gavra_at_work

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 6,087 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Collecting in Lawrence #1228641

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I give via organizations and tzedakahs authorized by the shul. The problem with giving small amounts to collectors is the demands for larger amounts.

    Giving two cents (for DY 🙂 does not demand larger amounts. And you can forcefully say “no” and turn your back.

    in reply to: Collecting in Lawrence #1228640

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    DY – Except where it doesn’t, for example Chalipin.

    I hear the Rayah from the Shaarei Teshuva though, and thank you for the Maare Makom.

    LUL – A perutah is 1/8 of an Issar Ha’Italki 🙂 In all seriousness, if you hold it is 1/2 of a grain of silver (which is the Shittah of the Rambam in Mishnayos Kiddushin), it is currently worth about 1.75 cents, which is less than 10 Agurot.

    in reply to: Collecting in Lawrence #1228635

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    DY – I was thinking about that. Do you have a source that the “Nosnim Lo” has to be a Shava Perutah? (Not Matanos L’evyonim, which you hopefully gave to a reliable institution or your Rov)

    in reply to: Collecting in Lawrence #1228633

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    This is (IMHO) a classic “Nehurah Bei Planya” question and therefore Avak Lashon Hara to answer regarding specific areas. Go, do your Hishtadlus, and if you have a good cause, may Hashem help you.

    One point. If you go Purim night, do not expect anyone to open doors. People want to sleep and there is no Chiyuv.

    For whom are you planning to collect?

    lesschumras – It says on Purim “Kol HaPoshet Yad Nosnim Lo”, which means you have to give something. 10 Agurot or a penny is “something”, and they get the point.

    I have also heard that many “wealthy” people go away for Purim, so don’t expect anyone to respond. Even without people knocking for money, it may be cheaper than having to give so many Mishloach Manos LOL.

    in reply to: When is a quarter worth fifty cents? #1213060

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    He’s still wrong for turning it down and not taking it and saying “thank you”, but that’s where the frustration comes from, I imagine.

    Nebuch. And yes, it would not be a bad idea for someone who is really poor to collect bottles. I have heard of families who have saved some significant money in this manner, enough to pay for what other people are “collecting” (such as summer camp).

    in reply to: When is a quarter worth fifty cents? #1213056

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Agree with LuL.

    That being said, many don’t understand the Gemorah

    ??? ????? ??? ???? (?????? ??) ????? ???? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ?? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ????

    If they did, they would understand that the quarter after 4 times becomes a dollar, and then ten, etc.

    Unfortunately, what many Aniyim need is financial literacy/budgeting skills, not financial support. Boruch Hashem there are organizations that are realizing this and conditioning help on attending sessions to teach self-support.

    P.S. Lack of financial literacy affects everyone, from people who have nothing coming in to others who have millions coming in.

    in reply to: A cry against Chillul Hashem in the CR #1211476

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – Agree and Like. I’ll add that the Torah says so as well:

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

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210495

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – Volume 3, pages 168 & 169. It is very clear this is what Rav Moshe holds.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210480

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – Even HaEzer 1:69

    in reply to: best high school in the 5 towns/far rockaway #1209007

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Is Far Rock High still around?

    in reply to: Forbidden Fruits and other produce #1209032

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    If you spray it with DDT the bugs go away (supposedly).

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210462

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – except here, Rav Moshe is someone one whom you can be Somech.

    I have a problem with this statement. If you are talking about someone contemporary, I could understand it. But I have a hard time seeing how you can claim to understand a source better than a Rishon.

    In most circumstances it is quite obvious. Sometimes the Girsah we have is very different, and sometimes the shittah is trying to defend their p’shat. In either case, most of the “Classic” Rishonim by these types of Machloksim have shittos that understand them both ways, and we the reader have to interpret the way we understand best.

    I think we are in a good place here. Yasher Koach.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210452

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – You do have the more difficult task. I agree that there are two different shittos, one saying Da’as Yehudis is at minimum what it was at the time of Chazal, the other holding it depends on the time and place. You are saying there is only one shittah.

