Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think you have violated every single condition for your return.
I don’t think I can honestly disagree, and I thank you for
your continued tolerance of my presence. Gut Shabbos! 🙂
Pessimism, perhaps? (Was it ever visible?)
You’re right – I hadn’t realized what you meant. It does sound
sensible to say that there is no reason for multiple people to do it.
Perhaps those people who do it after the first one does were
concentrating properly on their own tefillah and didn’t notice? 🙂
I think you have violated every single condition for your return.
It means “I am not lost.”
zahavasdad:
I really don’t see any way to think that response was in good faith.
I think what he’d say is about 13 for a boy and about 12 for a girl.
The word in the triangular brackets is a link – follow it.
I believe PBA is addressing the notion that “sheosani kirtzono” reflects a positive attibute of nashim, by pointing out that the converse would mean that men were not created kirtzono (which is, of course, absurd).
Two years later, can anyone give a good alternative explanation?
(Or perhaps it does not actually need one?)
Bumpius Humorus!
Popa was in excellent form in this thread.
Does anyone else think the SNs of, and the threads started by,
“lalaland55” and “chumchuck” bear some resemblance to each other,
or am I just being paranoid? Personally, hope confirmed.
Did anyone here actually see Burma-Shave signs?
So if addicts don’t stop their destructive behavior is it the consensus that it’s not really their fault?
No – but it is very difficult to overcome.
that they are predestined to their fates as addicts?
It’s a difficult thing to hold them
accountable for, but I wouldn’t go that far…
In many cases they could have avoided becoming addicted in
the first place (drugs, for example), so those cases can be
considered self-inflicted, if not necessarily self-perpetuated.
I like how TheMusicMan answered the first
riddle without spoiling the riddle for others.
( http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/riddles#post-399085 )
Does anyone know where his profile is? It’s not at his name-link.
That was how their rebbeim taught them, and how the rebbeim of their
rebbeim taught them, going back many generations. It’s not
like they decided one day to create an entry barrier…
And it’s not like there aren’t any Torah classes in English.
Careful examination of my post may reveal the double line-gap technique.
Is that screen name really Popa? >It does seem plausible…<
Should its posts also not be trusted/taken at face value?
The story of Uzzah happened.
Here’s a d’var Torah from Rabbi Yissochor Frand on the subject:
Calling Torah “Shira” Is Allowed; Calling It “Zimrah” Is Not Allowed
A pasuk [verse] at the beginning of Parshas Naso defines the varying duties of the different families of Levi. The job given to the family of Kehas was to carry the Aron HaKodesh [the holy Ark] on their shoulders during travel.
The Talmud [Sotah 35] discusses an incident in the book of Shmuel when King Dovid ordered that the Ark be transported by wagon. This was contrary to halacha. An incident occurred where the Aron almost fell off the wagon. Uzza reached up to try and save it from falling, and he was killed on the spot. The Talmud says that this punishment befell King Dovid because he referred to the words of Torah as ‘Zemiros’ (songs), as it is written “Your statutes were like songs (Zemiros) to me” [Tehillim 119:54]. (Rash”i explains that when Dovid was fleeing from King Shaul and was leading a tension-filled existence “on the run”, he was able to achieve ‘playful enjoyment’ in the words of Torah and they served to calm him down, like a soothing song.)
G-d responded, as it were, “About my Torah it says ‘If you blink your eye in it, you can lose it’ [Mishlei 23:5], and you refer to it as a song and plaything? I will cause you to err in a matter that even young school children are aware of — namely, the explicit verse [Bamidbar 7:9] that the Aron must only be carried on the shoulders of the family of Kehas (and not on wagons).” As a result of this ‘flippancy’ on King David’s part he forgot this halacha, and the unfortunate death of Uzza followed.
Rav Bergman, in his work “Shaarei Orah,” asks an obvious question: What is so wrong with referring to the Torah as “Sha-a-shuai”, a pleasant and uplifting thing (literally, a ‘play’ thing)? We are all familiar, with the verse “Lulei Torashcha Sha-a-shu-ai, az avadati b’anyi” [Tehillim 119:92] (If not for Your Torah which was my plaything, I would have been overwhelmed with my suffering). We do not find anywhere that Dovid is held accountable for this statement where he refers to Torah as a plaything.
The unavoidable conclusion is that Dovid’s crime in the earlier verse was not that he referred to Torah as a plaything (Sha-a-shu-ai), but that he referred to Torah as a song (Zemiros). But what is so terrible about calling Torah ‘Zemiros’? I would have better understood it, if the objection was that he called Torah a plaything. That might be objectionable. Torah is not Nintendo — it is not a game! Why is it a sin to call Torah ‘Zemiros’? Moreover, the Vilna Gaon makes the question stronger: the Torah itself refers to Torah as a Song: “And you write for yourselves this Shirah [Song]” [Devorim 31:19].
