Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
jacke08701: Was it $2,000 less than the bill since your family’s annual “unshared” (i.e. equivalent to an insurance deductible) amount is $2,000?
Has anyone joined them that can share their experiences as a member?
To satisfy funnybone’s morbid curiosity.
Don’t forget the lowlifes that play these professional sports.
Amil, I’m a Jew with an excellent Torah education. There have been Jewish theocracies with excellent human rights records.
AJ: As a legal matter, you’re factually incorrect. A Rabbi can remarry you in a religious marriage without obtaining a civil marriage.
Just ask the Fundamentalist Mormons in Utah.
“If Jewish law overruled federal & state law”
Jewish Law (Halacha) DOES overrule federal & state law. It isn’t a matter of “if”. If they’re in conflict, you’re obligated to follow Halacha.
Amil: The Torah explicitly supports a theocracy.
And 13/12 year olds could face capital punishment.
You mean being mekarev Yidden to true Torah Yiddishkeit.
The 10 Commandments of Marriage of Rav Avigdor Miller
Be realistic
Do no disrupt the routine of marriage
Make peace
Never say the word “get”
Be loyal
Never say “I hate you”
Love your neighbor as yourself
Display your regard for your mate
Maintain your appearance
Don’t be a tyrantThrowing out edible food is baal tashchis.
Watching professional sports isn’t healthy. It is bittul zman, And there’s nothing productive about it.
When the Hardy Boys defeat Nancy Drew.
Good threads that are getting inappropriate posts should have those posts rejected rather than closing the thread itself.
1,120 Flatbush children go to Boro Park yeshivos. 570 Flatbush children go to Boro Park day camps. (Source: Avi Chai Foundation, 2016 study)
How can they get away with it? Flatbush kids can (and do) go to Boro Park day camps and yeshivos.
funnybone: You’re affiliated with Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim?
funnybone: Check an encyclopedia. Or if your new-fashioned, google it.
Why do folks want kibbudim for themselves in shul?
Chivalry is an overtly Chritian concept. Darchei hu’emorey.
cherrybim: To the best of my recollection this was your first post that got me laughing.
You did well!
Little:
You certainly have come here offering your personal deios without any haskama or backing of any rabbnonim (other than your alleged unnamed unnameable alleged religious figure) that you’re trying to sell to people under the rubric of דרכיה דרכי נועם , the same way other groups try to sell their modifications of halacha under the rubric of tikun olam.
What I have offered here is not only the same as what the gedolim say, it is exactly what is written in virtually any halachic sefer that discusses the issue. Both before and since and including S”A. Your attempts to toss it aside and reform halacha to your boich svaras in a sure one way ticket to gehenom, not the junk halacha that you invent as you go along — something you’ve been doing over the years here not just regarding the halachas we’re discussing on this thread but rather this has been your modus operandi on a whole slew of halachas you feel don’t fit well in the modern world and need your updating.
“all poskim I have encountered allow for sleeping if wine will trouble you.”
Perhaps all you’ve encountered, but certainly not all poskim (unless it is a notable medical issue.)
Winnie, would you say your Zaidy was in better financial straits than yourself?
“His level of “chiyuv” (sic) is irrelevant. If he has yahrzeit or is in shloshim, he must find a stranger-friendly shul. That is the minhag (there is no halachah here, except that the shul has absolute authority) as practiced in Europe for hundreds of years.”
This is halachicly and factually false even though it is your gut feeling.
Sit ins are more conducive to talking tachlis about life and marriage.
That’s a halachic question. Halacha, not membership (unless Halacha has that as a criteria), should control the answer.
You shouldn’t look for a heter to avoid the mitzvah of getting drunk. Especially if you’re a member of a kehila that paskens ad dlo yoda halachicly means the pashut pshat is the chiyuv.
Little:
Your twisting דרכיה דרכי נועם into purportedly meaning you can bend out of shape and reinterpret Tanach and Halacha in Shulchan Aruch into meaning the opposite of their direct verbatim pesukim, Chazals and Halachas, is no different than the Reform doing the exact same as yourself using “Tikum Olam” as their justification.
“The older children are not touching hot pots…”
So which/when 21 year olds is Halacha telling us there are appropriate times to use corporal discipline on?
I cited the halacha among Ashkenazim that you are permitted to hit an unmarried child until age 22. No one has yet explained under what circumstances they forsee a 21 year old child being given petch. Can one of you please name a few examples in that regard for a 21, 18 and 16 year old warranting corporal punishment from his father? Or do you disagree with the halacha.
I’m asking for specific examples you’d find acceptable to hit children at those ages.
Avram , the posek in Mishlei that I quoted falls pretty much in line with imploring. Otherwise the parent must hate his child according to Mishlei. You can nitpick the verbiage but that is a fair way to put it.
You also didn’t respond to my responses to your long comment.
Now back to our 21 year old, please. I eagerly await y’all responses about that emancipated child who may legally purchase alcohol.
Winnie, none of today’s Gedolim disagree with any of the halachic sources I cited from Tanach, Shulchan Aruch and others. If you feel otherwise please provide directly sourced names and quotes of who disagrees with what rather than hearsay claims that unnamed modern day gedolim disagree or godol A disagrees without providing verifiable sources, as have I.
And if you do find a source or two that disagrees, they are disagreeing with the strong halachic consensus I cited from the Tanach through Chazal through the Achronim. You’ll have to cite more than a random voice or two.
Avram, regarding your long post…
The purpose of the extreme reaction by the matches is to convey, palpably, how scared you are by the act.
