Forum Replies Created
Jothar, are you sure you addressed your comment to correct party? Nothing I said implied, disagreed, or even addressed, any of the points you made.
Just Smile –
In New York State, as a matter of law a parent can provide permission to his minor child to consume any amount (there is no prescribed limit in the law) of alcohol in generally any place, with some limited exclusions such as within a motor vehicle. And for any reason, not just religious. Nor are there any legal restrictions on the BAC for a minor who is not operating a motor vehicle. And they do not have to pour the drink.
Obviously, a parent is legally responsible for their safety of their child, whether their child is drinking an unreasonable amount of alcohol or engaging in any other unsafe activity. But that is not specific to alcohol consumption.
See the link on the bottom of the previous page of this thread, to the National Institutes of Health, describing each State’s minor alcohol laws.
In New York State, a minor is ALLOWED to posses and consume alcohol with parental consent under ANY circumstance at any time. Not just for religious purposes.
Per the National Institutes of Health.
There is no law prohibiting minors from being mekayim the mitzvah of drinking on Purim if the parents allow it.
LMA: Since you claim these are “documented Israeli statistics”, please advise us all where to find these public statistics documented.
Igros Moshe EH 4:60.
As far as I always knew, the category of lebo gas bo is much stricter and this category has many more restrictions in hilchos yichud.
Indeed by Libo Gas Bo the restrictions in hilchos yichud are stricter.
And the Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 22:8) and the Aruch Hashulchan (E.H. 22:6) present examples of a man and a woman who grew up together or are related – such as cousins. Libo Gas Bo also applies to a man and a woman who are very friendly with each other, such as those who work together in an office or if the man and woman dated. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach (cited in Nishmas Avraham 3:94-95) and Dvar Halacha (7:17), state that Libo Gas Bo applies even if the man and woman have only had minimal interaction such as a woman who has visited a doctor a number of times or a man and woman who had some business dealings together.
There is no halachic distinction on these issues I’ve mentioned between first cousins, distant cousins, next door neighbors, and strangers. You can check the Maharal I cited or the Igros Moshe if you’d like.
So the idea of a guy/girl friendship being completely free of hormonal input is bogus.
And I must reiterate that the prohibition here is NOT the words that are spoken. It is 100% permitted to speak to a women for a purpose such as business, asking directions, or having any essential discussion. It is the unessential, unnecessary, and especially friendship-oriented interaction that is prohibited.
Rav Moshe’s famous Teshuva prohibiting m’doraisa girls and boys being friends is based on a statement of Chazal in Avos D’Reb Nosson, and a ruling of the Ran. Basically, it says that any friendly interaction between boys and girls is prohibited. Rav Moshe ZTL continues by saying that there is no such thing as a platonic friendship between boys and girls. He points out that objectively boys should logically choose other boys as friends, – they have more in common, they are more alike etc., and not girls – and the only reason someone would prefer a female friend is because she is a female. And that is Asur.
Now Rav Moshe ZT’L does NOT mean that every boy/girl friendship is for the purpose of lust. The dynamics of mixed gender friendships are so different than same gender friendships, and the reason is because of the subtle but oh-so-obvious sexual dynamic taking place between the parties.January 6, 2010 10:49 pm at 10:49 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673542
jag – Are we dealing with semantics or real fact of life issues? Are we debating for the sake of debate or to understand life and death (physical or spiritual) issues?
Since you admit that a cellphone can and has been a bad influence on students (even if “only” as a contributing factor); and that student can then influence others; therefore there is a time and place when banning cellphones is appropriate. And once banned, enforcement is necessary.
WB ames.January 6, 2010 9:28 pm at 9:28 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673536
jag – Incorrect again.
One guy can bring down the whole class with his bad influence. And cellphones have demonstrably contributed to OTD issues.January 6, 2010 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673532
What’s the difference if it is the sole factor or not?
