Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
SiDi, you meant to write “to thee”.
Not only didn’t Washington admit to chopping the tree, the whole story is clearly fiction. The author admitted as much.
Sam Klein, nice thought but Tisha B’Av isn’t 9/11. As Nissan is the “head of months”, Av is the fifth month. (See Zecharia 8:19.)
In a couple of shuls that I frequent – both chassidish – it is not unusual for a second person to take over at Chazaras Hashatz. They have several reasons for doing so:
1. They are both chiyuvim, so they split the davening.
2. The original baal tefillah doesn’t want to say Tachanun (such as on Friday and Sunday, when some never say it).
3. The original baal tefillah needs to go out (bathroom or leaving early).Note that the second baal tefillah wasn’t necessarily ready to go up at Yishtabach, which is why (in the last two cases) he didn’t do so in the first place.
I’ve never seen the second one say Elokai Netzor. I also never asked anyone for the rationale allowing this practice.
As ubiquitin correctly stated, Rav Reisman is not much of an advocate for “exploring” EY. He visits several times a year, much of it learning in yeshivos. He’s not so much pushing people what to do with their time as what to do with their time – an area usually seen as appropriate for a rov. He makes it clear that you should stay away from EY if your time will be wasted (or worse. It is a holy place, and our behavior must be even better there.
It is obvious that Rav Yisroel’s quote can’t be taken literally. If he really thought that one should fix himself first, and he hadn’t (by his estimation) done so himself, why did he keep on trying to fix others? Until his petira, Rav Yisroel continued to spread the message of his mussar philosophy and was involved in kiruv rechokim. He didn’t hide in a corner, working on his own middos.
The building was partially demolished and re-made for Yeshivat Hechal Shemuel of Rabbi Haber. They moved in for the Elul 5782 zeman. It looks nice, but the work is not yet fully completed.
I wish to clarify my “autocracy” comment, based on how I was taught. AAF correctly describes our distributed system. I do get to choose my rav – but I have to follow his mandates. When he doesn’t know, he goes up the chain to ask – and has to comply.
In the past, your rav was whoever was in charge locally. If you didn’t like your rav or beis din, the only recourse was to move somewhere else – not always easy or possible. We have mpre choice now, but the basic idea did not change.The American Founders rejected the concept of “daas Torah” that must be followed without argument. They rejected the notion that authority figures “know best”. What they set up was a government, the goal was to protect the rights of the individual to make his/her own decisions – but without anarchy and lawlessness. That has also changed, either due to legitimate need or government overreach. Though some think that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution should disappear, tens of millions in America (like those angry parents) still hold those truths to be self-evident.
AAQ, of course fathers can teach their kids; it is their mitzva. When they do so, let them teach how they’d like. This isn’t the question. You’re actually helping the other side: A learned father can more easily be told by school administrators, “Don’t like our system? Teach him yourself!”
My post’s intention was to explain a difference, not really to defend either side. Here are a couple of opposing arguments:
A big part of the debate going on in the secular world now is over school choice. Kids are assigned a school and they are stuck there, often despite it not providing a proper, complete education. If parents are paying taxes, and this school is their only choice in utilizing the benefits of those taxes, they claim a right to influence how the money is spent. I believe that most frum parents live in a place with a variety of schools (based on hashkafa and methodology). It becomes harder to demand that any specific school follow parental dictates. Don’t like what/how they are teaching? You have other options. What’s also true is that it’s not very likely for a yeshiva parent (who is choosing a place based on their hashkafa) to run up against a curriculum totally antithetical to their values.
The fact that it is the mitzva of the father opens the door for a counter-argument: A basic rule of shlichus is that the appointer calls the shots. The shliach has to follow instructions in order for the shlichus to work (“litikuni shadartich”). A yeshiva cannot, of course, follow every instruction given by every parent. Should the decisions be made by parental vote? By a board elected by the parents? I don’t see a problem with setting up a yeshiva that way – but I probably wouldn’t send my kids there.
It’s strange how many posters compare public schools to frum schools, disregarding a fundamental difference in our philosophy: The US is a republic; school boards are based on parent/voter input. That is their constitutional set-up. We believe (or claim to believe) in an autocracy, at least in some ways. What our rabbonim say is seen as representative of the literal, Gd-honest truth. The kehila system is no more, so it’s easy to forget how the system is officially supposed to be designed. And yes, you can choose where to send your kids (or teach them yourself), but the fact that yeshiva curricula are set by rabbis is a feature of yiddishkeit.
When people writes “uvnei beiso”, they are certainly referring to the wife, not to the siblings at all. Chazal say “beiso – zu ishto”.
Many rebbes don’t mention their wives in any form on the invitation. Interestingly, the widowed grandmothers often have their own little invitation box on the back – and they sometimes sign with their full names.