Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
popa_bar_abbaParticipant
Shmuel’s double also breathed a deep sigh. He’d been worried that Rivky would notice his nose ring. Keeping track of all these restrictions on Orthodox men was getting hard.
Maybe, he thought, maybe I should just send Rivky for 6 months to be a cleaning lady in Alaska. Her cleaning help wouldn’t be needed at home until pesach, and Baal Zevuv knows she was good at it. (Baal peor doesn’t care about cleaning very much.)
Meanwhile, Chani’s double furrowed the brow on her big wrinkly old face. The double brow, over her double chin, and double eyes and nose and lips. How would she ever manage to trap Rivky into going to Alaska, and picking up the tri-wizard cup which was changed into a portkey?
popa_bar_abbaParticipantNorth Carolina’s homicide rate is 25% higher than that of New York.
The police in North Carolina don’t randomly frisk racial minorities who they have no other reason to suspect of being criminals.
Also, I am sure they spend less per capita on police; they have less money there.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantMazel tov to all the daf yomi jews on finishing eruvin. A chag kasher v’sameach
popa_bar_abbaParticipantI was lassoed and caught by her gift of zuccini cake early in the dating process. Its been thirty three years now, and she has not made it, nor have I eaten any since. It wasn’t bad, just like honey cake with emerald highlights, and it served its purpose.
hee hee
popa_bar_abbaParticipantYCT alumni bring people to Torah, giving them life.
lolol
popa_bar_abbaParticipantWhat do cinnamon buns symbolize? Cause that’s the best.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantWhat should guys do?
popa_bar_abbaParticipantDY: thanks, I noticed that.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantOf course, they all did. It is “jiftoch bedoiro and shmuel bedoiro” Every generation has its challenges
That isn’t in the shulchan aruch.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPBA, that post was never approved so how do you know what I posted?
Let’s examine some of the choices.
1. I am a prophet.
2. I am the son of a prophet (and she told me)
3. I am a moderator.
4. I am the son of a moderator (and she told me).
5. I am dating a moderator (and used her login).
6. It was approved, and then deleted overnight.
In either event, the implication you drew was wrong. I don’t have an affiliation with the organization you mentioned.
And in either event, was that a very nice thing for you to do? Please don’t answer; just consider it.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantBoo to DY and yossiea for fixing my vandalism.
popa_bar_abbaParticipanttruthsharer:
Clever clever. But not as clever as me. Do you think I would not realize that I was making my IP public, and would do that if the information gave anything away about me?
popa_bar_abbaParticipantAnd of course i cross-referenced the same thing on the Shulchan Aruch page, so that it would be self sourcing.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantEveryone look at wikipedia page for the Rambam. It is under Mishne Torah.
I updated it to reflect ROB’s opinion that it is part of the shulchan aruch.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantNothing to do with your quote! (which comes from the ramban,btw)
No matter how many times you insist it, the Rambam will never be part of the shulchan aruch. I assure you this is true–you may look on wikipedia if you don’t believe me. (Actually, let me go change it so it is.)
popa_bar_abbaParticipantSam: I agree with you to an extent. But at the same time, now that it has been made public, I think they need to clarify and disavow it.
You should email them. Tell them.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPoppa,
I read the letter and disagree. I think it’s clear that is reffering to the thugs at the wedding.
It is a subjective understanding; I certainly cannot prove to you which way is clear. At the very least, I can state that many people are reading it like I am, and that the authors are aware of that (I made them aware), and that therefore they should publicly state so if it isn’t what they meant.
Feif: I agree; this has nothing to do with Zionism.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa- we quite obviously disagree on many fronts. First, what do you consider “apikorsus”? Pray, tell me, what part of Torah that is obligatory, do I deny?
I don’t know. You need to clarify what you re talking about, and then we’ll see. So far, it seems you deny shemita, but then you took that back, but in doing so destroyed your entire premise, so I can’t really tell.
As far as the “shulchan aruch”, for the umpteenth time, I said that what is in the shulchan aruch is obligatory,.Nothing else.
That is definitely apikorsus.
And your remark about shemita is false. The “Aruch Hashulchan” has a whole chelek on “mitvos hatluyos bo-oretz”.
Very troubling. You should be aware that the Aruch Hashulchan, and the Shulcan aruch are different works published by different people. I realize the names are confusing though.
lakewoodfellow: As an aside the Oi Limie Shlamdo Torah part of the letter is clearly going on the Bochrim who attacked Rav Stav at Rabbi Rabbinowitz’s Daughter’s wedding.
That is not clear at all. To the contrary, the simple reading is as I am reading it. If you are correct, I expect them to issue a clarification and apology.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantWhy can’t we as people who respect Talmidei Chachomim accept that it isn’t our place to stick our heads into a fight between people who clearly outrank any of us in terms of Torah Learning and helping the Klal.