As long as it is a contributing factor, we need to be very worried about it.January 6, 2010 9:01 pm at 9:01 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673530
“Nobody ever pushed a classroom full of Yeshiva students off the derech because a cell phone got past the door.”
Welcome back kids. 😉
I know of a student of a mainstream yeshiva in Brooklyn who does the following:
He discusses his current principal with random people online. He asks these random unknown people if such and such action by his principal meets their approval.
Is this proper or not?
I never heard about a pidyon being required for a second child if the first was by C-section.
Correct. Although it is a machlokes in the Gemora if the firstborn son was delivered via Caesarean section if the second child (assuming its a son and is born naturally) requires a pidyon. We pasken not.
Also, I believe, but may be wrong, a pidyon is not required if the bechor was delivered by C-section.
Correct. A pidyon is not made if the bechor is born via C/Section.
I call my husband Jose all the time! His name is Joseph.
Say it ain’t so, Joe
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO #
Last day for posts to be eligible for nomination as “Post of the Year”, folks.
Hey, that’s what I am here for! 🙂
Thanks for the warm welcome.
1. The OP was asking a hypothetical question regarding a shidduch he “recently heard of”.
2. The OP stated that the brother “doesn’t go to Yeshiva or have a regular seder (the boy is 19).”
3. The OP then asked “My question is should a siblings behavior impact the making of shidduchim? And if you think it should, then why?”
So the correct answer to the OP’s question is that Chazal advise everyone in the shidduch parsha to consider the girl’s brothers; Not having a regular seder (i.e. a chavrusa; a shiur; or even learning themselves on a regular schedule) is not proper. So, yes, a siblings behavior should impact the making of shidduchim. And the reason why, as explained earlier, is that Chazal stated you can expect you’re children to share personality traits with their mother’s brothers.
cherrybim – Let’s not disappoint Pashuteh Yid.
A store owner makes a sign to hang in his window:
FRESH FISH SOLD HERE
A critic walks into the store and asks the owner if he would like his store critiqued. He says yes.
“Well, first thing’s the sign,” says the critic. “‘Fresh Fish Sold Here’? Well, where else would you sell ’em?”
FRESH FISH SOLD
“‘Fresh Fish Sold’. What else would you be doing, giving ’em away?”
“‘Fresh Fish’. Kinda obvious. Would you sell rotting fish?”
“‘Fish’. People walk by, they see a fish in the window. What do they think you sell, chicken?”
haros – You are obligated to ask a shaila before talking.
Chazal advise us to look at a prospective wife’s brother’s, since Chazal say her children can be like her brothers.
So the person described in the OP has a strong basis.
squeak – Why did you address your comment to me?
Nittel Nacht predates the Chasidim. And the Chasam Sofer held of it.
From Rabbi Avigdor Miller’s “Awake My Glory”:
A heavy blood-guilt lies on the heads of the leaders of the Zionist organizations, together with the Jewish Agency and the heads of the State of Israel. Their conspiracy of intentional silence was instrumental in foiling the attempts to rescue Jews from the Nazi annihilation, and they also actively frustrated the efforts of the rescuers (754-764).
Who are the eyes of the people of Israel?
In July 1938 President Roosevelt convened the Evian Conference to consider the problem of Jewish refugees. At that time a German offer was made to release Jews at $250 per person. The Jewish Agency, headed by Golda Meir, decided to ignore the offer.At this conference, the delegation from the Jewish Agency made no effort to influence the United States or any of the 32 other participating nations to open their gates to admit German Jews.
On Dec. 17, 1942 both houses of the British Parliament declared readiness to afford temporary residence fro endangered persons, but on Jan. 27 a spokesman for the Zionists stated that the Jews opposed the motion because Palestine was omitted.
In 1944 the Emergency Committee to Save the Jewish People called upon the United States to establish a War Refugee Board. Stephen Wise came before an especial committee of Congress to object to this proposal.
In 1947 Congressman William Stratton sponsored a bill to grant immediate entry to the U.S. of 400,000 displaced persons. The bill was publicly denounced by the Zionist leaders, and it was therefore not passed.
