Frieda now youre backtracking. NO ONE said that Day camp is an absolute necessity for everyone!!!! MOthers who have the room in their house, a car, patience, energy, no other pressing issues happening in their lives, and want to run mommy camp - kol hakavod, my hats off to you.
Mothers who cannot do this, should not be criticized as 'why do you have kids and why are you a sahm if you cant run mommy camp for 10 weeks.' that's all.
Actually, they did. That's how this whole discussion started. Day camp is a necessity -- not a want, not a nice thing, not a luxury. No parent should be expected to have kids home even if their income was such that they could not pay the rent. Kids are underprivileged if they don't attend camp. And those who would not give charity to allow the children of stay at home moms to attend camp are completely lacking in ahavat Yisrael.
Chassidim generally aren't concerned with raising their madrega. Our mission is to raise the madrega of, elevate and transform the world "l'saken Oilom b'malchus Sh-D-Y.
.[/quote]
OK, I'm gonna nitpick here but the beginning of the passage is, "ve'al kain nekaveh LECHA...l'saken olam, etc."
I've only read page 1 of this thread, but why wouldn't a parent do what's best for his/her child?
We don't base everything on income. If we did, all of our children would be in Public Schools (free) and we wouldn't be paying day school tuition. We do it for the good of our children, the future of klal yisroel. There is no one guaranteed right or wrong answer. You do what works for you and each child.
I hold the same about whether or not one should be a SAHM, WAHM, WAOM, etc.
You do what works to help raise your children in the best manner possible so they can grow up to be proper ovdey Hashem (and hopefully not judge others or their choices.)
thanks pink. I think that the Rebbe was amazing. and I was priviledged to be alive in his lifetime and to hear him in person.
Grandparents...guess it makes a difference who and how.
I hope I never have to raise grandchldren full time...because that would mean my kids are gone...but to be there daily? when I retire? And now, as much as I can? That's what you live for!!!! Be it for two or ten or halevai many many more!
don't judge those grandparents who aren't up to taking care of their grandchildren. THey've had their turns and it does not make anyone a bad grandparent if they don't help along. Those that do? Kol hakovod. Those that dont? are doing nothing wrong
It's not b'dieved to live chutz la'aretz. The fact remains that the majority of our Gedolim, and Admorim lived in chutz l'aretz, l'chatchillah and were not ch"v lacking, any more than Moshe Rabbenu himself was, by not entering EY.
This contradicts many, many pesukim, midrashim, maamarei chazal, rishonim and acharonim. There are halachic discussions about when a person is obligated/ not obligated to move to EY and/or when it is permitted to leave temporarily or permanently. Almost all poskim today hold one of two things - either it is a chiyuv to move to EY, or it is not a chiyuv but it is a mitzva kiyummis. But no one says it makes no difference if one lives in EY or in chul. There is kedusha in EY today too - of course it is not the same kedusha as when there is a beis mikdash, but there is kedusha. That is why we in EY are privileged to keep many more mitzvos.
It is kind of ironic that you brought Moshe Rabbeinu as an example, who so, so wished to cross over into EY and davenned 515 tefillos to be allowed too, because he wanted the kedusha of EY.
All of our tzaddikim wanted to live in EY. Some did make the journey. Some couldn't for physical or spiritual reasons. Some wanted to for themselves, but felt they had a responsibility to stay with their kehilla in chul. The majority lived in chul because of historic circumstances, not because they felt it made no difference.
I am mocha, because what you write is a distortion of Torah. People explained before that it was because of the Lubavitcher Rebbe's great kepeida on the halacha of not leaving EY that he didn't visit, because he felt the responsibility to stay in America.
Why do you think both the Vilna Gaon and the Besht sent groups of talmidim to EY? You think they did it stam? This is nothing to do with any group - it is simply basic Torah that there is a greater kedusha in EY even during galus. The differences between groups are only regarding how much of a chiyuv someone currently living in chul has to pick up and move. Chalila chalila chalila to say (as one poster did) that there is no difference if a Jew lives in EY or in Brooklyn. Maybe he's allowed to live in Brooklyn. Maybe in his personal circumstances a rav will tell him it's better for him to stay in Brooklyn right now out of halachic or hashkafic circumstances. But that Brooklyn is Yerushalayim? Chalila.
I've only read page 1 of this thread, but why wouldn't a parent do what's best for his/her child?
We don't base everything on income. If we did, all of our children would be in Public Schools (free) and we wouldn't be paying day school tuition. We do it for the good of our children, the future of klal yisroel. There is no one guaranteed right or wrong answer. You do what works for you and each child.
I hold the same about whether or not one should be a SAHM, WAHM, WAOM, etc.
You do what works to help raise your children in the best manner possible so they can grow up to be proper ovdey Hashem (and hopefully not judge others or their choices.)
Is there any balance there, or do you anticipate that you will always be able to do the best for your child, without taking into account the costs thereof?
If you don't take ability to pay into account, how do you anticipate paying?
