Forum Replies Created
a friend of mine who appears on that video admitted to me that he never will actually disconnect…
The chief rabbi of New York, RJJ, was actually called Rabbi Yaakov Yosef Joseph zt”l
Blame it on Chasidim, the scapegoats of the Modern Jewish World. Why don’t you see Hagaon Reb Moshe Feinstein’s Tshuva on the topic?
you forgot that pants create a very clear outline of the body, which is ossur as well.
to all those who think these stories strengthen emuna, suffice it to say that anyone who believes this story, never had any difficulties in emuna to begin with. And those who have real nisyonos in emuna cannot find solace in such tall tales.
Just to throw in my two cents, the targum in tehillim explains it entirely different. “All the coveted belongings of a princess are kept within”. with ‘kvudah’ meaning belongings (in modern Hebrew luggage is called ?????.)
bortezomib: I want to personally thank you for making my name seem with good taste. 🙂
Haleivi, well put.
To all those accusing me of being judgemental, I in no way was being offensive in my writing. I stated a fact that this is not the consensus of all shitos in bechira, and questioned the right (and wisdom) of a magazine to take a position in a sensitive topic in emuna, whilst entirely ignoring the opposing views.
To those who countered me to go and learn the topic before writing, suffice it to say i didnt write my post before i learnt the Or Hachayim in Vayeishev – which is the most popular source for this view, based upon his interpretation on a certain passage in the Zohar. I discussed the matter at length with numerous Talmidei Chachamim. Arguing with this opinion there is a Ramban, a Ma’avar Yabok, Vilner Gaon and even a Or Hachayim that seems to imply to the contary. I didn’t think that this is the place to go off on a tangent, so I minced words.
Motzi shem ra? the AMI staunchly defends their position and refuses to retract.
Halevi, thank you for your well written comment.
Health, allow me to explain why exactly this is not the mag’s decision.
When i say a ‘controversial topic in hashkafa’, it means there are sources who regard this as borderline heresy (Reb Aaron Kotler zt”l, for example, related in the name of the Vilner Gaon that this is not the correct view). Such a questionable concept should not be sold by ANYONE as a dovor poshut, without giving the slightest mention of those who vehemently disagree. When we are dealing with hashkafa, the danger is twofold: 1) relying on a daas yochid is a little more scary when you are forming your belief system. 2) most people – especially children – don’t even know the problem with this statement, and it remains ingrained in their minds.
I personally think that the Ami should stick to recipes, and leave sensitive topics in Judaism to everyone’s respective rebbeim. But evidently the editorship disagrees, they seem to deem it their job to set the tone on our beliefs. Being that they embroiled themselves in many hashkafic faux-pas, I think it is safe to say it wasn’t an accident.
cv, you are wrong in this case, but are right in others.
mir means ‘me’, and means ‘we’. in this case it means “rabbosai we will bentch”.
ich – I
mir – me
unz – us
mir – we
Mod, you’re right, I was busy until I got back and the thread had taken on a whole new identity.
I was just trying to point out that originally the discussion wasn’t about bungalows. (It didn’t help me much.)
Bpt, thank you for the first reply that was on topic.
I entirely agree on your approach to the mileage the kletzki story got… Enough. (I was sick of the topic 3 days in.) This is unrelated though, with the Kletzki connection being minimal and circumstantial.
Do you think a frum family Mag should steer clear of hashkafa grey-areas?
I’m having trouble seeing how exactly this discussion got derailed, but I will explain which article was discussed, and what the issue was. (i will ask those who wish to discuss the effects of bungalow living on marriage, to open a thread on that, 🙂 thanks.)
It was an article regarding the Kletzky incident, in which the writer suggested that we can tell our children that “it wasn’t G-d who did it, someone else killed him on his own decision.” That was the basic outline. I do not know the name of the article, or its author.
To say that a human being has the free will to do something which G-d has not destined him to do, is definitely a controversial approach to the area of hashgacha and bechira.
This hashkafically controversial topic, was so ingeniously slipped into a nondescript article tackling a tragedy. Needless to say, most frum Yidden with knowledge in basic emuna would be appalled with such a concept being sold as acceptable. that was the fiery discussion I overheard.
These were not mere ‘hockers’, they were upstanding mature yungerleit, who were genuinely bothered by this infiltration of questionable literature and values into their homes.
i should comment that there are a number of sources in the rishonim and acharonim, which suggest that such a belief (i.e. that someone can go and kill another person even if it is not ‘bashert’ that the other should die) is acceptable. Many Rishonim and Achronim vehemently oppose this position.