On July 15, 1971 the Zionist leaders, through Herman Weissman the president of the Zionist Organisation of America, successfully opposed an effort in the U.S. Congress to allow 30,000 Russian refugees to enter the United States.
7But when we turn to view the deeds of the true leaders of Israel we see an entirely different picture.
Because the Jewish populace of Eastern Europe, like those elsewhere, had ceased to regard the Gedolei-Torah as their leaders and spokesmen (740), and they had given prestige and power to the atheists and enemies of Torah, now in their hour of bitter need they were given a taste of the bitterness of the non-Torah leadership. At the famed Kastner trial it was revealed that the Zionist leaders in Hungary, in cooperation with the world Zionist leaders, had betrayed the Jewish masses and had prevented them from taking steps to save themselves by flight over the nearby border. At the same trial it was also revealed that Joel Brand, the emissary who went to meet the Zionist leaders, in Turkey and Palestine, to plead for a relatively small ransom fund to save many Jews from annihilation, was deceived by the chief Zionist leaders and was maneuvered by their trickery into a British prison, where he languished in despair until all those that had sent him were wiped out.
It was because European Jews put their trust in atheistic Zionist leaders that these leaders everywhere became the lackeys of the Nazis in all the Ghettos. They were the machinery which served efficiently in the task of keeping the Jews docile and of persuading and coercing them to be sent off to their deaths. No Torah-leader ever cooperated with the Nazis in the destruction machinery.
From Rav Yitzchok Hutner ZTL, in the Jewish Observer, 10/77:
It will be our task this evening to untangle the web of distortions about recent Jewish history, which has already been woven, and uncover the Torah perspective which has been hidden from us.
To be sure, it will not be easy to regain this perspective. The thoughts that we will explore this evening will be difficult to digest because of our long subsistence upon the forced diet of public opinion. The creators of the powerful force of public opinion are beyond the realm of our control and the mind-numbing results of their influence are largely out of our hands. In order to achieve any hold on the truth, we will first have to free ourselves form the iron-clad grip of their puissance and open our minds and hearts to the sometimes bitter pill of truth…
An example of how public opinion can be molded – indeed warped – at the whim of powerful individuals can be taken from a study of Russian history textbooks published during the respective reigns of Lenin, Stalin, and Khrushchev … Undoubtedly, “public opinion” during each period, once the children’s minds had been suitably molded, reflected the thinking and the wishes of the state. While more subtle in form, this ability to direct public opinion exists in democratic countries as well. Thus, we already pointed out at the beginning that we must make every effort to free ourselves from the powerful grip of public opinion, and must be ever on our guard that our opinions of the true nature of world events be shaped only by Torah views seen through Torah eyes.
Sadly, even in our own circles, the mold for shaping public opinion lies in the hands of the State of Israel. And appropriate example of this dangerous process of selectively “rewriting” history may be found in the extraordinary purging from the public record of all evidence of the culpability of the forerunners of the [Jewish] State in the tragedy of European Jewry, and the substitution of factors inconsequential to the calamity that ultimately occurred.
To cover its own contribution to the final catastrophic events, those of the State in a position to influence public opinion circulated the notorious canard that Gedolei Yisroel were responsible for the destruction of many communities because they did not urge immigration. This charge is, of course, a gross distortion of the truth, and need not be granted more dignity than it deserves by issuing a formal refutation. However, at the same time as the State made certain to include this charge a historical fact in every account of the war years, it successfully sought to omit any mention of its own contribution to the impending tragedy. . . .
In 1923 Hitler wrote Mein Kampf . . . [which] was read by Haj Amin el-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, who found most significant alliances of modern times. . . Not only did the Mufti visit Hitler and his top aides on a number of occasions, but indeed with Adolph Eichmann, he visited the Auschwitz gas chamber incognito to check on its efficiency.
