Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The citizens of the secular state happen to be part of Klal Yisrael. His concern is that they might end up marrying non-Jews if the incoming citizens don’t convert. That affects Klal Yisrael. Now his solution also affects Klal Yisrael. So you can disagree with him and say that his solution is against halacha and will affect Klal Yisrael more negatively than the problem he is trying to resolve will affect Klal Yisrael, but how much you care about preventing secular Jews from intermarrying and how much you care about upholding hilchos geirus is not determined by whether you are a Zionist or not. Is it possible that there are more people who don’t care about halacha who are Zionists than non-Zionists? Yes. It is very possible. But that’s because you can still be a Zionist even if you don’t care about halacha.
DaasYochid:
I wouldn’t say that he’s not concerned about the future of Klal Yisrael. I would say that he might have a different understanding of what is good for the future of Klal Yisrael.
P.S. What’s the danger of Juda”ism”?
(This should have been in my last post nut it was already long enough.)
R’ Herzog emphatically rejects the Ohr Sameach’s pshat. He agrees with your sensibilities (Randomex) that it doesn’t make sense that the murderer can’t leave for pikuach nefesh, but he concludes that it’s a gezeiras hakasuv and ‘???? ??????? ?????? ????????? ?????? ????? ??????? ? (he doesn’t quote the entire pasuk). So according to him Dorothy would not have been able to leave under any circumstances, barring the death of the kohen gadol.
Lior:
If you are mean logistically worse then that again would have nothing to do with Zionism. Unless you are saying that Zionism makes a person bad at logistics. If you mean halachically, then as I said to DaasYochid, that has to do with whether you care about halacha or not.
Again none of the things you mention have to do with being a Zionist or not. I’m not sure which part you’re referring to regarding the wording, nor am I sure which part you are referring to regarding the the way of dealing with, since you list throwing halacha under the bus as a separate category, which has to do with whether you care about halacha or not, not whether you are a Zionist or not.
Shu”t R’ Yitzchak Isaac Helevi Herzog Orach Chaim siman 49:
?????? ??????? ?????? ?’ ???? ???? ?”? ???? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?’ ???? ?’ ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ????”? ?”? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????? ?? ????? ???’ ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ??? ??? ???’ ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ??? ?? ??? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??”? ????? ????? ????
???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? (??? ??? ?’ ???????) ??????? ?????? ?”? ???? ??? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? (??? ???? ?’ ???? ?”? ??”? ?”? ??”? ??’ ??”? ????”? ?? ??”?) ??????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ?”?
????? ????? (???? ?? ?) ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ????”? ??? ?? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ????? ??”? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ????? ????? ?? ????? ??? ??? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ?? ?”? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????????? ??? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ????? ???? ??? ????? [??? ???? ?? ????? ?? ????] ???”? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??????? ???”? ???? ?????? ???? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??????
???? ????”? ?”? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ?????? (???? ??) ???? ???? ???? ???
DaasYochid:
Why couldn’t a non-Zionist have the same concern?
Better idea is to impose criminal penalties on being a relationship with them.
Maybe someone can propose this in the next Knesset session.
Actually, a chosson with Shas but without the 24 books of Tanach is like a kallah without her 24 adornments, as you can see in my magnum opus http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/for-pulsing-flower-to-rant-about-iyun/page/5#post-530932 although there I quoted the Medrash Rabbah which doesn’t say it explicitly so here I’ll quote the Yalkut Shimoni:
?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ??”? ??????? ?? ?”? ???? ????? ??? ??”? ?????
and the Abarbanel has an alternate girsa, quoted in Toldos Adam Perek 3:
??? ?’ ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????? (??? ??? ?’ ???? ???? ????) (?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ???????) ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ????? ??? ??? ?’ ??? ???? ????
Popa:
I think you meant to address that to me not to DaasYochid.
Anyway, he didn’t say he’s going to forcibly convert them. He wants to make it easier for them to convert. But not if they have no interest in Judaism.
I said if the choice is between an engagement ring and a chosson shas.
Lior:
???????? ??????? ????? ??? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????? ???????????? ??????? ???????? ?????
??? ????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ???? ????? ???
DaasYochid:
What does this have to do with Zionsm?
Popa:
I don’t know whether he wants to convert people without kabbalas mitzvos. He certainly didn’t say that in either the article or the video.
