Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=887&st=&pgnum=274&hilite=
It’s a shailah whether or not he has the din of a melech, but even if he doesn’t, there should be some level of respect given.
It’s one thing to criticize his policies, or even his behavior, if the point is to learn something from it (which actually might have been the case regarding the OP), but the immature name calling is wrong.
If someone ch”v has an eating disorder, their first obligation is to do whatever possible to take care of that. They need to get professional help, and work hard with the professionals to improve. They can worry about challah on Shabbos afterwards.
He wasn’t asking about food without a proper hechsher.
I’m taking my chances that he’s asking about kibud av v’eim because it’s a personal grievance.
Also, parents are often the least likely to have a positive effect through scolding, especially parents who aren’t treated respectfully.
I think the OP should be asking what he can do to improve his relationship with his children, not what he can do to improve their behavior.
False Dilemma Troll?
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/time-to-go-troll#post-524070
Had anyone defended cheating the government when it comes to taxes or applying to government programs, cheating in business, lashon harah, speaking in shul, and the chilul Hashem when frum people are walked away in handcuffs, and we saw and didn’t comment, you’d have a point. As is, though, it’s really not supposed to be a competition as to which is worse. One is supposed to be the best he can in all areas of the Torah, and that includes (but is of course not limited to) shmiras einayim.
Coping? It’s not about you. It’s their mitzvah. Your mitzvah was chinuch, but they’re pretty much on their own now.
Maybe he was nervous?
That would work, haifagirl, or, you could do as I just did with your screen name; capitalize at the beginning of a sentence, but not in the middle.
Yes, but it’s at the beggining of a sentence. Even if the name itself isn’t capitalized, shouldn’t its placement cause it to be capitalized?
Haifagirl, shouldn’t the “c” in “cv” at the beginning of the sentence be capitalized?
Who’s paying for supper? Who’s paying for rent on to apartment the door opens to? Who’s paying for the husband?
The Star-K says the same as well. Plus, tea and Via coffee with a hechsher have no issues according to them (Star-K mentions tea, cRc mentions Via coffee).
Or tea, or Via, or buying any inherently kosher drink from a Starbucks without treif meals, or not keeping chumras just because a kashrus organization holds of it if their posek doesn’t.
Sam, frankly, your comment to Froggie was unnecessarily harsh. You make a good point that a person’s gut reaction should be to realize that hurting another person is wrong, even without a source.
However, Froggie made a good point, that something which frum society deems wrong cannot easily be dismissed simply in the case that nobody in the CR could provide a clear source in these inyanim, which are vague (how does one precisely define ??? ????).
It makes kinda hard to get pumped about the big game, no?
You did indeed say you meant it hypothetically, but the nature of the thread, starting with the OP, was practical.
I misremembered. The cRc does suggest avoiding regular coffee, but they only consider it a chumra, plus there are drinks that are not even in that category. So no “dan l’kaf z’chus” mental gymnastics required.
This is where the concept of achazukei issur lo mechazkinan comes in. Why should a plain cup of coffee be a problem? Even the cRc’s recommended chumra was not on regular coffee, and only in certain types of stores.
There are people who don’t buy anything without hechsher, and there are things that could go wrong, but there’s no need to “be dan l’kaf z’chus” when it’s muttar meikar hadin.
I’m pretty sure I know what he actually meant by that, but this definitely has not been handled, from beginning to end, with a lot of seichel.
He was clearly saying it was done for modesty reasons, and the Guardian reported it that way. What Haaretz did was a pure hatchet job.
Yes, I later saw that; this makes Haaretz’ coverage all the more blatant in its bias.
Of course nothing is assur unless there is a source at its origin, but from a practical perspective, it is ridiculous to assume heter out of ignorance, or worse, out of ignorance of the source, knowing full well that mainstream frum Yidden are careful. This is what was happening on the other thread.
