Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I don’t like repeating myself, but I guess I have to here. Not everyone paskens like Rav Moshe and I’ve given examples. I would not dispute someone who follows Rav Moshe, but you can not dispute the actions of someone who follows Rav Soloveitchik or Rav Henkin!
Yes, but I am asking you why you would cite the gemara as conclusive proof if you are aware of a machlokes. (Also, would you please give your citations; I have given mine.)
There is actually room to compromise here, but both sides will have to stop digging in their heels.
Excellent. What is your compromise suggestion?
Charlie: Regarding tzitzit, there just isn’t any source in Chazal to prohibit women wearing them.
And nevertheless, Rav Moshe Feinstein prohibits it. http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=83
Charlie: Do you not think Rav Moshe is at least a source worth referencing? You keep citing the gemara as if he doesn’t exist. Certainly as you noted others can disagree, but why oh why would you keep citing the gemara as if that has any relevance in the face of Rav Moshe’s psak?
Sounds good.
:-))
I love being on the same side as Sam. It’s awesome.
I am so sick and tired of people saying that we must acceppt WOW because to “make Moshiiach come” and Veahavta Lreacha Komocha.
And besides, the purpose of the world is not to bring moshiach, it is to be oveid Hashem. So even if that meant that delaying moshiach, so be it.
But in any event, I fail to see how standing up for Hashem delays moshiach. That isn’t how it works.
To those complaining about the mechitza issue: it is clear to me that WOW will never actually succeed in getting the mechitza removed, even temporarily. I do not see what bearing this has on their current activities. I will also repeat that the group does not include taking down the mechitza as a central goal within its mission statement.
It speaks to the their intent. Wouldn’t you agree?
While there is absolutely no halachic question that a woman can wear tzitzit
Rav Moshe explicitly says it is assur, as I linked earlier. There isn’t “absolutely no halachic question”.
If anyone actually cares about the halachah of women wearing tefillin, it will be discussed in tomorrow’s Daf Yomi.
If anyone actually cares, they could look at the teshuva from Rav Moshe I linked a few posts ago.
Just saying.
Can’t believe I missed this thread.
I don’t think I’m missing the point. I think we care about different points.
I care about the fact that she wants to take down the mechitza and make it not according to halacha.
Yes, but there are other quotes from Hoffman where she makes clear that part of their agenda is to make the kosel not orthodox. Try these:
Hoffman:
“today, Women of the Wall liberated the Western Wall for all Jewish people. … We did it for the great diversity of Jews in the world, all of whom deserve to pray according to their belief and custom at the Western Wall.”
The group’s mission statement, taken from its own website:
“As Women of the Wall, our central mission is to achieve the social and legal recognition of our right, as women, to wear prayer shawls, pray, and read from the Torah collectively and out loud at the Western Wall.”
Nothing in there about equality, integration, breaking down the mechitza, or creating a spectacle. Anyone who wants to argue that WOW’s central goals are to do those things should be congratulated for his or her miraculous telepathic abilities.
Press releases, and interviews, darling.
Why did he say it is assur, and where is your source?
Igros Moshe OC 4:49 http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=920&st=&pgnum=83
This isn’t going to work. You are doing it wrong.
Go to dansdealsforums, find the correct threads, and read. Start at the credit cards forum, and read the stickied threads first.
So in other words there is no precedent. I’m glad you are ready to admit that. Now apologize to us for trying to fool us with misleading and ridiculous arguments, and then try making a normal one.
It seems like you want to argue that it was not a good thing to make the kosel into a shul, and that it should be reversed so that it no longer is a shul. And then somehow you want to argue that that has a bearing on this discussion. Please, by all means, go ahead and make those cases.
If you had even the slightest inclination towards the truth
Nor throw a hissy fit and leave, and nor make ridiculous arguments from Jordanian, british mandate, and Ottoman precedent.
Even before 1948 there were no mechitzos.
