Forum Replies Created
“I believe Rav Moshe said that one is obligated to pay a meter since not to pay is theft of a service that the city provides.” Source?
“It certainly is theft. By not feeding the meter one is using a public space which one is not entitled to use without payment. Those funds belong to the city. That’s theft.”
Says who? The city strongly prefers you don’t pay the meter so they can ticket you. It’s not “illegal” to park without paying. It’s a very simple rule. You can pay or risk getting ticketed.August 18, 2014 3:21 pm at 3:21 pm in reply to: Jew becoming a lawyer or judge -halachic problems ✡️⚖️ #1028112
“Even if there’s possible heteirim, however weak or strong as they may be, why get involved in something you need to rely on heteirim for (and may even inadvertently cross the line) when instead you can choose a field of parnassa that is 100% kosher?”
And which field would that be exactly? G-d gave us a torah with a whole lot of laws so we can delve into it and figure out what is permitted and what is not- not so we can say o man this is too complicated, let’s just drop it.August 15, 2014 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm in reply to: Jew becoming a lawyer or judge -halachic problems ✡️⚖️ #1028086
First off, I’ve been an attorney for many years and I, like many of my law school friends, have never seen the inside of the court nor have we assisted anyone in litigating matters in front of court. There is a large world of law outside litigation. But aside from your flawed understanding of the legal world, you also have a flawed understanding of halacha. First off- Lifnei Iver only applies if that person you are helping would not be able to do the averiah without you (classic case being giving wine to a nazir who is on the other side of the river), and I can’t imagine a scenario where you are the only attorney this jew can be using. So the only issue here would be mesayea. If you look through the poskim, there are many many hetterim in various scenarios of misayea. It is clear that the rishonim and achronim were not very machmir on it. Rav Moshe, for example, based on a shach, says there is no misayea on a mumar. Others say there is no mesayea if you are getting financial gain. Bottom line- ask a Rav, but odds are he’ll tell you there’s nothing to worry about.
“If he is lying about his supernatural abilities, why are there so many video testimonials on youtube of people who were helped by him?”
I haven’t seen the testimonials so I can’t comment on them but I will say that if someone who is not steeped in shas and poskim does in fact have supernatural abilities then one should stay far far away. Chazal gave us a very simple formula- im harav domeh limalach hashem yivakesh torah mipihu… And no, a “malach” doesn’t mean someone who can perform “miracles”
I don’t have any experiences with Rabbi Kimmel but I do know him from around the neighborhood. Here’s my two cents: if someone masters all of shas and poskim and lives a life of daled amos shel halacha and stories start emanating of certain “miracles” and the like coming from said person then maybe, just maybe, it may be something worth looking into. But when someone is not known by any stretch to be a talmid chacham and is just one of locals, and suddenly he opens up shop as a mekubal, I would stay far far away. And when people start talking about supernatural things coming out of that mekubal, I would stay even farther away.
“bad” law schools usually do better than the “good” (probably since “bad” law schools prepare you for practice in one jurisdiction, “good” law schools are bigger on theory).”
That’s a nice theory but is completely refuted by the data. The better law schools tend to do better on the bar.
Yes, women are patur from mitzvas aseh shehazman grama, and are certainly patur from tefillin. But they are chayav in tefilah. How many times a days is a machlokes rishonim, but most mainstream achronim (including the m’b) hold that women are chayav at least in shachris and mincha. Assuming women are chayav in shachris I don’t see why they wouldn’t be obligated in zman tefillah as well. Another point to consider is that if a woman wants to say birchos krias shma (which she is not required to), according to nearly all achronim, it would be assur to say it after zman tefillah.
Who said women don’t have to worry about zman tefilah?
