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?
Are you trying to reboot the thread?
This time, let's veer off into debating WIC and kollel, and maybe work some expensive strollers in there, not MO/hareidi, Israel/chul, and grandparenting (I'm OK if we keep the Brooklyn-bashing though ).
degoldy, large families doesn't equal no birth control.
Secondly, there is no way a large sized family can get by these days without any tzedaka. NO way. In our community there is so many organizations and gemachim to support families, that I can't even count them. And the tuition reductions are out of hand.
I said it before and I'll say it again. In our community we have something called "the camp fund." And yes, I've donated. Camp is an important experience for kids and whoever can go, should, IMO.
I just want to say... it's really no big deal to walk to the park, or keep your kids home if you planned well and stick to your plans... everything prepared... I have 4 little kids, with different personalities, different temperaments, different issues... and I'm finding that as long as I plan the day minute by minute and stick to it- it's no big deal to enteratain them for a good part of the day and the rest they can play alone - because all kids need unstructured play.
I just want to say... it's really no big deal to walk to the park, or keep your kids home if you planned well and stick to your plans... everything prepared... I have 4 little kids, with different personalities, different temperaments, different issues... and I'm finding that as long as I plan the day minute by minute and stick to it- it's no big deal to enteratain them for a good part of the day and the rest they can play alone - because all kids need unstructured play.
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.
Gryp, you keep making these grand pronouncements that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that anyone says.
No one has looked down their noses at large families. All anyone has said is that everything has an opportunity cost. If one chooses to have a large family, then one will not have as much money to spend on each individual child. And one must learn to cope with kids going in all directions, and having different needs. Presumably, people who have large families understand that, and conclude that the very real benefits of having large families outweigh the very real costs and detriments of doing so.
What you seem to want is for people to say that there should be no detriment to having a large family. Someone should donate money so that every child in a large family has all of his or her wants -- not only needs -- met. And that's not reality.
I just want to say... it's really no big deal to walk to the park, or keep your kids home if you planned well and stick to your plans... everything prepared... I have 4 little kids, with different personalities, different temperaments, different issues... and I'm finding that as long as I plan the day minute by minute and stick to it- it's no big deal to enteratain them for a good part of the day and the rest they can play alone - because all kids need unstructured play.
Older kids are too big for the park.
you dont need to go to the park... we dont go out everyday.. And my younger siblings love going to parks and playing ball and stuff...
I have a sister with 7 kids the oldest is 10 and she lives in brooklyn and keeps her kids home in the summer... she runs a structured mommy camp every day - and she doesn't find it difficult either - as long as she plans in advance (she does not do it for financial reasons but to spend time with her kids)
My point was that if you go with the attitude of spending time and having fun with your kids... it's really doable... if you go with the attitude that this it is a chore or any negative view it's not going to work.
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.
Actually, I though that the statement was ambiguous. Does she mean that those who want big families are aware that they must support those families? That makes sense. Or that the community must support those families. Which makes no sense. Because if everyone in the community has a large family, and everyone needs financial assistance, who is there to provide it?
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.
Gryp, you keep making these grand pronouncements that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that anyone says.
No one has looked down their noses at large families. All anyone has said is that everything has an opportunity cost. If one chooses to have a large family, then one will not have as much money to spend on each individual child. And one must learn to cope with kids going in all directions, and having different needs. Presumably, people who have large families understand that, and conclude that the very real benefits of having large families outweigh the very real costs and detriments of doing so.
What you seem to want is for people to say that there should be no detriment to having a large family. Someone should donate money so that every child in a large family has all of his or her wants -- not only needs -- met. And that's not reality.
Barbara, I'm not making any grand pronouncements. It's possible there is a culture clash here and my posts are being misunderstood. I don't know what your last paragraph has to do with anything I said at all.
Personally, I think it's pretty condescending to sit back and tell a struggling mother: "You made the choices you did ten or fifteen years ago, what else did you think would happen?" It seems that nobody much understands that A) society cannot run on doctors and lawyers and B) that circumstances CHANGE.
Is there a single person here that can raise their hand and say: Yes, my life has panned out exactly as I planned it all those years ago in high school?
