Forum Replies Created
I pulled the above off a site. I didn’t write it myself.
Different teachers provide exposure to various approaches. Moreover, each teacher exhibits different strengths and the best guide for practical halacha might not be a superior instructor for Tanach or Jewish philosophy. A rebbe great at analyzing a Talmudic topic could prove less adept at helping a student address a personal crisis. Therefore, a student must seek out numerous sources of education and guidance. Indeed, the gemara (Avoda Zara 19a) recommends studying analytical skills from several mentors even as it also calls for absorbing the basic material from a single teacher.
A number of commentators notice that Yehoshua calls for seeking out teachers and colleagues but says nothing about searching for students. Tosafot Yom Tov neutralizes the question arguing that the Men of the Great Assembly had already emphasized the need to raise students (Avot 1:1); therefore, Yehoshua felt no need to rehash the idea.
Others contend that the omission indicates a reluctance to seek out students. What could be negative about the desire to teach Torah? Maharal mentions concerns about potential arrogance. Teaching Torah reflects a highly noble pursuit, yet noble endeavors also allow for problematic expression. A teacher may be more motivated by the need to hear student adulation than by the desire to teach Torah or help others. Educators on an ego trip generate a number of negative outcomes. Such teachers may act manipulatively towards students, may care more about receiving praise than about aiding pupils, and may abandon personal and familial responsibilities in the quest for pedagogic fame.
Of course, none of the above is intended to denigrate the many wonderful and successful teachers of the Jewish community. I can think of few professions more important and I adopted this vocation myself. Nevertheless, the caution remains in place. Let us seek out multiple masters but avoid an unhealthy pursuit of disciples.
I think we are all sometimes zoche to ruach hakodesh in making decisions. We may not always realize it though.
DY: Why would he know that it’s ruach hakodesh?
Is it normal for a girl to say no after meeting a boy because he is an inch or 2 shorter than her?
Absolutely normal. I’m surprised that anyone would even ask such a question.
B’h I own a gun, chainsaw, miter saw, chop saw,jigsaw, AND the internet. The only harm that it has caused is seeing some really idiotic posts.
My guess is you are much more careful with all those other things you own more than the internet.
The Internet CANNOT cause harm, nor can a power saw. People can cause harm using both of these.
Right. Poison doesn’t cause harm. And guns don’t cause harm. And drugs don’t cause harm. And power saws can’t cause harm either. It is people who cause the harm.
Actually, ALL these things CAN and DO cause harm. Because people are human (some are evil), and a great deal of the time, human beings do not purposely cause harm with these items. But rather it HAPPENS. To say the internet (and all other harmful items) don’t cause harm, is really silly.
The Gemara says that a Chacham Shelo Higia L’Hora’ah who Paskens destroys the world.
What does this mean, and where does it say it?
apushatayid: It’s a pity that YWNCR doesn’t offer the option of blocking comments from personal view of certain posters. If they did, I would block you.
why is this such a big deal
This statement appalls me. What is such a big deal? A Jewish man unknowingly steeped in the sin of idol worship no big deal? Never having the opportunity to do mitzvos cause he didn’t know he is Jewish? How can anyone think it’s no big deal? It’s a tragedy!
Guy had a dream that he drowned while crossing a certain bridge. R’ Chaim told him to ignore it, as we pasken that we don’t listen to dreams [please: the psak is not the point]. He repeatedly had the dream, and he kept giving him the same pask. He traveled over that bridge… and drowned! Family came to R’ Chaim, obviously upset. He told them: My psak was correct, and I would do the same even after having this knowledge!
I highly doubt this story is true.
What makes someone crum is if they hav intense views that are against daas torah. Meaning they don’t have a rebbe who they t urn to when needed.
According to you, a person a person who is a talmud chochom (who we will assume is your rebbe, since one is asking advice from him) who doesn’t have your best interest in mind, is krum and therefore does not have daas Torah. And what is krum, someone who doesn’t have a rebbe when they need to.
You are not answering tzim zach.
ZD: Did someone who asked a Gadol in 1939 what to do and the Gadol said stay put and the person ran away and was saved, Did they do an Averiah?