Popa- It is quite possible that, in the absence of the FDA, much of society would agree with you that some kinda of private overseer is needed. If that’s the case then the market would produce that overseer. Regardless, your comparison to kashrus is flawed. In kashrus, I could open a restaurant and serve treif for 50 years and none would be the wiser. So a mashgiach is necessary to ensure this doesn’t happen. Here, however, drug companies can’t product fatal or ineffective drugs for 50 years without anyone noticing. The beauty of the free-market system is that drug companies would self-regulate (I know that’s a dirty word, but it’s the truth) to ensure their reputations aren’t harmed.
This whole tragic story has brought out a lot of opinions on the current role of the white house and the FDA, and whether the Burzynskil clinic is pure quackery or a medical miracle. What seems to be missing from the conversation isa discussion of the Aleph-Bais of the FDA- is it needed at all? Sure, many roll their eyes at such a discussion because we’ve become so used to the paternalistic role of government, that to question it seems like some radical hippie-anarchist idea. But perhaps tragic stories like this can make some of us more willing to question some of our basic instincts. Maybe, just maybe, patients and their parents can be trusted to make better decisions than government bureaucrats. Some food for thought from Milton Friedman,
“You’re an FDA official, you have a question of whether to approve or disapprove a new drug. If you approve it and it turns out to be a bad drug like Thalidomide, you’re in the soup, your name is going to be on every front page cost me my job, I get hauled up to Congress to testify. On the other hand if you disapprove it, but it turns out to be good, well then later on you approve it four or five years later, nobody’s going to complain about the fact that you didn’t approve it earlier except those greedy pharmaceutical companies that want make profits at the expense of the public, as everybody will say. So the result is that the pressure on the FDA is always to be late in approving. And there’s enormous evidence that they have caused more deaths by late approvals than they have saved by early approval.”
lawdude- Columbia has a few BTLs but as far as I know you’re right about NYU. The question you have to ask yourself is if it’s worth all the hours and money to get a real college degree. You will clearly be at a disadvantage if you have a BTL, but if you get a 177 on your lsat a college degree will probably have been a complete waste of time. If you, however, get say a 171 then a college degree with a good gpa may make all the difference. This is not an exact science but the general idea is the better your degree is, the lower your lsat will have to be. Of course, every school has their own policies, and that is something you have to consider. Also, if you’re willing to go to school in DC, I would say drop the college idea. Both Georgetown and GW don’t seem to have any problem with BTLs, so if your score is good enough with a college degree, it’ll probably be good enough with a BTL. My last point is to seek out real live human beings who can properly advise you, don’t just rely on the wisdom coming out of the coffee room.
Popa- He will be taking the LSATs in a few years, while he needs to make a decision about college much sooner. So your advice doesn’t work.
As a BTL attorney, allow me to add my two cents. Assuming you really want to go into law (and make sure you really do), you have two practical options. Either you go to a top school (Columbia and NYU if you insist on NYC) or you get a full scholarship to a lower school, no strings attached. Otherwise, it’s a very dangerous investment. That’s not to say that there are no jobs for people in lower schools, but they’re hard to come by. If you graduate at the top 5% or so of your class and make law review in Fordham, Cardozo, and probably even St. Johns and Brooklyn you will in all likelihood find some very lucrative opportunities. Of course, there are no guarantees either way and you may be #1 in your class and still not find a job or be at the bottom and catch a lucky break. For now, the best thing you can do is ace the LSATS. Get the best course (ask around, the yeshiva guys know) and study hard. Then work really hard on your application and personal statement. Then when you get in work really really hard in school. Remember, 95% of your class won’t be in the top 5% (I know, that’s redundant). So when you see classmates taking a more laid back approach, don’t think that’s acceptable. Hope this helps.
If Hayek and Friedman aren’t too right wing for you, then you’d be hard pressed to find anyone, certainly in the frum world, who qualifies as too right. Who exactly is opposed to ANY type of charity, even from local government? I know of no one like that. And even if there’s a frum person who believes that, you will never find any frum person who opposes voluntary charity, which Rand opposed. So your attack on Rand to disagree with the “frum right” is a straw man argument.
