Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“Why are you so convinced that there is Loshon Horo when talking about an anonymous online persona?”
1. If you are correct, then the person themselves couldn’t have been speaking l”h in the first place (since it was also about an anonymous online persona), so in that case, it would have been onaas devarim.
2. As you pointed out, some people do know who people are in real life.
3. I don’t think that you are right. In the coffee room, everyone has an identity and a name and is interacting with others. The fact that they use a different name here than they do elsewhere is irrelevant. By speaking l”h about someone, you are causing others to view them differently and to treat them differently at least in the Coffee Room.
And I think that I have actually seen this happen to some extent.
So is dressing untzniusly. So that doesn’t explain why a burqa should bother someone more than the other.
LB – it seems to me that you are talking about very lofty spiritual levels that most of us aren’t on even as adults.
Even regarding those rare individuals who are on such a level, it is probably only as an adult.
I think that the Torah derech is to let children be children.
There is something important that I think should be pointed out here. I don’t recall if I have ever mentioned this outright to you before although I am sure that I or others have alluded to it.
There are many advantages to being a baal teshuva. A baal teshuva is on a much higher level than someone who grew up Frum – unless the FFB grows in his Avodas Hashem to the extent that the changes he makes are equivalent to the changes and growth experienced by the baal teshuva. But it is a rare FFB who makes those kinds of changes. And in any case, if an FFB and a BT are both doing the same things, the bt is on a higher level since he had to work harder to get there.
Baalei teshuva are often more spiritual and more willing to make sacrifices and changes and not just stay the way they are.
But at the same time, that is the potential pitfall of the bt. Whereas the instinct of the FFB is usually to stay where he is even when he should be making changes and leaving his comfort zone, the bt has to be careful that his desire for spirituality doesn’t cause him to take his feet off the ground and to be too extreme.
This is something that can be a problem in particular when raising children. Sometimes, there are baalei teshuva who out of a sincere desire for spirituality end up inadvertently pushing their kids too far. And by the way, this can happen with ffb’s as well; it’s just that there is more of a danger of this with bt’s.
This probably stems in part from not being aware of what is normal or not in the Frum community and what one’s expectations should be of one’s kids. That is why it’s good to ask questions and it’s good that you are doing so.
This is not a halachic issue to my knowledge, but rather a general hashkafa of chinuch and the fact that one is supposed to be “normal” and “emotionally healthy” and let his kids be kids (at least if he wants them to grow up to be normal adults).
This is a hashkafa that most Frum people have attained by way of our Gedolim and/or through Mesorah and the way they were brought up.
Rav Sheinberg, zatsal (who is mentioned on another recent thread) was very into exhorting people to be normal. There is a book with sheilahs that people asked him on chinuch and other topics. The questions some people asked are actually quite scary. It might be a good book for you to read as it shows the attitudes that one should not have.
I realize it’s difficult for you since the boundaries between normalcy and non-normalcy kind of get shaken when you become Frum. After all, what’s normal about half the things we do? To us, they seem normal because we are used to them, but to you, probably none of it is normal.
When raising kids in particular (b’ezras Hashem), it is going to be very hard to understand what is normal for an ffb kid to do and what is not. There are many bt’s who make serious errors in this. That is why it is very important for you to have a Rav to get guidance from both now, and particularly later on, when you are raising kids, b’ezras Hashem. It will also be important for you to have a good support system of ffb friends with kids the same ages as your kids so you can get a feel for what’s “normal” and what’s not, what you should allow your kids to do and what you shouldn’t.
Please keep your posts shorter. Thank you.
I should just mention that despite my last post, I’m not sure how many people let their kids play with toys while they eat. It probably depends on the age of the kids and the particular setting (for example a Shabbos seudah with guests vs. a kid eating breakfast by himself).
But that’s not about not letting kids be kids, but rather about normal standards of manners. Which again would probably depend on the ages and the setting (and maybe the particular kid’s needs).
And as ZD pointed out, since they get married younger, they are more likely to have more kids, ba”h.
Joseph, do you have a source? (I apologize if you already gave a source and I missed it).
Also, the question is: are these shutim accepting as halacha by any of our contemporary Gedolim?
