☕ DaasYochid ☕

RSZA paskened that classical music is permitted during sefirat haomer; my rav agrees.

Does your rav also agree to R’ Shlomo Zalman’s reluctance to apply this heter other than in a sha’as had’chak?

R’ Shlomo Zalman’s opinion is recorded in Halichos Shlomo, Moadim, 11th perek, 14, D’var Halachah 22. However, in Orchos Halacha 54, it is stipulated that this heter should only be utilized in case of need.

y.p,

I think it’s quite reasonable to assume that the Washington Post would not have retracted had they not realized that they were definitely wrong.

GAW,

I was referring to ofcourse’s statement, “The couples managed on their own with much less needs.“, implying that today’s young couples are spoiled.

y.p,

The second reader, Don, was agreeing with what the first one said. This was in the category of the qualification “but…”.

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

So it’s not “pathetic”.

Thanks

GAW,

There was nothing offensive about the way you disagreed with me, I’m just trying to figure out what it is we’re disagreeing on. When I wrote “b’nichusa”, I was describing my tone, not giving mussar.

I wasn’t saying that the shidduch crises has nothing to do with the OP (although it really doesn’t), I was saying that the spoiled young adults crises is unrelated.

The shidduch crises is mostly unrelated, because the boys are, for the most part getting married, and almost [:)] every time a boy gets married, a girl does as well.

In theory, financial considerations might shift the number of “leftover” girls more heavily to the kollel families, but the number of unmarried girls stays essentially the same. I also don’t know if that shift is factual or theoretical.

As far as the freezer idea, sure there are many boys who would learn in BMG no matter what, but many would violate the freezer rules if they were too restrictive, and some boys would go elsewhere (and rumor has it that BMG wants high enrollment). I’m curious what AZ has to say about this idea.

What’s the difference between keeping the freezer for younger girls 9your fist idea) and opening it for older ones (your second idea)?

It was a violation of journalistic standards. It was a violation of honesty. It was a violation of truth.

They could have not run the photo. They could have edited the photo and informed their readers that the photo was edited. They did neither. They violated far more than just “common sense.”

The Wolf

It was not a violation of truthfulness and honesty because the intent and effect was not to fool anyone. As far as journalistic standards, they are entitled to define that for themselves (although it was a mistake to do so the way they did it in this case.)

I fully agree that they could have and should have left the picture out. I’m not sure a disclaimer would have completely shielded them from criticism.

dy

because it was a government document/photo that had stipulations and limitations regarding its distribution attached to it.

Which might be perfectly legal to doctor; that’s what we’re discussing.

I’m curious what the Ralbag says on the passuk of “vidavak B’Ishto”.

???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ???? ????? ?????

In other word, because he needs her so much.

I wasn’t saying the picture was classified, I was comparing it to that category of documents that has special restrictions as per the government, and cannot be compared, as Pacman suggests, so readily with a standard copyright.

Why should it be compared with classified documents?

To those who suggest that this was a violation of lifnei iver or g’neivas daas or any other issur, I suggest that you either learn through those sugyas (or, in regular English, research those topics), or speak to a talmid chacham who has before making such a pronouncement.

It was a violation of common sense, but nothing else.

To suggest that the publication was trying to mislead anyone to believe that Mrs. Clinton wasn’t present is foolish. Their readers know that no pictures of women are ever shown, and those who don’t normally read that newspaper know that she was there, having seen the original photograph!

And yes, they could unilaterally implement something, just like they have the Freezer, and everyone else will have no choice but to follow.

The freezer, from a mathematical perspective, actually exacerbates the problem. What could BMG possibly implement (other than unplugging the freezer) to alleviate the problem? They’re not in a position to either force boys to marry earlier or girls to marry later.

What statement of mine indicates that I disagree with your assertion that poorer girls, from kollel families, are less likely to get married? While we’re at it, do you have any evidence of this? (Yes, I know those two points seem contradictory, but I haven’t yet really consider it from that perspective.)

Wolf,

Great post. I have one point to make though; nobody HAS to do anything. It’s a free forum (subject to moderation) and one is entitled to state an opinion without backing it up. For the intelligent reader, with whom you, an intelligent poster, should be concerned, the unsubstantiated opinion means little.