I’m not being ????? in what can cause ????? ????, but that the issue is ????? ???? is obvious, and there’s no need to be ????? in the reason.
It’s not just the ??? ???? which is unusual, it’s a person who could honestly say he won’t come to ????? which is unusual. There are a whole lot more people utilizing a “heter” than really have one.
Going to the seaside is not called ?????, except for someone who particularly needs it for illness. There are unfortunately people who use a mixed gym who are not ill, and fool themselves into thinking it’s not a problem for them, when isn’t even enough of a ???? to go if they were right.
Kudos for that post.
I looked at the Haaretz article to see the picture again. There are people at either edge of the picture, so the implication that there was nobody else present simply doesn’t exist; it’s no different than cropping.
The article is ridiculous; it is so obvious how they are putting their preconceived notions into their reporting. There’s not much of an attempt at presenting a facade of objectivity.
Did they attempt to contact Hamevaser for an explanation? They don’t mention anything of the sort. Talk about falsehood in journalism…
You had asked for a source against mixed swimming. Don’t forget that swimming attire at the time these teshuvos were written was far more “modest” than currently. Also note that the many who wrote against it (see ???? ??”? who collected many teshuvos – http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=41167&st=&pgnum=162&hilite=) didn’t seem to feel that they were not entitled to an opinion because they didn’t have “personal experience” (to address flatbusher).
In terms of the general issur, he groups them together: ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????, ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????”? ???”? ??? ???? ??? ?’ (???? ???), ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ????”? ???”? ????? ??? (??? ??? ???? ???? ??), ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????”? ???”? ??? ??? ??? ?’ (???? ???).
Second, he argues on the application of ???? ??????, but the ??”? didn’t discuss how likely the necessary condition for ???? is: ??? ???? ???? ?????.
For this, we can apply the various ????? ??”? quoted in these teshuvos, and which R’ Moshe doesn’t address. It is quite obvious inherently, and from our ?????? in having a ????? for dancing that seeing vigorous movement is ???? ?????, and for obvious reasons, ??? ??? ???? ??????.
R’ Moshe addressed ????? (and even then, under such limited circumstances as to render an actual heter nearly impossible) but didn’t address “getting in shape”, and there are numerous options, even with no “kosher gym” in Flatbush, even for ????? and ?? ??? for getting and staying in shape, there are numerous options, rendering it ???? ???? ??????, and ???? even in the rare circumstance of someone who can fulfill the other condition. It’s fair to say that we can apply to someone claiming it’s okay for him, that which is quoted in the name of (????? ??? ???? ????’? ???? ???? ??? ?? (???? ?’ ??? ? regarding the overall issue (different case):
????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??
Now quote all the others (including the others who were in America, BTW) about how feasible the ??? ???? ???? ????? is, and the overall gist of how R’ Ovadia understands his opinion.
I am against the practice of digitally ALTERING a family pic to include someone who was never there.
That is quite understandable, I would not be comfortable with that either. But there’s a difference between an alteration of addition and an alteration of omission.
Had Hamevaser added R’ Ahron Leib Steinman or, l’havdil, President Obama to the picture, that would have been blatantly wrong.
they should have blurred her out or cropped the photo
Why is cropping better? Is it important to the story where she was sitting or standing?
Regarding the tznius issue, I don’t know if it’s a falsehood in any context if the way she is portrayed is the way she did sometimes appear. Regardless, it brings up a good point, similar to the Artscroll “biographies” you mentioned. Any frum publication by definition sometimes has a standard higher than telling it as it is or was (by omission), because in many cases it is assur to do so (l”h, bizayon). Since that is the case, though, an omission is not a misrepresentation, because it is the expectation, according to the context. This, I believe, is your point regarding Artscroll biographies (I quote, “though In a general biography it would be dishonest to edit pictures”, implying that it’s not dishonest for Artscroll), which I agree with. Hamevaser never prints pictures of women, so the analogy seems quite apt.