I generally agree with that.
I don’t think it is applicable in the current circumstance. If this letter had been signed by Rav Schechter I would certainly not be making threads like this. (And of course you know why it wasn’t–he would never say something like this.)
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa- we disagree. The border between halachic matters and non-halachic matters can be hazy but many things are very obvious. Why it should be ‘apikorsus’ escapes me.
You refuse to present any definition of what your distinction is beyond “what is in the shulchan aruch”, which is obviously not a distinction, since even shemita is not in the shulchan aruch. (Your response that it is in the Rambam is troubling–you are aware that the Rambam is not part of the shulchan aruch, yes?)
And of course it is apikorsus if you deny entire parts of the Torah since they happen to not be published by the mechaber.
Look, we can reasonably and legitimately disagree on what things are things that the Torah expects you to conform your behavior to a certain way. But I don’t see you doing that.
(You realize of course that we’ve circled around to agreeing that we should listen to rabbonim about things that are mandated by the Torah, and we just disagree now (if we even do) about what is mandated by Torah.)
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPBA: If you were the only person, then you’d probably be wrong in your assumption that what you’re doing is standing up for Kavod HaTorah.
Probably.
But that’s irrelevant. This discussion, as is, should have died after it was clear the letter never should have been made public.
I don’t agree. For two reasons:
1. It shouldn’t have been said in private either.
2. Where is the apology and retraction? There is none. You know why? Because their constituency doesn’t care. And then they wonder why their congregants don’t listen to what they say.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantIs not all this topic L”H???
No, this is important. If I am even the only person in the world who will stand up for kavod haTorah, so be it. But I will stand up.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa- At this stage, I have no idea what you mean. As I said, many things are covered by shulchan aruch. Many are not. In the latter case, you may feel that you have to act in a certain way and that is fine. But this is not halacha, it is hashkofo and is not binding.
So the code word is hashkafa now? And the definition is anything which Rav Yosef Karo didn’t put in the shulchan aruch? So the halachos of ????? are hashkafa and are not binding? I guess that explains why many of you are so comfortable with heter mechira.
You aren’t saying very good. I’m not sure I believe you actually have a consistent and sensical division between what you consider voluntary and what you consider binding; and I’m pretty sure that even if it was internally consistent that I would consider it apikorsus.
My division is that there are things where the Torah expects you to act a certain way and things where the Torah does not care what you do. Regarding the things that the Torah expects you to act a certain way, it is appropriate to take advice from the experts in that field (Torah).
popa_bar_abbaParticipant“Stand up to these 3 people who run the RCA and say: Not in my name.”
Do you really think that Chacham Ovadiah was justified what he said about Rabbi Stav?
If so, please explain what Rabbi Stav has done to justify being likened to an idolater.
If not, please state precisely what should have been done to counter.
And this is precisely the type of the reaction I am talking about. Instead of addressing the issue: that is, that even if Chacham Ovadia was completely wrong that it is still outrageous to speak about him like that, you just go back to what Chacham Ovadia said, as if that somehow justifies any possible reaction.
Yeah, I’m not too impressed.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantWow, that is pretty cool. Thanks for sharing; I appreciate your sincerity. And I would certainly like some bbq.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantBy definition, if it is not in the shulchan aruch, we do not know what the Torah tells us to do and, ergo, it is subject to our feelings and opinions.
So you’re talking about things that the Torah does not expect us to act a certain way?
I’m just trying to clarify what you are talking about. That is, are we talking about things that the Torah expects you to act a certain way, or not. And we seem to be going back and forth, with you keep responding to me in a way that makes me think you mean the other way.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantIn very simple language, “milei d’alma” means matters that do not appear in the shulchan aruch and that any opinion thereof is “subject” to the person’s feelings and opinions,rather than hard facts in halacha.
So you think that anything which does not appear in the shulchan aruch is subject to the person’s feelings and opinions.
Ok, I certainly disagree with that, and certainly my opinion is not a new idea. I haven’t the slightest idea why you think that anything the mechaber did not write about is therefore subject to a person’s own feelings and opinions.
It doesn’t even make any sense. If you concede that it is something that the Torah wants you to act a certain way, then why would your own opinions be relevant?
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa, do you still shudder about the RCA, having decided to be dan l’kaf zchus that the letter referred to those who assaulted the Rav at the wedding, and not Chacham Ovadia?
I have not decided to be dan l’kaf zchus. I think that explanation is very distant, and the fact that they have not apologized and clarified that to be the case says to me that it is incorrect.
I am highly troubled by this. Very highly.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantI am definitely no longer following this conversation at all. And I don’t know what you mean by mili d’alma, since apparently my former understanding was incorrect and you really mean “subjective”.