So now we’re bringing proofs from when the british were arresting people for bringing chairs to sit down on there?
What is this? Are you trying to win debating points by fooling us into agreeing with you?
Fine, you win, I’ll become reform. I’m reform now. I want the WOW to be able to wear tefillin at the kosel.
Whether the leader is reform or not, is irrelevant to WOW. Until they start protesting mechitzos, it’s a moot point.
Is it a moot point? I don’t think it is moot. I think it tells us very much about what they are trying to do. Especially when she also tells us that.
I think it is insanely naive to pretend otherwise.
oomis, before 1967 there were no mechitzos at the Kotel.
Or jews. Seriously, what in the world is that supposed to mean? You are bringing a proof from the jordanians? How am I supposed to interpret your post in good faith?
The WOW should not be confused with the reform. The WOW do not want mixed davening. They just want to wear a tallis in the lady’s section.
It is hard to not confuse them with reform, when the head of the group also happens to be the executive director of the reform. And when she has stated publicly that their goal is to completely liberate the kosel.
I think you should not confuse your own agendas with WOW’s.
I think the skills used by lawyers are very different than those used in yeshiva. In yeshiva, there is also a large element of understanding lomdus which is not relevant for law, and of reading and understanding gemara and rishonim which has no corollary in law where the stuff is written in english and in a way intended to be clear and concise.
Also, I do not believe the LSAT can be studied in the way you suggest. I do think it is an intelligence test.
Try buying kilts. Since they’re made for men, they are probably intended for taller people.
1. You can always study for the LSAT, as anything.
2. You need a recognized undergraduate degree.
3. Certain skills (writing, general knowledge) need to be aquired before law school. If you aren’t good at learning stuff, don’t become a lawyer.
4. If you are good at gemara, you’ll probably be good at learning other systems of law. If you hate gemara, you’ll probably hate studying other systems of law. If your Rosh Yeshiva is begging you to join the most advanced shiur, and is offering you a job as a teacher – that a good sign you’ll make it in law school. If the Rosh Yeshiva is suggesting you need a real job, law may be a poor choice for you.
5. Are you sure you want to be a lawyer. If you think it is a “ticket” to riches you are mistaken. It requires a serious investment, with a very uncertain return. If the job appeals to you, go for it.
6. That you think to ask “Am I smart enough to go to law school” suggests you are seriously out of touch with reality. That should be corrected before looking for a job.
I agree with point 5. I disagree with all the rest.
I answered that already.
Graduating law school is easy, almost everyone who gets in finishes.
As for doing well:
As far as how well you will do in law school, you will probably be around the middle of the class. But there is a 25% chance you will be in the bottom quarter, and a 10% chance you will be in the bottom 10%. I am not aware of any method of accurately predicting this. LSAT score is the best predictor, but is not really excellent.
Based on your responses, I think you will be fine aiming for any of Cardozo, Brooklyn, St. Johns, Rutgers, and perhaps a few others. Won’t hurt to go to Fordham.
In which case, you are totally fine with a 160 or so.
When it comes to actually choosing schools, and weighing the school against its cost, then consult with FIL.
I’d like to see him back too. But he’s an adult; he can do what he wishes.
Ok. Well then.
As far as which school you need to go to, you should ask your shver for advice on what he thinks are good schools. If he says you should aim for Columbia NYU, then you are in a much different position than if he tells you to aim for CUNY, NYLS.
As far as how well you will do in law school, you will probably be around the middle of the class. But there is a 25% chance you will be in the bottom quarter, and a 10% chance you will be in the bottom 10%. I am not aware of any method of accurately predicting this. LSAT score is the best predictor, but is not really excellent.
But, I can give you more advice than that. I just need you to answer a few q’s:
About how many attorneys are in your FIL’s firm (give me rough number: 10-20? 50-100? 500-1000?)?
What are the most common 2 or 3 schools that they attorneys went to (look on their website, on each attorney’s bio)?