Not sure where you’re disagreeing with me. A tanna (!) recognized prices were too high and did something about it. So your logic goes that therefore when a politician feels it’s too high, he/she should do something about it??
You keep using the different example of mandated charity to show the Torah is against pure capitalism. This goes lishitascha that Ayn Rand is the quintessential right wing economist (despite not being an economist), and because Rand was opposed to charity, therefore capitalism is against the Torah. In reality, however, far better examples of quintessential right wing economists are Hayek and Friedman. Both of them were proponents of charity, even from the government
– “Nor is there any reason why the state should not assist the individual in providing for those common hazards of life against which, because of their uncertainty, few individuals can make adequate provision.”- Hayek
And remember, Friedman invented the negative income tax. So your criticism is way off base.
“The tannaim would “break the market” if needed to allow neccesities to be affordable “
This actually makes my point better than I ever could. When you have tannaim, who are divinely inspired, who can determine what the market price should be, of course we would want them determining prices. But does that mean that modern day politicians can determine pricing better than the market?? How can you make such a comparison?!
I’ve learned baba basra before and although I don’t know exactly what you’re referring to it doesn’t matter. Because I’m not gonna pretend that the gemara has a complete free market system. I am well aware that is not the case. But frankly, the gemara’s economic system would not match up to any economic system. The gemara is on the right for many issues, on the left, or neither. (although, I would argue, that on the whole, the gemara is quite the proponent of freedom of contract) For example, which economic system wouldn’t allow interest on loans? My point is that the gemara is God-given law. It is one that is based on more than mere economics. Just like the Torah tells us we shouldn’t eat milk and meat together the Torah tells us we shouldn’t charge interest to other jews. When a secular government is deciding what laws to put in place, just as you would not advocate for them banning the sale of cheesburgers, you shouldn’t advocate for them adopting the Gemara’s rules on monetary issues. There have been many great rabbonim that have been socialists and many who have been pure capitalists, and many in between. One of the most respected Austrian economists today is Rabbi Yisroel Kirzner (israel kirzner in the academic world), who is also a massive talmid chacham. To just come out and say that the Torah is against one view or the other is disrespectful and wrong.
Your argument against laissez-faire capitalism doesn’t work. Your “prove” your case by showing that Ayn Rand’s beliefs conflicted with the Torah. Is that all it takes? Just show that anyone who’s ever believed in laissez-faire capitalism disagrees with the Torah and voila you’ve disproved it? Come on, you know better than that. If you want to make your case you have to show how a certain policy is against the Torah, not a person. And the fact that you picked Ayn Rand, who was a philosopher and and not an economist, further shows how disingenuous you’re being. Why not pick Hayek or Friedman if you’re gonna go with the attack-the-messenger approach?
MDG- You wrote “I looked at his (really their – including Rabbi Abadi’s sons) web site and found a “teshuva” where he (not sure which one) said that since wine is all processed by machines, then there is no need for “kosher” wines. That answer was dated 2002. I asked a friend of mine about it. This friend is a ger whose family makes non-kosher wines. He told me that they indeed handle the wine, test it, etc. I went back to the web site for further research and found a retraction of that teshuva dated 2003.”
As someone who has known Rav Abadi for many years, I’d be very surprised to know that he ever mattered all wines. I’ve personally asked him staam yainum shaalos and he has never just said o all wines are fine. It is possible that the website, which belongs to his sons, made an error. This has happened in the past (see oats on pesach, bugs in water, tehillim for choleh), but i would be shocked if Rav Abadi ever held that way personally. You may be confusing his wine psak with his grape juice psak.
