Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
LU
“the laws do not always follow Halacha.”
they rarely do. And when they do it is accidental.
LU
“Part of protecting Am Yisrael is killing terrorists.”
Im not sure what you mean. He could be the biggest tzadik ever. The IDF operates with rules of engagment. According to those rules once a terrorist is neutralized killing him isnt justified.
Geodie
“NO, He shot a terrorist who was injured and alive, and suspected of having a suicide vest.”
Im not sure if that was directed to me. But that is not what he was found guilty of doing. (though it is possible that is what he did)
“Then they want to throw him to the dogs for doing what they sent him to do in the first place”
I thought he was found guilty of shooting an unarmed injured terrorist?
Is that what he was sent to do?
iacisrmma
the beir heitev on the seif you supplied tells you what the Rema means
“Like a finger width”
whether they were hard or soft is a sepperate (albeit related) issue but they were not thin like our matzos.
Of course things have changed and many charedim today are in fact makpid on thin hard matzos … (see what I did)
LU
“Are you sure that Chassidim deny that? I never discussed it with a Chassid, but I would find it hard to believe. I brought that as an example because I assumed it was something that everyone agreed to.”
I am certain they deny it. (Obviosuly not all but generally speaking) Speak to a chassid ou will be told how the zohar was written prior to Sheishes yemei Beresshis but was only written by Rashbi and ten put into practice by the ARIZAL and the Besh”t but on some deeper levels all the Taanamim and Amoraim were secretly Chassidim.
(Full disclosure: This is what I was taught in cheider)
“Saying something is a change doesn’t necessarily make it wrong.”
Of course not, then all forms of Judaism would be wrong, since as Ive been trying to explain to you they all involve change.
“I think that the Dati-Leumi would agree that the Dati-Leumi movement was a new movement even though they think it’s correct.”
new because the circumstances are new, but We are what traditional judaim would look like if faced with an opportunity to form our own country.
“Can we all find something we agree on? I hate arguing. Thank you”
then whats the point of this forum? But ok Pizza is delicious. Maskim?
LU
” Chassidism was such a change whether or not you support it.”
Again, chassidim deny this. I deny that religious zionism was a change. You deny Daas Torah was a change. that is my point
LU
“In order to qualify as a new movement, there has to be a change that is a change from the type of changes that take place on a regular basis “
Exactly, however how you define which change is “the type that takes place on a regular basis” and which is “a new movement” new depends on if you support that change.
LU
“They assumed he was Chareidi because he was learning”
But he wasnt, right? Who cares what an ignorant reporter wrote OF course there are some who dont know the difference. You dont seem to be one of them Im not sure why you are having trouble with this.
The bottom line is Gush Emunim may be very frum but they arent charedi.
“Now we have to start the debate on “Daas Torah”, what it means and whether or not it is a new concept. But I don’t have time or energy now.
To be continued….”
yo udont have to. Its been discussed many times in this forum
1. “What do you mean by “opportunity”? “
Open a histroy book in the mid 19th century there was a surge of nationalism worldwide. Among Many jews this manifested as zionism. Then there was the Balfour declaration and San remo confrence
2. “Maybe I’m wrong, but I didn’t think that the Mizrachi movement was started by Gedolim “
You are. Granted there werent as many as those that opposed. I beleive all agree R” Yitzchak Yaakov Reines was a Gadol
3. Who decides who are “The biggest Gedolim” ?
4. ” Maybe the Chassidim thought that the Gedolim in past times would have become Chassidish.”
Lol, they do! All movements are new at some point, though their adherents claim to be following the past. This is my point (and ZD’s and DY agreed as well)
Much like your modern notion of “Daas Torah” is a new idea, though I’m willing to bet you claim it always existed.
Even among those who claim Daas Torah always existed, I dont think any of them ever claimed if a person votes for a different party than the one supported by Gedolim he is no longer ” Shomer Torah and Mitzvos.”
see here http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/is-haredism-a-movement/page/4#post-640251
IIFT
“So you wish to sell us that for our ancestors Shavuos was primarily a Wheat Festival,Tu B’Av a Festival Of Love, Succos a Harvest Festival,etc.”
what? No where did you get that from?
you dont need me to tell you what they celebrated Open your hcumash it will tell you what why they celebrated Sukkos and Shavuos. Open a gemra taanis it will tell you about Tu B’Av I’m not sure how you got there.
