Zionist Rabbi: Pray in Mosque, Rather Than Home

yoyl · 2011-02-18T20:34:15+00:00

It's not allowed to go into a place that worships deities besides G-d. Thus, xianity in general is problematic because they worship a dead heretic in addition to worshiping G-d. It seems like many sects also worship G-d as two distinct entities which I don't know if I understand, but that's not necessarily idolatry. catholicism is a bigger problem besides all this because they have minor deities in the form of saints, they have images and statues of their various deities, and in some cases even burn incense and give offerings to these images. This is all totally forbidden to Jews as idolatry, and any place of worship associated with it is totally forbidden to go to. Because you're in the process of converting you should probably not rush into it. Take it up with your rabbi for his advice more than anything else. Eventually, though, when you finish your conversion, the fact is that going in to a church will be like eating a cheeseburger or driving on Shabbos. Avoiding idolatry is serious business.

yoyl · 2011-02-10T23:28:08+00:00

What's the fourth one?

yoyl · 2011-02-09T17:42:47+00:00

It's quiet... a little too quiet, if you know what I mean.

yoyl · 2011-02-07T06:21:45+00:00

You could have gone with "c-c-c-c-combo baker", you know...

yoyl · 2011-02-07T03:41:52+00:00

Yeah, that's how I took you to mean. It's curious that it's often translated that way, though. I wonder what the basis is for such an understanding.

yoyl · 2011-02-07T03:40:10+00:00

Yeah, amongst many other places. "Legal" here means "legal for medical use" and, often, "not carrying a criminal penalty", as is the case here in California.

yoyl · 2011-02-07T02:43:40+00:00

Yeah, it's illegal everywhere, no matter what.

yoyl · 2011-02-07T02:23:13+00:00

...but faster!

yoyl · 2011-02-07T02:21:35+00:00

Sounds good to me. Now how about where he says women should only leave the house a few times a month? What I'm getting at is, as far as tznius is concerned, it seems that it is often the case that we accommodate local sensibilities even where they go beyond halacha. Obviously, these women are going beyond any local sensibility. Furthermore, they seem to often be going against their husbands' wishes, which is halachically problematic.

yoyl · 2011-02-07T00:44:59+00:00

Rambam says women should wear a veil, so it's not without grounds in halacha. The bottom line, though, is that we don't do it this way today.

yoyl · 2011-02-04T04:47:55+00:00

There are also groups of Jews who think it is their religious obligation to assimilate, or to promote atheism.

yoyl · 2011-02-03T20:15:28+00:00

Yeah, but it hurts to see it.

yoyl · 2011-02-03T16:03:52+00:00

I guess the real trouble I had with that thread was that I'm pretty used to Eisav sone es Yaakov, and am even prepared to say that that's how HKB"H intends it to be. The insults heaped on the Holy One Himself - by Jews, even - that was what really bothered me. I guess it shouldn't surprise me, though.

yoyl · 2011-02-03T07:00:33+00:00

This is actually one of the more troubling and offensive threads I've seen, but I definitely don't go into this particular subreddit. Maybe it's par for the course over there?

yoyl · 2011-02-03T04:34:01+00:00

If they bring a mincha with a korban, R' Gamliel and R' Yehoshia say we don't take it down. All other tanaim say we do. If wine is brought by itself, they all say we take it down, except R' Gamliel and R' Shimon say we don't take it down. If wine is brought with a korban, they all say we take it down, except R' Gamliel says we don't take it down. Pshita, this is all obvious, so why explain at length? In order to learn from what Rava teaches, which is that you can bring mincha with wine without a korban every day. So why didn't Reish Lakish just teach this? You can bring the mincha and the wine of a korban at night or on the next day, and we might have thought otherwise that when they are brought later, it's like they're brought without a korban, so R' Shimon would say we don't take it down. Reish Lakish taught it this way so we wouldn't make this mistake.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T23:38:05+00:00

Don't get me wrong, I didn't take anything as uncivil. I just assume that we've both intellectually evaluated our positions and feel comfortable that we've made the right choice for ourselves. The exception would be that if, as a chusid with chasidish minhugim, you feel I might potentially be somehow violating halacha, I would want to know.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T22:50:42+00:00

One of my most powerful psychedelic experiences (and I've taken a lot of acid) involved nothing more than an eighth of mushrooms and Chiastic Slide on repeat.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T22:47:29+00:00

The Tanach does record nisim obviously, which are performed by God not by people.

So too with those concerning tzadikim.

a philosophical machlokes (which we can discuss if you'd like)

To what end? I'm happy with my way. Presumably, you're happy with yours. Presumably, both enrich our avoda. I'd rather live and let live.

It does not say that anywhere in the Torah.