So I was reading this thread and I was thinking to myself that R’ Yoshe Ber Soloveitchik gave a speech in which he discussed this issue and I should really post it here. I knew that the speech was quoted by R’ Rakeffet in The Rav The World of Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik. The problem was that R’ Rakeffet’s work is two volumes totaling nearly 600 pages and I had no idea where in those pages this particular speech was quoted. Anyway, I randomly picked up one of the volumes and opened it to a random page and lo and behold the page I opened to was the second page of the speech I was looking for. With that introduction, here is the quote from R’ Soloveitchik:
(I apologize in advance for the length.)
The av zaken teaches the yeled zekunim how to act and discipline his thoughts. We must devote a lot of time to teaching Gemara. We are not just teaching a text but how to think halakhically, how to conceptualize and to define. I want to tell you that as far as lomdut is concerned, American Jewish Children are very bright and brilliant. Sometimes I do not believe my own eyes when I consider their fantastic accomplishments. I am speaking from experience, because I have been a melamed of Gemara my entire adult life.
However, besides teaching the yeled zekunim discipline, the av zaken teaches him something else – the romance of Yahadut. He teaches the child how to experience and feel Yahadut. Yahdut is not only discipline. Yes, we start with that, to discipline the child on all levels, on the physical level, on the emotional level, on the social level, snd on the intellectual level. Above all, he teaches the child how to experience Yahadut, how to feel Yahadut. That is what my melamed taught me.
A Jew is not only supposed to know what Yahadut stands for and to have knowledge of Yahadut; he is also called upon to experience Yahadut, to live it, and to somehow engage in a romance with the Almighty. Knowing about Yahadut is not enough; it is a norm to be implemented and experienced. It is to be lived and enjoyed. It is a great drama which the yeled zekunim must act out after observing the av zaken. Studying the Torah she-ba’al peh, the Oral Trasdition, and complying with its precepts are the greatest pleasures a person can have. It is an exciting and romantic adventure. It is the most cleansing and purging experience a human being can experience. The av zaken teaches the yeled zekunim how to live and to feel Yahadut.
Let me make an admission here; I will confide in you. This is the toughest of all jobs, the most difficult of all tasks. I know from my own experience how difficult it is. I am not modest; I am far from being modest. I know that I am a good teacher. I can teach halakha. I can explain the most abstract concepts. I can popularize the most complex talmudic debate and break it down into its component parts. I can explain and elucidate abstract ideas.
For instance, before Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur I used to study with my students (your rabbi can confirm this) the halakhot pertaining to the Yamim Noraim. From time to time I would reach out for the aggadah or for philosophical ideas with which to elucidate the philosophy of those solemn festivals. If necessary I would also introduce a modern idiom in order to explain certain aspects of the sanctity of these holy days. All these tricks I know.
But one trick I have not mastered. One thing I cannot do to perfection is to tell my students how I felt on Rosh Hashanah and Yom ha-Kippurim when I was their age. The emotions I experienced, and not what I knew about it. I knew a lot, and they know a lot. But what I felt on these days! How I lived it! I am unable to share with them what I experienced, for instance, when the shaliakh tzibbur used to chant and sing: Veha-kohanim veha-am haomdim ba-azarah. If you know the melody, you will agree that there is so much nostalgia, so much longing and melancholy in this tune, in the melody of Veha-kohanim veha-am haomdim ba-azarah. I felt as if I had been transferred in time and space into a different world. I felt that I was in the Bet Hamikdash. How can I explain this to my students? I can tell them about it but I cannot pass on my experiences to them!
Or how can I pass on he emotion I felt on Kol Nidrei night when the congregation responded amen to the chanting of the Shehehiyanu blessing? It is difficult to transfer experiences and not just concepts; to give over themes and not just numbers. To pass on feelings, to tell the story of both inner restlessness and serenity, to relate the narrative of joy and awe, of trepidation and at the same time equanimity in one’s heart, one must not use words. Words cannot explain it. Instead an unusual medium must be utilized: silence. That melamed of old in my heder knew how to pass on his emotional acquisitions, his ecstatic experiences, and his mystical outlook on life. He knew how to pass this on to his pupils without saying a single word.