“do you really believe a shift from life revolving around beis hamikdash and karbanos to today is merely “minor sociological details” ‘?
It depends for whom”
Can you elaborate? Or at least tell us if you view your life with a beis hamikdash to without as one that would differ in a “minor sociological detail”
LU
“Even if they are not minor, they still are sociological details that are not connected to Chareidi hashkafa and hence, have nothing to do with this discussion.”
It is a direct response to the silly notion that charedisim is the “default, traditional manner of being frum” charedi Judiasm (like all branches) is VERY different than Judiasm as practiced a millenia ago let alone during the time of chazal not to mention Matan Torah.
IITFT
do you really believe a shift from life revolving around beis hamikdash and karbanos to today is merely “minor sociological details” ?
Of the shisha sidrei mishna 3 of them are barely relevant* in our day to day lives namely Zeraim (aside from berachos), Kodshim and Taharos (for the most part). Half of what was practical in their day to day lives is no longer relevent day-to-day. Do you really view that focus on tuma/tahara was just a “minor sociological detail”
If your only criteria is “Do haredim today have the Same Goals, Destiny,and Purpose, as the past or Not?” Depending on how you phrase those goals, destiny and purpose I think all orthodox JEws and (probablly even many non-orthdox) will say they have similar goals: Get close to Hashem, fulfill Ratzon Hashem, make the world better place. IT is primarily the MEANS (what you call “minor sociological details”) of achieving those goals that separates various streams of Judaism
(*please dont misconstrue this as belittling the mishnayos r”l, I mean purely regarding practical day to day living)
IITFT
“there have been adjustments in Jewish practice over the centuries”
Exactly!
Thats why when people say things like ” default, traditional manner of being frum” is demonstrably false.
This is of course nonsense. He wouldnt understand the language, He’d be confused why people are wearing furry hats on their heads. He’d want to know where the Mishkan/Beis hamikdash was. not to mention Why Torah She bal peh was written down.
I could go on and on. What happened to Techeiles? PAra Adumah? Metzorah? Yibum? Instead we have Chanukah which didn’t exist in the time of Tanach. Simchas torah didnt exist during the Gemara. IITFT listed some other examples. There are Dozens of other more recent changes upsherin, shlisel chalah and more recently Chanukah presents. Not to mention hashkafic innovations like mass learning for everybody which I think all acknowledge is a recent innovation (Though perhaps a neccesary one due to eis lassos).
Thanks CA
Great catch Thank you! that was my mistake. However That was but one example.
Under Bush ISrael was criticized far more than under Obama. Though admittedly this was a big one.
As for throwing Israel under the bus, how about
Papa Bush who canceled loan guarantees after Israel announced some settlements? Reagan who criticized bombing of Osirak? Eisenhower wh abandoned ISrael during the Suez Crises? George W who allowed Israel to be condmeened by the security council over and over during the intifada in the 2000’s?
Besalel
“isnt it sad how many there are to compare?
completely! Even Ban ki moon recently acknowledged this “Decades of political maneuvering have created a disproportionate number of resolutions, reports and committees against Israel.
Not to mention the fact that ISrael isnt even allowed to sit on the security council
“Obama was not looking to appease anyone or move towards some grand theory as to how to bring peace. he was looking to punish.”
I agree completely!
besalel
Lol! good one
At any rate 242 certainly had “long term ramifications” and almmost every resolution on the middle east demanded Israel comply
besalel
1397 also said
“Affirming a vision of a region where two States, Israel and Palestine, live side by side within secure and recognized borders,”
This was the very first time the SEcurity council endorsed a Palestinian State
“This resolution basically makes Israel illegal”
Most countries (including the US) have said that repeatedly. From day 1 after the 6 day war Settlements had been identified as illegal by most of the world. Immediately after the war 242 said referred to the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”
1397 most definitely had long term ramifications, it was the first to call for a Palestinian state.
And there have been resolutions regarding the settlements, example 465:
“Determines that all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War and also constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East;”
Again I am not defending Obama (the above was under Carter’s watch the US voted for it) , I am just trying to understand why this is so unprecedented
“What are you not following?”
I’m not following why this resolution is so unprecedented.
As you said “Not vetoing the resolution is a major change. I don’t know how you downplay that.”