It's not b'dieved to live chutz la'aretz. The fact remains that the majority of our Gedolim, and Admorim lived in chutz l'aretz, l'chatchillah and were not ch"v lacking, any more than Moshe Rabbenu himself was, by not entering EY.
Shalhevet, what some might take issue with is that they think it follows, in the minds of others, that one leads a bedieved life if it's not spent in E"Y. Chas v'shalom. We have the power to make every second of our lives meaningful and lechatchila for that moment, wherever.
It's not b'dieved to live chutz la'aretz. The fact remains that the majority of our Gedolim, and Admorim lived in chutz l'aretz, l'chatchillah and were not ch"v lacking, any more than Moshe Rabbenu himself was, by not entering EY.
Shalhevet, what some might take issue with is that they think it follows, in the minds of others, that one leads a bedieved life if it's not spent in E"Y. Chas v'shalom. We have the power to make every second of our lives meaningful and lechatchila for that moment, wherever.
I'm not quite sure how that follows. I already said that some people, in their specific circumstances, are told/ tzaddikim decided for themselves, to stay in chul. For hundreds of years it was physically impossible for most Jews to move to EY. Who said their lives were bedieved? Actually, I can find the exact parallel. We are ALL practicing Torah in a bedieved way since we don't have a beis hamikdash. It doesn't mean we don't have a purpose and our lives shouldn't be meaningful and full of Torah and mitzvos.
I was saying chalila not to say that lechatchila a Jew should live in EY. Chalila to say that we wouldn't be on a higher madreiga if we had a beis hamikdash. Chalila to say that Brooklyn is the same as EY.
close this thread? Cholilo. We are having a fascinating discussion, no one is attacking anyone personally, and if the purpose of Imamother is to be a female frum social network and at the same time to strengthen yiddishkeit, that's what we are doing here, each in our own shita....otherwise you can close down anything but recipie threads and that includes closing down those about using artificial vanilla!
In any case yes as Barbara said people DID say that every child has to be sent to camp and that it is a necessity. Every child. No matter what. And that was what I was reacting to MB, so it's no backtrack.
As for living or not living in EY. Shal and I when it comes to religious hashkofo are most definitely on different sides of the spectrum and yet on this issue we agree a thousand percent. No one said that one's life abroad is only a life bedieved. But we are saying that forever and ever EY and living in EY has been the ideal in yiddishkeit. Those who didn't, also didn't try to whitewash the fact that they weren't there.
In the days of the yeshivas in Bavel - showing us that ein chadash tachas hashemesh - R. Yehuda bar Yechezkel would not give permission to R. Zeira and R. Abba his students to go on aliyah and they had to sneak away. His explanation for his behavior is that one had to lechazek the yishuv in Bavel and that there were people making Aliya to EY who would leave their families in Bavel without providing care for them. The rabbonim in EY were not happy with such a shita and claimed that they were the mercaz and should live in EY, at the time, numerically the Jews of EY were the majority while the Jews of Bavel were much richer.
Sounds familiar?
Well in the long run look what happened to Bavel. The moslems conquered them and massacred many of the yidden. The great yeshivot of bavel disappeared. Sura, Pumbedita...by the Gaonic period the moslems eventually either took them over. The mercaz moved to spain. Then the Jews got kicked out of there. And then to North Africa...and they had to leave there as well etc.
In short, there was never a movement to move back to Bavel...or Spain...or North Africa but there was ALWAYS in yiddishkeit a belief that ultimately, the goal is to move back to EY. And we did. In droves. Boruch Hashem.
As for the seventh Rebbe, I think you are mistaken. You are bringing Bedieved. Because, milechaschila in his talks he would say that he couldn't move because many of his chassidim could not afford to move financially. It had nothing to do with the main goal being milechaschila to strenthen the yidden in golus. That became the goal bedieved because if his chassidim wouldn't be able to move financially, and he was not about to make them impoverished and knew that so many of them could never make a living and support themselves in EY, then if they were staying in golus because he too would not go to EY, then bedieved their purpose was to strengthen the yiddishkeit in golus.
Make a distinction between milechaschilo and bedieved. Just as the Rebbe did.
And back to camp. Sounds like a lot of this comes back to a feeling of entitlement, of being unable to cope, and most of all, in buying into a society which teaches you that if you feel that you can't cope, don't first try to change your situation and rethink, rather give in to that feeling that you can't cope and turn to your surroundings for help. This seems to be the pervading attitude in some places. Not to try and solve your problems but to look for the "quick fix". And there is nothing quicker than looking for someone else - in this case those giving the charity to pay for camp for your kids - to solve your problem.
I have asked the moderator at least once to close this thread.
I don't mod this section. But I don't think I'd close it - even though my personal group was spoken about not very laudingly . My bad for posting personal info.
Another clarification: some readers were annoyed at the posters who advocated birth control if you couldn't afford camp or something. Now, I most certainly don't agree with that, but I think those who were annoyed were missing the point.