Of course these experiences can only be passed on in the fashion that one passes on a contagious illness. How do you communicate a disease? Through contact! And contact is the secret of passing on the experiences of Yahadut. The skill of somehow communicating with the soul of the person is not through he spoken word but through the art of silence.
However, it is very difficult. I have not entirely succeeded in passing on this part of Yahadut. But your teachers in your high school will. They will be more successful. They will arrange the rendezvous between the av zaken and the yeled zekunim. [emphasis added]
Here’s a quote from the aforementioned video:
“They are living in our country. They are speaking Hebrew. They have Hebrew names. They attend our universities. They serve in the army. Our children meet their children. There are going to be marriages that come from these relationships. If we don’t enable these people to convert, we are talking about an intermarriage en masse. Intermarriage en masse in the State of Israel – Jew and non-Jew. You talk about confusion about who is a Jew. Not addressing this issue is not only a lack of leadership, it’s a lack of responsibility, and it’s literally yielding to – what I view as – a tremendous internal threat to the future of the state of Israel.”
DaasYochid:
The problem is that Popa’s most recent post doesn’t address the underlying issue which is that MK Lipman and others want to make it easy for “hundreds of thousands of Russians” to convert. Whether they are correct or incorrect halachically, they make the point that if these people don’t convert it will lead to tremendous confusion because these immigrants have Jewish ancestry and act like Jews (not necessarily like religious Jews) and serve in the IDF and are Israeli citizens, but they are not halachically Jewish. MK Lipman and others are worried that this will lead to “intermarriage en masse”. Popa’s solution of not allowing any converts won’t address this issue. My point is not to say that he is right, but that he is coming from a legitimate concern (assuming his metzius is accurate). If you are interested, there is a video of MK Lipman explaining this issue, on the Emes Ve-Emuna blog post from November sixth.
Lior:
If what you mean to say is that instead of getting a chosson shas he should get an engagement ring, then sure.
oyyoyyoy:
What I originally said was
That’s why we have the coffee room
Meaning that the coffee room can provide the “having friends” and the “belonging to a sect”. I don’t think that that insinuates that out-of-the-boxers make up a larger percentage of the coffee room than of the real world (though I am by no means denying the possibility). It is eminently plausible that people are more willing to publicize their out-of-the-boxness in an anonymous forum than in real life.
Also, even if you are correct, I have been known to disagree with myself before, and certainly to question something which I had previously said.
I saw a friend of mine today and she looked like she had the weight of the world on her shoulders. So naturally I asked her what was bothering her. So she tells me that she’s going for her seminary interview on Monday and she’s freaking out. So I said “why ever so?” to which she responded that she heard some legends and she’s terrified of getting Popa as her interviewer. (I immediately thought to tell her to read http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/im-afraid-it-will-be-popa but I didn’t, for two reasons. 1) She happens to be on the rotund end of the spectrum and would probably get insulted if she read that thread. 2) It was unclear to me whether she had actually read this thread or whether she had just heard legends from someone else; I have a shtickle raya that she did not read this thread – in this thread DaasYochid interviewed Popa but we don’t find that Popa interviewed anyone. But I couldn’t be sure that she hadn’t read it and I knew that I wanted to post about her and I was afraid that if I told her to read that other thread, she might also read this thread and realize that I’m talking about her.)
So I told her “you can’t go through life always being afraid of meeting Popa. For all you know I might be Popa.” Let me tell you, that REALLY freaked her out.
the ratio of out-box people to in-box people is quite larger here than the real world. this really explains it.
I’m not sure. It could just be that the ratio of of people who publicize their out-of-the-boxness is higher in the coffee room than in the real world.
nishtayngasheft:
I retract my point. I mistakenly thought that the article itself mentioned an incident which happened, when in fact the article was quoting MK Lipman about the incident.
Sam2:
The premise behind those who were meikil bedieved/b’sha’as hadchak is also utilizing yedia k’reiya. But it could be that the suggestion you mentioned is a more substantial yedia. A suggestion that I saw, is that there should be some kind of screen between the Beis Din and the mikvah, such that they can still see her but it’s blurred
nishtdanygasheft:
The article is not based in false representaions. Perhaps MK Lipman based his statements on false representations, but the article is simply quoting him. If you think the article itself isn’t reliable then we need a different source that MK Lipman actually said this.
A username.