To me it seems it is meant to depict a historical event as it occurred and as further described in the accompanying article.
Of course it isn’t. We’re dealing with a publication which, to the knowledge of its readership, does not print pictures of women, so the absence of women is meaningless in telling the story. Had a world leader been obscured by another, or by a lamppost, would you say it’s a falsehood to print the picture? Of course not, it’s not supposed to be a comprehensive list of attendees. The picture is there for illustrative purpose, and to dress up the article. The only difference would be intention, and since the intention of the editing was not to create a false impression, but for policy/shmiras einayim/tznius purposes, that argument falls apart.
Why, popa, is it made out of asbestos?
DaMoshe,
I don’t think the caption would be a good idea, as it isn’t their picture to edit.
We haven’t seen any legitimate claims of illegality, have we? Do you similarly have a problem with the parody that was published of only the female world leaders? (It was very funny, actually.)
In context, I don’t think this was more misleading than that, and might not even have been questioned had they printed a disclaimer.
They may still have received criticism for the policy, so I’m not sure just refraining from printing it wouldn’t have been better. They are trying to sell papers, though.
Ubiquitin, that’s not called being overlooked, there’s just not much more to add. As is the derech in the CR, the discussion digressed.
Completely agreed! This is the main issue.
No it isn’t.
(And the related point if cutting people out of pictures is sheker.)
That is (one of) the main issue(s).
There are some cases of Gedolim pictures without Yarmulkas eg for passport or with wives/dauthers not dressed tznius by today’s standards. OCcasionaly these pictures are edited to make them more in line with the current zeitgeist.
Is this falsheood?
It depends on the context (which is my point here as well).
If the representation will be that it is assur to take off your yarmulka for a passport photo, then yes, it would be a falsehood. If it’s airbrushed in out of respect, but no such point is being made, then no. If the context that it was a passport picture was not mentioned, and a representation was made that such and such gadol didn’t regularly wear a yarmulka, then it would actually be a falsehood to publish it as is.
I’ll ask you a question as well: it has become common practice to photoshop pictures of the chosson and kallah into family pictures taken before the chuppah. This saves the guests (and everyone, really) time. Without having to balance sheker/tircha d’tzibbura, would you call this sheker? How about digitally removing a piece of dust from the chosson’s hat?
My answer is no, because, in context, nothing is being misrepresented, unless someone is trying to represent (for example) that the chosson and kallah saw each other before the badek’n, or the hat manufacturer is trying to represent his hat as being dust retardant (can I use that word?).
Editing a picture is not falsehood per se. It depends on whether the idea being represented is false. There was no representation of the three female world leaders being absent or not existing, so there was no falsehood.
something that is being overlooked
No, it’s not overlooked, this is how it started.
The literal editing women out of history is what the issue at hand is
If they literally edited them out of history, it’s l’mafreia not a falsehood.
You tried the falsehood argument before. It’s wrong. So you tried the faltche frumkeit argument, which was also wrong. So now you’re going back to the falsehood argument, but it’s still wrong.
They edited out women from a picture because they have a policy not to print pictures of women. They should have either not published it, or at the least, possibly, had a caption reading “edited as per editorial policy not to publish pictures of females”, to avoid the predictable criticism. They didn’t. That’s all.
Sure, glad to help. I also like the text feature in the first link. If you ever see me quoting a gemara, Rashi, or Tosofos, it’s most likely copied and pasted from there.
Kof K
OK
OU
Rabbi Wosner
Rabbinical Council of Bergen County
Star-K
Vaad of Queens
Vaad of Riverdale
Most, if not all (I’m not familar with all), of those are accepted by mainstream Modern Orthodoxy (those who would not want to identify as OO) and by many who would identify as to the right of Modern Orthodox.
It hasn’t been “like couple thousand years” since the cherem.
