Forum Replies Created
Thank you Ben Levi.
Everyone says that’s the halacha, but nobody gives the source. Even Joseph’s post, which does have sources (I haven’t had the opportunity to review them yet) doesn’t contain sources for his later assertion that “there is no halachic distinction between cousins and strangers.”
I think a major part of what seems unappealing about the request for handwriting analysis is that in asking for it, you are essentially saying we want to see what your handwriting reveals about you that has not already been revealed, what unfortunate things you are hiding from us because while you seem wonderful as far as we can tell, we just don’t trust you. Would you say that instead of asking for a handwriting sample? Not likely.
Then the relevant answer Joseph is that there is no halachic distinction between cousins and strangers.
If Poster is correct, then that answers that.
Joseph- while some of that post was very informative it didn’t address the question, which specifically discusses cousins.
You say or quote things like “even between strangers.”
The question was not about strangers, or whether men and women should have platonic friendships. I don’t think anyone would disagree with what’s been said about that. The question was specifically about cousins, i.e., family, and that is not addressed in anything you’ve posted.
Anyway, my two cents is that it depends on the specific closeness of the families in general. If the cousins grew up spending lots of time together, and their relationship is similar to that of brother and sister, than for the same reasons that brothers and sisters can talk, I’d say its permissible. If their relationship is more distant, i.e., they didn’t see each other growing up very often, didn’t see each other except for the occasional and infrequent simcha, then no, they are more akin to strangers who should not develop a platonic relationship. But I am Just-a-guy, not a Rav, and not even Joseph.
Not very normal or accepted.January 6, 2010 11:05 pm at 11:05 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673546
Joseph- I have said all along that the ban is appropriate and should be enforced. What I disagreed with was the suggestion that airport style security tactics are appropriate for enforcing such a ban. I explained why. You said “incorrect.”January 6, 2010 11:03 pm at 11:03 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673543
Joseph- I am dealing with real life issues. You are the one who wrote “incorrect” when my statement was not incorrect.
Tell a Yeshiva student that a cellphone is spiritually dangerous and he’ll listen to you. Tell him it is exactly the same as a bomb and he’ll laugh at you.January 6, 2010 9:43 pm at 9:43 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673540
Joseph- one can, and one has, are different.January 6, 2010 9:42 pm at 9:42 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673539
Joseph- I didn’t say cellphones haven’t contributed to OTD issues, nor did I say one students bad influence couldn’t affect others.
What I did say was that no single occurence of a cellphone getting into a classroom ever caused every student in that classroom to go OTD, such that airport style security wouldn’t make sense.
You said that is incorrect. The factual statement “Nobody ever pushed a classroom full of Yeshiva students off the derech because a cell phone got past the door” would be factually incorrect if in fact there was an occasion where a cellphone got past a classroom door and the entire class went OTD. So, please provide the example.
Not an example of a cellphone being a bad influence, which I agree with. Not an example of someone with a bad attitude influencing others, which of course, happens.
Alternatively, you can choose your words more carefully and precisely.
For example, you might say something like this- I believe that the negative spiritual effects can be as dangerous as a bomb on an airplane, therefore we should have airport style (or hopefully better) security at Yeshivas to keep cellphones out.January 6, 2010 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673535
More generally, I’d like to comment that the way to keep people on the path of Yiddishkeit is to show them that resisting the Yetzer Hara is the better way. Not simply to hide what the Yetzer Hara might lead them to. That might delay a path off the derech, but it will not prevent it. It will be prevented by showing them that there is a better way for them.January 6, 2010 9:24 pm at 9:24 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673533
“”Nobody ever pushed a classroom full of Yeshiva students off the derech because a cell phone got past the door.”
No Joseph, correct. Provide the Yeshiva, and the year that a cellphone got past the door and caused every student in that particular classroom to go off the derech.
I wholehartedly agree 1) that cellphones do not belong in school, 2) that a principal should enforce that policy, and 3) that cellphones are spiritually dangerous.
But to say that it is literally (not figuratively, but literally) like a bomb at an airport is the sort of thing that turns off Yeshiva students to their Yiddishkeit. They feel like they are being played for fools and that pushes them away.January 6, 2010 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673529
“You don’t enforce a no cellphone policy as if the students are going to murder 100’s of innocents. Airport security and cellphones in Yeshiva’s have nothing to do with each other. Its comparing apples and oranges.”
Remember, cell phones are not banned in yeshivos (perhaps we should clarify what type of yeshiva we are talking about?) because they are a distruptive to the classroon setting (which they may be as well), rather, because they are deemed dangerous to ones yiddishkeit. Apples and oranges?
Yes, apples and oranges. Nobody ever pushed a classroom full of Yeshiva students off the derech because a cell phone got past the door. But busloads, planeloads, etc., full of innocents have been murdered because of bombs. I stand by the apples and oranges comparison. If you think Yeshiva cellphone policy should be the same as airport security, you’ll push way more people off the derech than a cellphone.January 6, 2010 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673527
treating Yeshiva students like suspects can also be dangerous to their Yiddishkeit.January 5, 2010 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673512
“”Why treat all the students as suspects?”
Did you fly recently?