If so, then it is obvious to me that this person is missing the essential fact that G-d has blessed her life to go in the direction she wanted.
but if you make certain choices, you have to be prepared to live accordingly. It's not a bad thing, it's reality, and reality has to be dealt with.
Even if someone didn't choose to be home with their kids but they are unemployed and can't afford camp. Should their kids go anyway - on someone else's cheshbon- while they sit at home? Of course not!
How can you be so sure? Unemployment these days usually isn't a decision. If someone can not find a job and has kids who need to be in camp, then yes, absolutely I'd give tzedaka for that.
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.
Gryp, you keep making these grand pronouncements that have nothing whatsoever to do with anything that anyone says.
No one has looked down their noses at large families. All anyone has said is that everything has an opportunity cost. If one chooses to have a large family, then one will not have as much money to spend on each individual child. And one must learn to cope with kids going in all directions, and having different needs. Presumably, people who have large families understand that, and conclude that the very real benefits of having large families outweigh the very real costs and detriments of doing so.
What you seem to want is for people to say that there should be no detriment to having a large family. Someone should donate money so that every child in a large family has all of his or her wants -- not only needs -- met. And that's not reality.
Barbara, I'm not making any grand pronouncements. It's possible there is a culture clash here and my posts are being misunderstood. I don't know what your last paragraph has to do with anything I said at all.
Personally, I think it's pretty condescending to sit back and tell a struggling mother: "You made the choices you did ten or fifteen years ago, what else did you think would happen?" It seems that nobody much understands that A) society cannot run on doctors and lawyers and B) that circumstances CHANGE.
Is there a single person here that can raise their hand and say: Yes, my life has panned out exactly as I planned it all those years ago in high school?
If so, then it is obvious to me that this person is missing the essential fact that G-d has blessed her life to go in the direction she wanted.
Man plans and G-d laughs. It isn't just a saying.
Why is it condescending to suggest that people need to live with the consequences of their own actions? Why is it condescending to suggest that one of those consequences is that not every kid can necessarily get the best of everything?
When I spend too much time at work on imamother, I work late, because the work doesn't get done otherwise.
When my child doesn't study on Friday, he can't play ball on Sunday., because the work needs to be done
When you have children, your income must be divided to cover all of their expenses. And that may mean that a kid who wants to wear Juicy Couture and Aeropostale is going to wear hand me downs from Old Navy; may no go to Florida for spring break even if all her friends do; and, yes, may have to spend summers at home.
We're not talking about someone who loses a job (chas v'shalom), or has problems (as did the OP of the original thread), or even who has children with unanticipated special needs (like Mama Bear). And we're not talking about telling kids that they're only entitled to one meal a day. We're talking about summer camp.
to answer gryp's question about if there is anyone whose life is panning out just like they thought it would in high school, I think that for many of us, particularly those who weren't silly adolescents dreaming only of the knight on the white horse or the very specia avrech to marry with foot long payes, yes it may have definitely panned out. How? Because people don't always think in specifics.
They want to be happy, yes I think that there are loads of people who are happy.
They want to have a good husband and healhty children. Yes I think that there are loads of us with good husbands and b"h healthy children.
They want to have a fulfilling life. Yes I think that there are loads of us with fulfiling lives whether WAHM or SAHM or full time career as I chose.
They want to be responsible for themselves and not have to take zedoko from bosor vodom. Hey, there are a lot of us out there who have never had to take zedoko until this very moment.
They want to still have parents when they are having grandchildren. B"H I still have a mother and already have grandchildren. As my father a"h was much older and a holocaust survivor who had lost a family I had no illusions about him being here when I would be a bubbie. I am eternally grateful to the ribono shel olam that he saw all my children being born.
So yes, unless people think like silly adolescents in exact terms, then for many of us life has panned out b"h just as we davened it would when we were sixteen. I know that mine has.
As for bc to send your kids to camp - get real. I certainly never advocated that. But like one poster (Barbara?) said, if someone is so overwhelmed daily with their life, it would maybe be time to rethink having another child right now and using BC instead.