A few years ago, I heard that Satmar was the largest Orthodox group in New York (it may have been New York area – I’m not 100% sure if it only included New York).
Randomex, that’s a good point, but I think it’s better to tell the Rav privately and let him decide if it was really a mistake and how he should go about correcting it, especially if it’s not an important mistake.
If it’s an important mistake and he has a way to correct it, but deliberately doesn’t do so, then you may be right.
In this case, it sounds like he had no way to correct it, and in any case, it wasn’t an important mistake (in the sense that it would not lead to someone to an incorrect hashkafa or halacha).
“I wasn’t talking about welfare but rather about health insurance, WIC, and/or food stamps)”
“It is my understanding that those are welfare distributions”
Oh. I didn’t know that. I never heard the word used that way. I thought welfare referred to people who don’t work and get welfare instead of a salary. People talk about living on welfare. That sounds like it means that it’s their parnassah. (as opposed to the things I mentioned that are just supplements).
You might be right. I just didn’t realize that it is used that way. I don’t think that most people I know use it that way, though.
btw, how can I make my smileys look like smileys and not like boxes?
“According to that statement the person who’s lashon hora was deleted would still need to be informed so they could do tshuva.”
Very true, and I didn’t mean to imply otherwise. My point was that if the l”h was not public, the “mussar” should be given privately since there is no toeles to its being public and it can actually do harm since others might assume that l”h was spoken about them and it causes ill-will amongst people.
There is also less of a toeles involved in such a case since the l”h doesn’t have to be gotten rid of. When I speak out against l”h, my point is to get rid of the l”h which would not be relevant in such a case.
On the other hand, if the l”h is public, then the mussar has to be public so that all those reading it will be aware that it is l”h. And so that someone will do something about it and get rid of it.
The moderators have the ability to choose what is made public and what is made private. If they feel that something is l”h, they can choose not to post it and to give the mussar privately (if they feel it is necessary).
“I didn’t write the question because I wanted a psak, I posted because I thought it was an interesting question, and was happy to discuss it.”
It is. Thank you.
It also got me to learn some of the halachos of Kabbalas l”h and to realize how serious it is and how careful one must be to try to avoid it.
Thank you.
correction: in my second to last post, I meant to write:
But in that case….
I hope that answers your question, Mod 25
Oh and according to your logic, your comment would be loshon hora. Well actually, that’s only true if you were referring to my comment which may not have been the case. (Possibly avak l”h though in any case).
But you don’t have to worry since you were wrong anyhow so your comment was not l”h 🙂
Also, according to your logic, anytime you express your disagreement with someone in the CR, you are guilty of L”H as well.
But again, fortunately for you, you were wrong, so again you don’t have to worry. 🙂
29 – as I stated in my original post (which you may have missed – it was a while back), I was referring to people who are working at something. As I wrote previously, most people I know who receive government services (and btw, I wasn’t talking about welfare but rather about health insurance, WIC, and/or food stamps) are working at something and contributing greatly to society and should not be criticized and spoken motzi shem ra about.
Amongst other things, the government offices know what they are working at and how much time they spend at it and are willing to provide these services. They do not give you these services if they don’t think that you are doing something that is contributing to society. You have to prove that you are working or studying a certain amount of hours a week (at least for some of these services if not all)
I would just add that of course if someone has a choice between taking two paths, one of which involves accepting government services and one of which doesn’t, they should ask their own sheilah regarding what they should do and act accordingly.
But if you see someone else doing so, you should realize that:
1. They are not stealing from the government as stated above.
2. You should be dan l’kaf zchus that they have Rabbanim whom they follow who say that this is the correct path.
That was my point.
LF – sorry but you’re wrong. If someone is speaking l”h, you have an obligation to correct them according to halacha.
According to that statement the person who’s lashon hora was deleted would still need to be informed so they could do tshuva.
“I’m not using the word schnorrer in a negative way. I’m using it to mean “someone who takes money without providing goods or services in return”
I think that most people would consider that negative. But in any case, they are not schnorrers and neither are those whose jobs don’t pay enough and therefore they need to take money from the government.
“First of all, in the US a majority of organizations are regular businesses which operate for profit. I can’t imagine it’s much different in Israel.”