Have you ever driven a commercial vehicle through a bridge or tunnel in NYC?
The head in the sand “ameich kulam tzadikim” approach, or as the army calls it “dont ask dont tell”, is the cause for a lot of problems. If there is a zero tolerance policy, then thats how it should be enforced, otherwise modify the policy. “Give them a finger, they take a hand” is quite appropo to high school boys.”
You don’t enforce a no cellphone policy as if the students are going to murder 100’s of innocents. Airport security and cellphones in Yeshiva’s have nothing to do with each other. Its comparing apples and oranges.
EDITEDJanuary 5, 2010 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673511
When a Rabbi sets a rule of no cellphones, and the students persist in using cellphones, it is demeaning to the Rabbi.January 4, 2010 10:19 pm at 10:19 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673501
“it is 100% ILLEGAL to do in the U.S.A. It is a violation of ones personal rights.”
This is not correct.January 4, 2010 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673498
If a principal is randomly asking older students to show their pockets, its demeaning. But frankly, I can’t really imagine that sort of random behavior taking place. If a principal asks a student to turn out his pockets because yesterday the student was talking on a cellphone, was told not to bring it to school with him, and the principal then saw him with it again, but when asked the student denies it, it may be demeaning, but its also necessary.January 4, 2010 9:08 pm at 9:08 pm in reply to: Yeshiva Principal Enforcing No-Cell-Phone Policy; Proper Or Not? #673495
“There are laws in America that must be followed or the school and the administration could find themselves in a world of trouble. The church/state argument will not trump the legal issues in this case.”
The laws in America as they pertain to search and seizure of students in school are not much of a concern here. First, students in American public schools have very little in the way of 4th amendment rights, as the Supreme Court has held that the students rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure are balanced by the school’s educational purpose and need to maintain order within the school. In short, from a legal standpoint, students have very little in the way of rights. Its even less of a concern with respect to a private school like a Yeshiva, which is not a state actor, and therefore not subject to the dictates of the 4th amendment. When you sign up to go to a private school like a Yeshiva, you’re essenntially signing up and consenting to their way of doing things.
As for the actual question, of course the principal should enforce his policy. Also, of course, he should not enforce it in a way that is demeaning to students, but students generally invite that sort of thing by trying to get around the policy. Its not clear if the policy being asked about it along the lines of cellphones are evil and should not be in this Yeshiva because they lead people to going OTD, or cellphones are disruptive and distracting to learning, so they should not be in this Yeshiva. Not that it really matters, students should follow the rules.
You don’t see a lot of frum guys named Abdullah these days.
What kind of shidduch can a boxer expect? What about if a girl has a brother who boxes?
You beat me to it HG.
“once again i hate to nitpick and take haifagirls job…but i believe the word id CURtail not CUTtail”
Well, if we’re going there…
Once again, I hate to nitpick and take haifagirl’s job, but I believe the word is CURtail, not CUTtail.
The following items are used to both promote Torah and the Torah lifestyle, and also malign Torah and its adherents:
the printing press
I’m not familiar with the social work code of ethics. What are the obvious conflicts? Just curious.
Oomis1105- for better or worse, there are actually lots of people like that in the real world, i.e., no frum dress, public school and college educations, partial observance of Shabbos, and no lobster, pork or meat and dairy together. Where and how I grew up, that was pretty common.
Here’s another question related to PY’s initial question. Should we keep a low profile with respect to an issue like the bike lane through Williamsburg?
My point is not to bring this off track into whether or not the bike lane in Williamsburg is acceptable or not, but to ask what people think in terms of how this relates to the low profile/galus issue. Any thoughts?
If we don’t want to put up a large public menorah because that is not the proper way to celebrate Hanukah, that’s fine. If we don’t want to put up a large public Menorah because we don’t want to imitate the xtian ways of celebrating xmas, that’s fine too. But we should not decline to put up a large public menorah because we believe that our very existence is so revolting to others.
Thinking Jew wrote “there’s no reason a goy should be angered by the way a yid dresses, however a huge menorah is inescapable and can be very annoying to a goy to see juadiasm glaring in his face like that.”
I don’t understand this at all. First, I don’t understand why a goy whose going to be annoyed by a menorah would feel that there’s no reason to be angered by the way a Jew dresses. If you’re going to be an anti-semite, and hate Jewish people and stuff, you’ll have a problem with his dress.
But second of all, I don’t understand the idea that it can be very annoying to a goy to see judaism glaring in his face. Sure, that may be so. But that is because he is a rotten anti-semite. There is something wrong with him, not the Jew who he hates. Yes, there is a general practice of keeping a low profile in general and being modest, but the idea that we need to be sensitive to how enraging a menorah can be to an anti-semitic goy who hates Jews and can’t stand the sight of them is silly and ultimately self-destructive.
If you think a goy who has a problem doesn’t have a problem with distinctively Jewish dress, you are wrong.
Excellent question PY. I posted something similar on the news page but it hasn’t appeared for some reason.