Plumber: Idk if they did an aveirah. But it’s very shayich, they were not supposed to be saved
This is krum thinking.
P.S. I would assume they did a mitzvah. A person must do all they can to save their life.
But we MUST realize that wer must try as hard as we can to get the way we live our lives (not just halacha shailos) from the torah and those who represent the torah.
Absolutely! But what does that mean, “those who represent the Torah?” Just because someone is a talmud chochom, even a huge talmud chochom, does not mean all their actions and advice is what the Torah wants. We should hope that it does, but it is their own limited beliefs as human beings. As I said, make certain the person has the knowledge pertaining to the situation, is someone you can trust to have your best interests in mind. If it seems like the person is not looking to have your best interest in mind, or if it seems they don’t have the whole picture, then look elsewhere. Not just listen because “they represent the Torah”.
You said, we must try. I agree with that 100%.
Disclaimer: My opinion
Daas Torah applies to halacha. You have a sheilah on halacha, go to a rav who can pasken.
As for advice, go to someone who knows your situation very well (or you can explain things well to), and who you can trust. Doesn’t have to be a rav or gadol or anyone who is called “daas Torah”.
If it can be one of the real gadolim of today, then do so. That is called “daas chochom”. Not daas Torah.
The amount of energy a woman has is often dependent on how she is treated by other people. If your wife has little energy, you should evaluate how you are treating her, and adjust accordingly.
This is only true if your spouse is her own Rabbi. Otherwise we generally go by the husband’s minhagim and halachik rulings.
We go by the husband’s minhagim. Not his halachik rulings (unless he is his own rabbi!!)
I feel that I would be remiss – if I didn’t offer this little tid-bit of advice – to help you – in your Pesach Cleaning.
THE ULTIMATE PESACH CLEANING TIP
1. Open a new file in your PC.
2. Name it “Chometz.”
3. Send it to the RECYCLE BIN.
4. Empty the RECYCLE BIN.
5. Your PC will ask you, “Are you sure you want to delete Chometz permanently?”
6. Calmly answer, “Yes,” and press the mouse button firmly……
7. Feel better?
Works every time!
Thanks Wolf. Although I disagree with your conclusion, I find your story is delightful.
By the way, saying Tehillim is a beautiful way to connect further with Hashem. Doing chessed by visiting a shut in, or cooking for someone who has just had a baby, taking someone shopping with you because she can no longer drive, being a member of the Bikur Cholim that visit people in hospitals, are all things that we women can do, and on our own timetable, to boot.
Except for disagreeing with the words, “by the way”, this answer is a very beautiful and proper answer. The rest of your reply, while certainly correct, I found to be somewhat insulting. What in the world does “my” question have to do with women in the world who don’t keep halacha and want to put on tefillin?
Trust 789: What I heard (IIRC) B’shem the Rav is that he suggested that the women put on Tefillin without Parshios for a month, and then revisit the decision whether to actually wear tefillin.
As others have stated, it was with tzitis. Regardless, you didn’t answer my question. Did you even read it?
Why not follow the blueprint set out by hashem, instead of looking for alternate ways to connect to him?
This is not an answer. Even if a woman does everything according to halacha, there are times in her life, when she could feel disconnected to Hashem and feel like she is lacking in kedusha. Sometimes she is a person who just craves more spirituality, sometimes it’s because she is going through a hard time in her life etc. She can try to get connected to Hashem through learning mussar sforim, listening to shiurim, become more stringent in tznius, or some of what Oomis suggested. And some women might think that perhaps if she will put on tefillin (which is a holy object), may help her get that connection (in the privacy of her home).
There is such a defensive attitude when a woman wants to do more. As though she has no right. She can be told to just focus on making a better kugal or cholent and she has fulfilled her tafkid, and not be busy with narishkeit like actually trying to be a more holy woman. She can be holy while pampering her baby too. That’s wonderful if she feels that way, but it doesn’t always work, (especially if she doesn’t have a baby at that time to pamper.)
And by the way, I have never put on tefillin, and I likely never will. But I am always seeking ways to bring more ruchnius into my life and into my home. And there were times that I gave tefillin a fleeting thought, even though I wouldn’t actualy do it. But I found the answers to my question here quite insulting.