    As long as there are valid shittos that say Da’as Yehudis depends on the time and place (for example, the Iggors Moshe in Even HaEzer, or the Diveri Chamudos semi-quoted earlier by DaasYochid), the room for leniency exists (whether I personally use it or not). That creates a Limmed Zechus on many Jews from both this generation and prior generations (which both of us should view as positive). Whether you or I would Pasken like that, and go out with elbows uncovered (or Ittisa), is irrelevant.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210451

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    lilmod ulelamaid – Joe is known to cut and paste from Frumteens. That was not meant to be disrespectful to you, and I apologize if it was. L’maase, you were quoting someone quoting Rav Moshe, you did not (yet) look it up inside. It may be worth your while (as you seem to agree) to assume that the person (even if a Talmid Chacham) quoting does so selectively at best, or with and agenda. Look at the sources yourself and come to your own conclusion. Many Rishonim and Achronim quote others as support for their shittos, and when you look inside the actual source, they said no such thing.

    As far as the Iggros Moshe is concerned, when discussing hair, there is no question that some prohibition is involved. Read the one that I brought earlier in Even HaEzer 1:69 discussing Da’as Yehudis.

    I do not know Rav Ellinson (from whose sefer you quoted), but I will be Dan L’Kaf Zechus that he brings down both shittos. I will wait until you can do some more research.

    Finally, I’m glad that you agree that 4 inches is not Halacha. A certain “Rabbi” supposedly put out a letter that wearing a skirt that is less that 4 inches below the knee is just as Assur (“no less forbidden”) as eating Treif or going mixed swimming. Then again, in the same letter he also said that you must have 3 inches of “slack” at the widest point of a woman’s shirt. It is critical to know what is Halacha, Chumra and Geder.

    Being Dan L’Kaf Zechus, I assume the letter is a forgery, but some people really do think as such.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210440

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Do you know there is a mehitza in the picture?

    Have you never heard of or r”l seen a ten tefach or lucite mechtza? Maybe she is the shliach tzibbur?

    Maybe she is the rabbi?

    I know she is the Imam, so she can’t be the Rabbi 🙂

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210435

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Joe – why do any of those have any pritzus status? I’ve asked you to explain it to me and you refuse. You must think that they are all NOT Pritzus.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210433

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Joe – I did already, no need to say the same thing twice. They are two different Halachos.

    I’m waiting for you to explain why sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not pritzus.

    in reply to: Tznius and kiruv #1211406

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    In general I’d agree with Daas Yochid, but AYLOR. He may have an idea how you can get around the problem.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210431

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Joe – Please explain how sleeveless and/or miniskirts are or are not “Pritzus”.

    There are two different Halachos. Da’as Yehudis and Pritzus. One can be over pritzus and not Da’as Yehudis (red is often brought as an example), or vice versa.

    One is Yorah Deyah (Chukas Hagoyim), the other is Even HaEzer.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210428

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Does that apply to sitting too? Does it say anything about having covered knees specifically while sitting?

    I know that there are signs, rules, and rabbonim that say that a skirt/dress must be x in/cm longer than one’s knees so that they don’t show when one is sitting.

    If you understand knees and elbows to be Da’as Yehudis (like the Mishna Berurah, or in a place where they are normally covered l’diverei HaKol), then they would need to be covered when in the Shuk at all times.

    I personally never got the signs, because what if someone sitting down has their knees showing even after the extra four inches? I’ve also seen 10 CM, and those are not the same as 4 inches, which shiur is it?

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210427

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – Also, if you ever go through Rishonim and Achronim on a Sugyah, it is normal that the Shittah brings others to support. Then, when looking at the source, it doesn’t support that Shittah, and others bring the source for the other shittah. That is why you always need to look at the source inside.

    Personally, I trust the Beis Yosef himself who quotes the Rosh and Rashba that I brought earlier over the MB “interpretation”.

    Finally, I did not see the MB bring any textual proof from the SA to his shittah, he rather brings the Rayah directly from the Gemorah (as pointed out earlier, similar to the Sefer HaEshkol).

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210426

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    LUL – I await you going through the Sugyah, not quoting others and writing their opinions. You may as well copy and paste FrumTeens.

    Would you please inform us who you are quoting?

    Have a great shabbos,

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210425

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    gaw, seriously? You’re uncertain whether sleeveless and/or a miniskirt is pritzus/assur for every Jewish woman everywhere?!

    No, I’m avoiding the question on purpose, because the line does depend on the time and place.

    But if it makes you happy…..

    A Lexus is Pritzus and not Tznius. 🙂

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210420

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Joe – Ask your LOR if they are pritzus or Da’as Yehudis in your community. Those are the reasons why it may be Assur.

    LUL – I wouldn’t expect the Mishna Berurah to explain the SA any other way than his own shittah. Others disagree.

    Your first source holds like the Mishna Berurah. Nothing new there, others argue.