Most organizations that most people I know work for receive at least some money from the government or funding (if not most or all). This is certainly true in Israel. It is also true of most people that I know in the US.
And they are not directly generating income into the country. A hospital and a school do not directly generate income into the country. They actually cost the government money.
Regarding shnorring, I already explained what I meant. My whole point was that people shouldn’t criticize those people who need to take money from the government because their jobs don’t pay enough. They are no different than people who work for organizations which receive money from the government.
Neither one should be criticized. Nor should those people who benefit from the services of said organizations.
The point was that if you consider anyone who has to take money from the government to be a shnorrer, then you should consider everyone to be a shnorrer including the government (Israeli) itself.
And therefore it’s not appropriate to look down on those who take money from the government. So either you shouldn’t call them shnorrers or you shouldn’t use the word shnorrer in a negative fashion.
I really couldn’t care less which one you do.
But Mod 25 seemed to be using the term in a negative way, so I clarified that that was not the intent here.DY – while that’s funny, it misses the point.
“The statement that most people are schnorrers is certainly false.”
That wasn’t what I said. I said that he called them “schnorrors” but I then explained what he meant by that term. I deliberately put the word in quotes to show that he didn’t mean it according to its usual (negative) connotation. He did not mean it all negatively. He was including himself and his daughter in that category.
“The example you just brought is from a non-profit organization. That is an exception to the rule because by definition, it is not a business. Any organization that is for-profit (which includes an overwhelming majority of organizations) would only pay a salary if it directly benefits the organization.”
Working for a business is only one type of job that a person can have. If a person works for any place that receives any money from the government or donations, then they are receiving money from people who are not the direct (emphasis on direct) beneficiaries of their services. This would include doctors, nurses, and teachers, as well as all others who work for a school or a hospital. It also includes social workers, physical therapists, occupational therapists and speech therapists. It includes anyone who works in any kind of government office.
It includes almost everyone in my family even though we all work in completely different fields. I think it may even include the lawyer (who works for non-profit organizations) and the engineer (who works for the water company).
Just about the only people not included would be those who work for businesses. And maybe people who work in Hollywood and the sports players.
Please note: I am thinking primarily about Israel where it is probably truer than in the US. But I think it’s true in the US as well.
In order for the number of families to go from 12,000 to 20,000 in 7 years, there would have to be 8,000 new families each year. That comes out to 95 a month. That would mean that each month, there are a total of 95 couples getting married and moving to/staying in Lakewood as well as families moving to Lakewood.
I think that as of a few years ago, there were at least 500 12th grade girls in Lakewood. That should mean that on average, there are 500 Lakewood girls getting married a year. Even if we assumed that the Nasi people are correct and only 90% of girls get married, that is still 450. That is 37.5 a month, the vast majority of whom stay in Lakewood.
Then we have to add in all of the girls who are not from Lakewood but move there after they get married. I would guess that that is a greater number. So let’s say that is another 50-70 girls.
We then have to add in all the families moving to Lakewood each year.
So it does seem that 95 a month is quite possible.
Now, this was just based on guestimation. And since I am not a statician or a sociologist, there may be many errors here. Feel free to point them out.
Another thing I am trying to figure out is what people mean they talk about Mehadrin hashgachos. It seems that some people use the term to refer to any Mehadrin Rabbanut hashgacha, whereas other people use the term exclusively for “Chareidi” (i.e. non-Rabbanut) hashgachos.
So one has to be careful when using the term as well.
“We also play toys for Hashem.”
+1
Thank you, and thank you for reporting the answer you received to the toeles question.
“Generally in kashrus circles, when you say Badatz, you mean Badatz Eidah haChareidis”
“Maybe in kashrus circles.
But in laymen’s circles, lots of people think Badatz = good hechsher, whereas it is really meaningless.”
Meno, that is a very important point. It used to be that the term Badatz was only used for “Chareidi” hashgachos (by which I mean the non-Rabbanut hashgachos). I don’t remember if it was only Eidah or all non-Rabbanut hashgachos.
Today, the Rabbanut hashgachos call themselves “Badatz” since Badatz just means “Beis Din Tzedek”. Some people get confused by this and think that a place has a Chareidi hashgacha when it doesnt.
