Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Random: You don’t have an extra pair of socks?
Rav Moshe Feinstein was the Rashkbehag, as was Rav Shach and Rav Elyashiv.
5ish: If a potential Ger believes apikorsus beliefs, as you say you’ve seen happen, then his purported geirus — even if he fooled the Beis Din and completed all the geirus rituals completely — is invalid. Rav Elyashiv says this specifically.
benignuman, you never heard Rashkbehag applied to contemporary Gedolim?
You say the Sefer HaChinuch says it’s appropriate for a married woman to always wear her wedding ring, and the reason he gives is that it serves as a “constant reminder” to her status. Do you think his point is “stupid”?
flowers, do you as a woman feel you have the right to disagree and call stupid gedolim who paskened something you don’t like? Please have someone check the Sefer HaChinuch for you. And note that I haven’t started this thread.
Call Rabbi Oelbaum and Rabbi Steinberg. The link in the OP says they confirmed it.
RoC is the Chabad shliach for Crawley.
Do these fellows also need the government to send a chauffeur to ferry them to their polling site on election day, since they have no good public transportation?
RY, engagement rings are a goyishe invention. Diamond engagement rings is a bill of goods invented and sold to you by De Beers from South Africa.
Avi, don’t mind Avram. He’s still reeling from facing the reality that he’s influenced by goyish mores and values. Although he’s still in denial about that, obviously a Yid doesn’t set out to be influenced by goyish mores and values; but, rather, it is subconscious where he doesn’t even typically realize he’s been brainwashed by local societal values. Then he takes those gentile values and tries wrapping it around some Torah keywords and reselling it as some kind of valid hashkafa!
Regarding the Three Oaths, search the CR archives. We’ve had this conversation repeatedly. And I’ve already, more than once, demolished your argument that the Three Oaths aren’t halachicly binding today. I’ve provided you sources, citations and quotations from the Seforim HaKedoshim including Chazal, Rishonim and Achronim. GIYF.
Mods have the ability to merge threads.
Note that there are halachic shittas that a married woman is required to always wear her marriage ring in public. I’ve provided the source in previous threads.
RY, how is that applicable to a Jewess? If she’s married she’s covering her hair; if her hair isn’t covered her finger doesn’t change the calculus.
The mods have the ability to merge threads.
Wait — weren’t the Yidden expelled from England??
The sun never sets on the British Empire.
Check geni.com
Cheers, Syag.
GHD: That’s because you only listen to secular music. Most of us here listen to Jewish music, which is still sold mostly on CDs.
Can Google Translate convert the OP into English?
When you say “priority goes by obligation” (Mitzvos), what it means is that those with more Mitzvos are more important/chashuv than those with less. Hence this is the Halacha of who gets priority.
“@joseph correct context would be that in Halacha a man’s life comes first because he is obligated in more mitzvos”
That’s exactly what was said in the very first post the Rambam was cited on this thread. So the context was here right from the beginning:
(You’re second reason about suffering less/quicker isn’t an accurate explanation for this Halacha, even assuming the point is correct — which is unlikely. Women don’t suffer less and aren’t quicker to offer to give up their lives.)
Winnie, your point is equally applicable regarding teaching goyim about Pesach and eating matzah. But a) were not avoiding halachic discussions between Yidden in the CR because of gentiles (even Avram says he doubts many goyim are lurking) and b) a Halacha clearly brought down in the Mishna, Gemorah, Rambam and Shulchan Aruch was cited. What context is missing? What else do you think needs to be added to this Halacha that wasn’t already mentioned?
Chabad, you provided an example of taking three independent Pesukim and Maamarei Chazal and combining them together completely out of context. Each on its own is 100% true but the way you humorously coalesced them is obviously out of context and entirely not the way Chazal said and intended them. But on the halachic topic that I cited it was not out of context. So that comparison is off. The Halacha I cited is straightforward from Chazal, Rambam and the Mechaber and said in the correct Halachic context.
Avram, you didn’t add much in your last comment other than hot air, but it is true that we lack a large part of the emotional response today to the Beis HaMikdash, Avoda, Korbonos and the special higher status of Kohanim that makes them more important and chashuv than Yisroelim, I don’t see why we need “additional sensitivity and tact in explaining why kohanim get to do things that the rest of us don’t.” We can sensitively explain it now. What “tact” is lacking in explaining it? Kohanim are more chashuv and important than Yisroelim. That’s why even today we stand up for Kohanim, give them special kibudim, they are seated at the head of the table, etc. You see saying all that as tactless? Those same principles between a Kohein and Yisroel apply between a man and a woman.