    Your second source specifically says “b’makom shetzarich lihiyos mechuseh”, i.e. Da’as Yehudis. I’ve already proved from the Teshuva in Even Haezer earlier that Rav Moshe holds Da’as Yehudis depends on the place.

    Also, as pointed out earlier, no one disagrees that hair needs to be covered in some fashion (Da’as Moshe), and not doing so is Mevatel the Drasha from the Torah (a “sin”, although not a Lav or a Bitul Aseh, l’cheorah).

    Nothing new there either.

    Finally, Rav Moshe (in that very teshuva!!) says that Ervah for Kriyas Shema has nothing to do whatsoever with what a woman may or may not walk on the street. If you read the teshuva inside (again?), you will see it.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210416

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Joe – Ask your LOR.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210414

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    DY – and at the end? End story, it may not be great (which I won’t argue), but there is no Chiyuv other than “Chassidus L’Tznius Yesierah”.

    It is quite obvious that Rav Moshe disagrees with the Mishna Berurah on this point.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210411

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I don’t know what you’re referring to. As I said, hair is different. In 1:56, it’s clear that there’s a chiyuv on women to dress with tznius.

    To levelset, I don’t think anyone would say there is no such “chiyuv” to dress Tzanuah. As with all things, the question is how much, the geder and why.

    Rav Moshe says there (and I’ll try to look up if that is the correct spot) that as long as a woman dresses similar to other women in her area, even though it is not “Tzanuah” and she should do better, it is still not Overes Al Da’as Yehudis since she dresses similar to other women.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210408

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    DY – The standard “You may never be not Tzanuah, because a man may see you, even in your own house”. Chazal say the exact opposite, ?? ?? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ????? ?????? ??? ???? (Kesubos 72B).

    For Mussar it isn’t bad, but even the Mishna Berurah (i.e. the author) wouldn’t say all of this as Halacha. Even if he did for the Shuk (not at home), it would still be L’shitaso that this is all included as Da’as Yehudis.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210405

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Again, see ????? ????? and others who say such a thing is ???? ?? and has no affect on the halachah. This is not the Mishnah Berurah’s chiddush.

    And Rav Moshe in Even Haezer 1:69 (IIRC) says that it (Da’as Yehudis) does (the “Pritzus in Spring Valley” question, if I got the number wrong). So we have a Machlokes HaPoskim, and a Limmud Zechus.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210403

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    It’s also on the woman. Kal vachomer from daled.

    I don’t understand what you mean.

    Also clear from ??????, because if a woman loses her ?????, she obviously did something wrong.

    That presumes it is Da’as Yehudis, which gets us back to the same discussion as before.

    Finally, you are not answering why one is declared “Assur” while the other is not, and we only infer it from Hilchos Kesubah (and not Brachos). This is Rav Moshe’s point by hair as well.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210401

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I’ll accept your phrasing, but the point I’m making is that it is obviously a chiyuv for a woman to cover that which is assur for a man to see (even without ????? ??????).

    Then what is the point of Halacha Daled? He only says “Assur” for the woman there, not in Halacha Gimmel.

    The issur in r’iyah is on the man, not on the woman.

    in reply to: Is Dating Tznius? #1212151

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – Thank you. I will have to go through the Davar Moshe (Siman 66) thoroughly.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210398

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    On the other hand, the Mishnah Berurah does understand the Gemara in Berachos to be delineating a base line of what must be covered, and that is why shok is singled out (albeit with a more meikel definition of shok). While the Mishnah Berurah’s position has become the presumption in the Yeshiva world, one can’t say that it is wrong to rely on the Shulchan Aruch.

    Exactly. If you look in the Shaar HaTzion 75:5, it is Muchach that the MB Paskens that Da’as Yehudis does not change depending on the time and place, rather it goes after what Chazal said at the time of the Gemorah (similar to the Sefer HaEshkol). Just one point that it would then be Brachos/Kesubos, as Da’as Yehudis uncovered would be an Ervah for men due to hirhur, as per the MB 75:8.

    in reply to: Izhbitza chassidus and open Orthodox #1209948

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I’m pretty sure there was no potato kugel at Shabbos Marah.

    KOFER!

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210393

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    As I demonstrated, they have mostly the same parameters.

    I haven’t seen you demonstrate anything.

    When I went into the Sugyah, I had fully expected to learn just like you, that if it is Assur for Kriyas Shema, than a woman has to cover it when she goes outside. I was unable to find anyone who said so. as I’m willing to follow based on the Halacha rather than my preconceived notion (unlike OO or extreme right groups), I had to admit that there is no tie-in, especially after Rav Moshe specifically says there is not one.