“So, in other words, Joseph guestimated”
I didn’t say he was guestimated. I was just commenting that your facts don’t necessarily contradict his.
btw, 25, it’s nice to see you joining in the conversations! I’m not sure if I ever noticed you doing that before, and I’m honored that you chose to comment on my post.
“Racism is about race. Jews are a racially diverse group.”
That is true. I didn’t realize that was your point. However, I wasn’t talking (only) about the way that we view Jews but at the way we view others. I had made the point that if being racist means thinking that there can be differences (in general) between different races, then Judaism is racist. There is nothing demeaning about saying that different people are different as long as it doesn’t lead you to treat them unfairly.
Mod 25 – I didn’t write that they give them money for nothing. I clearly wrote that they give them money for doing something.
And by the way, the money doesn’t necessarily come from the people who are gaining from his work. Someone I know once pointed out that most people are “schnorrers”. Most people do not actually earn money from doing something that produces money.
For example, a relative of mine used to work for a non-profit organization that helps people with a certain illness. This organization had to hire many people – office staff, all types of therapists, program directors, fund raisers, etc. Most or all of the salaries were not coming from the people being helped. I think most or all of it came from fundraising and donations (and maybe the government?).
This is true of many positions that people hold.
“Bringing up the shailah to the posek again is something I do not want to do.”
I only wrote that because I thought that you sounded unsure. But you do sound like you are sure now.
“Since I saw what the Chazon Ish writes in Emunah uBitachon about calling a Rav נוגע בדבר, I have abstained from accusing any Moreh Hor’ah of such things, least of all a Rav of this caliber.”
In that case, I take back what I said and I apologize for any aspersions I may have inadvertantly case on him.
I haven’t seen the Chazon Ish, but I will take your word for it. I was concerned about writing that, which is why I phrased it the way I did.
I thought they don’t draft Yeshiva students in the US.
Two things that I think could be a problem are the following:
1.If a moderator deletes a post because he thinks it’s L”H, and writes “edited because of l”h”, he has now written either Motzei sheim ra or loshon hora about the poster, and there is no reason for it, since the post was deleted anyhow, so it’s unnecessary for everyone to know that the Moderator thinks he wrote something that was l”h. In some cases, it is also rechilus.
2. On the other hand, if the moderator posts a post that he thinks is loshon hora and then labels it as such, that is also loshon hora. If he really thinks it’s loshon hora, then shouldn’t he just delete it and send a private message to the person if he thinks it’s necessary?
Another reason for writing “edited” is that sometimes the meaning of the remaining post might be some what different than it would be with the “edited” part. So it’s important for the readers to realize that the post might not mean exactly what it sounds like it means (or at least the connotation might be somewhat different).
There were times when I was concerned about that fact with posts of mine that were edited (although usually nothing major; just a slightly different connotation), so I think it’s good that the word “edited” is there.
And I agree with those who wrote that there can be many different reasons for a post to be edited so it’s not necessarily something to be embarrassed about.
“the TOTAL population of Lakewood Township in 2010 was 92,843”
I’m pretty sure that at some point between 2011-2015, I heard (from more than one source,) that there were approximately 12,000 Jewish families in Lakewood comprising approximately 50,000 people. I also heard (at around the same time) that the Jewish population was approximately 60%. So that fits in with your figure.
However, it doesn’t necessarily contradict Joseph’s figure since there has been a very rapid population growth (although I don’t know the numbers).
“Given the size of frum families, your family numbers appear to be high”
You have to keep in mind that a large percentage of the population is comprised of newly married couples who don’t have children yet as well as young couples who only have one or two children. These are probably the people who account for a big part of the population growth (which would mean that the number of families has probably increased at a higher rate than the number of people, I think).
Meno, that statement was meant to prove that it is hard to get a teaching job and therefore, generally speaking, someone would have to be a good teacher in order to obtain and keep his job.
Therefore, your comment had nothing to do with my point.
But in any case, I’m not sure that I see the logic in your point. According to that logic, any job that involves a lot of competition shoulc be low-paying. According to that logic, Hollywood actors should be underpaid.
I think the reasons that teachers get paid less than Hollywood actors have to do with other factors.