The Gaon answers that there exists a tremendous difference between “Zemirah” and “Shirah”. Zemirah, like the Zemiros of Shabbos, are finite. They have a beginning and end. [Kah Ribbon (a Sabbath song) starts with a Yud, it ends with a Lamed — and it’s over. All Zemiros are similar.] Shirah represents the infinite. Shirah represents the articulation and expression of feelings, which have no end and no beginning. When a person breaks out in Shirah, it is a manifestation of what his essence is all about. There is no end to that. It is not finite.
Torah can be called Shirah, but Torah can not be called Zimra. To refer to Torah as Zimra has the connotation that there can be a beginning to Torah and an end to Torah and then I would be finished with Torah. That is untrue. Torah can’t be finished. Torah is Shirah — the infinite expression of what a Jew is all about, his innermost essence. That was King Dovid’s sin.
Based on this distinction, the Ponevezher Rav (Rav Yosef Kahaneman, 1886- 1969) once gave a brilliant interpretation to a famous Gemara. The Talmud [Megilla 3b] mentions that when Yehoshua was encamped during the siege of Jericho, an angel confronted him with a drawn sword. Yehoshua queried the angel as to whether he was friend or foe. The angel identified himself as follows: “I am an angel of the L-rd of Hosts; I have come now.” The Talmud explains that a dialog took place. The angel informed Yehoshua that he committed two sins of negligence: (a) he did not bring the daily sacrifice that day and (b) he neglected his study of Torah that night. Yehoshua asked for which of the two sins he was being held accountable and the angel responded “I have come now” e.g. — for the current sin, that of failing to study Torah.
Tosfos identify the linkage between the words “ATA ba’si” and the failure to study Torah, by quoting the verse “v’ATA kisvu lachem es haShirah haZos” (and NOW record for yourselves this Song — referring to Torah) [Devorim 31:19].
The Ponevezher Rav asks why the Angel used such an obscure reference, rather than telling Yehoshua outright — “I have come because of your failure to study Torah?” The Ponevezher Rav answers that when a person is fighting a battle and is in the middle of a siege, there are a million excuses not to learn. “I’m busy”, “I’m worried”, “I have things on my mind.”
What is the reason why a person must continue to learn, regardless of the circumstances? Because of the phenomenon alluded to in the verse “And now write for yourselves this Shirah [Song]”. Torah is a Shirah that has no beginning and no end. It has no time. It has to be learned every place and under all circumstances. It is that endless expression of what a person is supposed to be all about. Yes you are tired, and worried, and busy, and fighting a war. But “NOW I have come”. There is never an excuse not to learn. Torah is not confined to time or space. It extends toward infinity, like a Shirah.
(from Torah.org)
I know this is not The Chassidishe World, but…
The books of Kabbalah explain that all the tunes in the world originate in the Palace of Melody in heaven.
The Other Side- impurity – knows no melodies, nor knows the taste
of joy, since it is itself the source of melancholy. Only through
the sin of Adam did certain stray sparks fall into the unholy domain of the Other Side, and the task of the tzaddik is to
elevate those sparks of melody that have gone astray.
-Rabbi Shlomo Yosef Zevin in Sippurei Chassidim (attached to Bereishis 47:14)
[translation by Uri Kaploun for Hillel Press/Mesorah Publications]
twisted:
taxation was one of the reasons cited for the revolt
The revolt that was not supported by the chachomim and
eventually led to the destruction of the Beis Hamikdash?
That’s not a very good argument for fighting.
the need to define what is ezras yisrael mitzar haba aleihem
If you’re interested, go ahead. Patur Aval Assur might be willing to help.
would a non halacha sanctioned malchut
(government for example) have a mitzva to act
Wouldn’t anyone who could act have a mitzvah to?
We still have at least part of the mitzva of bet din based government, which today is oppressed by the PTB, this alone is reason for a mini chanuka
Seeing as the gedolim have not called for revolution,
they apparently do not agree with you on that.
Even if it is true, it would not require endangering our lives.
What about chronicling times when you get other people moderated?
“If you see something, say something.”
“Unsafe” and “unhealthy” are quite different, however,
and it is not “unsafe” to go out without a coat,
while it is “unsafe” to ride without a helmet.
Perhaps the helmet should go on first after all.
“Somehow, I find it all so confusing. For 18 years it gets
drummed into my head that I’m not supposed to talk, to look
at, or even think about boys. Then all of a sudden, literally
overnight, I’m supposed to be able not only to go out with
boys but also to feel relaxed on a date.”
-Anonymous girl quoted by Dr. Meir Wikler in “Preparation for Marriage: A Prevention for Divorce,” Jewish Observer, January 1979, p. 11.
Source: Professor William Helmreich’s The World of the Yeshiva,
p. 254 (2000 edition).
Oomis did not propose a free-for-all, just ways that the system could
be helped to work better, unless you count singles events as such.
(Popa’s second post appears to be guilty of straw-manning.)
Having all messages go through the shadchan creates
a buffer zone for everyone involved, ensuring that no one has difficulty
saying what they need to say because of who it is being said to.