Also, Rav Abadi lived in Israel for many years, but has since moved back to lakewood.
for some reason my original post didnt go thru…the shulchan aruch CLEARLY says (based on a mefurash mishna)a child born from a c-section is NOT a bechor for yerushaJune 29, 2012 6:31 pm at 6:31 pm in reply to: What now with ObamaCare upheld? Obama must have applied massive pressure #881560
jewishness: you are pulling the classic conspiracy theory card- calling those who disagree with you naive. Unfortunately you are the one who is naive. Do you really think the President of the US blackmailed the Chief Justice of the United Staes?! Blackmail?! Really?! We can come up with many rational theories as to why Roberts came out with the ruling that he did. (maybe he actually believes it’s a tax- i know that’s just me being naive)But to say that he was blackmailed is just foolish. Anyone who knows anything about Justice Roberts (and I get the feeling you don’t) knows he is a stand-up individual. He said at his confirmation hearings that his job as Supreme Court Justice would be to call balls and strikes, come up with narrow rulings, not overturn precedent, and try to find laws constitutional. That is exactly what he did, there’s no need to resort to childish conspiracy theories.
PS I happen to vehemently disagree with Roberts on the tax issue, but that doesn’t mean I have to throw all rationality out the window.
Yaakov- Constitutionally, there’s a big difference. State governements have the power to pretty much do anything. There’s no question that Romneycare is constitutional. Policywise, you’re right there’s not much of a difference; as much as Romney likes to pretend there is.June 29, 2012 2:26 pm at 2:26 pm in reply to: Why are US Jews all opposed to the Affordable Care Act? #881488
Healthcare costs money. Insurance, doctors, drug companies etc. Obamacare does nothing, yes absolutely nothing, to address the costs of healthcare. All the bill does is transfer wealth. Forcing insurance companies to accept children until the age of 26 and those with pre-existing conditions obviously lowers the costs for those people. But how does this get paid for? Are insurance executives going to accept smaller salaries? Of course not. The way this gets paid for is by raising rates for everyone else. The average cost of healthcare cannot possibly go down because of the ACA. All it does is transfer wealth from the young healthy working to the older sick and lazy. That is why I’m opposed to the ACA. The reason I am opposed to it has nothing to do with Obama. I was opposed to the Bob Dole healthcare plan, and I am opposed to Romenycare, both republicans.June 19, 2012 7:31 pm at 7:31 pm in reply to: President Peres expresses absolute Kfira while representing Jews #880454
yitayningwut- I’m a bit surprised that you seem to be defending the view that the world is more than 5772 years old considering who your rav is. I’m sure you are aware that your Rav takes a pretty hard line on these issues.
chacham- I understand exactly how you feel, these words could’ve been written by me when I was your age. My advice to you is to find a yeshiva that is not so on top of how you learn. If you can go to e’y then go the Mir and do your own thing. Sure, your friends will make fun of you, some rebbeim will say you’ll never be a talmid chacham, but you’ll know in your heart of hearts that you’re doing the right thing. And in 10 years from now, if you really shteiged, none of your friends will be making fun of you.
wolf- There is a big difference between talking during davening and talking after washing. There is no issur of being mafsik between washing and eating, all we are concerned about is hesach haddas. Asking someone to bring a knife is directly related to the eating of the bread and therefore has no issue of hesach haddas. Davening, on the other hand, has an issue to be maskfik. I am not saying you are wrong that you can’t ask someone to stop, I am just saying that your analogy is flawed. A better analogy would be from the gemara that says one can say pass the salt even after making hamotzi ( I don’t know if the shulchan aruch brings this down lihalacha) or the fact that one could ask a shallah regarding their shemoneh esrei (e.g. forgetting yalleh viyavo) in middle of shemone esrei. My gut feeling would say that you are right lihalacha but I definitely would not do it without asking a shallah.
mods- I noticed another one of my posts was deleted. Is there some kind of rules you have to decide whether something is deleted. I am honestly not trying to criticize your methods, I understand it’s quite hard to run a blog like this, I would just like to know what I need to do to ensure my posts don’t get deleted.July 24, 2011 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm in reply to: Should one mourn the death of a Jew no matter who? #789104
middlepath- I’m sorry this offends you, but the shulchan aruch is clearly dictating a behavior. He gives situation where we “eat drink and be happy” over someone’s death. Again, I am not saying we should be happy over this singer’s death, I am just saying there are certain times where we don’t mourn over a jew’s death.