And it wasn’t Chazal, it was Rabbenu Gershom, from the early Rishonim. (The term Chazal is generally used to refer to Tannaim and Amoraim).
Or:
http://hebrewbooks.org/mishnashas
There are others as well, I believe, but the mods are usually okay with Hebrewbooks.org.
I do not understand what this thread means. Straw man?
There are definitely some items which don’t require hashgochah, nothing to do with OO.
I agree that milah is meikar hadin and this is a chumra. I’ve even said that this is not a chumra I’m makpid on (part of it is not even a chumra for the reader; it’s editorial policy not to have to keep deciding who is or isn’t attractive or dressed properly).
Where we disagree is on how to view someone else’s chumra or policy. I think it is small minded and insecure to view someone else’s chumra as an attempt to show superiority. Why can’t you accept that people can be strict for sincere reasons?
As to your other point, a man’s yetzer hora manifests itself differently than a woman’s.
And I never said I believe there’s an issur here, just a sincere geder to avoid arayos.
This geder, BTW, I guess (haven’t actually spoken to anyone who follows the policy of not looking at pictures), is not really out of fear that someone will see a tiny picture of a properly dressed woman and have hirhurim, it’s to create a mindset not to look at females in order to avoid other situations which are problematic.
What’s not so important for me, though, is to perfectly agree with or even understand why a different group chooses a chumra or policy. It is important to me though, to have an ayin tova, be tolerant, and believe that the motive is sincere.
??”? ????? ??? ??? ? ???? ??
????: ??? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ?????, ????? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?????
?????: ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ???? ????? ??”? ?????? ??? (?????? ?? ?”?) ?? ????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???. ????? ??”?, ??? ???? ?????? ?????, ??? ????? ?????
????? ???????, ???? ????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ????? ???? ??????
??????? ???”? ?? ???, ???? ???? ??? ???, ???? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ????. ?”?
??????? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ????? (?? ?”?) ????, ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???. ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ????, ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???. ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? (???? ?) ?????, ??? ??????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???, ????? ???? ?????, ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????. ?”?. ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?????, ??? ?? ??? ????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ?????. ???? ????? ???????? (??? ??? ???). ??? ???? ????? ????”? (???? ??? ?’ ?????? ?????). ???? ??? ????? ??????? (????? ? ?”?), ?????? ?????? (??? ????? ?? ?”?), ??? ?????”?, ????”? ?????”? ??? ?’ (??? ???? ???? ???? ?’). ?”?. ??? ??????? ??? ????? (?? ??”?) ?????, ??? ??? ?? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ?”? ????, ????? ????? ?????? ?”? ????. ?”?. ??? ?? ???? ????? ??????. (????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???, ????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??????, ?????? ???? ??? ??? (? ?”?) ??? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???, ????? ??? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ??????, ????, ??? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ?? ??? ?????? ?????. ?????? ????”? (???? ?’ ?????? ????? ???? ?’). ?”?). ????? ?????? ??????? ??? ????? ?????? (?? ?”?) ??? ?? ??? ????? ???, ??? ????? ???, ??? ???? ???”? ????”? (???? ???), ???? ??”? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???. ???? ???? (????? ?? ?”?) ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ??????? ????, ????? (?? ?”?) ?? ????? ????? ???? ?”? ???’. ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?”?. ??”? ???”? ??? ??? ?”? (?”? ??), ????”? ??? ????? ?”? (???? ??), ????”? ???? ???? ?”? (???? ???) ??”? ????. ????”? ????”? ?”? (???? ??) ?”? ????. ?”?. ??”?. ??”? ???”? ??? ???? ?”? (???? ???), ???? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??”?. ?”?.+ ????? ?? ????? ???????? (????? ??? ?’ ???? ?’) ??????? ???? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ???? ????, ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ?????? ????? ??? (? ?”?), ??? ????, ?????? ??? ??? ??, ??? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????. ????? ???????, ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????, ??? ????? ??????? (?? ?”?). ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? (???? ??) ???? ?? ???? ????? ????, ????? ?????? ?????? ????? ????, ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????, ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?? ?????, ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????. ??? ???? ????”? (???? ?’ ?????? ????? ???? ?’): ?????? