Matzav.com is reporting on a p'sak (halachic decision) by R. Eliyashiv regarding making a mezuman by the seder. He says that normally three people who eat together are required to make a zimun. However, he says, there are two cases on the night of the seder when three people eating together do not make a zimun. I'm going to present the second one that Matzav.com reports first.
1. People who eat together on Pesach but are makpid (particular) not to eat food that is prepared by others on Pesach. Since they cannot share each other's food, they are not counted for a zimun.
OK, that sounds logical to me. They may be eating in the same location, but they're not really eating "together." The other case is as follows:
2. A group of people where some only eat hand matzah and some only eat machine matzah. "Even though this is only a chumra," reports Matzav and in reality, they *are* allowed to eat each other's matzah, they cannot join for a zimun.
The second ruling truly surprises me. Here you have people who, by choice, are not eating each other's food, and they are not able to join for a zimun.
How is this really any different than if my two friends and I go to a fast food place and they order a burger with tomatoes (I hate tomatoes!)? I, by choice, am not eating their food -- and perhaps they don't like my choice of food. Does that mean that we cannot join for a zimun?
The Wolf
(Please, no snark. Serious discussion only)
Monday, March 30, 2009
Just Too Funny To Pass Up...
Check out this post of Rafi's over at DovBear about chumros on Pesach. And make sure you read the comments!!
The Wolf
The Wolf
Saturday, March 28, 2009
Question For The Fundamentalists...
When I said that I didn't believe that the world was created in six 24-hour periods, you asked me about the prayers that we say on Rosh HaShannah.
"Don't you say 'Hayom Haras Olam' (today is the birthday of the world) in the davening?" you asked me. "What are you saying there if you don't believe the world was created on Rosh HaShannah? If you don't believe it, you must be lying in your davening?"
Then when I stated that I don't believe that the world was created in six 24-hour periods, you asked me about the upcoming Bircas HaChammah (the blessing on the sun) which is supposed to mark the return of the sun to the spot in the heavens where it was created 5769 years ago.
"Aren't you going to say Bircas HaChammah?" you asked me. "If you don't believe that HaShem hung the sun there 5769 years ago at this time, then what are you making a bracha for?"
What I would like to ask the fundamentalist:
"OK, so which time are you wrong? Are you wrong when you say Hayom Haras Olam on Rosh HaShannah, stating that the world was created in Tishrei, or are you wrong now when you say Bircas HaChammah where you, in essence, state that the sun (and, by extension the rest of the world) was created in Nissan?
The Wolf
"Don't you say 'Hayom Haras Olam' (today is the birthday of the world) in the davening?" you asked me. "What are you saying there if you don't believe the world was created on Rosh HaShannah? If you don't believe it, you must be lying in your davening?"
Then when I stated that I don't believe that the world was created in six 24-hour periods, you asked me about the upcoming Bircas HaChammah (the blessing on the sun) which is supposed to mark the return of the sun to the spot in the heavens where it was created 5769 years ago.
"Aren't you going to say Bircas HaChammah?" you asked me. "If you don't believe that HaShem hung the sun there 5769 years ago at this time, then what are you making a bracha for?"
What I would like to ask the fundamentalist:
"OK, so which time are you wrong? Are you wrong when you say Hayom Haras Olam on Rosh HaShannah, stating that the world was created in Tishrei, or are you wrong now when you say Bircas HaChammah where you, in essence, state that the sun (and, by extension the rest of the world) was created in Nissan?
The Wolf
Friday, March 27, 2009
Sunset Over The Hudson
Here's a shot that I took last week. I'd really like your opinion on it on what works and what doesn't.
Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 55mm
f/5.6, 1/500 second
Taken in Hudson River Park, close to Pier 40
As an aside, if you want to meet me, a half-decent way to do so during the spring/summer months is to hang around Hudson River Park by Pier 40, where this shot was taken between noon and 3pm. I'll usually spend one lunch period a week (the day will vary depending on my schedule) there shooting plants, animals, insects, people or the river. If you see a guy with a yarmulke walking around with a Canon camera taking bunches of pictures, it's probably me.
As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and encouraged.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
First Day of Spring
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Canon XSi, 18-55mm lens at 55mm
f/5.6, 1/500 second
Taken in Hudson River Park, close to Pier 40
As an aside, if you want to meet me, a half-decent way to do so during the spring/summer months is to hang around Hudson River Park by Pier 40, where this shot was taken between noon and 3pm. I'll usually spend one lunch period a week (the day will vary depending on my schedule) there shooting plants, animals, insects, people or the river. If you see a guy with a yarmulke walking around with a Canon camera taking bunches of pictures, it's probably me.
As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome and encouraged.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
First Day of Spring
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Are You Even Allowed To Question?
Back in my post where I severely disagreed with Rabbi Mizrachi's "proofs," an anonymous* commentator made the following comment:
Wolf,
I've been reading your post and gave it quite a bit of thought. My conclusion is that your arguments don't truly hold up and that challenging such a torah scholar (who has done an immense amount of good) is actually a chillul hashem (given that non-jews read your blog). A chillul hashem is actually the worst thing that a jew can do but i'm sure you knew that..