The most common theme I’ve heard a sto why this is so unprecedented, is that the US had felt that Negotiations should be between the parties involved and not imposed via outsiders like the UN. a nice sentimnet, but not always true. to whihc end I provided an example, resolution 1397, that not only didint the Us veto, nor did they abstain, and not only did they vote for, but the US introduced under Bush.
You pointed out that that resolution didnt criticize Israel, But there have been many that have such as 1322 (which the US abstained). I dont understand what was so unprecedented about this resolution.
I think we have grown accustomed under Obama of his protecting us in the UN that we have forgotten how commonplace it was under Bush, read the language above, it is quite condemnatory.
That isnt to say I agree with Obama in this case, I just dont think it is so unprecedented
DY
I dont follow
Even if you say that wasnt, 1322 certainly was:
“Deplores the provocation carried out at Al-Haram Al-Sharif in Jerusalem
on 28 September 2000, and the subsequent violence there and at other Holy Places,
as well as in other areas throughout the territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
resulting in over 80 Palestinian deaths and many other casualties;
2. Condemns acts of violence, especially the excessive use of force against
Palestinians, resulting in injury and loss of human life;
3. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to abide scrupulously by its legal
obligations and its responsibilities under the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to
the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949;”
Joseph
What if the “so-called non-anti-semite who stabs Jews in the back” saved countless lives by helping fund Iron dome, which his predecessor refused to do?
DY
Was it different than when Bush voted for (forget not vetoing) Resolution 1397 that was the first to support two states?
How so?
Golfer
“Not a single Democrat whispered a word in defense of Israel or against Obama’s latest outrage last week.”
that you didnt know that is part of my point. You ( I dont mean you personally , I mean collectively I encountered many who expressed similar sentiments including a few who said no previous presidnet opposed settelements ) reached your conclusion without reading up on the issue. Its not like the Schumer quote was hard to find.
Opposing settlements has been US policy under every administration for the past 50 years. This was no different in spite of it being spun that way.
(Im not sayig I agree with the resolution, just that it isnt a change)
As for the position of the party, many Democrats in Congress urged Obama to veto it. I dont have to agree with every position taken by every Democrat (even if he is President) Im sure you didn’t agree with every position Bush took, presumably including his constant attack on Israeli settlements (unless of course you hold democrats and Republicans to a double standard).
It remains to be seen how Trump will be, he certainly talks the talk, but he has shown himself to be just that – talk, over his long career as a showman. I am cautiously optimistic that he will be different.
Further more, Trump is being hailed as a big hero since he said he would have vetoed this resolution. Obama DID veto a similar resolution in February 2011. Yet he was still widly vilified as the most anti Israel or even Anti-semetic President. Netanyahu thanked him by publicly embarrassing him and even campaigning for his opponent in the following election.
MEno
Even if rare for an individual collectively it isnt rare.
There was recently a thread regarding parking at hydrants. Most agreed it shouldnt be done. Now what are the chances that when I park at a specific hydrant for 5 minutes, during those five minutes that hydrant will be needed? I say pretty small. However if we all park routinely at all hydrants, obviously that would pose more of a risk. so collectively we all forgo parking though the individual risk is quite small.
while You may have never encountered someone who suddenly collapsed. somebody has. SO collectively if we all learn CPR lives will be saved. It is no longer a rarity it is almost a certainty. This is not the case with a pilot dying. Im not sure if it has ever happened that a pilot (and copilot?) have died on board (aside from being murdered which is a separate issue).
Secondly the practicality needs to be weighed against the rarity. flying a plane is complicated training everybody to fly is expensive. Even if pilots were dropping as often as people in the street (which they are not) it still wouldn’t be practical to teach everybody to fly. LEarning the basics of CPR is easy, it is cheap. Taking an easy cheap step to prevent a problem, even a rare one makes sense.
wow Meno you are full of great information!
and you are just willing to give it away for free?
Golfer
Yep, thanks.
