 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
Forum
-> Relationships
-> Simcha Section
↑
Crayon210
↓
|
 Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:23 am
| cassandra wrote: | | Crayon, you didn't address my last comment, and I'd like to stay on topic please. How is it that every conversation I have with you manages to devolve into a tirade against Modern Orthodoxy? You said PDAs are absolutely assur, and I said that while the chumra might exist in halachic literature it is in no way absolute. Then you tried, not very cleverly, to steer the conversation in another direction, since I'm still not quite sure what your comment about chareidism had to do with what I said. Let's take it from there. |
If there really were people 300 years ago who touched in public, where are their 'halachic descendants' today?
| Quote: | | Start with Navi and work your way through Jewish history and you will see that there have always been those that have successfully engaged with the outside world and those that have tried to keep themselves insular. Kollel is more modern of a modern invention than YU. I am not name-calling just pointing out a historical fact. I stand by my comment that you must have been taught these things in chareidi school, because there is nowhere else to get this kind of historical bias from. It' not your fault, really) |
I love when this argument is brought-Navi?? That is what we call reading Navi and history with an anachronistic bias.
| |
|
| Back to top |
 0
 0
|
↑
Crayon210
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:24 am
| louche wrote: | | amother wrote: |
 so you tell me then cassandra, when did "Modern" Orthodoxy come into being.
The name speaks for itself |
Technically, mid 1800's, with HaRav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch being the Father of Modern Orthodoxy. Not that the descendants of his Kehilla would necessarily be happy to be labeled MO, but there you have it. |
He is not the father of MO. His philosophy is not synonymous with MO.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Crayon210
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:25 am
| Ruchel wrote: | | physical affection in public: yes, there are rabbanim allowing it for sure. |
Who??
Please tell me! I'd be very happy to learn that I was wrong.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Crayon210
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:26 am
| amother wrote: | | Crayon210 wrote: | Oh right, I forgot, Moshe Rabbeinu went to YU.  |
So which chareidi school did he attend? |
Why, Tomchei Temimim, of course!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:20 am
| Crayon210 wrote: | | Ruchel wrote: | | physical affection in public: yes, there are rabbanim allowing it for sure. |
Who??
Please tell me! I'd be very happy to learn that I was wrong. |
it seems so normal and natural...
here is what I found:
"everything that reminds of s-xuality is forbidden, but everything that reminds of friendship or love is allowed". The rav gives the example of holding hands as ok. The rav being on a site approved by the French Jewish institutions, his answer has to be Orthodox (himself is mainstream, not modern, not ultra).
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:34 am
| Crayon210 wrote: | | cassandra wrote: | | Crayon, you didn't address my last comment, and I'd like to stay on topic please. How is it that every conversation I have with you manages to devolve into a tirade against Modern Orthodoxy? You said PDAs are absolutely assur, and I said that while the chumra might exist in halachic literature it is in no way absolute. Then you tried, not very cleverly, to steer the conversation in another direction, since I'm still not quite sure what your comment about chareidism had to do with what I said. Let's take it from there. |
If there really were people 300 years ago who touched in public, where are their 'halachic descendants' today? |
Um, me and everyone else I know? How can you prove that NOBODY touched in public 300 years ago? Why would the "yesh omrim" be required if it was obviously not done? It means that some people did it!
Furthermore, even if it wasn't done 300 years ago it does not follow that it shouldn't be done now. We aren't Amish.
| Quote: | | Quote: | | Start with Navi and work your way through Jewish history and you will see that there have always been those that have successfully engaged with the outside world and those that have tried to keep themselves insular. Kollel is more modern of a modern invention than YU. I am not name-calling just pointing out a historical fact. I stand by my comment that you must have been taught these things in chareidi school, because there is nowhere else to get this kind of historical bias from. It' not your fault, really) |
I love when this argument is brought-Navi?? That is what we call reading Navi and history with an anachronistic bias. |
Read what I bolded. This isn't an anachronism. People in Navi definitely weren't like you or me, half the time they were worshipping idols for goodness sake. But there have always been traditionalists and there have always been accommodationists. It isn't a new idea.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
cassandra
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:37 am
| Crayon210 wrote: | | Ruchel wrote: | | physical affection in public: yes, there are rabbanim allowing it for sure. |
Who??