If you’d like to discuss this, probably what you should do is define mili d’alma, in an abstract way, and if you still mean “subjective” you should define that term also in an objective way.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa -bar -abba: can you tell me what “objective” response you have to the recent controversy about the draft?
Of course not. I have no clue what you mean by objective.
Zionisnm for example. This is not a halachic question (as much as Satmar would like it to be)and I free to follow my own inclinations, especially as I can find support in other Gedolim!
You are confusing and conflating issues. Of course if there are competing gedolim you should follow your own. But the mere possibility of a machlokes in something doesn’t mean that you should just do whatever you personally think and ignore any and all advice from gedolim.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantOk, so your distinction then is that you only should listen to rabbonim about things that are objective, but not things which are subjective.
What do you mean by objective and subjective? Do you mean that there is a right and wrong answer? Do you mean that people might reasonably disagree?
The recent controversy on the Israeli draft is obviously objective in that there is a right and wrong answer. But reasonable people could disagree about it.
Most halachic questions are also subject to the same dynamic.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantI think Alan Dershowitz used to own a kosher place in Cambridge that had a “Warren Burger”.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantpopa-bar-abba-You are being facetious, aren’t you? You never heard of anyone asserting that “daas torah’ is infallible and we ust followe it? We must live in on different planets!
Correct. I have never heard such a notion except by people like you for the purpose of making fun of people like me.
Seriously: Do I frequently mislead you about what I think? If I thought that, would not readily admit to it? Give me some credit here please.
And you will have to show where, amongst all the many volumes of halacha, is there a direct instruction how to elect a rabbi ? Clearly, such a person needs some qualities but do you have any source that tells me whom to elect?
Oh no you don’t. A minute ago you clarified that you think anything controlled by the Torah is within the rabbonim’s purview. That cannot mean only things which have specific guidelines tailored to that circumstance since that is not true even in halacha.
But sure, there are plenty of sources I can point to with guidelines. There is plenty of guidance on what the qualities of an appointed rav should be. What planet do you live on?
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPopaBarAbba- You may say that everyone agrees to what I wrote, but that is not the case. Continually, you hear that it is “daas torah” about a subject and therefore, not to be disputed,making our Rabbonim infallible- which they are not.
No, I have never heard that definition of daas torah except by people like you who are making fun of it. It is a pretty classic strawman.
But I have heard people repeatedly say that things which are within the Torah’s purview are still somehow outside of the rabbonim’s purview. For example, a poster on this board recently said:
DaasYochid: I am not sure why you consider the election of a Chief Rabbi- or any rabbi, for that matter- a halachic matter? Most of the reasons are subjective, not objective.
As if the post of chief rabbi is not related to the Torah, and as if the Torah would not determine who ought to be the chief rabbi. It’s just like strawberry or vanilla yogurt.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantHalacha is encapsulated in the Shulchan Aruch. How to conduct your life as a jew is hazier (must you wear a black hat? Must I follow my view as to drafting all jews ?) I do not agree with you that the Rabbonim konw all the time what would be the Torah way. Do you follow the way of RSR Hirsch? Or, do you follow the way of the Hungarian rabbonim (firmly against limudei chol)?Do you follow the way of Rav Kook or do you follow the way of the Neturei Karta? The mishneh says “ashe lecho rav”- you can choose who your mentor is. Allow every Jew to have that choice and do not denigrate others who do not view the world as you do.
Of course; I agree with that; everyone agrees with that. I thought you were saying it is something which is beyond the purview of rabbonim at all, like if I should eat stawberry or vanilla yogurt.
In fact, the only thing I disagree with you is that what you say applies also to halacha.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantBut I do not think the letter writers were out of their bounds. There is no such thing as someone to choshuv to criticize. The nevi’im knew that and Chazal knew that. ????? ????? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???. We are not idol worshippers. If they know R’ Stav to be what they say he is, their words are right on target.
I’m not saying they shouldn’t have criticized (although, I am skeptical of that; perhaps they should have asked someone with a bit more stature to write the letter). I’m saying the content was outrageously far and away out of bounds.
And on that point, there really isn’t much worse you can say than “it would be better if you hadn’t learned any Torah”.
writer soul: I am brushing that aside, because it simply isn’t at issue in this situation, and I don’t care to discuss it. As I noted earlier. Start a different thread and ask who is a gadol (I’m sure you will not be satisfied by the answers, but neither will you be satisfied if you ask “what is obscenity”)
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPopa, why do you shudder about the entire RCA? Why not just for the few people who signed the letter?
Ok fine, just these people.
Also, if you’re melamed zchus as you wrote earlier (in response to DaMoshe’s post), then why do you shudder?
I think it is possible. In which case they should come forward and publicly apologize and retract. I’m waiting.