And Gryp, I don't know what kind of kehilla you live in and what your definition of "big family" is, but yes there are loads of big families that I know of who don't ever take zedoko. Having a big family - even ten or more kids - doesn't mean that you also have a husband in kollel or one with a low paying job. I know one family with eleven whose mother is a doctor and father is a teacher, they sure don't take zedoko. I know another with nine kids, father a high powered lawyer, no zedoko. I know a family with ten father a dayan, no zedoko. And these are families where the mothers and I grew up like sisters and they know the nitty gritty of my life and I of theirs. B"h as well as we are doing, all of those families financially could buy and sell me tomorrow. To which I say Boruch Hashem!!!!!
So big family doesn't mean poor. But if you make an equasion with a SAHM, a father in learning or low paying job, living in an expensive neighborhood with middle class tastes and needs (see camp) then you are not making an equation that is going to work out well. Everything in life is choices and while you can choose to have a large family that others will support, what's going to happen when those others one day choose no longer to support you?
I want to point out that the mentality in somewhat socialist Israel my be different than that in chutz laaretz. There are systems set up here of reductions and subsidies that are accepted, expected, and not thought of in terms of tzedaka. An individual may disagree with the idea, but it's a mainstream one in Israel.
Gan is paid for on a sliding scale. Parents of newborns receive a sum of money. Parents of kids under 18 receive a small payment monthly. Kollelim and yeshivos get a government subsidy per student. New mothers can rest at a beit hachlama (kimpeturin home) and apply for various discounts. Health care is inexpensive because the health department provides part of it.
You can dislike this, but many people grew up with it and naturally expect to raise their children in the same Israel. This is the status quo of Israeli life.
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?
Are you trying to reboot the thread?
This time, let's veer off into debating WIC and kollel, and maybe work some expensive strollers in there, not MO/hareidi, Israel/chul, and grandparenting (I'm OK if we keep the Brooklyn-bashing though ).
How about breastfeeding vs bottle and cloth diapering/tp vs disposable?
I admit, the statement that there's no way to have a large family without taking tzedaka was shocking to me - but I'll agree that my current lifestyle is possible only due to the tax credits I get for my kids, child payments, subsidized gan, cheap health care, etc.
If only one of those things were missing we'd be OK, I'd just take on some hours at work, etc, but if it all fell through at once supporting even my moderately-sized family would become very very difficult.
An example is what was being written here about Lubavitch. Yes, the Rebbe (do I write z"l or shlita on this forum, I don't know so I'm leaving it as is) did not even visit EY because he was well versed in halocho and knew that at his stature and in view of the fact that his "livelihood" was not dependent upon a particular place, that his wife could come with him, that he had no children whose chinuch, parnosso or shiduchim were keeping him out of EY, as soon as he would step foot on admas EY he had a strong chiyuv never to leave. And he knew that he could not do that to his chassidim so he didn't come. Many of us, myself included, can understand that grip of yiddisheit reality and whether or not we think it would have been wonderful to have Yerushalayim or Kfar Chabad as the center of the Lubavitch movement and not Brooklyn is a moot point. He acted according to halocho as almost everyone accepts it. No discussion and only admiration for being so strict with himself as I am sure as are many that he had the same longing and love for EY, would have loved to be able to daven at the kosel, visit the holy sites etc.
No. His chassidim would go wherever he went. He did not do that because of Klall Yisroel, all those Jews who need the Rebbe to revitalize and strengthen their Yiddishkeit, including frum Jews who, as you write before 1940-41- when the Previous Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchak and the Rebbe arrived respectively - still felt inhibited to disclose the full extent of their Yiddishkeit, wear beards, cover their hair, give their children a strong Jewish education.
With the motto "America iz nisht anderish" - America is no different- and with the clarion call of "l'Alter l'teshuvah, l'alter l'geulah" during the war - the Rebbeim changed the face of Judaism in America, while planting the seeds of what became the worldwide teshuvah movement, sending emissaries all over the globe, at the same time establishing a makom Torah in America.
And they taught the Chassidim to do the same. Not to be yotzei with an insular, defensive Yiddishkeit. Not to rest till every Jew is re-connected to his/her source, till every Jew is ready to greet Moshiach!
Quote:
And it is also very understandable that a yid who is in golus, anywhere, will want to turn his life into one of kedusha and give it meaning. That is normal, understandable and laudable. Yet together with all of that, all the places which were historically called "yerushalayim d'....X" be it lita, brooklyn, Padua or Bavel, all utilized the word "yerushalayim" first in the phrase, meaning the ultimate kedusha is yerushalayim....all the rest is only an imitation. The original comes first, is higher and holier and one should never forget it.