You should be at least as scared of his Mechallel Shabbos R”L as you are scared by that act of his.
If a young child tries to touch a hot pot and the parent says in a singsong voice, “oh honey, let’s not touch that pot, it’s hot”, there is no sense of danger, and the child’s curiosity will push him to test the limit. But if the parent lets loose a primal scream, slaps the child’s hand away, and yells, “HOT! DON’T EVER TOUCH POTS ON THE STOVE!”, the child will associate a fearful experience with the stove.
The same can be said regarding a child being mechallel Shabbos.
A child should be as fearful of Mechallel Shabbos as he is fearful of playing with matches.
It’s then up to the parent to help the child process that experience, telling him how scary it was, and that he yelled not because he was angry, but because he was scared for the child.
Same with mechallel Shabbos.
You wouldn’t punish a 2 year old for not knowing how to drive a car, right?
We’re discussing older children, not two year olds.
If you want to utilize a strong reaction to demonstrate the seriousness of chillul Shabbos for a child who is old enough to know, burst into tears.
Why don’t you suggest limiting the parental response to playing with fire or playing on the road to that as well?
Avram: See Mishlei 13:24, 23:13, Shulchan Aruch OC 551:18, YD 245:10, 240:19-20, Rama, Pischai Tshuva and Birchai Yosef and Rambam Dayos.
And Ashkenazim permit hitting a child until the age of 22 (unless married.)
חוֹשֵֹ֣ךְ שִׁ֖בְטוֹ שׂוֹנֵ֣א בְנ֑וֹ וְ֜אֹהֲב֗וֹ שִֽׁחֲר֥וֹ מוּסָֽר
אַל-תִּמְנַע מִנַּעַר מוּסָר: כִּי-תַכֶּנּוּ בַשֵּׁבֶט, לֹא יָמוּת.
אַתָּה, בַּשֵּׁבֶט תַּכֶּנּוּ; וְנַפְשׁוֹ, מִשְּׁאוֹל תַּצִּיל.Avram, Winnie, Syag, flowers, places, avocado, et al:
What do you make of the fact that Tanach, Dovid HaMelech, Chazal, the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch, the Achronim and everything in between and beyond implore Klal Yisroel to use corporal discipline on our children and strongly advise us we’ll destroy our children if we refrain from using corporal discipline.
Winnie, if c”v a kid ran into a busy road with cars swirling by, after the parent swiftly dragged him back to the sidewalk she would be correct to give him a good smack wear it hurts even though, as you put it, the urgency has receded and there’s no particular requirement to keep the kid from harm NOW.
Indeed, for her to do otherwise may very well be grossly negligent.
Yes, it’s a matter of education, reminder and discipline.
You’ve certainly demonstrated exactly why those two points are “unconnectable”, since no one else has so demonstrated, haven’t you? Or do you simply mean “There.is.no.shaichus” because, well, that’s simply your impulsive feeling.
Thank you for your well thought out, explained and rationally expressed opinion. There’s probably someone out there that will be convinced at that strong argument that you so well laid out and reasonably substantiated.
So you’re not in the slightest worried that providing a child with corporal discipline for playing with fire may result in negative feelings leading him to become an arsonist but you are worried that providing a child with corporal discipline for being mechallel Shabbos may result in negative feelings leading him to become a mechallel Shabbos?
Aren’t you worried that if you slap your kid for setting fires he’ll have bad feelings about being physically disciplined for lighting matches, thereby he could go off the normal derech and become an arsonist…
“the difference between playing with matches and being mechalel shabbos is this:
Playing with matches is a sakanah to the kid’s life and has to be stopped immediately.”Being mechalel Shabbos is a sakanah to the kid’s spiritual life — which is much more important than his physical life — and has to be stopped immediately.
If physical discipline won’t work for being mechallel Shabbos, it won’t work for playing with fire.
What did Dovid HaMelech mean when he spoke of hitting a child?
What did the Mechaber mean when he paskened about hitting a child?
What would you do in the two situations described by Mariana?
The real examples Mariana gave for a serious spanking of a child is not only the correct and proper approach and the best approach (among other measures), it is difficult to conceive any sane parent reprimanding or disagreeing with how Mariana correctly handles her situations.
Neveille, you not only completely ignored what I said but you actually put words in my mouth. Nowhere have I said there aren’t non-observant/non-frum Sephardim. Au contraire.
The point I did make is that Reform and Conservative are kofrim. And heresy is a much worse state of sinfulness than being non-observant but believing in the Hashem/Torah (even if one fails to live up to the Torah’s laws.) Like how most non-frum Sephardim are, especially being affiliated with a frum community/shul. Whereas the Reform/Conservative actively deny the divine authority of the Torah, explicitly as their theology and/or as their personal (lack of) belief. And the Reform and Conservative movements themselves are effectively rebels against Hashem and His Torah.
Comprehendo?
Unrealistic comparison, Neville. In your example both the Ashkenazi and Sephardi are eating ham. The major difference is the Ashkenazi is part of a heretical group whereas the Sephardi is not. That’s a major distinction as heresy is a special category in Torah Judaism.
CTL, if you go back to the 1800s, at one time there were no real quota system altogether.
Someone affiliated with an Orthodox shul, even if he isn’t Orthodox in personal practice in his life, is much better off than someone affiliated with a Reform or Conservative “synagogue”.
The Reform and Conservatives are kofrim. Better to be irreligious affiliated with a real shul or even no synagogue than to be affiliated with heretics.
So the difference between the two scenarios is notable, qualitative and palpable.
WB sam4321!