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ????, ???? ???? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ????, ???? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ???, ?????? ????? ?? ?????, ????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ??????, ????? ???? ?? ??????. ?”?. ???? ???? ??”? (???? ?? ?”?) ??? ???? ????? ???? ???, ??? ???? ????? ????? ?? ??? ???? ????? ?? ????. ????? ??????? ????? ????”?, ????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??????, ???? ????? ????? (?? ?”?). ??? ???? ????”? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ??????? (???? ?? ?”?). ?????? ????”? ????? ?????? (??? ?’ ??? ?’), ??? ??? ???? ???? ????, ?? ?????? ???? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ?? ?’ ??? ?????? ??????? ??? ????????, ???? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???. ??? ?????? ??? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???, ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ???, ????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ????? ??? ??? ????? ?? ?? ?????? ??? ???? ?????. ?”?. ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? (???? ?’ ??? ?’, ???? ??) ??? ????”?. (????”? ???”? ??? ????? ???? ???: ????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ????”?. ???? ????? ??????? ??”?). ??? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ???? (?? ??? ?”?). ?”?. ????? ???? ???? (?? ?”?), ????? ????? ????? ???, ??? ??? ???? ?? ???, ?? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??????? ?? ??????. (???? ???”?, ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ?? ?????? ???). ????? ?????, ???? ???, ?? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ???. (?????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ???, ??? ??? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ??? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?? ??????, ??????? ?? ?????? (?? ?”?) ???? ?? ?????? ??? ????? ??. ???”?). ????? ????? ???? ??????, ?????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ????? (????? ????? ??? ??? ?? ????? ?????). ?”?. ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? ???? ???, ????? ???? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???????, ????? ???? ?????
???? ????? (????? ? ??”?), ??? ??? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ??? (???? ?????). ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ??????. ????? ??”?, ????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????, ?? ?? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????, ????? ????? ??? ?? ????. ???????? ?????, ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??, ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??. ?”?. ???? ?????”?, ??????? ??? ?? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ??”? ??. ????? ??? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ????. ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????, ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ???? ???? ????”? ?????? (???? ???). ??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? (???? ???). ???? ??? ???”? ?? ????? ??? ?’ (??? ???? ??? ???? ??). ??? ????? ???????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?? ??? ?????, ???? ???? ????”? ?????? ????? (?????? ??? ?’ ???? ?’), ?????? ????? ??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ?? ?????, ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????, ????? ????? ?? ?????? ???????? ??????? ?? ????? ?????. ?”?. ????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????, ????? ??? ?????? ????, ?????? ?????? ??? ?????. ???? ???? (???????? ?? ?”?) ?????? ?? ??? ???? ???? ???. ???? ?????? ?? ?? ????? ??????, ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ????”? ???”? ??? ???? ??? ?’ (???? ???), ?????? ??? ??? ????????? ????”? ???”? ????? ??? (??? ??? ???? ???? ??), ?????? ??? ??? ???? ????”? ???”? ??? ??? ??? ?’ (???? ???). ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?’ (???? ??? ?????), ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ?????????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??????? ????. ?”?. ???? ????? ?????? ?? ??????, ??? ???? ?????, ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ????, ????? ???? ?? ????. ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????’? ???? ???? ??? ?? (???? ?’ ??? ??): ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????, ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ??????? ????? ????? ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ???, ????? ???? ?????, ??? ???? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ????? ?????? ??, ??? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??, ?????? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???, ?????? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ?????? ??, ??? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ???, ???? ????? ??? ????? ???? ????. ???? ?? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ???????, ??? ?? ???????, ????? ???? ???? ???, ?? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ????????. ???”?