And that's the crux of this discussion. And of the phrase that yishuv EY is shakul kineged kol hamitzvos (tosefta avodo zoro) comes from somewhere. There is no mitzva to sit in brooklyn or antwerp or London or Dniepopetrovsk. But if you are there already, then make your life a mitzva. That's bedieved, but living in EY no matter what you do and who you are, is milechaschila a mitzva in itself. It's not ideology and it's not zionism. Any frum yid anywhere who recognizes the higher kedusha of EY and consequently the automatic kedusha of anyone who by their very lives in a particular place are ensuring the continuation of yidden living freely in EY, should be able to understand that there is no connection whatsoever to giving to such a cause as opposed to giving money for camp anywhere else for any other reason. Because the existence and kedusha of EY and of the people who devote their lives to living there is of a different madrega than any kedusha anywhere else.
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.
Of course there is an intrinsic kedusha in EY, no one is saying not. However that doesn't mean that yishuv haaretz is a chiyuv or even necessity in our times. You're getting into ideology whether you admit it or not.
Quote:
Neither the Rebbe nor the Tzemach Tzedek would have argued with this premise. That has nothing to do with the exhortation - valid defiintely - to try and bring some of that kedusha of EY into your lives everywhere to raise your madrega. That's why we have shuls. To remind us of the beis hamikdosh and to enable us to bring some of the kedusha of the beis hamikdosh into our lives. But to say that a shul is of the madrego of the beis hamikdosh? Even if it is a shul with 10,000 members all of whom are zaddikim gemurim? Blasphemy.
.
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.
This is the reason Hashem put Yidden in Golus - On the words Tzidkas Pirzono B'Yisroel (Shoftim, 5) Chazal say: "Tzedaka osoh HKBH she'pizron bein HaUmos", the purpose of this is to elevate the sparks of kedusha throughout the entire world, to bring the world to a state of Redemption, Yemos Hmoshiach.
It is undebatable that Eretz Yisrael is the ideal place to live and that one must yearn to live there. However, in Chabad, we believe that "lerov tzaareinu", this personal yearning must be sacrificed because our tafkid in todays day and age is to perform shlichus and gather all the jews from the corners of the world.
How can you be so sure? Unemployment these days usually isn't a decision. If someone can not find a job and has kids who need to be in camp, then yes, absolutely I'd give tzedaka for that.
Yes, if they need to be in camp. Not if their mother decided she would rather someone else take care of her children because it's too much for her as a healthy, unemployed 30 year old to run after them.
Regarding government benefits - as long as you get them honestly, they are certainly not tzeddaka. Every government/ country decides what is important to them to encourage (such as having children, mothers going out to work). If you get the benefit because you are legally entitled to it, that is your right. Don't forget you are also paying into the system. It is no more tzedaka than if you drive on a properly upkept road that was built using taxes.
An example is what was being written here about Lubavitch. Yes, the Rebbe (do I write z"l or shlita on this forum, I don't know so I'm leaving it as is) did not even visit EY because he was well versed in halocho and knew that at his stature and in view of the fact that his "livelihood" was not dependent upon a particular place, that his wife could come with him, that he had no children whose chinuch, parnosso or shiduchim were keeping him out of EY, as soon as he would step foot on admas EY he had a strong chiyuv never to leave. And he knew that he could not do that to his chassidim so he didn't come. Many of us, myself included, can understand that grip of yiddisheit reality and whether or not we think it would have been wonderful to have Yerushalayim or Kfar Chabad as the center of the Lubavitch movement and not Brooklyn is a moot point. He acted according to halocho as almost everyone accepts it. No discussion and only admiration for being so strict with himself as I am sure as are many that he had the same longing and love for EY, would have loved to be able to daven at the kosel, visit the holy sites etc.
No. His chassidim would go wherever he went. He did not do that because of Klall Yisroel, all those Jews who need the Rebbe to revitalize and strengthen their Yiddishkeit, including frum Jews who, as you write before 1940-41- when the Previous Rebbe, R. Yosef Yitzchak and the Rebbe arrived respectively - still felt inhibited to disclose the full extent of their Yiddishkeit, wear beards, cover their hair, give their children a strong Jewish education.