I accidentally left something out of my last post:
R’ Uziel wrote:
???? ??? ??? ???? ??”? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??? ???”? ??????? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ????
R’ Ovadia wrote:
??”? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????”? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ????”? ?????? ???? ??”?
??? ?????? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ?”? ??? ??? ?????
??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ????? ?? ??? ?????? ??? ??????
???”? ???? ????? ?”? ???? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???’ ????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????
[emphasis added]
Chochom-ibber:
I was also referring to a physical Shas. I was assuming that if the chosson learned Shas (or parts of Shas) then he would already have a physical set (or partial set) of Shas.
So now that this thread is back again, I see a discussion between OneOfMany and Syag Lchochma about women going to shul in the first place. So I decided to quote the Iggeres Hagra:
??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ??? ???? ????? ?? ?? ???? ????? ????? ??????? ?????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ??? ????? ?????
However, he also says:
????? ???? ??????? ??? ??? ?”? ???? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ????
???? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ???? ????? ?????
?????? ????? ????? ????? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ??”? ?? ????? ????? ??’ ??? ??? ???? ???? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? ???
so perhaps men shouldn’t go to shul either.
Of course, one could argue that neither of these two statements are applicable to us.
First of all, I wonder: Do they think that people outside of their camps will accept their conversions? It all seems like an exercise in futility to me.
Now as for the actual halachic aspect:
In Toras Rabbeinu Shmuel Salant vol. 1 siman 29, R’ Shmuel Salant’s position is recorded as follows:
????? ?????? ???? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ??????? ???? ????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ??”? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ????? ???? ????? ????? ????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? ????? ?????? ??????? ????????? ??????? ???? ?????? ??”? ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ????? ?????? ???? ????? ??????? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????? ????? ???? ??????? ????? ?????? ????? ??”?
But it doesn’t record the ???? which R’ Shmuel was responding to. However, in Shu”t Beis Avraham, we see that the ???? was sent by Rabbi Avraham Ever Hirschowitz to R’ Shmuel Salant and R’ Yaakov Reinowitz and both of their responses are printed there. The ???? was about a place where men are not allowed in the mikva and there are serious consequences and it would cause a Chilul Hashem if the dayanim go in.
You can see it here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=59&st=&pgnum=55 (R’ Shmuel’s response is two pages later)
I would suspect that MK Lipman only saw the Toras Rabeinu Shmuel Salant and not the Beis Avraham, although it is possible to argue that the halachic reasoning would apply lechatchila. L’chal hapachos, R’ Hirschowitz, R’ Reinowitz, and R’ Salant all agreed that bedieved the geirus is good. R’ Ovadia and the Minchas Yitzchak also agree that bedieved it’s good. And perhaps lechatchila b’sha’as hadchak as R’ Ovadia writes: ??? ??? ???? ?????? ???.
The issue is applying this as a lechatchila in a non-sha’as hadchak. As far as I know, R’ Uziel is the only one to condone such a practice.
R’ Ovadia in ???? ???? ??? ? ???? ??? ???? ?? in fact has some choice words:
???? ??”? ???? ??? ????? ??????? (??? ?? ????? ???????) ??????? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? (??? ????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????? ???”? ??”? ?????? ??? ???? ???????? ???? ???? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ????? ????? ??? ???? ???? ???? ???? ????? ???? ????)
He also says that R’ Shmuel Salant clearly was only mattir this in a sha’as hadchak.
However, I don’t see why they have to make such a big deal out of this. R’ Ovadia himself writes:
???? ?”? ????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? (????? ????? ??) ????? ???? ????? ????? ?????? ????? seemingly even lechatchila (although the Minchas Yitzchak says that it’s only bedieved and therefore suggests that the woman should tovel twice – once with this beged and with the Beis Din present, and once without the beged and with the Beis Din right outside listening). This would seem to address everyone’s concerns.
The Minchas Yitzchak can be seen here: http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14681&st=&pgnum=366 (and specifically ose 6 on the next page)
Typo:
“Sclissel” should say “Shlissel”.
Why do I feel like I’m caught in a fairy tale?
More like caught between fairy tails. After all, I think the Big Bad Wolf is not in the same fairy tail as Goldilocks or the cukku clock.
writersoul:
How about a killer ladies gemara shiur entitled Sclissel Challah: Beautiful Minhag or Issur D’oraisa? And since this is after all “our nice out of the box little shtieble” the conclusion can be that everyone do whatever they want.