Is this a way to answer such a question? By implying that any desire for more holiness is “only to feel more like a man”? I have found this attitude in real life too, and not having anything to do with putting on tefillin, but in learning, davening mincha or maariv, washing mayim achronim etc. And even if it’s necessary to bring up the issue of not having less than holy motives, there is a way to do it. And I think this is not the way.
Suppose a woman really wants to put on tefillin in order to feel more connected to Hashem and feel more kedusha, is there something else that someone can suggest that would be equivalent to donning tefillin that doesn’t come along with such controversy?March 24, 2014 5:41 pm at 5:41 pm in reply to: #1028944
Gamanit: My husband brushes his teeth for like ten minutes every day. He is over 50 keh and has never had a cavity.
How does one use the internet?
In a million different ways.
Where do you buy it?
Can be used free. But the price is often very high.
What does it look like?
Looks wonderful. But underneath is the angel of destruction.
Often blackens the neshama.
Often destroys homes.
Can fill an ocean with information.
Can fill an ocean with aveiros.
Huge source of bitel zman.
Softwords: Mordechai was a member of sanhedrin, and therefore his smicha was real smicha – an unbroken chain from Moshe Rabeinu.
Today nobody has real smicha. So you can’t compare listening to today’s talmidei chachomim with Mordechai.
And in fact, many “Grand Rabbis” today who believe themselves to be “Daas Torah”, don’t even have the smicha of today.
If our partners need to believe that we are weaker, I think we are strong enough to deal with it.
I highly doubt it.
Only in Chodesh Adar when everything is upsidedown.
A person who would rather not shovel and get a fine solely because if someone should injure themselves in front of his property, then he won’t be able to be sued, in my view, such a person has bad middos.
And of course people are unjustifiably upset due to personal reasons
I don’t think it’s unjustifiable. Whether or not a person is required to shovel, and generating some reaction because you are upset may be wrong, but it’s certainly understandable in some circumstances to be upset.
is anyone ever really upset because of the ‘principle of the matter’ ?!
I don’t think anyone would be upset because of the principal of the matter in such a case. People are upset because they slipped or fell, or are scared they will.
I would also like to add, it is a lack of hakoras hatov to decide a person doesn’t have the right intentions when shoveling the snow in front of their property. And right intentions or not, we must have hakoras hatov to those who do shovel.
There is many many people who were injured in the past month, some seriously. So anyone who shovels is doing all of us a favor, making it easier for us and our loved ones to get places safely. And putting up signs of warnings is pretty much nonsense.
I was using ZD as a rhetorical example, I didn’t mean him personally.
Of course. And there are plenty of people who clear away the snow in front of their house in order to make it safe for passerby’s, not only because it is the law.
Clearing one’s own (governmentally acquired) property, is not an issue of bein adam lachaveiro, it is just a government required activity. to my humble opinion.
The story is told of how the Chofetz Chaim, Rabbi Yisrael Meir Kagan, was once stopping by a pharmacy, and told the pharmacist how much he envied him. The man was taken aback, and asked what there was to envy? The Chofetz Chaim explained he envied the pharmacist his many opportunities in the course of each day to sell medicines and save lives. The pharmacist responded that he did it to make a living, not out of any altruistic motive. Hearing that, the Chofetz Chaim said to him: “You have to have intention that ‘I am coming to fulfill a mitzvah (Torah commandment) of chesed (kindness) to others and saving lives.’ The profit-making side of it does not devalue the mitzvah, as long as you have the proper intention.”
I don’t think you can decide what ZD’s intentions are. Even if it’s government mandated, he can still get a mitzvah in ben adam l’chavero for clearing away the snow in front of his house if he has the right intentions.
And DY: Being that the city does not clean the sidewalks (like in Canada), and rather requires the homeowners to clear away the snow in front of their homes, so that it should be safe for passerby’s, those that don’t are lacking in mentchlichtkeit.
DY and LF: With that premise, we can assume that if someone gives tzedakah, then they are doing it only for themselves if they don’t give also to everyone else who is in need.
If I help one person, I must help anyone who needs to my help, otherwise I am being selfish when I help that one individual.