If a secular Jew took aside a Jew who dressed frum in an office and asked him to tone it down with the beard, the tzitzis, the kippah and try not to look so Jewish we’d probably think that’s horrible and call him a self-hating Jew. But if a frum Jew tells others that publicly displaying a menorah is wrong because it will anger the goyim here in galus, we don’t think there’s any self-hatred there.
I’m personally not a huge fan of the large public menorah’s, but if they anger goyim and cause hatred, its because there’s something wrong with them, not with the Jew who’s displaying it. Moreover, I trust Chabad’s methods and techniques of reaching out to other Jews, as nobody, anywhere, does a better and more courageous job than they do.
Haifagirl- I am a full supporter of your role as the grammar police. Grammar, and proper usage of words, aren’t just small things to nitpick about. They’re tools to help people communicate effectively.
haifagirl- the original post said throwing “on” people’s heads, as opposed to “at” people’s heads. While on doesn’t necessarily mean on top of, it does suggest the top, whereas “at” suggests the sefarim were being thrown from ground level, at people. Not that this is important…
Well, I wasn’t trying to open that can of worms, just saysing that if someone’s doing something dangerous, you don’t have to agonize over what to do. 911.
I don’t really understand the issue, if someone on the street is throwing something dangerous at people’s heads, holy book or otherwise, public school kid, yeshiva bochur, mentally ill homeless person, or businessman, you should call the police.
Moderator- I did not express an opinion about a poster, but about the positions she expressed.
And I wasn’t referring to you. I was only referring to your post.
Of course, if I offended haifagirl, I apologize.
Haifagirl- in my opinion, many of the opinions you express above are both naive/ignorant and not in concert with Torah values.
For starters, there are plenty of reasonable accomodations made for handicapped people that have no effect whatsoever on non-handicapped people.
Your explanation of what regulation is has no impact. Yes, societies make rules based on their values. Look at all the people on this website talking about toeiva marriage- we want a society that reflects our values.
I disapprove of the swiss vote. Jews must support policies of religious tolerance, as they protect us during galus. Today maybe its minartes or headscarves, perhaps tomorrow kippot and mikveh’s. Maybe muslims are unpopular now, but the tide can turn. theOne, substitute Jew in your sentence about Switzerland being full of them and you’ll see what I’m talking about.
Jothar- that analogy doesn’t work. The soldier has free will and exercises it to protect the lives of Jews.
Where are you- England? U.S.A.? It doesn’t bother me per se, no. If its inappropriate, that’s a different story, and I leave, but merely being in english, for me, doesn’t make it inappropriate, nor does it make me sick. As for a Jewish establishment, there’s only really a Shul, a Yeshiva, maybe a Mikveh, but after that a restaurant is just a restaurant, a barbershop a barbershop, etc. They might be in Jewish neighborhoods, owned by Jews, but their just private establishments.
I don’t think these conventions are held in fancy hotels for the purpose of being fancy- I always figured it was just because they have the facilities that are necessary. I dunno, I suppose it could be done a different way.
I still don’t understand what the question is. What is meany by a “say”? Its a free country, you can say anything. You may or may not persuade people to agree with you. Everyone has one vote, and a non-human enity such as they Yeshiva has no vote, but the individuals affiliated with/running the Yeshiva have the ability to voice their opinion and possible persuade others how to vote. Every organization, be it a health insurance company or a Yeshiva, advocates for its interests.
Emes or not, you don’t get someone to see that it is emes by yelling emes, emes, emes!
“What do Non Jews and Secular people do regualy? you name it evry sin steal adultry etc…..
The Jews are in Golus with these people do you expect them not to learn from their bad deeds?
Open any Orthdox Jewish phone book check the Chesed and Gemach listings. then ask all the pople posting comments anti Frum if they ever did any good act, they most probbly will have to think hard”
It could reasonably said that these statements display the mean and arrogant attitude that the original poster refers to. If someone mistakenly (and it is mistakenly) thinks you’re mean and arrogant, you don’t disprove them by shouting that in fact you are better than everyone else and everyone else is a sinner.
Cellphones are not a cause of divorce. Rudeness and lack of consideration manifested through over-attention to cellphones, and neglect of one’s spouse may be a cause of divorce, but a cellphone is an inanimate object that doesn’t cause anyone to do anything.
Not sure I understand the question. People have freedom of speech and the ability to vote. If people want to follow a particular Rabbi or Rosh Yeshiva’s advice that’s fine, if a Rabbi, or Rosh Yeshiva wants to speak out on a certain issue that’s fine too. Havve a say? They should have a say in accordance with our laws and principles of democracy, of course.
There is nothing more alienating/divisive, etc., than for one group of Jews to tell others that they are not real Jews, or true Jews, or good Jews, or Jews who do not properly follow halacha, etc., even if some of those things might be true. I’m not saying that halacha should be compromised at all, I’m saying that attention must be paid to the manner and the forum in which these issues are addressed. There are about 100 ways to push people away, and very few ways to pull them closer.
I’m not sure if I have enough information yet, but from what I know so far, I predict that this event will end with at least half the crowd alienated from the other half.
Why would it be considered murder?
charliehall wrote: “As to the “What’s the point”? I would think that Torah would be the point — these are both Orthodox yeshivot!”
But what specifically about Torah, and what will the debate actually be about?