I to agree with CT lawyer but like he said “Bad or boorish behavior should never be rewarded” Yet we just witnessed that behavior being rewarded w/ the presidency. Now Im not saying that justifes bad boorish behavior (certainly not threatening anybody!) but it is what is driving, some of the opposition. OF course some (most?) is driven by pure old troublemakers
Joseph
nuch besser! (when I said 5 I forgot to count the two “real” candidates) thanks fort he correction though you are of course right
Lol Health
“Will Hillary ever truly concede the election?!?”
speaking of fantasizing This is her speech from November 9
“..we must accept this result and then look to the future. Donald Trump is going to be our president. We owe him an open mind and the chance to lead. Our constitutional democracy enshrines the peaceful transfer of power…”
mw13
note the “if” in your sentence. Though you are probably right.
but if you are talking about hypocrisy, let me get this straight you are criticizing democrats for reacting the way the Republican Candidate essentially said he would act if he lost, how is that less hypocritical than your hypothetical scenario?
BTW futurepotus
IT was Faith Spotted Eagle who got the electoral vote he is a persson not a bird. Though what a fitting end to a strange election more PEople (5) won electoral college votes than any election since mid 1800’s
Joseph
that doesnt mean its constitutional
If I say you can vote on your favorite ice cream flavor but if you vote for anything other than vanilla your vote is disqualified, is that called “voting”
I freely admit I am no legal scholar. but I think by definition to “vote” means to choose between two or more options
no Joseph
I have studied fake halacha and like you are quite versed in the subject.
As such presents, cookies, smiling, singing, eating anything other than latkes and sufganiot playing anything other than dreidel are all issurei deoraysa and copied from goyim.
any other food served at Chrismaku parties is obviously copying goyim as is singing anything aside for Hallel (there are some modern poskim who allow songs from hallel to be sung even not in the context of hallel, but as you may know I am very frum when it come to fake halacha)
“Well, did you vote for her?!?”
Yes.
A. Lying itself isnt a disqualifier
B. IF it was There wouldnt be anyone to vote for
C. If i was choosing solely based on less of a liar, there is no question that is still Hillary
D. There are other factors aside from trustworthiness that decide my vote.
Now your turn:
I’m confused what did they find? and then why wasnt it deemed relevant a week later?
Aslo Earleir you saidthat Comey’s proof wasnt “from [his] own knowledge!”
what did you mean by that? Where was his proof from?
Lenny
“Would you try and fix the marriage or divorce?”
I dont think a single poster here said not to try and fix the marriage.
“Thank you for answering for me!”
I’m confused what did they find? and then why wasnt it deemed relevant a week later?
“But he will never believe anything bad about his idols – the Democrats”
um, no Hillary is a big liar. I have said that repeatedly.
(Oh btw lying is bad so that is something bad about Democrats)
Dearest Health, Her is an Easy question:
did Comey have proof that there was something relevant in the emails from Weiner’s computer?
mw13
There are two email scandals that are completly unrelated.
Health
“He was told by his agents that there was proof, but he wasn’t told it yet himself!”
you are hands down my favorite poster. That sentence is completely meaningless. the bottom line is Comey made an announcement without proof Which is exactly what you said the CIA shouldnt do. Your double standard is hilarious.
The bottom line is, this election was one of the closest in recent memory (contrary to what our dear presiden president elect has said, but then again everything in reality is contrary to what he has said). Anything can (and probably did) sway it It is hard to deny Comey pushed a few people from Hillary, it is hard to deny the email dump (regardless of who sent it) pushed a few more
Hold up my dear Health
“He didn’t at that time.”
Yet he announced an investigation without proof.
coorect? (that is what you said
which is not in keeping with the line you posted above “but before you make a public statement – you have to be able to back it up with proof!”
that I was responding too.
Comey made a public stament without proof (according to you (and the facts))
(As for the rest there is no definite prrof that the kremlin ordered it but I belive they all agree the hacks came from Russsia but this is an aside,)
Health
Im not sure what you are saying
As you may Recall on October 28 Comey announced he was reopening an investigation. At no point did he claim he had proof at that time. tehn on November 6 he indicated they were closing it again since there was nothing there.
assuming his conclusion on November 6 was correct (which I assume eh would say). do you say he shouldn’t have said anything on October 28?
BTW read up on the CIA, they do in fact have proof that Russia was involved
MA
“Facebook tumah website has brought millionS of yidden to divorces & intermarriage R”L you don’t need me to tell you this “
I do because it is nonsense. that said I am curios is it
1) Millions to divorces and millions to intermarriage for a total of 4 million “divorces & intermarriage”
2) A million divorces (give or take) and a million intermarrges for a total of 2 million “divorces and intermarriage”
3) 2 million people who have gotten both divorced and then intermarried
Thanks.