Regarding establishing a state, the issue is the Three Oaths. That’s a Halachic obligation between Klal Yisroel and the RBS”O; not the goyim. How does saying the Halacha regarding men and women provoke goyim? Because they think it is unfair and non-egalitarian? Whoever has a problem with that has a problem with the entire Orthodox Judaism not living up to the modern secular world’s demands for egalitarianism.
It’s a Protestant religion that the Amish are a sub-group of.
Child Tax Credit went from $1000 to $2000 per child. Good for children under 17 years old. Exemptions were good even for adult dependent children until married.
“I can’t enter my office building without ID. Why can’t it be required to vote?”
Because some people want to protect the right to fraudulently vote. So they invent rationalizations why showing ID is soo soo difficult. The poor fellow will have to once in his life go to the DMV office to get a free non-drivers ID. (States with voter ID requirements offer them for free.) And that is so hard to do even once.
akuperman:
I don’t think Jews will change giving tzedaka much. Even those who used to get a special charitable deduction and will not since they switched to the standard deduction, are also paying lower taxes overall since the tax tables themselves are lowered in addition to the higher standard deduction they’re going to get.
Since they aren’t paying more in taxes under the new tax code, and are probably even paying less taxes without taking a charitable deduction, there’s no reason for Jews to give less tzedaka.
“I may or may not be an accountant, but I don’t think the standard deduction has anything to do with dependent exemptions. You can take the standard deduction regardless of whether or not you are taking dependent exemptions.”
The dependent exemptions are eliminated in the new tax code. The logic Congress used to eliminate them was because they doubled the standard deductions and doubled the child tax credit.
CS, there’s very much truth to that point you raise that modern secular society (which rubs off into the thought process of even some Jews) disrespects men. i.e. Just listen to the ads on the radio or in the newspapers on how they portray the wife/girlfriend as the know-it-all correcting her incompetent/stupid/klutz of a husband/boyfriend. That is very much a recurring and prevalent theme in ads and in popular American culture today. And some Jewish people are falling into non-Torah feminist attitudes like the one you mention, among many others.
That said, I’m not sure how much this point interacts with this discussion. Here what I think is more at play is that certain halachos (toeiva, gender, kaporos are some examples) embarrass some Jews who bought into popular culture, since the attitude of secular society has turned against many of these rituals or laws or practices, and these Jews don’t like seeming so far out of step with modern values that secular society deems the new moral, even if the Torah says the opposite.
Avram: So you’ve now jumped from making up “repeatedly bring this halacha up on the CR in numerous threads” to finding a single thread from two years ago out of ten years of posting, and when confronted with your untruth you concede “Whatever” and suddenly jump to speculating that “you’ve probably had to lay off the topic for a while” to not be blocked. Yeah, okay. Anything about JFK you want to add?
Your Agagi example is incomparable since he specifically and overtly used it to attack Yidden. Which is clear as he was a goy and not citing the Halacha in a halachic discussion. No such context exists here. You still have failed to, despite being asked to, identify which Halachas should be toned down from being publicly discussed “even though the halachos are correct”, and what criteria you’ve come up with. Toeiva, shechita, avoda zora, gender roles? Any Halacha the goyim think is regressive, undemocratic, cruel, unfair, non-egalitarian, weird, funny, retro?
Regarding a Kohein making the Kohein/Yisroel point in Halacha, there is absolutely nothing wrong (and everything right) with him doing so. Now if he cited that Halacha every Monday and Thursday, something completely irrelevant to here where you offered 1 previous example from the last 10 years — which itself was 2 years ago, it would be unusual and interesting but no one would get bent out of shape because he repeated it so. Even if he kept saying it to Yisroelim. OTOH, you here declared a Halacha as “highly inappropriate” a “misuse” and a “C”H” to mention. Even if it would be weird for a Kohein to often repeat it, which again is inapplicable here, you wouldn’t tell the Kohein it is a misuse and a C”H. Because it isn’t any of that. The only reason you thought all that applied here is because that’s what the goyim and secularist think (in their own terminology.) And you picked up their values. The goyim are not only okay with but actually believe it is better to save women first (i.e. Titanic.) If someone would present a halachic argument here, even a convoluted one, making that same argument in support of the reverse of what I showed from Halacha, I’m quite sure you wouldn’t be jumping all up and down about how terrible it is to say that. But regarding this cited Halacha you’re embarrassed how the goyim perceive it. That’s the only motivation to be upset to hear the Halacha in public.
If the goyim in the near future widely start deeming shechita as cruelty to animals or bris milah as child abuse, something certainly within the realm of possibility in the future as even now such thoughts are gaining credence, I can see those with your thought process insisting we not too loudly or too much or publicly discuss shechita or mila. Even now right here in the CR (among other places) we have those who try to hush hush any halachic discussion of toeiva and even halachic gender issues since they’re embarrassed what the Torah says about them. But they’re too embarrassed to admit they’re embarrassed about what the Torah and Halacha says, so they come up with other rationalizations as why such halachic topics should be avoided.
