies then this is a truly a curse.
I shudder at the thought that Moshe Rabbienu imagined eirlich yidden handing out candies on Halloween when he warned:
וֶהֱפִֽיצְךָ֤ יְהוָה֙ בְּכָל־הָ֣עַמִּ֔ים מִקְצֵ֥ה הָאָ֖רֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵ֣ה הָאָ֑רֶץ וְעָבַ֨דְתָּ שָּׁ֜ם אֱלֹהִ֣ים אֲחֵרִ֗ים אֲשֶׁ֧ר לֹא־יָדַ֛עְתָּ אַתָּ֥ה וַאֲבֹתֶ֖יךָ עֵ֥ץ וָאָֽבֶן׃
(See, Rashi’s question there and Alshick there and Abarbanel on Devarim 4:25:2)
First of all, there are many examples of poskim who lived (and died) under Christian rule stretching their imaginations to soften the harshness with which we are supposed to treat Avoda Zuruh. Nu, they had to live.
Second, whether or not a Jew is permitted to give candy seems almost irrelevant to me. As far as I am concerned, whether or not I am permitted to do it, I would rather not and I would rather not have to prove my humanness by participating in a holiday that through and through is Sheketz.
Finally, I would love to hear what a non-American possek will have to say about this as I tend to view the opinions from E”Y as not being tainted by the shmutz of golus. What would R’ Chaim say?
I cannot judge the Jews who were forced into this but I look on with sadness that Jews are compelled to participate in a revolting practice simply because they have targets on their backs and need to “prove” that they are nice people. Maybe they should take off their head coverings to prove that they don’t have horns either. Sad.
A functioning meth addict is just a guy that never stole copper pipe from an abandoned house.
Oh, wait, did you say math or meth?
One more point: the Kabbalists recommend against using a masculine form for a girl name or a feminine form for a boys name so Sivan for a girl is out. I am not sure how the Kabbalists explain the boy name yona {or simcha which has gained popular usage}.
Like in English, the Hebrew months are sometimes named after Greek gods and other forms of avoda Zara. Some months are not. For example marcheshvon means eighth month. Sivan is a form of the word siman or sign/signal. It’s not a jewish name but then again neither is gitty. At some point Jews first started using it and some later point it received wide acceptance.
Rashbijr: your implication that having more than one wife encroaches upon pritzis and znus issues is highly ignorant and biased. Titbayesh.
Joseph,
Part 2 of the teshuva you cite is a lengthy explanation why a man can wear a wedding ring (even though it is a goysih custom) and after permitting the practice, the Rov concludes, “perhaps, for a yireih shomayim, it is ugly to wear a wedding ring, it is still not prohibited.”
It is not clear at all if the Rov means it is ugly for a y”s to wear a wedding ring because it is what goyim do (which is the topic of the tshuva) and therefore non-wedding rings are not even ugly for men to wear or if he means all rings are ugly for y”s men to wear.
In any event, your blanket statement “it is forbidden for men to wear jewelry, has now been refuted by two sources.
Joseph, from S”A, Orach Chaim, Siman 651:7 (the rama at the end) it is strongly mashma that men can wear rings. Take a look.
Zsdad: I am pretty sure the challenges posed by today’s technology far out-paces the challenges we have ever faced before. I, personally, do not think a ban is a good long-term solution but I am surprised by the manner in which you minimize the very real issue that the ban speaks to.
i dont think we need to get so technical. this ban, presumably, is a reaction to pornography, news outlets and social media. while we can argue all day about the best way to combat the issues raised by technology we all recognize that there is an issue and this is how this yeshiva chose to deal with it.
what i learned: if you want to become a journalist, it is important to obtain a solid education because otherwise when your moment in the sun comes you may end up being too incoherent and inarticulate that your question ends up becoming a national story.
those that have okayed saying tehillim “nowadays” after sunset are not sod and sometimes anti-sod gedolim. the mekubulim still oppose it.
while I do not live by the rules of sod, i do not say tehillim after sunset except on shabbos. in my mind, using tehillim to pray is something very “sod-like” and the remuzim, rushei teivos, sofei teivos, etc work only in the world of sod. since i am in the world of sod, i play by the rules of sod. when in rome.
(i understand an argument can be made that tehillim functions in guluy also but that seems like a stretch. i believe that the power of tehillim is different.
I think Pew said 62% but that is of the American Jewish population. I think Israel’s orthodox population is harder to define (because the traditional/orthodox line is blurred) but as a group is much larger than the US orthodox population and is maybe 25-30% Hareidi and maybe another 10% Hareidi-Sefaradi (whatever that is). Surely, the Hareidim are trending towards 70% (or higher) but I dont think we are quite there yet.
“chareidim are about 70% of Orthodox Jews” I’m curious where you get that from – Ive seen numbers saying about 45%
“the vast majority of them are unhappy it was created.” the vast majority of chareidim I know do not feel that way. I don’t think you really believe that.
Joseph, what are your thoughts on Rav Mordechai Attia’s zt”l seifer Lech Lechu?
Litvos – you obviously have a very special soul. You will meet a very wide variety of posters on sites such as this one – from the very learned and intellectual to the simple and uneducated and everything in between. A topic as important as this one should probably be first discussed with a trusted orthodox rabbi specializing in conversions. after laying down some roots with the assistance of such a rabbi it may not be harmful to seek output and criticism on a board such as this one.
while i disagree completely, i appreciate joseph’s general argument that jews should not be zionists and therefore approach issues in israel from a pragmatic and not sentimental point of view. that being said, as akuperma points out, joseph’s “pragmatism” is misplaced. There is no rational reason why anyone should object to placing the embassy in west jerusalem. while an argument can be made that jews should avoid upsetting its surrounding neighbors, this is only true if there is a rational basis for the neighbors being upset. there are many irrational, upset neighbors in lakewood and monroe (that joseph never talks about) but that does not mean that jews should disappear from those areas just because their mere presence upsets the neighbors.
bottom line: if anyone claims that placing an embassy in west jerusalem somehow serves as a hindrance to the two state solution, it only goes to prove how immature and unrealistic the two state solution actually is.
??? ??? ?????? ?????? ???–?? ???? ??? ???? ????, ?? ?????: ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???????. ?? ?????? ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???, ??? ??? ???? ???????; ?????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ???. ??? ?? ????, ??? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ??????, ???? ???.
?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??????, ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????? ??? ?????? ???; ??? ????? ????–????? ?????? ?? ???? ????, ??? ???? ????. ??? ?? ???? ??????; ???? ?????, ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ???? ????, ??? ???????.
mewho: i suggest you first reach out to rabbi jordan hoffman and there probably is no need to see anyone else.
ubiq: isnt it sad how many there are to compare? There is no president who has not allowed some damage. Time will tell if the fears about 2334 play out. Still, the language and the way this one played out is particularly harsh. Obama was not looking to appease anyone or move towards some grand theory as to how to bring peace. he was looking to punish.
Ubiq: the prefix languages in un resolutions is a form of art. It is the demands and resolves language that matter not the affirmed language.
But you are correct that 465 was very similar. Us actually supported that one.
ubiquitin: this resolution was unprecedented because of its long term ramifications. While 1397 & 1322 were not great for Israel, they addressed a specific snapshot in time this one went to the nature of the state. This resolution basically makes Israel illegal unless it returns to june 4 1967 borders which cannot and will not ever happen.