Also
“use the web for your NEEDS not for EXTRAS”
Is spewing nonsense a “need” or a “want” of yours?
“Anything is possible, but before you make a public statement – you have to be able to back it up with proof!”
Agreed. Do you hold comey to that same standard?
Is it possible that this one time they are telling the truth?
MA
“millions off the derech…. millions of divorces & intermarriages etc”
I have a question on your statistics,
Besides for the millions off the Derech,
Are there Millions of divorces and Millions of Intermarriages for a total of 4 million “divorces & intermarriages”
Or is it a million divorces and a million intermarriages that leads you to “millions of divorces & intermarriages” for a total of 2 million.
Or is it Millions of people getting divorced and then remarraying Goyim r”l.
Thanks
By definition hydrobromination is w/ Br. If using Cl it would be Hydrochlorination. Collectively using any Br or Cl or I all of which are hallogens would be hydrohalogenation
(note please take this with a grain of salt since I havent looked at Organic chemistry in many years)
Health
“I’m divorced and the other posters don’t know what they’re talking about.”
wouldnt that make you the worst person to give advice to this fellow?
whatever you tried didnt work. though it may very well have been for the best.
Lenny you have a Rabbi who said to give a Get, the counselor you met said he can “guaranty it would not work, but he would not be able to see us because it would be unethical for him to take our money if he knew nothing good could come out of it.”
Health said “do what you can to save your marriage!” And I do agree with him fully. You should do everything you can, but if she wont even talk to you or take counselling seriously, what more can you do?
“the easy thing w/be to cave in & give her a Get. I’m not like that. I’m hoping she has a change of heart if/when the Beis Din shoots down her request to demand me to give her a Get.”
forgive me, but How long do you see yourself holding out hoping for “a change of heart”? A month? a year? a decade? the rest of your lives?
Lock her in the room so she has to talk ti you before you to let her out.
The real solution is simple, as the rav you asked and most people here have said. Give her a get and get on with your life. I. Getting the sense that she isn’t interested in working on your marriage no amount of therapy can fix that. She may be wrong that isn’t the point. For your own sake though move on
two more points:
1) To see calendar drift we dont need to project to the future. The Tekufas Tishrei according to Tekufas Shmuel is on October 7/8. The actual equinox this year was on September 22 15 days earlier. In other words we say Vesein Tal umatar 15 days less than in the times of Shmuel. And every 400 years we will be saying it 3 days less
2) It just occured to me that Vesein tal umatar in chutz learetz isnt linked to any pronouncement by beis din. In other words. Im not sure it will change when Moshiach comes. The halacha is 60 days after the tekufah. For which we use Tekufas Shmuel. Will we change to using the astronomicla tekufa? or something else? IT sems strange to think in thousands of years those in chu”l will start Vesin Tal umatar based on the inaccurate tekufa . But why would it change? and is there a source that says so?
“Basically, the secular calendar is sliding forward slowly, by 3 days every 400 year”
This has been mentioned previously.
In 400 years the date for vesein tal umatar will be Dec 7/8 in 4000 years IT will be in January (I’m rounding). given enough time We will start saying vesein tal umatar after PEsach. now of course Tekufas Rav Ada isnt perfect either and PEsach is slowly sliding forward as well (this received alot of attention a few years back when the first day of chanukah occurred on November 28 (Thanksgiving) which wont happen again for some 70,000 years until chanukah passes through January, February, MArch etc until it occurs in November again ( note: it will occur on Nov 28 a few more times until 2146 which will be the last time for over 75000 years but none of those times are a thursday). however given that Tekufas Shmuel is less accurate it is sliding forward at a faster rate 3 days in 400 years (as mentioned) while Tekufas Rav Ada slides forward approximately 1 day in 240 years.
In both cases chazal sacrificed accuracy for simplicity and Long before it poses any real problems we will have a sanhedrin to fix it. (OR reinstitute a calendar al pi reiyah)
LU
why invent a new solar calendar when Moshiach comes? We have a perfectly good one that we rely on now for Vesein Tal umatar and Birchos hachama why do you think when Moshiach comes we will change it?
OF course if in Eretz Yisroel there is no need for the solar calendar (at least for Vesein tal umatar). But I assume those still in chutz learetz will continue to use December 4/5 5/6 6/7 etc depending on the century long after Moshiach is here
Because it was made up