Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
a) The rhyming supposition is unfounded, as the words “shabbos” and “sorosecha” definitely do not and will never rhyme with “chelko[y]”
Meh. The rhyme has got to end somewhere.
b)The two siddurim generally held to be grammatically most accurate (and those most widespread in the Germanic kehillos for the last 250 years) – siddur Sfas Emes and siddur Avodas Yisroel – both have “Sinai” with a patach and not a komatz in sight.
That just proves that the other siddurim are correct.
Torah613Torah, have you ever figured out what a Harry is?
Nfgo3, that is mean-spirited and unfair.
Which of them recommended it to their talmidim?
Incorrect.
You’re using the same tactic you used earlier; attacking the ability of the posters you are debating to have an informed opinion, rather than actually disputing their correct points.
The contemporary poskim who have discussed this issue would also be discredited according to you, but they managed to figure out that secular media is mostly inappropriate from a Torah standpoint.
Do you actually deny this?.
If conceptually it were possible, there would probably be more than one way to do it.
Either way, you should at least agree that going back to pre WWII is disproven.
I don’t know why, once conceptually it were possible (I don’t think it is), there would be a limit. Even if there was, they would bring the technology back in time as many times as necessary to have already done so.
Does that make truly inappropriate pictures okay, or somehow change the Torah’s actual guidelines for what is inappropriate?
The more correct terminology would be “wipes out of existence.”
Still too strong. According to you, prevents their existence, although I don’t agree with that either.
Then they’d be actual different people and not my kids.
No, they would be your kids.
I’m not willing to give up their existence for someone who died three quarters of a century ago
It’s not just for someone who lived 75 years ago, it’s also for their descendants, some of whom would be your kids and grandkids.
Anyhow, any comment on my proof that there is no time travel?
They are not the same people. Sure, those who asser internet asser movies, but not vice versa.
When you say and anything else in sight, you make them sound like unlearned fanatics who asser for the sake of assering, and that assering movies is like assering going for a walk. Talk about rationalizing…
Your own words: The same people who assur movies are probably among those who assur Internet
So you grant that you’re not certain, and you grant that even if they overlap, there are some who asser movies but not internet. So the people here probably follow a posek from among those who allo internet (filtered) but not movies.
Throwing in “all” movies is a red herring. We’re talking about movies containing inappropriate material, which is the vast, vast majority of secular entertainment, but not literally “all” movies.
As I posted, the source for assering inappropriate material is the Shulchan Aruch. The material the Shulchan Aruch was referring to was, I’m told, far less offensive than almost any movie produced in the last fifty years (maybe more).
The answer to your question, Do you know how many Jews that kills?is zero.
If time travel were possible, someone from the future would have already come back.
That having been said, Wolf, perhaps you would have married someone else, as Ees would have, perhaps people who otherwise would have perished.
Yes, some people would have not existed (in their physical form), but the sum total would be much greater (all things being equal), and probably all of the same neshamos would have come down, plus more.
Probably, you would still have kids who you would love equally to your actual kids, and your kids would still exist, perhaps in different bodies.
ZD, not all tochchah is created equally.
If you want to build a rule from that story, the rule should be that principals should not give tochachah, but earlier, you practically said the opposite, that only people in position of authority should give tochachah.
So don’t build any rules except what the halachah states, applied with seichel for the situation.
The post that originated the discussion (OP) had many points. There was a point about inappropriate material. There was a point about tochacha. There was a point about feeling upset and helpless at seeing someone do an aveirah.
There were other points as well.
Many of those points have been discussed, still others have not.
I don’t think anyone should be dictating which points should be discussed by which posters. Everyone will comment on what interests them, what they feel is important, and where they feel they have something to contribute.
In the Faranak Margolese book, there are several examples of people given tochcha (Teens) for seeing a movie, the tochcha backfired and those teens are not religious today
Was it the tochacha which sent them OTD, or perhaps watching movies made them go OTD? Or perhaps whatever caused them to watch movies also caused them to go OTD?
this is all besides the point. the point was that Joseph…
That may be the point you wish to focus on, and you are entitled, but others may wish to focus on other points, and they are entitled as well.
Flatbusher, those who have said that being on the internet is always assur are probably not here.
Undoubtedly, there are assur things people do on the internet, and muttar things.
In theory, that could be true for movies as well, but nobody is fooling anyone if they claim that secular movies in the vast, vast majority don’t contain material which is assur to watch.
Your comparison is completely inapt.
ZD, there are halachos of tochacha. When we should try is not based on how we think it should be, but on what the halachah is for that situation. I’m glad you’ve acknowledged that not only rabbonim can give tochacha. Maybe at one point you’ll also realize that you don’t have to be 100% certain that the person’s behavior will change immediately for the mitzvah to apply. Gentle rebuke over an extended cperiod of time has often led to improved behavior, and sometimes immediate improvement.
Wolf, certain obvious distinctions don’t need to be explicitly stated. Furthermore, I don’t know that inappropriate still images are less bad than moving images; the issue is the appropriateness of the images.
Just because some idiot criticizes innocent behavior doesn’t mean all behavior becomes okay.
Maybe rabbonim should be the only ones putting on tefillin and giving tzeddakah and not speaking lashon hora?
Which other mitzvos do you want to take away from non rabbonim?
Of course, it’s not a serious run for office
Trump’s didn’t start as one either.
Wolf, home videos of your kids are obviously not what is being discussed.
And the fact that a lot of frum people do it is no raya otherwise.