I still think the mods should delete this entire thread. It is just the latest example of the double-standard here on YWN. I shudder for YWN! You’re in trouble after 120!
I don’t know what you have been posting on the other side, but I will note that you aren’t making sense. If you think this is objectively wrong to talk about, then you should say that. But if you think it is a double standard, then that implies you would be ok as long as they let you bash chareidim in similar way–which means you don’t think it is wrong.
popa_bar_abbaParticipant‘milei d’alma’ means matters of everyday concern- not ruled by halacha. Examples (in modern terms): Do I support republicans or democrats? Do I join a demonstration against the medinah? (in historic terms): do I leave Europe for fear of the Nazis ,even though jewish life is not as developed in (say) the US?
Can you describe them a bit more in abstract please? Like are you referring to things that are part of how Hashem wants us to act and conveyed that to us through the Torah? What are these things?
My basic rule is that we have to follow the Torah, and the rabbonim know the Torah better than we do and are more equipped to determine what the Torah wants. So anything that is in the province of the Torah, is in the province of the rabbonim.
I don’t know if we have the same understanding of your examples, but here are my answers for them:
R’s or D’s: Depends on if the reason is something that has to do with Judaism. Like if D’s want to outlaw bris milah or something (in 20 years).
Protest Israel: Depends if the reason is something that has to do with Judaism. So if it is because we think they are making a chillul Hashem, that seems absolutely in the Torah’s province.
Leave Europe: Depends on if the reasons are something that has to do with Judaism. So if it is just political predicting, then no. But if it is related to the spiritual risks of America, then that is absolutely in the Torah’s province.
What is your distinguishing line? Do you distinguish between things that are “halacha” and other things the Torah demands of us? That seems like a strange distinction, and I doubt such a line can be consistently drawn.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantIt will, however, take the strain and pressure off of both the boys and the girls and allow them to “be themselves”, which will facilitate natural shidduchim.
I’m not very convinced. They already have social relationships with each other; why would they not “be themselves” around each other–of course they are.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantI spoke to someone involved. I speak to people.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantROB:
Please define what you mean by “mili d’alma”.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantJF: I’m not aware that there is a crisis of that type. Perhaps there is a problem that there are more women than men but I am not aware that there is a problem of finding each other.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantwritersoul:
To add to what Torah613 said:
You should not be comparing what the Rishon L’tzion (Rav Ovadia) said to what these RCA rabbis said. Because my criticism of the RCA rabbis holds just as true even if the Rishon L’tzion was absolutely wrong.
Because when a gadol makes a mistake, you can criticize perhaps if you think you are sure enough and you are worthy to criticize. But you certainly cannot say about him the awful things that are quoted in the opening post and which I don’t wish to repeat! Even if it were true that what he did is just as bad.
As for your question of why I wrote about this if it was supposed to be private–the letter was leaked and it was on the YWN homepage last night. I only found out this afternoon that it was supposed to be private.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantPBA, yet the same doesn’t apply when it’s the other way around. Why is that? Why do charedim (and not just the rabbanim, but even laypeople) get a free pass on vitriol?
We shouldn’t. When it meets the standard I articulated.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantwhy must I respect as a gadol someone who calls another Jew evil? Is it solely because he is called a gadol?
Because you should have the humility to say that there are people in the world who know more than you, and that these are them. (Why are these them? Relevant tangent, but I’m not going there, since that is not under dispute.) And that if you think they are wrong, you can question, but there is a respectful way to do that, and an unbelievably horrible way to do that. And this is the horrible way.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantWell, it depends on your theory of the shidduch crisis. Tell us your theory, and we’ll see if it would help.
Also, there really is no shortage of organized singles events for people who like that stuff.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantAt my wedding, we put together a “singles table” hoping that some of our friends would hit it off with each other. No word yet on whether or not it was successful.
I’m guessing in your circles it is normal that young men and women have social relationships anyway. So of course you sat them together–how else would you sit them?
Reminds me. So once upon a time I was going to a wedding of a friend from similar circles to that. And the response card asked how you wanted to sit (mixed or separate). So I was too embarrassed to say I wanted to sit with my friends, even if there would be women at the table. So they put me with random dudes at a mens table. So I sat with my friends :-).
popa_bar_abbaParticipantSL1:
I’m not sure if you are being facetious. I’m not concerned with what they agree with. I’m concerned with the horrific attack on the preeminent gadol of the sefardim.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantI can now confirm on first hand information that it was not meant for public release.
popa_bar_abbaParticipantSam:
I don’t agree with number 3. I think random rabbis from the RCA can attack someone if they think necessary. But they can’t attack the gedolei yisroel like this. They ought to have a bit more humility than that.
-
AuthorPosts