“For example, sports players get paid exceedingly well even though they are not doing anything helpful for society. Actually, they may be doing something detrimental to society.”
“I don’t think Rav Kook zt”l agrees with that.”
Even if that’s correct, I would imagine that most Gedolim disagree with him on that.
I also wonder if that’s accurate? Maybe he just tried to see the good in everyone/everything? I don’t know; I’m just asking.
“You’re right! Like Ben Sorr Oomorah.”
So you do agree with my original point then.
“The Torah also has a solution, & it’s not go to therapy!”
No one was talking about therapy or about solutions. The only point I had made was that early influences have a strong effect. You thought that wasn’t true because Freud (also) said it. But as you just pointed out, he wasn’t the originator of the concept – it actually comes from the Torah.
“I could just as well define “horse” as person who conforms to gender roles and then say that every Jew should be a horse.”
Except that there are legitimate definitions and usages of a term and some that are not legitimate. For example, if someone arbitrarily decides to take a word and give it a new definition that he just thought of on the spot and that no one else knew about until now, that is not a legitimate definition.
In order to be a legitimate definition, it has to either be a definition given in the dictionary or a common usage of the term.
Of course, if you decide to be like the main character in “Frindle” and spread your new definition of “horse” and it really spreads enough to be a common usage of the term, then it will become a legitimate definition.
But until then, it is not.
“I have been in the CR for far too long, and definitely for long enough to know not to use this forum in place of legitimate halachic inquiry”
I didn’t think you were the type to do so. That was why I asked.
“Actually, the very night the incident took place, I discussed it with [one of] the most distinguished Posek in the UK. He told me unequivocally that if it were to happen again the next morning, I should be moicheh again. However, we were discussing this specific case, and he had been involved in the “backstory” that I shouldn’t have known, and knew firsthand the involvement of this ‘askan’. Therefore, his psak may have been specifically about this case where knew the truth.”
I’m glad to hear that. You had mentioned speaking to a Rav but since you still had ספקות, I thought that perhaps the “Rav” wasn’t necessarily amongst “the most distinguished Poskim in the UK” and therefore not someone whom you felt completely comfortable trusting with a sheilah of this nature.
However, I still have a few questions:
1. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why are you still unsure?
2. If you did ask one of the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, why did your father still think you did the wrong thing?
3. Even if he was amongst the most distinguished Poskim in the UK, is it possible that he was נוגע בדבר (since you mentioned that he was involved in the “backstory”)? Would this affect his ability to rule objectively? Is he on such a level that it would be מבזה תלמידי חכמיס for me to suggest that? Is it kidai to ask someone else who was not involved just in case?
4. In any case, since you still have ספקות, is it kidai to ask someone else in any case?
5. “I fully understand your argument, and I don’t disagree with you. I just see another tzad as well.”
What is your tzad then? Are you saying that you think that just like in a case of pikuach nefesh, it is possible that one would be allowed to act on his being mekabel information that he wasn’t suppposed to have been mekabel, he would be allowed to for Kavod HaTorah?
6. If so, why don’t you find out if that is the halacha? Why don’t you ask that Poseik if that was the basis for his psak?
7. I still don’t think that it’s possible that according to halacha, you would be allowed to act on your being mekabel something that you were not allowed to be mekabel. However, something else occurred to me. In the case of Pikuach Nefesh, perhaps what you are doing is not acting on the fact that you were previously oiver on kabalas L”H. Perhaps, the point is as I already pointed out that being mekabel l”H is something you are continually choosing to do or not do. So even if you hadn’t been mekabel the l”h in the first place, you can still choose to now be mekabel it. Likewise in this case.
8. Why don’t you ask the Poseik what his psak was based on?
It sometimes happens to me that a post disappears and I can’t figure out if it was deleted or a glitch. It’s rather frustrating.
Sometimes, I can figure out why it may have been deleted so I either take something out, rewrite it, or don’t repost it (depending what I think the issue was), but many times I really have no idea if it was just a glitch or on purpose. And if it was on purpose, I’m not sure why, so I don’t know how or if it makes sense to redo it.
I wish there was a way to know.
But it’s good to know that sometimes there are glitches. So maybe if I’m not sure if something was deleted, it is kidai to repost.