The point FS et al were making is that you have to make choices in life. For example, say a woman/ couple believe strongly in living in Yerushalayim, the dh learning in kolel, the wife being a SAHM, never dressing their children in hand me downs because they have a childhood trauma of being unfashionable, and sending them to ballet and piano lessons. It's not for anyone else to tell this couple what to do, and how to prioritize, but when they find the money runs out on the 3rd of each month, they cannot go running to "the community" (whatever that might mean) for tzedaka.
They have free choice - if being a SAHM mother is more important than kolel - their choice. If they can manage both by living extremely frugally and forgetting the new clothes and private lessons - great.
So it's the same here. Some posters here claim they have chosen some or all of the following (for ideological or other reasons) as an absolute must: wife a SAHM, husband in kolel, husband in low paying job because he has no interest to study further, living in an expensive area, living near family in an area which doesn't have any opportunity to go to a park without a bus, and camp. So, forget FS's advice (if you want MHO) to limit family size for financial reasons, but decide which of all your "MUSTS" you will relinquish. Just don't tell us they are all musts. Because if you can't afford it - they aren't.
Another clarification: some readers were annoyed at the posters who advocated birth control if you couldn't afford camp or something. Now, I most certainly don't agree with that, but I think those who were annoyed were missing the point.
The point FS et al were making is that you have to make choices in life. For example, say a woman/ couple believe strongly in living in Yerushalayim, the dh learning in kolel, the wife being a SAHM, never dressing their children in hand me downs because they have a childhood trauma of being unfashionable, and sending them to ballet and piano lessons. It's not for anyone else to tell this couple what to do, and how to prioritize, but when they find the money runs out on the 3rd of each month, they cannot go running to "the community" (whatever that might mean) for tzedaka.
They have free choice - if being a SAHM mother is more important than kolel - their choice. If they can manage both by living extremely frugally and forgetting the new clothes and private lessons - great.
So it's the same here. Some posters here claim they have chosen some or all of the following (for ideological or other reasons) as an absolute must: wife a SAHM, husband in kolel, husband in low paying job because he has no interest to study further, living in an expensive area, living near family in an area which doesn't have any opportunity to go to a park without a bus, and camp. So, forget FS's advice (if you want MHO) to limit family size for financial reasons, but decide which of all your "MUSTS" you will relinquish. Just don't tell us they are all musts. Because if you can't afford it - they aren't.
I agree with your rendition, but for one point.
I don't think that anyone suggested that BC would be appropriate if one couldn't afford camp. There *were* suggestions that if one were so completely and utterly overwhelmed by one's kids that one could not function if they were at home for more than a few hours at a time, then perhaps one should give serious consideration to the question of having more kids. I *guess* it could be combined -- If Amother is overwhelmed, she can have more kids so long as she sends to camp (so the kids won't be at home for lengthy periods of time), so suggesting that she limit her family size due to being overwhelmed is the same as saying to limit family size if she can't afford camp -- but I don't know that anyone meant it that way.
Are 60 year old grandmothers considered old??? My mother just turned 60 and she is a regular adult, in no way "old" and can fully take care of her grandkids. We don't ask her too often, but she comes all the time to see them and play with them. I'm wondering if 60 is different in other places? ???
60 is the new 34
You think??? You are how old, Tamiri? And saw?? I'm for sure not 34. I don't look 34 & I feel 94. Don't assume we Bubbies have unlimited strengths, patience, & mobility. Some of us are still dealing with younger kids, holding down jobs, & doing the same garbage (with the exception of diaper duty) as we did 25 years ago. It isn't easy raising children & they are the parents' responsibility. Helping out when we can, in emergencies, & WHEN WE WANT TO is perfectly alright. As Rochel said, we raised our kids. It's a matter of physical & emotional strength at this point.
Bubby, you would have loved my mom (a"h). She lived -- literally lived -- for her grandkids. But she also used to say "I raised mine, now you raise yours"
I guess that the communities who encourage large families know they must also support them. And those who don't think of a large family as an ideal, will continue to look down the nose at us.
I guess that the communities who encourage large families know they must also support them. And those who don't think of a large family as an ideal, will continue to look down the nose at us.
Regarding your first sentence, I think about that a lot in regards to tuition reductions.
I guess that the communities who encourage large families know they must also support them. And those who don't think of a large family as an ideal, will continue to look down the nose at us.
Ah, but does that support include paying for every child to go to camp?
I guess that the communities who encourage large families know they must also support them. And those who don't think of a large family as an ideal, will continue to look down the nose at us.
I disagree. I think there are other here (like myeslf) who do think large families are ideal, but do not condone relying on tzeddakah and other people for support.
Even those who think large families are ideal will agree there are times BC is necessary and times a Rav will allow BC. If a mother absolutely cannot handle spending a few weeks with the kids she already has, should she really have another one right now?
As for those saying the community is responsible for your children and to pay your bills, perhaps check with the community first. Of course if you hit a rough patch, that's what community is for. But to go into life/marriage/child-rearing EXPECTING the community to foot the bills for you doesn't seem right.