charliehall- I have not asked my rav about this particular issue because I did not hear of Amy Weinhouse until last night, so her death really does not concern me. However, I have spoked with him about it in the past, not in a halcah limaseh situtaion, just in learning, and he was clearly of the opinion that we don’t just throw out a halacha in s’a because it goes against our Western sensitivities. He also doesn’t buy the general notion that everyone today is a tinok shenishba. He’s just my rav and by no means I am saying he has the final say on all matters, I am just trying to point out that too often in the cr we use our opinions to shape the torah, instead of vice versa. Have you asked a rav about this s’a, I am curious what others have to say.July 24, 2011 5:54 pm at 5:54 pm in reply to: Should one mourn the death of a Jew no matter who? #789098
middlepath- “Whether or not we should halachicly mourn her death, it really doesn’t take away the fact that a Jewish person died at a young age, and I am saddened at her death. “
In other words, you don’t care what the halacha is, you’re going to feel how you want to feel. If you want to say that the s’a is not applicable here (she was a tinok shenishba or something similar) that’s one thing. But do you think it’s appropriate to just discard a halacha because you want to feel sad?July 24, 2011 4:28 pm at 4:28 pm in reply to: Should one mourn the death of a Jew no matter who? #789094
In classic yw coffee room fashion, a halachic issue is debated without citing any halachic sources. Why don’t you all check out shulchan aruch y’d 345 seif 5 and then decide whether we should mourn over the death all jews.
mod80- I guess I will have to look that up. The chassam sofer in OC 72 pretty much says that it should be muttar. I asked a Rav why people don’t use umbrellas on shabbos. He said because of the Node Beyehuda. I asked the Rav if he was paskening like the Node Beyehuda that it’s assur midoraysa. He said, no I’m responding to your question why people don’t use it. So I said, are you saying it’s muttar? He avoided answering me and said I would never use an umbrella anyway on shabbos, so I should stop bothering him. It seems to me that the general consensus of the poskim is that it should be muttar, like the Chassam Sofer, but no one will come out against the psak of the node beyhuda. I certainly would not use an umbrella on shabbos, but again I am more concerned for the local eiruv which is not good according to the mehcaber and most rishonim, than I am using an umbrella.
mod80- The biur halacha you refer to is in siman 315 sief 8. If I remember it correctly he differentiates between the umbrellas of old which had to be tied in place to remain open and umbrellas today which have springs. He still holds it’s assur because of maaris ayin and because one may come to do hotzaah. I do not have a mishna berurah in front of me but that is what I have in my notes. Please correct me if I’m wrong.
itchesrulik- The issur behind using an umbrella is not clear. The node beyehuda said it’s boneh middoraysa, but many poskim have an issue with that because it’s meant to be open and closed. The chazon ish said it’s uvdah dichol. Some poskim have said it’s muktzeh, but if that were the case one should be able to use it litzorech gufo. Personally, I would feel much more uncomfortable using the local eiruv than using an umbrella.
on the ball- “the meaning of the words ‘yimach shmo’ contradicts the fact that he merits Olom Haba.” Says who?
ontheball- “Also to one of the previous posters who used the word ‘Yimach Shmo’ about Aron. I once heard that however low a Jew has sunk, (and I think Aron, if he is sane has hit the bottom) those words are never allowed to be used about Jews aside for two individuals who were Meshichei Sheker (one was Shabsai Zvi, the other is probably not a good idea to post on a public forum)”
Rav Lazer Silver zt’l one year at an Agudah convention had everyone say “Ben Gurion, Yimach Shimo”. The words yimach shimo are from tehillim, and have been used throughout the generations for wicked people. Unless you show me a source otherwise I can see nothing wrong with saying Yimach Shemo on Levi Aron.