With the motto "America iz nisht anderish" - America is no different- and with the clarion call of "l'Alter l'teshuvah, l'alter l'geulah" during the war - the Rebbeim changed the face of Judaism in America, while planting the seeds of what became the worldwide teshuvah movement, sending emissaries all over the globe, at the same time establishing a makom Torah in America.
And they taught the Chassidim to do the same. Not to be yotzei with an insular, defensive Yiddishkeit. Not to rest till every Jew is re-connected to his/her source, till every Jew is ready to greet Moshiach!
Quote:
And it is also very understandable that a yid who is in golus, anywhere, will want to turn his life into one of kedusha and give it meaning. That is normal, understandable and laudable. Yet together with all of that, all the places which were historically called "yerushalayim d'....X" be it lita, brooklyn, Padua or Bavel, all utilized the word "yerushalayim" first in the phrase, meaning the ultimate kedusha is yerushalayim....all the rest is only an imitation. The original comes first, is higher and holier and one should never forget it.
And that's the crux of this discussion. And of the phrase that yishuv EY is shakul kineged kol hamitzvos (tosefta avodo zoro) comes from somewhere. There is no mitzva to sit in brooklyn or antwerp or London or Dniepopetrovsk. But if you are there already, then make your life a mitzva. That's bedieved, but living in EY no matter what you do and who you are, is milechaschila a mitzva in itself. It's not ideology and it's not zionism. Any frum yid anywhere who recognizes the higher kedusha of EY and consequently the automatic kedusha of anyone who by their very lives in a particular place are ensuring the continuation of yidden living freely in EY, should be able to understand that there is no connection whatsoever to giving to such a cause as opposed to giving money for camp anywhere else for any other reason. Because the existence and kedusha of EY and of the people who devote their lives to living there is of a different madrega than any kedusha anywhere else.
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.
Of course there is an intrinsic kedusha in EY, no one is saying not. However that doesn't mean that yishuv haaretz is a chiyuv or even necessity in our times. You're getting into ideology whether you admit it or not.
Quote:
Neither the Rebbe nor the Tzemach Tzedek would have argued with this premise. That has nothing to do with the exhortation - valid defiintely - to try and bring some of that kedusha of EY into your lives everywhere to raise your madrega. That's why we have shuls. To remind us of the beis hamikdosh and to enable us to bring some of the kedusha of the beis hamikdosh into our lives. But to say that a shul is of the madrego of the beis hamikdosh? Even if it is a shul with 10,000 members all of whom are zaddikim gemurim? Blasphemy.
.
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.
This is the reason Hashem put Yidden in Golus - On the words Tzidkas Pirzono B'Yisroel (Shoftim, 5) Chazal say: "Tzedaka osoh HKBH she'pizron bein HaUmos", the purpose of this is to elevate the sparks of kedusha throughout the entire world, to bring the world to a state of Redemption, Yemos Hmoshiach.
It is undebatable that Eretz Yisrael is the ideal place to live and that one must yearn to live there. However, in Chabad, we believe that "lerov tzaareinu", this personal yearning must be sacrificed because our tafkid in todays day and age is to perform shlichus and gather all the jews from the corners of the world.
When did THIS debate happen and how is this connected to the OP?
Regarding government benefits - as long as you get them honestly, they are certainly not tzeddaka. Every government/ country decides what is important to them to encourage (such as having children, mothers going out to work). If you get the benefit because you are legally entitled to it, that is your right. Don't forget you are also paying into the system. It is no more tzedaka than if you drive on a properly upkept road that was built using taxes.
What if the community decides to give certain benefits, even though the American (or British, etc) government doesn't?
I realize it's different because not everyone is paying into the system - but OTOH not everyone is paying in equally when it comes to government benefits either, some people pay 300 shekels a month in taxes and get 1,000 in benefits and for others it's the other way around.
I have a big family and I am not supported.
My husband learns and I work long hours to support us.
We are very careful with spending and only spend on what's neccessary.
sometimes camp is neccessary and sometimes it's not - everyone has to make their own decission.
).