What is the starting salary for new attorneys there? (give me a range)
Ah, that helps a lot.
If you have a guaranteed job, you don’t need to worry about making decent grades. All you need to do is graduate, which is not difficult. This answer the workload problem also.
You also don’t need to go to a good school, so don’t need to care what you get on the LSAT.
Sounds like a good setup.
Almost everyone who begins law school makes it through. Unlike other schools, in law school graduating is easy but it really matters how well you do.
I don’t think you are focusing on the correct problems here; I think you need to do a lot more research on law school before you consider it.
Let him be.
Really?
So what range is considered OK, and what range is good, and what range is very good?
It isn’t about good and bad; it is about accomplishing what your goals are. Presumably your goal is to get a job which will justify the amount of debt you are taking out, and will make you happy.
Law schools are having a crisis. Most students even from “good schools” are not getting legal jobs at all, or not getting the jobs they need to justify their decision to go to law school. You should read the blogs and forums related to law school, and you will see what is going on.
So yes, a 164 is a “good score” and will get you into a “good school”, but good schools are frequently not worth going to anymore.
Pba – you realize that was more perpendicular than parallel, don’t you?
Of course. Parallel lines never meet. Perpendicular lines intersect. I want my points to intersect the discussion, not just to run along side it forever.
164 is just okay??
Sometimes I give silly advice, but I will give you good advice. Most people who score a 164 should not go to law school.
Me too. I’m so good at basketball I don’t even want to be in the NBA.
And you haven’t even done any tricks for us yet. How are we supposed to know if you are smart enuf?
25k? Decent schools cost over 50k per year.
But I heard the top firms pay 160k per year plus bonus. And Washdell Litman pays even more than that.
How about if he smoked a big fat cigar about once every 10 years?
How can someone not like Meal Mart kishka?
I know, right?
make it or break it for me is a smoker…. thats a conversation i will have to have
You insist on having a smoker? I’ve never heard that one before.
What is he, a pet poodle?!
Good point. Please verify for us that you are not a pet poodle. I do not think pet poodles can go to law school.
Although, I think that sometimes seeing eye dogs can go to law school. So if you are a pet poodle, you may consider training as a seeing eye dog.
Luckily, in the dark ages when Europe was plagued by the plague, the Jewish people built up some sort of resistance to the infection and was able to overcome its detrimental effects.
lol
Is that your rationalist explanation?
I know there are many factors to weigh, but my number 1 question is: Am I smart enough?
That is a very important question, and we will help you determine it.
Would you please do a few tricks for us:
1. Tell us the funniest joke you know.
2. Give us some deep insight into the IRS scandal.
3. Tell us the smartest thing you ever did.
I wish I had asked my wife if she liked Meal Mart Kishka. Oh, the humanity!
You understand NOTHING of what the typical teenage boy is all about. They run on hormones.
How about we’ll all just say our own experiences instead of generalizing. Because we can’t really know what other people think.
:-)))
Here is my poem for why boys shouldn’t talk to girls:
Girls are evil, licentious, and more
They will lie to your face, stab their friends in the back
Think you only like them for looks
and possibly their snacks
Nice.
Also, PBA: Happens to be, Hashem does punish people for things they can’t always easily control- that’s (one reason) why we women have to cover up 🙂
I think the operative word there is “easily”. And in that calculus, don’t you think that He punishes us less when it is harder, and rewards us more?
I’m glad to have helped you crystalize this.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I think your point one is basically a question of definition: what does it mean when you apologize. I think I disagree, but it may be cultural. Should Israel have apologized for the flotilla? Assuming Israel was correct.
Perhaps part of this is that you are saying they should apologize for PR reasons, while posters above were suggesting they should because it is appropriate to.
I’m not sure where you are going with point two. If you mean to state that Judaism was cast in a negative light by this story: I agree. But any more than that, such as ascribing fault, is as you say, incorrect.