Likewise, the fact that ZD tries as best he can that nobody gets injured from the snow in front of his house, has nothing to do with being a mentch. In order to really do it for others, he must spend the whole day shoveling the whole city. And why stop in his city. Why not the whole country?
bais yakov maidel: Women gain the reward for Torah learning through their husband and children. Doesn’t apply to other accomplishments.
I believe the story regarding R’ Ahron goes like this: A man who taught in a girl’s high school told R’ Ahron that some of his students are very learned. Does he have to give additional kovod to these girls. He answered, even if she knows every rambam (or whatever) etc, doesn’t make her a talmid chochom. And therefore, he doesn’t have to give additional kovod (like standing up for her).
According to the book “Halichos Bas Yisrael”, one must give additional kovod for the wife of a talmid chochom. It also states that there are those who say one must stand up for a learned women as well.
Bustercrown: Computerized lists can get used again and again, and given to others too. click a button and it prints. Saves a ton of time over hand writing.
After eating, we went outside only to find there was a blizzard and …February 4, 2014 9:13 pm at 9:13 pm in reply to: Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim? #1002081
I didn’t mean to imply that you called anyone ugly.
You asked “Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim?”
I would change that to, “Do people who think they are ugly have more yiras shomayim?”
Unfortunately, there are people who are actually beautiful that think they are ugly.February 4, 2014 8:10 pm at 8:10 pm in reply to: Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim? #1002078
BMI, straightness of teeth, smoothness of face, relative size of nose, etc, etc, etc.
It’s a personal opinion. There are no rules for what constitute prettiness or ugliness. Some people think fat people are more beautiful than thin. You can not determine beauty by how wide the nose is, nor how smooth the skin is.
Would you say there is no bad tasting food,?
Yes, I would say so. All food that Hashem created is good (except if it’s bad for your health). A food can taste very sharp, very spicy, but bad? That is in a person’s personal taste. And I think we should all appreciate all the food Hashem gave us, and not call food bad. I don’t like liver, that doesn’t mean it tastes bad. Other people think it is delicious.
If you call a person ugly, there are others who might think that person is beautiful.
To call a person ugly, is an ugly think to do (even if it’s not to their face)
P.S. I know a few people who don’t have nice straight teeth, and they are gorgeous.February 4, 2014 3:39 pm at 3:39 pm in reply to: Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim? #1002073
Short people. You can measure a person’s height and look at a chart to determine if the person is short.
poor people – are people living in poverty poor? Their are guidelines for who falls under poverty level.
Sick people – A doctor will diagnose a sick person. Insurance has coverage for sick visit or well visit. there are hospitals for mentally ill.
Stupid people. There are measurements for IQ.
I have never ever heard of guidelines, measurements or levels for what constitutes ugliness. Facial ugliness is an opinion only.February 4, 2014 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm in reply to: Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim? #1002071
YungermanS: Your post was beautiful except for this part:
Cell phones are a huge yetzer hara, and people love them. If people would have to be disconnected from their cell 8 hours every day (besides sleeping time), they would appreciate their life a whole lot more and realize that the cell is and should be used for convenience, and possibly it won’t take over their life like has happened to too many people.February 4, 2014 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm in reply to: Do people who are uglier have more yiras shomayim? #1002070
Every person is beautiful. There are no ugly people. Only people who have bad middos are ugly. So the answer is no. The opposite. Ugly people are those that have no Yiras Shamayim.
I would cry.
I know this opinion is controversial, but she should buy self help books. Combining books that address her issues plus therapy instead of just therapy should save her lots of time and money.
If you would indicate what type of therapy she needs, perhaps I can suggest some reading material.
The conclusion of the book is that we have to use a statistical analysis of each situation to come to a proper conclusion. Intuition just won’t cut it.
According to the editorial review and the customer reviews of the book, it seems the author is stating that the academic credentials of the therapist is irrelevant to the success of the therapy.
The author also brings up research article by Mary Smith and Gene Glass which found that on a statistical level, psychotherapy works. But the type of therapy was irrelevant as well.
I did not read the book, so I really don’t know what the book says about intuition playing a big part of therapy.