Maybe not.
Just saw ZD’s post now – that is funny! Shkoyach!
LF – “But it depends on how you define racism”
Maskim! And exactly what I wrote earlier (but in short).
I have never heard that tefilas haderech should be said standing. I’m not saying it’s not true, but I never heard of that before and I’ve never seen it done that way. What is the source for that?
I have occasionally seen people pull over and stop the car to say tefilas haderech (although even that, I have rarely seen), but I never saw them stand.
In any case, when people fly somewhere, don’t they usually have to travel to get to the airport first, so shouldn’t tefilas haderech be said on the way to the airport?
Yes and no.
I think the grammar should be as good as is necessary to understand what is being said and as is necessary to sound like a reasonably intelligent human being for whom english is his/her first language.
On the other hand, if one has to worry too much about his grammar being perfect, it is sometimes harder to fully express oneself. I think there is a certain level/type of grammar error that is acceptable in a post that would not be acceptable in an academic work, etc. Something along the lines of poetic license.
And yes, that last sentence was meant to be an example. 🙂
“My most recent point wasn’t discussing this thread, it was a general response to your frustration about people repeating themselves. “We hit” wasn’t past tense, it was present participle (I think, but not clear on grammar rules).”
Thank you for clarifying. I’m not sure what a present participle is, but your post could have been read either way. I actually read it at first the way that you apparently meant it, but then I started wondering if you could have meant it the other way.
It was actually only your last line that made me wonder if you were referring to me.(“Sorry if I sound like a broken tape recorder”). If you meant your post in a general way, I’m not sure what place that sentence had there. Unless it was just meant to refer to the previous posts?
There is another point here, and this may perhaps be the real reason why you are unsure about this whole thing. It was something that I have been thinking about from the beginning but deliberately didn’t want to mention right away. You actually kind of alluded to it yourself in one of your later posts.
You started off with the assumption that you were not allowed to be “mekabel” the loshon hora, so I was basing everything I wrote on that assumption. But perhaps based on the way you heard the l”h and who you heard it from and the type of information it was, you were actually allowed to be “mekabel” it. Granted, we already established the fact that it’s always assur to be “mekabel” l”h, so you were not allowed to be “mekabel” it before the event.
However, it is possible that you were allowed to have such a strong “chashad” that combined with what you yourself saw at the event, you were then allowed to be mekabel. This would also be taking into account the reaction that you saw from all of the others present.
That is very different from saying that it is assur to be mekabel but once you are mekabel, you can use that information to embarrass someone publicly. I don’t see how that can possibly be correct.
However, I don’t know nearly enough about these halachos to be able to say whether or not this new possibility can have any halachic validity. It seems to me that this is a complex question and one that must be asked to a Poseik who is very well-versed in the halachos of Loshon Hora and knows far more than what is written in the Chofetz Chaim. And I am kind of wondering why you posed your question in the CR instead of bringing it to such a Poseik (as interesting as I find it).
“To me, considering it safek sakanah when he believes it wholeheartedly doesn’t sit right. Although I am unsure, like I explained in the opening post to this thread.”
It seems obvious to me that if you are not allowed to mekabel something, then you can’t act on that “kabala”. And I have been trying to figure out why you are having a hard time accepting that. It occurred to me that the issue might be as follows:
Perhaps you are looking at it as though he was already mekabel it. But it occurred to me that that is not really the case. The fact is that he is constantly being remekabel it every moment. He was remekabel it immediately after he viewed the event and interpreted it based on his “kabala”.
After it occurred to me to look at it this way, I saw in the Chofetz Chaim that he writes that as part of the teshuva one must do for being mekabel l”h is to stop believing it (klal 6), which is similar to what I wrote. Even if it’s slightly different, the ramifications are the same.
The point is that you could have and should have stopped believing it at the moment you saw what you saw, and then what you had seen would have been different.
“I don’t think extrapolating from there to my ‘Kovod haTorah’ scenario is that difficult.”
Is Kavod HaTorah in the same category as saving someone’s life and would the same rules apply? You are making assumptions about what is allowed in the case of saving someone’s life and then assuming the same thing applies to “kavod HaTorah”. I’m not saying you are wrong; I just don’t see a proof.