love a yid- Look at the Ramabam in peirush hamishnayos onbeing dan lekaf zechus. He says that the idea is that if you see someone do something and you have 2 ways to explain it, one being good and one bad, you should assume good. When someone murders this is certainly not applicable, there is no good murder. The Rambam adds that for a tzadik you should always assume good no matter how far fetched it is. Certainly, Levi Aron does not fall into this category.
derech hamelech- “The halachos that talking during davening are derived from would apply to texting as well.” Says who? Just because texting during davening is certainly improper doesn’t give you the right to make up new halachos. When chazal didn’t allow one to talk, they didn’t say anything about writing or texting.
“The only question is what is considered a hefsek in general. If I wash for hamotzi and then go play a game without talking, do I have to wash again to eat bread?” If you talk you don’t have to wash again, so why would you if you texted (especially according to you that it’s one and the same). Obviously if you were mesiach daas after washing you would have to wash again, but I don’t know what the texting aspect adds to the question of what is hesach hadaas.
bobmaniac- Look up the gemara, a poshea yisroel bigufo is someone who never puts on tefillin, not someone who misses a day.
“To miss putting on tefillin is a bittul mitzvas asei, r”l. This carries a chiyuv korban!” There’s no chiyuv to bring a korban for a bittual aseh. One should bring an olah, but it is definitely not a chiyuv. Also, who says missing tefillin one day is a bittul aseh, where does it say there’s a chiyuv to wear tefflin daily?
The gemara in chullin says that goyim accepted many mitzvos and broke all of them except for a select few. One of them is “shelo kasvu kesubah al mishkav zachor.” With the moral decay of society, this is no longer the case. Do you want jews now writing a kesubah on mishkav zachor?! It is clearly against the way of the torah, and not because my gut is telling me so, which seems to be the response of most of the posters, but because the gemara says so.
patur- “Rav Reuven Feinsein shlita said that it is very important for women to say pesukei d’zimra” It’s not Rav Reuven Feinstein who said that, it’s a Rav Akivah Eiger. No one’s disputing that there’s an inyan for women to say pesukei dizimrah. All I’m saying is that the schools should be driving home the point that it is not by any means required, and that their chiyuv tefillah is satisfied just with shemone esrei.
shein- “There is no reason to rush a negative change a day earlier than absolutely necessary. (Hopefully it will never be necessary to change!)” You are living in dream land if you think that when this girl gets married, has children and a job she’ll be able to daven one hr shemonah esreis plus pesukai dizimrah and everything else. Let’s look at this from another angle. The Rambam holds a woman must only daven once a day, while the Ramban hold she must daven more (some say 2, some say 3). Most achronim, including the mishnah berrurah hold like the Ramaban. However, many women, unfortunately, daven only once a day. Now, if you have a girl who takes around an hr and 45 minutes to daven shachris, and she gets married and has all kinds of time constraints, do you think she is more likely to be one of the women who daven 2-3 times a day, or will she be one of the women who rationalizes davening only once a day? I know your gut reaction will be that if she appreciates davening so much, she’ll be the type to want to daven more. But i believe if you’re really honest with yourself you’ll agree that is not the case. Just from my own personal experience, I know of a few women that daven 3 times a day, and I would say their shachris takes abt 20 min, and mincha and maariv take about 5. ( not that that proves anything, obviously). In addition, the posters who expressed concern about a young girl davening an hr shemone esrei are correct, the chassidim harishonim took an hr to daven. Now assuming this girl is not on the level of the chassidim harishoim ( i know, im jumping to conclusions here) it’s a little bit much to daven for an hr.
sarah- I think the best advice given so far was from the mod who recommended you speak to a rav or rebbitzen about your predicament. Good luck.