There are way too many frum people who say lashon hara, are dishonest, insult other people, etc. and they too are sinners.
http://beta.hebrewbooks.org/tursa.aspx?a=oc_x1532
We’ve had this discussion before. The Shulchan Aruch hasn’t changed since then.
I didn’t daven in Emunas Yisroel today.
Donald Trump for Hilary Clinton
It may be bad to have children go to a babysitter (or even a grandparent)
I think the solution is that we should all learn, send our wives to work, and our kids to oomis.
No, they’re not being hypocritical. As explained, those are two separate points which you are conflating. It’s not the working itself they are complaining about.
Part of which discussion? In the CR? Perhaps. In real life though, I have seen families struggle with the balance and sometimes make decisions they never thought they would make (or at least sooner than they thought they would make them), so I personally don’t know how rare it is or isn’t. I suppose everyone’s perspective is influenced by their own life experiences.
I have also seen families suffer for not making the right decision, so in cases where it wasn’t part of the discussion, I heartily concur that it should have been.
Syag, excellent point, and one which many families struggle with.
I think we agree that the ideal would be a situation where the husband learns full time (productively, of course, not just “being in kollel”) AND the mother raises her children full time.
The problem is that the bills need to paid somehow.
Without offering one-size-fits-all solutions, I will point out a couple of things:
1) It’s not all or none. A mother can work yet still be the one raising her children. It depends on the job, and on the kids. I have seen plenty of families with working mothers where despite having babysitting for a few hours a day, the kids grew up extremely healthy, and the mother was the mother. OTOH, I’ve seen where the mother stopped working because the kids were not doing well, and worse, where the mother didn’t stop working and the kids suffered.
2) Having a father who is a talmid chochom is not just a benefit to him, it’s a benefit to the whole family. In the difficult weighing of the pros and cons of of the different possible arrangements, this must be factored in. It’s not only a loss to the children to have the mother support a talmid chochom husband, it is also a gain.
3) Many families need to have two incomes regardless. If someone in kollel decides to leave for parnassah, it is far from a sure thing that his wife will be able to stay at home full time.
Again, I’m not disagreeing with your thoughts, I’m just trying to provide another valid perspective.
Gavra, I’m not arguing about whether it’s justified (I’ll save that for next post).
The cultural conditioning that article bemoans is (and is reflected in) the attitude given over to (and absorbed by) the girls, NOT the very act of going to work.
You just made a completely different argument. You might want to start a new thread for that.
On April Fools we always see,
the famous Dr. P.,
with rhymes so insightful,
cute and delightful,
though only once annually.
But now a horror is seen,
he threatens to be so mean!
Please, sir, don’t rob us,
Post on Motzaei Shabbos!
So we can see you in ’17.
You are not accounting for the completely different motivations.
Secular society pushes women to work for equality and self-fulfillment. Torah society tolerates or pushes it as a modern day application of the gemara in Brachos (17a):
?”? ?? ??’ ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ?????? ??? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ??? ????
Refuah sheleimah to Mrs. CTL.
I think some people think that means only one username per post.
Or invest your money with someone who says he’s… a prince from Nigeria?
I don’t recommend that. I had a bad experience once…
Who said it isn’t? Maybe it is (and again it’s still unfair to blame both) and maybe he got a psak that extenuating circumstances allowed it. Do I know? Do you know?
And why did it get into this thread?
I did not mean to imply in any way that you are a soneh Yisroel. I thought we were disagreeing about certain behaviors and how common they are and what the motivations are.
I don’t think you are a soneh Yisroel, and I am truly sorry for giving that impression.
Akuperma, then why are the Satmar brothers in Civil court?
I don’t understand your question; he said it’s rare, not impossible.
Also, one of them is there because he was sued and has no choice.
So why did the FBI make such a big deal out of it?
Or you could do TESHUVA and buy a restaurant.
Al T’hi Tzaddik Harbeh? (jk)
I also read LF’s post as discussing, perhaps venting, about how he felt about the situation, and I do not see any gaavah or condescension here, just sharing a painful incident, the details of which paint a more accurate portrait of the context affecting his experience.
Perhaps those who accused him of acting holier than thou owe an apology.
Maybe in your personal space you find watching movies an aveira
Sorry, you don’t get to decide to be mattir issurim for your personal space (it is obvious from LF’s wisely vague description that there was nothing iffy about it).
Parole
Another poor analogy. Parole is granted only if it’s reasonable to assume he’s no longer dangerous.
The Rambam you quoted is also irrelevant. Permanently imprisoned, he is not dangerous, so an individual can’t kill him. We are talking about a killer who is not necessarily permanently imprisoned.
I would assume that the status quo of a person is that they are not a rodeif unless you have a valid assumption why they should be.
We have not just an assumption, we know he is a murderer who would kill again if given the chance, and he has not been vaday neutralized.
Would you say the same for a Jew?
In theory, sure, but why would they release him?
Just because the Medinah may release people before then doesn’t mean that a Yochid should kill someone.
It means he’s still a threat, so it does mean that.
Simcha613
1) Why should we assume that will change?
2) I’m not assuming that he definitely will, but it has happened, so why should I assume he won’t? You definitely can’t call him “neutralized”, although (assuming currently unarmed) he should be, if not for prisoner exchanges.
1. Meihecha teisi he won’t? Why assume he’ll do TESHUVA?
2. We’re not. Ba’asher hu shom, he’s a rotzeiach rasha who would kill a Yid in a second if given the opportunity.
3. Known terorists
Also noted: we are in agreement that he should be incarcerated for life optimally, and that’s sufficient. If not for the fact that the Israeli government is chasud meod to release him, I would agree that it would be assur to kill him.