This is my opinion. 🙂

This is my opinion as well. No one here is limited to some ill-defined official Rules of Argumentation. This is a DISCUSSION forum.

Apparently, considering the amount of news sources reporting the incident and the newspaper’s own apology to the Whitehouse, there WAS something wrong with it. I’m not sure where you looked to think otherwise.

You’re confusing cause and effect. The newspaper didn’t apologize because there was something wrong, it apologized because the story was reported negatively in so many news sources.

The newspaper did actually do something wrong; they didn’t anticipate the reaction.

I found a year-old thread on this. I had seen this p’sak from R’ Belsky, which Feif Un quotes here, but didn’t know where to find it; I’ll post the link.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/sefira-music/page/2#post-86593

According to the logic of the OP, nobody would ever learn full-time, because everyone would need to work to support the coming generation’s learning. Since that next generation, for who’s sake the previous generation sacrificed its learning, would need to do the same, this generation might as well learn full time!

apushatayid,

Look at perek gimmel, pasuk tes-zayin and chof (Mossad Harav Kook – pg. samech gimmel – samech daled.

The term he uses is “lo hushg’chah”, which popa translated as “did not care as much”. I think the true meaning becomes obscured with that translation.

The part of this discussion which disturbs me the most is the contention that somehow the rishonim were more influenced in their thinking by contemporary thought than we are. The opposite is of course true. I think, however, that the reality we live with forces us to live differently than the ideal (as HKB”H created the world).

As an example, the idea of “avdus” is completely anathema to us and is wholly inconsistent with our sense of fairness. Yet, the Torah clearly believes in it.

I think as our generations continue, the human condition deteriorates, so that it is indeed inappropriate; the difference in level between classes becomes insufficient to support “avdus”. As well, the “superior” class is unable to treat the “lower” class in the proper manner, and is therefore unworthy of the privilege.

This idea also applies to our discussion. Although the role of woman was meant to be as “ezer” to man (and still is, although in a different, less literal sense), the practical manifestation of this in the manner described by Ralba”g is only appropriate when man deserves it, and when woman appreciates her role as not being degrading inasmuch as this was the purpose of her creation. Both of these factors do not apply today; the first because man is unworthy, and the second because of contemporary societal norms which have affected us.

Hence, popa’s rebbeim instruct him, and rightfully so, to teat his wife as an equal.

Ralba”g seems to attribute woman’s inferior “sechel” not to lesser potential, but rather to her inability to develop it due to her preoccupation carrying out her tasks as “ezer”. This is wholly consistent with the high level of intelligence and education found in today’s women (which is an additional reason in and of itself for the relationship between man and woman to have changed).

Instead of looking for a Rav who will be lenient upon whom to hang your hat, why not look for a Rav whom you respect and to whom you can ask various sha’ailos that come up?

The Wolf

Great point.

One point which I must add; someone who devotes his life to avodas Hashem is investing in the spiritual well-being of his future generations. This cannot be taken away from him; financial wealth can.

getzel1 and am yisrael chai,

You both have good points. I didn’t make them up, though.

Getzel1, thanks for all the laughs.

See the story on pages 202-203 of “In their Shadow” Vol.III (by Rabbi Shlomo Lorincz), for the Gerrer Rebbe’s (The Beis Yisroel) response to this very question.

RIP Osama bin Laden, World Hide and Go Seek Champion (2001-2011)

mbachur,

Yes, but who says it has to mean that?

binahyeseira,

That “cool thing” I do is called blockquote. The word blockquote is inserted instead of strong or em. (The uncoded font is enclosed by backticks, the` symbol at the top left of the keyboard.)

I didn’t make any of this up, I discovered it right here in the CR.

I see the one from last night was [really] closed, and the name changed to reflect the nature of the content.

I had addressed a post to binahyeseira which was a casualty of the closing, so I will address a technical issue here.

DY – pba claims that he takes hashkafa and halacha seriously.

Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.

i would put that line in BOLD if i knew how, so everyone can see it. unfortunately, the only thing i learned how to do in the CR was to italicize. 🙁

Here’s how to put something in bold:

<strong>Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.</strong>

results in:

Yes, I suppose this thread puts a bit of question mark on that.

http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lying-on-ywn