    Where does Halacha Gimmel say anything about what a woman is or is not allowed to do? It seems to be discussing what a Man may or may not do, even in a place where everyone would agree that she may be unclothed or sing as such (a swimming pool?). Or are you saying that Halacha Gimmel only applies in the Shuk? (I think not!!)

    If you can find me someone who ties the two together, I would be grateful.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210389

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    “2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    Used by whom?”

    IIRC the language matches the Mordichai and Tosfos L’Gabei Kol Isha. I’d have to go back and check sources.

    “He is clearly distinguishing between hands, face, and feet, which would also be assur if not ???? ???, and ???.”

    He’s actually discussing Ishto, so it has nothing to do with Histaklus.

    “The ???? ??? also quotes a ???? who argues on that ??”?.”

    I’ve seen the ???? inside. He doesn’t say anything about why the Issur exists, and if it is only because at the time of the Gemorah it was a Makom Mechusah.

    “See ????? ????? who disagrees with ???? ??????’s understanding of the ??”? and calls it a ???? ?? (he is obviously comparing ?”? to dressing. Rav Moshe, as I recall, specifically only said they’re different for ???).”

    I’ll have to see it inside.

    “See also, for example, ???? ?????? in ??? ???? who equates ?”? with ???????. We know that ??????? ?????? ?????? is ???? ????? ????? ????, so it’s referring to incidental ???????, so there is a ???? for women to cover these areas to prevent incidental ???????.”

    I don’t see where you are talking about, unless you mean the part about Ishto (which has no Shaychus to our discussion). Had the ???? ?????? meant to create an Issur on the woman, he should have included it in Halacha Daled, or said so somewhere.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210386

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    There are Sefardish seforim that pasken that married and unmarried women must wear a full head covering (that leaves only the face visible.)

    As I’ve pointed out to LUL elsewhere, Rav Vosner and some Achronim are Choshesh for the Magen Avraham and Rashi, and hold that a woman has to have her hair braided, whether there is a requirement of covering (i.e. under the covering) or not.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210385

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    It is Time for Truth – My definition is extremely uncommon and has a following of one person that I’m aware of. 🙂

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210381

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    The poskim I’ve seen assume they’re the same parameters.

    Which Shittos (by that I mean Rishonim or earlier Achronim, not modern day Rabbonim) have said that they are the same? Rav Moshe is very careful to say they are different, when he discusses the Aruch Hashulchan you mentioned.

    ???”? makes a distinction between ??? (always ????) and other areas (e.g. hands, face) which are ???? in ???? ?????.

    1: That discusses Kriyas Shema.

    2: That exact Rashba is used as a source for the Mattirm (for Kriyas Shema), as he brings in the concept of “Ragil Bahen” being Muttar. Therefore (the argument goes) anything that is Ragil does not create Hirhur, and hence Muttar to read Kriyas Shema before it (note the Rashba L’Shittaso against the Rosh l’gabei the din of an absolute Ervah except Oso makom).

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210373

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benig/gaw, am I reading you correctly in claiming that a woman going sleeveless in the public street is not necessarily assur/pritzus everywhere?! And pray tell where the S”A “doesn’t hold” that displaying the upper legs (i.e. shorts/miniskirt/swimwear) in the public street (or beach/mixed pool) is always assur/pritzus?

    Absolutely not. Dressing Derech Pritzus is Assur in all scenarios for both men and women (SA/Rema Yoreh Deah 178.1). The question is whether not covering the knee or elbow is Derech Pritzus. Seemingly shorts or the type would be. The SA where he discusses the issue of Issur for women (Even Haezer 21) only mentions hair.

    As they are mentioned in Chazal, ??? and ???? are not subject to minhag. Tzemach Tzedek says regarding this that ???? and ???? are the same letters.

    Machlokes Rishonim. The Sefer HaEshkol agrees with you (Pashtus), the Rosh (and perhaps the Rashba) does not. Besides, are you asking about Ervah for Kriyas Shema or a prohibition regarding walking down the street as such? They are not the same.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210362

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    IITFT – In my personal definition, nothing. You are all more than welcome to have your own, but I personally believe that fits the term “MO” in the best fashion. Like LUL says, my definition is “unique”, and I don’t expect others to agree. And yes, your grandfather may be MO (per my definition) if he considered Rav Yoshe Ber his Rebbe. It seems you don’t believe that is the case.