PAA: Presumably if she likes rimgs she has one already.
It’s very possible. However, most human beings have ten fingers (and you can even double up) so having one ring is hardly a reason not to get another ring. Additionally, the engagement ring will probably be nicer than the previous ring. As opposed to a shas where the first shas obviates the need for the second shas.
Actually, a chosson without a chosson shas is like a kallah without a kallah shas. Besides, what has he been learning from until now? Presumably if he is serious about learning he already has a shas or at least a good portion of a shas.
Nedarim 89b:
???? ???? ?????? ?????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ????? ?? ?? ????? ??????
Ran sham:
???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ????? ????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????? (?? ??:) ????? ?????? ????? ?????
Here’s a breakdown of the difficulties as i see it:
1. Having Friends
a) at all
b) that you are/feel close with
c) that you are/feel not an outcast with
d) who u can put your gaurd down around and don’t have to be on defense
2. Belonging To A Sect
a) for feeling at home and a sense of kinship
b) who u can put your gaurd down around and don’t have to be on defense
c) you can just follow what comes along naturally instead of having to go thru each decision thoroughly
That’s why we have the coffee room.
Wow. I started reading this thread and the first thing that came to mind was the Medrash in Kohelles Rabbah. I was about to go post it, but then I got to the bottom of the thread, and saw that Eek had beaten me to it. That’s the second time tonight. Though the first time I at least put up my post before Eek’s went up. But l’ma’aseh, the Medrash is not such a raya.
eeek:
Maybe Letakein Girl was looking for a discussion.
Speaking of Letakein Girl, question for you:
Is the word “Letakein” in your name being used as a verb, or as an adjective?
Chagiga 14b:
?”? ????? ????? ????? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??? ?”? ????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ?? ???? ???? ???? ?? ???? ???? ??? ???? ????? ???? ??? ????? ?’ ????? ??????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ????? ????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ???? ?? ?????? ?????? ??? ???? ??????? ??? ????? ??? ?????
The story is also brought in the Yerushalmi (Chagiga 2:1) and the Tosefta (Chagiga 2:2).
Sam:
It turns out that the guy who did the study (Alexander Haubold) is apparently maskim:
“When I spoke to Haubold on June 5, 2008, he noted that he has counted hundreds more pomegranates since his initial experiment. He suggested that this most likely would change the average and that his web site should reflect the new information.”
– Rabbi Dr. Ari Z. Zivotofsky
Oyyoyyoy:
I’m not sure that your assertion that “out-box people are more tolerant” is correct. As I pointed out in my second response to writersoul, I think their tolerance is more of a function of being in the middle than of not being in a group. Let’s assume that the average out-of-the-boxer is somewhere between modern and yeshivish (which may or may not be true, but I’m assuming it for the sake of making a point, and also I think it is what hashtag’s original post was about). So while the out-of-the-boxer might be more tolerant of the yeshivisher than the modernite is of the yeshivisher, and he is more tolerant of the modernite than the yeshivisher is of the modernite, he might be less tolerant of an open orthodoxite than the modernite is of the open orthodoxite, and he might be less tolerant of an extreme anti-zionist than the yeshivisher is of the extreme anti-zionist. This would be because a modernite is ideologically closer to an open orthodoxite than our protagonist is and a yeshivisher is ideologically closer to the anti-zionist than our protagonist is.
In essence my point is that I suspect that most out-of-the-boxers are not really out of the box; they are either in between two boxes or vacillating between two boxes. Naturally people will be more tolerant of those who are ideologically closer to them than they are of those who are not as ideologically close to them. However, someone who is truly out of the box is someone who doesn’t identify with any group, but appreciates different aspects of different groups and perhaps evaluates every issue separately. Such a person might have commonalities with every group along the ideological spectrum, and such a person will probably be more tolerant. Or I could also see such a person being less tolerant since he disagrees with every group. So maybe I take back what I just said, and in reality, tolerance has nothing to do with where you stand, but simply with how tolerant you are. Or maybe I’m not making any sense. I don’t know, so I’ll let you guys decide.
Popa:
I’m not sure if your question was meant for me or for DaasYochid. If it was meant for me, the answer is no. I just came across this thread today, and felt the need to argue with Sam, or R’ Linzer according to Sam.