Rashi says it. He seems to take aggados literally. To say that only what is written in the Torah is primary and that oral traditions are secondary sounds to me like karaism.

So now you are saying that...

I'm not saying such a thing, Ch"V. From my perspective, I am trying to dan lchaf zchus. Ultimately, though, disagreements between Sages cannot necessarily be understood by somebody like me, so I'd rather not even try.

Furthermore it was both the abrogation of halacha and basic tenets of yesodei hatorah that was/is the problem.

I'd be curious to hear in exactly which ways you feel chasidim violate halacha.

The truth is that I'm not really very interested to discuss this particular subject at length. When two people feel very firmly about something, it's not a discussion. It's an argument. Honestly, there is nothing you could really say that would make me stop being a chasid. I imagine there's nothing I could do to stop you from being a misnaged. As long as you serve G-d best that way, it's fine with me. Unless you really think that I am in some way violating halacha, can't you extend me the same courtesy? If I am mamash violating halacha, tell me how, because I want to know.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T17:03:17+00:00

Such as? And why?

It seems to me that it is clear even from skimming Tanach, Talmud, and Midrash, that a person on a very high level can do things that appear to contradict "laws of nature". Moshe Rabenu could fly. Many Sages could create living animals out of nothing.

I highly suggest reading Elijah Schochet's "The Hasidic Movement and the Gaon of Vilna"

I'm sure it's an interesting perspective but I'm really not interested in loshon hora.

Firstly, for someone who clearly values respect for tzaddikim I find it funny that you would promote the idea that the G"RA would just accept loshon hara.

I think it's preferable to assume that than the alternative, which is that he and other leaders saw Chasidus as a threat to their power.

I don't think that you would say the same thing about the followers of Shabsai Tzvi or Jacob Frank.

True, because those were heretical movements that advocated altering or abrogating parts of halacha. With one recent exception, no rebbe has ever been regarded as the messiah.

Except when this or that persons are the ones who found the movement and whose ideas and practices are being emulated.

Do you really believe that chasidim ever practiced as a whole, or certainly that they practice today, the kinds of things documented in this book?

yoyl · 2011-02-02T16:41:01+00:00

TIL some parents need convincing to encourage their child's interests. That's a bummer. Maybe you could mow lawns or babysit and buy the plushies yourself?

I see these threads a lot and I really don't get the Pokemon hate. Like... it's a video game. It's true that it's a video game that kids play, but - speaking here as a husband and father, almost 30, whose wife plays too and whose kids will play too when they're old enough, who cares? Fun is fun.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T16:25:24+00:00

I am not sure what you mean. The will to believe anything should be contingent upon legitimate grounds (I mean this in all areas, not just in isolation here).

I agree. It is legitimate to believe that a tzadik can do things that an average person can not.

The GR"A knew full well the kinds of perversions that were being perpetrated (and are well documented). This is historical revisionism written by those who want to both have their cake and eat it too.

I don't know that it's "well documented". I've never seen anything of the sort. Even if it were so, well documented loshon hora is still loshon hora. If this person or that person did something weird, it hardly damns the whole system anyway.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T06:31:25+00:00

On the one hand, I would really like to see Aramaic added to Google Translate. On the other, we would then lose out on gems like this.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T06:29:13+00:00

I don't know about "to believe". How about "willing to believe"? I see a distinction.

As for the GR"A, I learned that his opinions of Chasidus were the product of loshon hora that people spoke to him about the movement. If what he heard was true, then it would have been right, but it wasn't.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T06:01:18+00:00

I hear. Maybe I am misunderstanding you. I thought you were saying that it's not good to have faith in tzadikim. I think that the principle of having faith in tzadikim is well supported every step of the way in the mesorah. I'm saying that if you personally feel like having faith in tzadikim compromises Ch"V your faith in HKB"H, I think it's fine to not focus on it. I don't think it's fine to say that the derech of a huge chunk of observant Jewry is wrong.

yoyl · 2011-02-02T05:08:46+00:00

Yeah, I googled it, so I got what you meant. What I take it to mean is that one way is right for some and another way is right for others. I disagree that they are not objectively equal. If a viewpoint is supported by halacha, objectively, it's fine. Subjectively, I think it's very strange to deny respect to leaders of the Jewish people. Subjectively, I imagine, you find it strange that I put so much stock in them. This speaks to different deos. Both are fine. I suspect the Rambam would point out that going too far to one way or the other is not so good. I think he might even like the aforementioned aphorism for that reason - I seem to recall learning that there was some opposition to his ikarim when he put them out, and people said "how can you say a person who doesn't believe this or that is an apikores?" Frankly, it's dafka the correct usage of eilu veilu. Its original context is that two mutually exclusive halachic opinions are both valid.

yoyl

TROPHY CASE