    LUL – Regarding Tznius: Covering hair at least partially is a Limud from a Pasuk, but not a Lav or even a Bittul Asei. I’m not sure about mixed swimming (with a Burkini to avoid the other issues) being a real issue at all. Knees, upper arm and elbow according to many would only be required/enforceable if minhag hamakom (which is a totally different discussion!!). Shorts, if Derech Pritzus, would be a real problem, but you would have to show me that is a real issue in your community. B”H I don’t see them on religious women (even those who go to Young Israel, which may be your definition of MO) at all.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210356

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    Nisht – Yes. But it has the advantage of being very specific. If you hold Rav Yoshe Ber as the father of MO (which I believe most agree), then his talmidim who follow him are also MO.

    in reply to: Is Dating Tznius? #1212146

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    benignuman – The GRA says Devarim Bteailim, so Toeles seems to possibly apply to Dibur as well.

    I’d need to Chazer the Harchakos to see exactly where the “Date night” comes from, perhaps the idea of making a Tiul?

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210354

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    iacisrmma – As far as women are concerned, it is not Ervas Dovor. Period. Read the MB. I was just as surprised, and personally I agree that the Rosh is more Mistaver, but I (and you) can’t say that is an OO p’sak.

    LUL – Not at all. My argument was that many women whom you consider not following the Halachos of Tznius really are, whether MO or Chassidish.

    Personally, as I’ve said in the past, I would define MO as a Talmid or follower of a Talmid of Rav Yoshe Ber, whether it is Rabbi Twersky HYD, Rabbi Shechter, Rabbi Meiselman, or Rabbi Avi Weiss.

    in reply to: Is Dating Tznius? #1212144

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    A “non-platonic manner” is when the actions themselves or the context around them indicate that the purpose of this laughing and having fun is not just for the fun itself but to create, strengthen, or maintain a non-platonic relationship.

    And I’m not certain that is correct, only if the manner is not platonic (the Shulchan Aruch’s “Shema Yargil”), and not L’Toeles. It certainly could be, depending on the situation and context.

    Have a look at the Beiur HaGRA there in Yoreh Deyah.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210345

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    iacisrmma – Shaychus? It isn’t an Ervah.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210342

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    iacisrmma – That is the correct P’sak according the the Mishneh Brurah (75:8), who holds that a woman’s “ervah” is not applicable to another woman except for one spot (not her chest). Therefore it is not B’chlall “Ervas Davar” (as long as it is in the Ezras Nashim) which would be Assur.

    This is not “Open Orthodox”, this is quoting the P’sak of the Mishna Berurah.

    Now if you had said “in front of a man”, then we would have what to discuss.

    in reply to: Is Dating Tznius? #1212142

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    The difference is not intent (subjective) but context (objective).

    I can agree with this. We then have the question if during dating/engagement the context is ??????? or Toeles.

    I believe that the “dibbur” in the Ramah and the Shach is going on Kalush Rosh

    So then please define ???????. You previously said “In my understanding “schok” means having fun or laughing together in a non-platonic manner.”

    How would you define a “non-platonic manner”, and is it automatically a “non-platonic manner” when dealing with an Ervah?

    in reply to: Switzerland forces mixed swimming #1208976

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    I don’t know if it’s reasonable to expect someone to home school their child because the public school is acting against freedom of religion. It’s not necessarily a realistic option for everyone.

    Being that they teach evolution…… it is not “freedom of religion” to insist that the services provided to you by the state in a neutral manner are free of anything against your religion.

    in reply to: Open Orthodoxy #1210339

    gavra_at_work
    Participant

    If it’s against halacha, it doesn’t matter if it’s according to the standards of her community.

    If the Halachos don’t depend on the standards themselves.

    Avram in MD – Fair point.

    IITFT – I’m not disagreeing with the overall criticism of OO, which is much more insidious than what has been described until your last post. The big problem (as you point out) is that they know what they want the “Halacha” to be and then go about trying to justify it, vs. a truthful search of what the Halacha should be.

    In all fairness, we see the same on the right and the left, but in the case of the left/OO real halacha is broken, vs. in the case of the right some unneeded societal rules are justified in the name of Judaism. I’ve hear/seen the same when spouses fight and one brings in “Frumkeit” or “Modernness” to justify their side. It is not that they know the Halacha and sources, rather they want something and are trying to justify it using the Torah as a “Kardom Lachfor Bo”.

    The two examples (nursing and Tznius) brought earlier though are (I believe) incorrect from a Halachic standpoint.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 6,087 total)