But I can’t imagine that it doesn’t. I think the best and most understanding therapists are the ones who themselves experienced the same hardships as the client.
I find it very interesting that a person can go to therapy for years before any real progress is made. And often it is the patient who figures things out for themselves and the therapist just listens.
I won’t argue with you whether intuition plays a big role in therapy. Telling me that a book states it doesn’t, is not proof.
Oomis: Do you really equate placing an infant in a cart as WIY described and the real negligence that you observed regarding a mother who wasn’t watching her toddler near a busy intersection? Can you not even think that possibly the mother was extra careful regarding her baby?
Syag Lchochma stated: WIY – I have placed my babies safely in the cart as you described, but only after making sure 100% that they were safe. Any scenario you would like to construct to argue that does not apply, as I would not have placed them there if they were not safe. I also would not have walked away from the cart, nor would I have placed things ON him, though I am certain I put things around their legs. While I feel you may or may not be wrong in your judgement, I consider it a tremendous maaleh that you are so caring for an infant.
So yes, there are mothers that would do that while being extra vigilant. Again, I objected to the word ALL. Thinking that a person who would place a 3 month old baby like that is certainly negligent, careless, cavalier, unmindful, casual, heedless,incautious, pick whatever word you want to describe the type of behavior that does not recognize the potential for danger to a child is in my view negatively judgmental even if it all stems from a feeling of caring for the children.
Another thing that bothers me to no end, is when mothers walk ahead of their children.
That bothers me too.
I sense that you feel chauvinistic on behalf of these mothers, and think they are unfairly being criticized.
I’m objecting to the word ALL that you used. You make it sound like you never see mothers (nor fathers) who act responsibly to their children.
I remember many years ago there was an article about alcoholism in the Jewish community. The writer made it sound like if you walked into a shul in Boro Park you would see drunkards lying all over the place. When nothing can be further from the truth.
It’s a very unfortunate occurrence that when people criticize others in our community, they blow it up into making others who are not aware what goes on by us, think that it’s the norm rather than a very big exception. I go shopping in supermarkets too, and in KRM too (where WIY observed this incidence), I have never observed any neglect of children in those aisle.
And for the record, I would not have done what that mother did. There are many times I observe others do what I would not do. And I’m sure the reverse is true too. Unless it’s real negligence, I would not judge, which I don’t think necessarily applies in this situation. I do believe that the mother could have been very careful and you’re assumption that she certainly was not, is what bothers me.
rebyidd23: That was obviously not his reasoning.
WIY: I’m well aware that you don’t consider the baby’s dignity more important than his safety. My point was, that I’m sure, if you would have detected danger to the baby, you would have focused more on the safety issue, than on his dignity.
Oomis: I couldn’t disagree with you more. Typically, they ALL turn their backs “for just a moment,” They ALL? For real? You can’t imagine a parent doing that? Did you ever put your baby on a surface (without 6+ inches on all sides) and place your hand on it’s abdomen and turn around to get something nearby?
I think killing someone is not a good example. Even if it didn’t say not to kill, most people would abhor the idea.
Reasons not to kill:
1-A very frightening thing to do. Most healthy people cannot do such a thing.
2-Would land the killer a prison sentence.
4-Because Hashem said so.
If a person is not going to kill someone only because Hashem said so, they must be a very sick individual.
WIY: If you really thought that it was a safety issue, why in the world would you be busy with the baby’s dignity? Do you really think the baby’s dignity was more important than the baby’s safety?
Oomis: A 3 month old baby can roll off the bed, but a parent will still place a baby on the bed if the parent is right there and watching over the baby. I do think it’s possible that the mother was very careful watching over the baby in the cart while doing her shopping, maybe even put her hand on it’s abdomen while her face was turned away. Or even if not, a mother can know her baby enough to know if she turned away for a minute or two the baby will not fall out (climb out??!) over 6+ inches. While you may not be ready to do that, I don’t think it’s an automatic assumption that the mother was placing her baby in any danger whatever.
Most of you didn’t even notice that WIY’s concern was not one of safety. Though you are all arguing about the safety of this baby when none of you actually saw it. My guess is, if he wasn’t worried about the safety of the baby, most likely, the baby was actually safe where he/she was.