There is another issue that none of the posters have touched on. I have heard from my Rebbi numerous times that the beis yaakovs do a terrible disservice to their students by having them daven the entire shachris: brachos, pesukei dizimra, birchos krias shema, shema, shemoneh esrei, etc. He said that the reason so many married women use “taking care of children” as a hetter to not daven is because they think they need 45 minutes to daven, when in reality all they need is 5 min to daven shemoneh esrei. There is a chiyuv for women to daven, anywhere between 1 and 3 tefillos a day depending on which shittah, and that chiyuv is unfortunately neglected by manny married women who feel that they don’t have the time. I would imagine that my Rebbi would say the same thing about a girl who takes an hr for shemoneh esrei.
As a side point about girls saying brichos k’s, from my own personal experience it seems that many women daven after zman tefillah, in which case it is assur to say birchos k’s, and they should be aware of that (as should the men who wake up late).June 23, 2011 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779738
mods- I am a firm believer that we should be allowed to express our views without censorship. However, the line must be drawn somewhere. It is completely reckless to allow health to express his view that is okay to steal from the government (yes it’s stealing, forget lying, forget ginevas daas, it’s 100% pure ginevah). Either you must close this thread or start censoring it.June 21, 2011 2:18 am at 2:18 am in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779699
newhere. yes, the milk has a hechsher, but as charliehall pointed out it covers vitamins and other supplements they put into the milk, not the milk itself. they are relying on the governmental controls that all milk being sold as cows milk is in fact cows milk.
not sure when the ou published this
u having a hard time keeping track of your posts?June 20, 2011 10:06 pm at 10:06 pm in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779695
apushatayid- So you’re agreeing with me.June 20, 2011 3:03 pm at 3:03 pm in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779691
rabbaim- ‘If the London Bais Din supervises we are not relying on government officials to enforce anything. It is a hechsher!” You’re aware that “cholov stam” milk in the us has a hechsher, correct?June 17, 2011 8:53 pm at 8:53 pm in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779673June 17, 2011 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm in reply to: Kula Creep – The Creation and Use of Non-Existent "Kula's" #779660
gavra- Rav Moshe’s mirsas hetter on cholov stam applies to any civilized country with laws similar to the US. I would imagine canada, england, israel, and many other would fall into that list.
It irks me tremendously. The mishna berurah says that if one hears someone saying a bracha in shemoneh esrei he should not answer amen because it’s supposed to be a quiet tefillah. The same logic should apply here. I once saw that Rav Shlomo Zalman zt’l held not to say it out loud for the same reason, but i dont remember where, probably somewhere in halichos shlomoh. This would obviously not apply to bentching which is not a silent teffilah.
“they can’t be motzi Jews in mitzvos”
Really? Since when?May 3, 2011 1:21 pm at 1:21 pm in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764300
Here’s my two cents on the issue. I was one of those kids who grew up without a tv and would “sneak” to friends’ houses to watch. The argument that it’s better to have a tv in your house so that you know what your kids watching is a foolish argument. Sure, your kids will no doubt watch tv at their friends, but if you allow tv in your house and don’t allow them to watch inappropriate shows (which I’m assuming you won’t) they will still sneak to their friends to watch those inappropriate shows. In today’s society it’s unfortunate that tv is so rampant, considering the terrible content, so you should do your utmost to make sure your children are exposed to as little of it as possible. The best way to do that is not to have a tv in your house. Besides for the issurim and inappropriateness in watching a lot of the shows on tv, there are studies that have been done that show that children who watch tv have lower IQ’s than children who don’t. I understand your concern that you may be bored your first year of marriage, and it’s not a ridiculous one. I agree with the posters who suggested that it’s a better idea to have internet and watch an occasional (clean) show than to have a tv. I know some may say that it’s the same thing, but I believe there’s a big difference between a tv where you’ll come home every night searching for something to watch, and on the way seeing the worst possible things, and having internet where you watch one show every once in a while.