☕ DaasYochid ☕

We’re a few steps past that. I am explaning why thing are inherently moral or immoral, not why we should or would do them (or not).

I actually think you’re conflating those two questions. Why we should do something is different than why we would do something.

We should do what’s right because that’s inherently good.

We would do what’s right because we feel that we should, and feel good doing what’s right. This type of benefit, though is not the ??? referred to in ??? ?? ??? ???? ???.

I don’t think we’re capable of understanding “why” something is Hashem’s ratzon (which to me, is the only “morality” which counts), any more than we can understand “why” He exists. His ratzon is somehow a reflection of Him, and He is muchrach. He exists because He exists, His ratzon is His ratzon because it’s His ratzon, and morality is moral because it’s moral.

You keep on asking for another step of causation (“why”), but at some point it ends; it’s inherent – muchrach, and there’s no further step.

Midwesterner, great story.

I guess the word counterargument threw me off.

If I don’t “sense” that killing is wrong, and/or I can’t explain why it is wrong, it is still wrong.

I think it’s kefirah because I don’t think it’s possible to believe in the Ribono Shel Olam and His Torah without believing that there is inherent right and wrong. I don’t accept the possibility that all Taryag mitzvos are random.

I agree with cinderella. That’s because I would consider a too high percentage of people unmarried as a crisis.

If akuperma and old man only define it in absolute numbers, they’re right. I can’t figure out why someone would define it that way, though.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/defining-the-shidduch-crisis

Yet, he sat on a moetzes which decided klal inyanum.

He left his sefer open so he forgot the others.

Your third paragraph kind of contradicts everything else you’ve written on this topic. It is correct.

Sam, your chilluk is painful to read.

If you try hard enough, you can rationalize any tzarah and throw the gemara and Rambam out.

Avram, I’m enjoying reading your posts, and find myself agreeing with your approach, to try to look at things positively. To further address Ubiquitin’s question to me earlier, I would hope that I would do the same if the shoe was on the other foot, but as a human being, I’ll admit that it certainly comes more naturally to me to defend a community with which I more closely identify.

I just want to add, on a personal note, that DaMoshe sent me a message (through his friend with whom I occasionally communicate through email) that his invitation to me was sincere (which I hadn’t doubted). At this point, it’s not really feasible for me to accept, which I (and he) feel bad about, but I think it brings out an important point which has been mentioned before, but bears repeating.

In the CR, it’s all talk and few deeds, no facial expression, and no tone of voice which can express warmth and friendship.

So all we’re left with is discussion and debate, and that can lead to misunderstanding and hard feelings.

Real life, though, is about so much more than hashkofos, debating skills, and writing ability. I don’t think different hashkofos are a barrier to getting along or even to being close (and certainly not different attire!). I think had I been able to accept his kind invitation, we’d have a good time together.

I think true ahavas Yisroel doesn’t require that we agree with each other, or even (and I think DaMoshe might still disagree with me about this) respect each other’s hashkofos. We do need to respect each other, though, and this respect can lead to friendship and love, even while maintaining disagreement.

Thank you, DaMoshe.

Sorry, you would have to show that it is.

Tell me something, Sam, was your takeaway from the tragedy of the three kedoshim in Eretz Yisroel about hitchhiking? Do you consider that too to be b’ydei adam?

Sam, I’ll all for smoke detectors; I have them myself, plus other safety measures, and I think everyone should have. But calling this b’ydei adam is wrong, on a couple of levels.

Yes, that’s one, and I certainly don’t mean to minimize the importance of safety. The gemara and Rambam certainly don’t limit it to that, though.

.????? ?

??? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???’ ????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?

???”? ????? ?????? ??? ?’ ???? ?-?

???? ?? ????? ?????? ???. ????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???????? ??? ???’. ??? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ??????

??? ?? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ??? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ?????. ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?????? ??? ????? ??????? ?????. ?????? ???? ???? ?????. ??? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???. ????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???

Syag, I guess you didn’t notice the second post in this thread (and more on a different thread, as I recall).

Sam, there’s mussar to be learned from anything if you look for it, but particularly when such a tragedy occurs, it’s a “potch” from above.

I’m not claiming to know what there is to learn; each one of us should be ????? ??????.

Problem is, the name is something like “Hencha”.

What is the solution? Transliterate to Hadassah!! Period!!

There are two reasons to name a child for someone; for the deceased, and for the living. The ilui neshomo which comes through having someone named after you is, I’m told, only if the name is precise.

Nevertheless, as a way for the living to remember, it could be anything reminiscent of the person. It’s important to keep in mind, though, how the relatives will feel about an altered name.

I just want to point out something nice from DaMoshe’s story. I’m assuming his cousin who lives in Lakewood is of a different hashkofo than DaMoshe, yet they learn together nightly and spend the occasional Shabbos together. This is achdus and ahavas Yisroel.

I don’t find this a chiddush; I know a lot of people of different hashkofos and from different communities who get along beautifully, whether they be friends, relatives, or business acquaintances, and DaMoshe seems to me (even though I might be a bit rough on him at times – sorry) to be a very nice person.

Nevertheless, I thought I’d highlight this point.

Actually, the real reason was because the gabbai was in the shul where DaMoshe davened for Yomim Noraim and didn’t care for his davening. He didn’t want to insult him, so he said it was his kippah.

🙂

No I didn’t. Maybe you read it as one.

Ubiquitin, if it really were, I would understand.

I’m hearing a story third hand, and guessing a motive. DaMoshe is also guessing a motive.

If you want to know why I might assume a different motive for different communities, the answer can be found in DaMoshe’s comment, “There are many people I have hashkafic differences with. But I don’t have a problem with them davening for the amud”. I think this accurately represents a more relaxed attitude found in certain communities towards other haskofos, both to the right and to the left. So it would be a chiddush if this were truly the motive in Teaneck.

Ubiquitin, it would depend on the motive.

Sam, depends on who’s doing the speaking. If a Lakewood guy would give mussar to other Lakewood guys, or Teaneck guy to other Teaneck guys, that might be helpful, but when a Lakewood guy talks about the poor middos/ahavas Yisroel of Teaneck people, or vice versa, it just promotes sinah.

Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?

I was thinking a similar thought. While I would not be surprised if a shul would not want to send up a shaliach tzibbur whose dress clearly represents a different hashkofo than the tzibbur he is supposed to be representing, it would surprise me if they would have a problem giving an aliyah, for example.

and b)

I find it ironic that this was done in a thread whose purpose was supposed to be about ahavas Yisroel.

That’s your assumption about what they (he?) assume(s)? Or did they (he) tell you that?