Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
She used a private email account on a private server, so her work emails are not available to view – except for the ones that she didn’t delete.
Goq, no such thing as theoretical in that case. It’s simply a matter of store policy.
Nah, they dont want your cup back.
Quite obviously, the OP agrees with Mark Levin, and wrote his post from the perspective of the people who opposed Mordechai as the story of the Megillah unfolded.
Again, this idea is in Michtav M’Eliyahu, in the name of the Alter of Kelm.
Hangovers.
From internetsafety com:
Safe Eyes Mobile
How do I disable Safari on the iPhone/iPod Touch?
2. Click on “General”
Yes it was.
“The former secretary of state described her decision to rely exclusively on her private account as a matter of convenience and a way to avoid carrying two devices.”
Is there some kind of reasonable explanation for this, or is this, “My dog age my homework.”?
Interesting. My former Secretary had a hard time with that.
Can you put put multiple email accounts on a BlackBerry?
Might still be a treifah.
It depends on store policy.
Not sure why you didn’t link ??”?, but here it is with ?”?:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14171&st=&pgnum=127&hilite=
Why is there an ????? of ???????? It’s for three possible reasons (aside from the damage to the neshomo): ?? ?????, ???????, ??? ?????. At least two of those three (but probably not ?? ?????) are just as applicable by an image as by a live person. The difference is the degree to which there is ????? ??? ???; all things being equal, it’s more of a problem with a live person. But we’re talking about images and ideas which are far from innocuous, and clearly are designed for, and have the effect of, ????? ??? ???.
So anyone, to quote the ???? ????, who is “???? ?? ????”, will recognize that looking at a typical television program or movie (of course there are some exceptions) is violating at least one or two of these issurim (and, he says, others as well).
Aside from the images, there is also the subject matter. See, for example, ???”? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?”? ????? ?”? – ? for cases of ??????? which are ???? despite no ??? being there. Typical secular entertainment, even the programs which are officially “clean”, contain ????? ??????.
DQB, I don’t understand your comparison of women in videos produced by frum mosdos, where there are strict standards of tznius, and secular media, where part of the selling point is the opposite.
But it doesn’t fit the tune well. Believe me, I tried a few alternatives, and this was the best.
AR (aka DY)
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/the-thread-thread#post-547247
Rhymes better.
DQB, you haven’t answered my question.
The Londoner, good advice.
DQB, please explain, according to your theory, why R’ Ovadiah didn’t make such a distinction.
By the way, your “argument” would apply to any ???????.
:???”? ??? ?’ ?????? ?????
?) ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???, ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????, ????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???; ???? ??: (?) ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????–??? ??? ???, ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ??????. (?) ??????? ?????? ?? ???–?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ??????, ????? ????? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ????? ????. (?) ??????? ??????–???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ?????; ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??????? ???? ????, ????
“????? ????? ?? ?????, ????? “??? ????? ???? ?????, ????? ??????
So why don’t we find such an exception in poskim?
Still ???? ??? ???/??? ?????.
And of course, the reason matters. If the reason is what I said, he needs to pull himself out of the mud, not put himself further in, and if not, he needs a different kind of help.
You mean like if a person has desensitized himself through overexposure? There is probably still a delayed reaction, and is equally assur. Though, you can try to find sources for such an exception. I haven’t seen it.
Why should we say that when it’s not true? I assume megareh yetzer hara means actively doing something which leads to hirhur and possibly other aveiros.
How many times were you a kid?
Deepblue, this is not about a chumra, this is about something unquestionably assur.
So what is your question? Since the poskim assume there’s hirhur, and that looking at inappropriate images is definitely assur, and condemn it in the strongest terms, what left is there to discuss? And if it’s not “technically” yehareg v’al ya’avor, does that make it muttar??!!
J.T. earlier wrote, But it is clear from Rav Ovadiah tz”l that there is no problem, technically, saying Krias Shema in front of an erva on a picture
This is not true. He assers saying K”S in front of a TV with an inappropriate image, and says you must shut your eyes.
No, it’s not a raya to what he held about wine vs. whiskey.
LC, maskim.
DQB obviously agrees that I did refute it as a raya, even if he still thinks that it’s likely what he holds.
DQB, to borrow from rebyidd 23, http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/pictures#post-553481, because the point of a movie is to look at it.
In all of these situations (work, zoo, park, etc.), even if there’s no alternative (???? ???? ??????) there is still no ???? to be ?????. When you go to a movie, you are being ?????.
Sure it was a kashya; you just skipped to a Rabbinical Seminary of America/Slabodka style teirutz.
How do you remember that? It was -1 years ago!
(Although, you’ll nitpick that one already said that he hadn’t read HP before my post, and the other isn’t a guy.)
That’s harsh, Sam. That’s what he meant, although you may not like his choice of terminology. We don’t either know the precise onesh for being oiver on an issur.
????? ????? agrees with your ????.
Something has changed.
Now there’s another guy who hasn’t read it as well.
When you say “power”, you mean alligator, and when you say “seek”, you mean “parah adumah”.
When she says “good”, she means purple, and when she says “evil”, she means refrigerator.
That’s precisely the problem.
?? ??? ????
So, popa, how did it go? Did you get the job? Did you get drunk at the kiddush?
Well, you must have gone wrong somewhere, because they hold it’s quite assur.
Where you went wrong is the ridiculous hypothesis that someone going to a movie (or watching at home, for that matter) intends to or is capable of ignoring the bad parts.
Smoking? Wrong thread?
Swazzled. *like*