Preparing to be a housewife.
I always make the caller give me an idea who they and their child are before answering shidduch questions.
The Amish and Mennonites, as a matter of religious conviction, also choose not to excercise their right to vote. Additionally, should those who refuse to be photographed also not be denied the right to drive and have a driver’s license? Surely you wouldn’t advocate they be denied the right to economic progress and independence that comes along with the right to drive.
Asking for ID when voting, just as it is required when entering many buildings, flying, purchasing alcohol or applying for food stamps or Medicaid, is a very minimal requirement. And it insures the integrity of the vote.
Given the general agreement that committing voter fraud is extremely difficult to detect since generally no one will usually realize when someone voted in someone else’s name, let alone the difficulty to identify the perpetrators for prosecution even if it is detected, requiring photo ID seems to be a very reasonable and minimal solution.
Avram: While your characterization is completely inaccurate, as I haven’t mentioned this Halacha in years (provide a few links to several examples if you feel otherwise), you make an interesting point nevertheless. If someone were to repeatedly bring up in the CR in numerous threads halachos about avoda zora being assur or about shatnes being assur or about toeiva being a capital offense or about shechita or kashrus or about violating Shabbos being a capital offense, would you similarly get all bent out of shape and start kvetching that mentioning such halachos any louder than a whisper or any more times than once a shmita cycle are “highly inappropriate” and a so-called C”H “even though the halachos are correct”? How is this Halacha a misuse or any more about a certain “specific intent or context” than the other sensitive Halachas I just mentioned?
Or is it only certain halachos that make you uncomfortable that you deem forboden to say much? Also, how do you determine which halachos are from the forbidden tree to publicly discuss and which ones you’re okay with saying loud and clear? Why have you deemed this particular Halacha to be among those-that-may-not-be-publicly-said-too-loud-or-much? If instead of this Halacha I had cited the Halacha about the requirement to save a Kohein before a Yisroel would your reaction have been as equally vocal, even though that Halacha doesn’t particularly violate so much the gender egalitarianism demanded by modern secular society that has creeped into some religious peoples thinking process after their exposure to modern non-Jewish values, since the Kohein/Yisroel distinction comes from the same Halacha as the one I cited? Or do you, for some unfathomable reason, think publicly discussing the Kohein/Yisroel distinction is more okay than publicly discussing the men/women distinction — perhaps because when discussing this law one halachic distinction is less uncomfortable for you than the other.
CS: I think there was a miscommunication between us. I didn’t intend my citation of this Halacha from Chazal to be a counterpoint or disagreement with the Zohar you cited, which it certainly wasn’t. And you’re response after having overlooked the Rambam I quoted led me to understand your comment as something other than you intended it to mean. Thus I accept your apology and hope you accept mine.
I quoted the Rambam. He says the reason for that Halacha is because men have more Mitzvos. You gave a made-up reason for the Halacha. You were offended by both the Halacha and by Rambam’s explanation of it. Which is why you lashed out at the Halacha and the Rambam and kvetched about him twisting the Halacha and seeing women as Arabs. Nothing other than the Halacha and the Rambam were quoted. No implications about sub-men or anything unless you think the Halacha itself means that. Because there was no other commentary by anyone here or personal explanations other than just the stating of the plain Halacha and the Rambam. And that set you off. It is no different than when some people hear anything about tznius they start screaming Taliban. If a part of the Torah offended you, you should seek an explanation from a chachom rather than set off against what you don’t like or invent your own boich svara that is different than what the Halacha clearly states.
Asking for ID is not a retraction of anyone’s right to vote.
“Yes how does that contradict what I learned?”
You invented a boich svara to explain the Halacha, to fit a feminist agenda, when the Halacha explicitly gives the reason for the Halacha and it isn’t the boich svara you came up with.
“this kind of way of reading halacha as seeing women the way the Arabs do, and twisting halacha to defend it is really inexcusable.”
Wow, you really are lashing out at the Rambam now. I quoted his giving the reason for the Halacha (which was the only reason presented and no one else offered a reason here, so clearly you were upset with his explanation), but his explanation isn’t unique to him. It says as much directly by Chazal.
Random: Are you implying that a Sephardi will call him Chacham whereas an Ashkenazi will call him Rabbi?
It is still a very small thing to ask voters to get and produce an ID. IDs are required for so much less than voting. Voting should require a demonstration of concern for the integrity of the vote and of the voters desire to participate in the process.