??????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??, ???? ???? ???? ???? ??????, ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ????, ?????? ???”? ???? ??? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???, ??? ?? ???? ??????. (??? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???). ???? ?? ????, ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????. ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?????, ????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??????? ?? ??????, ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?????? ??, ??? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??. ??? ?? ?? ????”? ????? ??? (??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??) ???, ??? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ???, ????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ???? ?? ????? ??, ?? ???? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ??. ???? ?? ????? ????? ???? ??????. ?”?. ??? ???”? ??? ?? ???? ?????, ???? ??????. ????? ??? ?????? ????? ????? ?????, ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ??????, ??? ??? ?????? ?????????, ??? ???? ?? ?????? ??? ?????? (??? ????? ???????? ?? ?”?). ??? ????: ????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ??????? ????? ?????? ???”? ???? ???? ??? ????? (??????? ??? ????? ?? ?’ ?”?). ???? ?????”? (???? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??) ??? ???, ????? ?????? ????? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ??????. ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??. (????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ??, ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?”?). ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? (???? ?? ???? ?’) ???? ????? ????”?, ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ??. ????? ?? ????? ??? ?’ (???? ??) ???, ?????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ?????. ??”?. ???? ???? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???. ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? (???? ?? ???? ??): ???? ???? ???? ???, ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ????, ??? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ?”?. ??’ ???????? (?? ?”?) ?????”? (?”? ???’ ????? ????? ???? ?). ????? ???? ???? ??? (??’ ???). ???”?
????? ?? ????? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????, ??? ????, ?? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ????, ????? ??????. ????? ?? ?????? ????? ???? ?’ ?????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ??????, ????? ???? ????, ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?????? (???? ?? ?”?). ????????? ???? ?????? ???? ???? ???. ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ????
The presumption isn’t to asser for the sake of assering. Do you think the oilam doesn’t go to mixed gyms for no reason?
You can’t take something you know full well is considered assur by all mainstream Orthodox Jews and presume it’s muttar until you are shown sources to your satisfaction, for which there are no objective criteria. This is clearly and obviously something which falls into the category of a huge nisayon which is assur to put yourself into, and to take something with obvious reason to asser, which is clearly assumed by the frum velt to be assur, and call it presumably muttar, is blatantly wrong.
Comparing it to standing on your head, which nobody considers assur and there’s no reason to think is assur, is ridiculous.
?? ??????? ???? is actually a great source, because if someone can’t be ???? ?? ??????, they have to be machmir.
You’re defining crazy based on what you personally disagree with. I have no idea which is more common, but I can assure you that the anti milah lobby has made a lot of noise.
FNY, check the ??? ???? I referred to before. Also check the “knocking teeth out” thread. Also, your use of the word “even” is noted and is obviously backwards. Also, proving something from what you perceive as lack of sources from some random people who post on the CR is pretty feeble.
I am referring to milah, not specifically to metzitzah b’peh.
ZD, by that standard, milah is a chillul Hashem.
But you don’t know this from personal experience, merely from conjecture, correct? Also, you said “another”, so you’d have to explain how you know this about each voice you’re referring to.
How do you know?
Ubiquitin, I honestly can’t see any other reason for you to ascribe those negative motivations other that intolerance. My personal opinion on pictures (and that of my rebbeim) is probably pretty close to yours, but I have no doubt that there are people who are against it for purely sincere reasons (although I don’t know about the motivations of any particular publication).
Rebyidd, as best as I can tell, neither did that picture.
ZD, you really shouldn’t be calling anything you don’t like a chillul Hashem. It cheapens the term.
Ubiquitin: how do you define “faltche frumkeit”, anything further to the right than your hashkafos? Or maybe only if it’s a certain degree further to the right? This a perfect example of religious intolerance.
DaMoshe, ZD: fair enough. I’m sorry. I still strongly disagree.
Sam: tarud b’umnoso (assuming it’s even a man doing the editing).
Also, as golfer pointed out, it’s often not the objectionable nature of a particular picture which is an issue, it’s the maintenance of the policy.
Don’t rely on comments here, ask a rav.