I think we can assume that the shadchanim stay on top of things.
f he did an exact study, why is he giving the results in approximation?
Because nobody really cares to hear that it’s 10 months and 4 days, etc.
However, he does appear to compare the amount of time
a yeshiva bochur’s full shidduchim process takes with the amounts
of time non-Jews or chassidishe bochurim spend on one person.
DaasYochid, can you say with full confidence that the
matter of daters not being comfortable in each other’s
presence has nothing to do with the shidduch crisis?
Correction: “nor will I be” should’ve read “nor be”
(so as not to separate “posting” from “usually”).
It’s “blockquote” on the CR.
(Or maybe it’s that only “blockquote” is usable on the CR.)
To be honest, when I first posted in this thread,
only the original post had already been approved.
Sometimes things like that happen. 🙂
Welcome back, NJS! (No, we don’t know each other.)
“Yes” would’ve been fine, Lior.
(Okay, “two meanings” was a mistake, but which
of those two words is that fifth definition for?)
Golfer, do you work for M.A.P. Seminars? 🙂
That’s enough lorem ipsum.
Just sayin’.
(No offense intended. I quite enjoy having you here, NeutiquamErro.
Congratulations on your >achievement<.)
Is the guy normal? (Has anyone had a conversation with him about
anything?) If he’s not, he must of course be treated more tolerantly.
DaasYochid, perhaps we should distinguish between
being a mispallel, being a shul member,
and terminating each of those statuses.
Lior, he said that they didn’t ask the Rov because
they don’t think he’d want to be involved, not
that they asked and the Rav didn’t do anything.
#poster, I don’t know if that’s a good parallel – the chelb’na
didn’t disturb the other ingredients, but enhance them.
NeutiquamErro has two valid points. As to the second, well, does
a shul have to accept someone difficult, who does not get along
with established members? That’s part of this.
Wolf, someone who cannot give tochachah in such a way as will
cause it to be accepted is patur from that mitzvah. I don’t
see why you’d be obligated to refrain from davening in that shul,
unless you just want to avoid conflict with that Rav, or halacha grants
Rabbonim the right to decide who may or may not daven in their shul,
regardless of whether they are doing or have done anything wrong.
Lior, what do “vain” and “vanity” mean to you?
You appear to be using them (here and >here<) as though they refer to ???, which is one of their two meanings, but in a context where you’re obviously talking about someone’s looks, this can be confusing, given that their other meaning is “excessive pride in or admiration of one’s own appearance or achievements.”
Did you mean, in both places, that the boy is concerned
with ????? ?? ???, namely, the girl’s looks?
My first post is still in limbo, but Lior was able to figure
it out on his own (and I hadn’t even thought of expenses).
We’re thinking along the same lines, too, for once.
“M’shaneh” (changes), not “b’shana” (in a/the year).
The words are related, though.
1) If he can figure out if she is “the girl he was hoping for”
quickly enough to change his plans for the evening based on that,
I’d assume he’s talking about looks.
2) If he knows he’s not interested in the girl, but is in a situation
in which he must take her out, he will presumably choose
a location based on how much he will enjoy it, as opposed
to a location he thinks most suited for a first date.
Personally, I hope he’s trolling.
[W]hat stellar qualities led to the creative composition of [GrepsilBoorvis’] name?
Country Yossi Magazine readership.
(Not a full response to this thread)
Actually, Boaz and Rus were not married when Rus
went to where Boaz was staying the night alone.
I wouldn’t have been smiling if I didn’t know the
reference, but thanks for providing it for newcomers.
Oomis, I liked everything you said except the first paragraph, in
which you downplayed looks because of their being subjective
(which I see no logical basis for), then related it to attraction,
but didn’t mention any reason for attraction (which is not subjective*)
not to be so important (I do agree with that, though).
*
“Person A is good-looking” is subjective, because
it may be true or false for different people.
Although it cannot be objectively determined,
“Person A is attracted to Person B” is either true or false.
Actually, even if this were an objective list, a subjective
factor could certainly be said to be objectively necessary.
For example, one could say that looks are necessary,
and each person would go by their own idea of looks.
Thanks for providing context for that Gemara, Sam.
If you want to apologize, DaasYochid, let it be for calling
“male” and “Jewish” repetition. Or is that a CR reference? 🙂
(Presumably, it was originally “human” and “Jewish,”
but then the grammar bit took “human.”)
(I thought Haifagirl was joking, actually…)
No one would ever suggest a shidduch for a girl if they
knew him to be anything but a frum adult male Jew.
While one might be able say the same about middos, people are
usually aware when someone is not one of the aforementioned,
but they may not be aware of someone’s lack of good middos,
so you’ll want to look out for that yourself.
RED ALERT!
The experimental Popa clone has escaped the laboratory and
is loose in the main CR area! All available personnel report!
Bookworm120, that was hilarious!
NeutiquamErro, I don’t know about that, but thumbs-up for a tech joke!
Nu nu, so it wouldn’t be “perfectly…”
Haifagirl, should that ellipsis have been outside the quotation marks?