Please tell me! I'd be very happy to learn that I was wrong. |
You are wrong in the premise that an affirmative psak is needed to allow it. Halacha doesn't work that way.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:49 am
|
many things weren't done 300 years ago because by the non jews it was not done, so it was not acceptable in the culture of the country, and would have been a chillul Hashem. For example, the single girls from Arabic countries who wore a veil until they made alia.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
louche
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:54 am
Golly, I dunno, when Yaakov met Rachel at the well, it says he kissed her. Now you can get all holy and horrified on me and explain to me what an ignoramus I am to even think such a thing, when it's perfectly obvious that here the word "kiss' doesn't mean a physical salute in which the lips of the party of the first part are pressed to some portion of the party of the second part, but that it means a spiritual salute, a meeting of the souls, yadda yadda. Maybe it even means he defended her from bullying shepherds, as Moshe did the daughters of Yitro, the root of the word "kiss" and the word "weapon" being identical.
To which I respond, no doubt, no doubt. But as dh rebbe iterated and reiterated: "Don't ignore the pshat." And the pshat is, he kissed her.
I personally have no problem with that. This was his basherte, and Yaakov knew it.
Last edited by louche on Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:56 am; edited 1 time in total
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:55 am
she was not bas mitzva (= not nidda) and she was his cousin, and we don't pasken straight from the Bible... but you're right 
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
louche
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 10:48 am
| Ruchel wrote: | | she was not bas mitzva (= not nidda) and she was his cousin, and we don't pasken straight from the Bible... but you're right |
Not paskening for us--let's not forget yaakov was also married to 2 sisters at the same time. Just responding to the poster who asked "if there were people who touched publicly 300 years ago, where are their halachic descendants today/" Yaakov was 4000 years ago, not 300, but I think we can state pretty definitively where his halachic descendants are: all over the map, literally and figuratively.
However, now that you mention it: when was the last time a post-bar mitzvah charedi boy was allowed to kiss his not-yet-batmitzvah (but older than 3) girl cousin?
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Ruchel
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 10:56 am
|
I can see it among light charedim, here. Among older adults, some still kiss each other on the cheek, especially in the family. But out of Europe, apparently, the standards are QUITE different.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
↑
Atali
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 8:38 pm
| louche wrote: | | Ruchel wrote: | | she was not bas mitzva (= not nidda) and she was his cousin, and we don't pasken straight from the Bible... but you're right |
Not paskening for us--let's not forget yaakov was also married to 2 sisters at the same time. Just responding to the poster who asked "if there were people who touched publicly 300 years ago, where are their halachic descendants today/" Yaakov was 4000 years ago, not 300, but I think we can state pretty definitively where his halachic descendants are: all over the map, literally and figuratively.
However, now that you mention it: when was the last time a post-bar mitzvah charedi boy was allowed to kiss his not-yet-batmitzvah (but older than 3) girl cousin? |
I think that it is an issur m'drabbanan to kiss a single girl who is not a niddah (such as a young girl) and is not an ervah (like his sister-in-law would be).
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:18 pm
| cassandra wrote: |
Furthermore, even if it wasn't done 300 years ago it does not follow that it shouldn't be done now. We aren't Amish. |
that's right! we don't follow what was done 300 years ago.
Out with halacha! out with torah! out with rabbonim!
(Cv"S)
[quote] | Quote: | | Start with Navi and work your way through Jewish history and you will see that there have always been those that have successfully engaged with the outside world and those that have tried to keep themselves insular. |
does that mean they kissed in public and held hands and stuff?
| Quote: | | People in Navi definitely weren't like you or me, half the time they were worshipping idols for goodness sake. |
yes that's true and we call those people non - frum.
maybe the word chareidi was a mistake to use as the actual term chareidi is a modern invention, but not the jew behind the name.
Like I said before, there were those who were frum and those who weren't frum. Those who followed the rabbonim and those who didn't.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 9:36 pm
| Quote: | Quote:
People in Navi definitely weren't like you or me, half the time they were worshipping idols for goodness sake.
yes that's true and we call those people non - frum.
maybe the word chareidi was a mistake to use as the actual term chareidi is a modern invention, but not the jew behind the name.
Like I said before, there were those who were frum and those who weren't frum. Those who followed the rabbonim and those who didn't. |
I agree with the original post. There were no rabbanim in the times of Navi, and people definitely did not do the type of Judaism that we do nowadays.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
leomom
↓
|
Thu, Dec 27 2007, 10:18 pm
Um..... back to the OP's question about non-frum weddings...
I would recommend keeping your hands full and be ready to politely evade the handshakes, kisses, and hugs of the other guests as you meet, greet, and mingle!
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
↑
amother
|
Wed, Jan 02 2008, 12:23 am
|
thanks YY, as the OP I appreciate it. I certainly never intended for a PDA debate.
| |
|
| Back to top |
0
0
|
|
Imamother may earn commission when you use our links to make a purchase.
© 2024 Imamother.com - All rights reserved
|  |
 |
|
 |
|
|