It should be manifest, however, that until the great public pressures for the establishment of a Jewish State, the Mufti had no interest in the Jews of Warsaw, Budapest or Vilna. Once the Jews of Europe became a threat to the Mufti because of their imminent influx into the Holy Land, the Mufti in turn became for them the incarnation of the Angel of Death. Years ago, it was still easy to find old residents of Yerushalayim who remembered the cordial relations they had maintained with the Mufti in the years before the impending creation of a Jewish State. Once the looming reality of a State of Israel was before him, the Mufti spared no effort in influencing Hitler to murder as many Jews as possible in the shortest amount of time. This shameful episode, where the founders and early leaders of the State were clearly a factor in the destruction of many Jews, has been completely suppressed and expunged from the record. Thus it is that our children who study the history of this turbulent era are taught that the Gedolei Yisroel share responsibility for the destruction of European Jewry and learn nothing of the guilt of others who are enshrined as heroes.
The purpose of this thread is to defend Kollel yungerleit from the incessant belligerence these heroes of Klal Yisroel suffer at the hands of cynics, especially on online venues. At no point did any post here insist “Kollel is mandatory”. Anyone with a minimal reading comprehension would see the frequent mentions of the legitimacy of a non-Kollel lifestyle.
And everything stated, aside from frequently being sourced to giants far greater than I, has been stated by modern leaders of Klal Yisroel as documented throughout this thread.
But in finality, no matter who would state this, there will be cynics who will find fault regardless.
Thank you WSJ!
A previous poster, assuming the writer had years in Kollel, commented:
“The speeches at the beginning make it sound as if someone here is trying to prove to themselves that what they are doing is right. Or trying to politely tell their wife to get off their backs. You arent going to convince people with speeches.”
Now a poster comments:
“No Playe de game, No Makey de rules. Someone who hasn’t put in years of learning in a Kollel should not advocate it being for everyone, until he knows what it takes, what its toll on a wife is, and what the parnassa issues are in and after Kollel.”
In other words “Heads I win, Tails you lose.” If you’re in Kollel, you’re only protecting your turf. If you weren’t, you have no right to promote it. The cynics will put up a show no matter the facts.
truthsharer: So take your wife to the train station.October 21, 2009 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm in reply to: Learning in Eretz Yisroel Before High School Diploma #663215
BINGO!October 21, 2009 8:21 pm at 8:21 pm in reply to: Learning in Eretz Yisroel Before High School Diploma #663213
The OP solicited a general opinion, and it was provided (in general accordance with the Torah authorities previously quoted on these very boards.)
You missed the overall point.
Was the Lithuanian standard to have intermingling?
Spokesperson? When do you lib out squeak?
I never said spokesman.
PY: We are talking about Jewish families here.October 21, 2009 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm in reply to: Learning in Eretz Yisroel Before High School Diploma #663206
Talmud Torah Kneged Kulam.
The answer to your inquiry is provided in the first eight posts over HERE.
You mentioned Avrohom Avinu?
Sarah Imenu went inside and did not wish to interact with or even be seen by the guests.
“over those with a narrow world view”
Like HaRav Elya Svei? HaRav Ahron Kotler? HaRav Boruch Ber Liebowitz? HaRav Elchonon Wasserman?
Talmud Torah K’neged Kulam means always. There is no such thing as a “proper time” for learning, or an “improper time”. The Gemora says that only during a time when “it is not day or night” is the time for learning “not proper.” It’s not a question of right or wrong. The Halachah, as explained by the Ohr Sameach in Hilchos Talmud Torah, is that everyone has to learn an amount according to his level. The more a person understands the value of learning, the more time he must spend on it.
The weddings in Lita were not mixed seating either.
Political Science 101 doesn’t deal with taxes in any meaningful manner.
I can cite more obvious examples if you wish, but I cannot believe you are oblivious to them.
Wolfish: If you violate A, it does not give you license to violate B.
Yes rescue, I meant head covering (double).
Political Science for an Accounting major, is one example.