The commentator makes two statements here about me:
1. My arguments against Rabbi Mizrachi's "proofs" don't hold water.
2. My challenging his "proofs" is a Chillul Hashem, since non-Jews read my blog.
Implicit in his second statement is that one is not even allowed to question the "proofs" Rabbi Mizrachi (or anyone else, I guess) presents. After all, we all know that it is forbidden to make a Chillul HaShem** -- indeed, my anonymous commentator points out (correctly) that making a Chillul HaShem is one of the worst things*** a Jew can do. If pointing out flaws in the proofs is a Chillul HaShem, then it should be fairly simple to logically conclude that one is not allowed to question Rabbi Mizrachi's "proofs."
Of course, as I'm sure you've guessed, I don't agree with that position. I do not think that pointing out bad logic and flawed science is a Chillul HaShem. If someone were to say that Judaism is the "one true religion" because 2+2=5, then how is it a Chillul HaShem to point out that 2 plus 2 does not, in fact, equal five? Likewise, if someone tries to show that the Zohar is divine based on "scientific information" contained therein and the information is, in fact wrong****, then how is it a Chillul HaShem to point it out? On the contrary, I think that it's far closer to a Chillul HaShem to assert that Judaism is true because 2+2=5 when it is clearly demonstrable that it is not so.
We are described in Parshas V'EsChannan as an Am Chacham V'Navon... a wise and knowlegable nation. It makes us look extremely foolish to bring a proof that our religion is divine based on facts that any high-school student knows are false. On that basis, I feel that not only is one allowed to question a bad "proof," but one is *required* to point out its flaws.
The Wolf
* The commentator may or may not be "Champ."
** I'll ignore the fact that the commentator is wrong about the nature of Chillul HaShem in that it primarily applies to a desecration of God's name that is made in the eyes of other Jews, and only secondarily (if at all) in the eyes of non-Jews.
*** I don't know if it is the "worst" thing, but that's another argument for another day.
**** Such as Rabbi Mizrachi's claim that the Zohar states that the North Pole is always bathed in sunlight except for one hour in the day.
Wolf,
I've been reading your post and gave it quite a bit of thought. My conclusion is that your arguments don't truly hold up and that challenging such a torah scholar (who has done an immense amount of good) is actually a chillul hashem (given that non-jews read your blog). A chillul hashem is actually the worst thing that a jew can do but i'm sure you knew that..
The commentator makes two statements here about me:
1. My arguments against Rabbi Mizrachi's "proofs" don't hold water.
2. My challenging his "proofs" is a Chillul Hashem, since non-Jews read my blog.
Implicit in his second statement is that one is not even allowed to question the "proofs" Rabbi Mizrachi (or anyone else, I guess) presents. After all, we all know that it is forbidden to make a Chillul HaShem** -- indeed, my anonymous commentator points out (correctly) that making a Chillul HaShem is one of the worst things*** a Jew can do. If pointing out flaws in the proofs is a Chillul HaShem, then it should be fairly simple to logically conclude that one is not allowed to question Rabbi Mizrachi's "proofs."
Of course, as I'm sure you've guessed, I don't agree with that position. I do not think that pointing out bad logic and flawed science is a Chillul HaShem. If someone were to say that Judaism is the "one true religion" because 2+2=5, then how is it a Chillul HaShem to point out that 2 plus 2 does not, in fact, equal five? Likewise, if someone tries to show that the Zohar is divine based on "scientific information" contained therein and the information is, in fact wrong****, then how is it a Chillul HaShem to point it out? On the contrary, I think that it's far closer to a Chillul HaShem to assert that Judaism is true because 2+2=5 when it is clearly demonstrable that it is not so.
We are described in Parshas V'EsChannan as an Am Chacham V'Navon... a wise and knowlegable nation. It makes us look extremely foolish to bring a proof that our religion is divine based on facts that any high-school student knows are false. On that basis, I feel that not only is one allowed to question a bad "proof," but one is *required* to point out its flaws.
The Wolf
* The commentator may or may not be "Champ."
** I'll ignore the fact that the commentator is wrong about the nature of Chillul HaShem in that it primarily applies to a desecration of God's name that is made in the eyes of other Jews, and only secondarily (if at all) in the eyes of non-Jews.
*** I don't know if it is the "worst" thing, but that's another argument for another day.
**** Such as Rabbi Mizrachi's claim that the Zohar states that the North Pole is always bathed in sunlight except for one hour in the day.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Do You Really Require Proof?
Back in November, I posted about some Torah proofs that were in a lecture given by Rabbi Yossi Mizrachi. In my post, I presented the "proofs" offered by Rabbi Mizrachi and why I felt the "proofs" were flawed.
A commentator on the post, going by the moniker "Champ" posted some interesting questions and comments on my original post. I'm going to address one of his questions here, and then probably follow up with some of his other questions/comments later this week.
One of the questions that Champ asked of me is as follows:
Wolf,
I'd like to know why you "believe" in Judaism and not some other religion? Also, what proofs do you go by that convince you that the torah is divine? ...or do you just believe it is???
When it comes to religion and living a religious lifestyle for a purpose - believing is just not good enough...and for me, i need to KNOW...not just believe....
regards,
Champ
Later on, Champ follows up with another similar statement:
if i didn't get solid proof that Judiasm was true, i'd have an incredibly hard time living such a restrictive lifestyle - i can't live on what ppl think, theories, and maybes... i need solid proof.....you?
So, Champ, here's my response to you:
On the surface, Champ, I suppose it's a good question. Why do I believe? What proofs do I have that Judaism is the "one true religion?" How do I know that the Torah is divine?
As I've stated on this blog often enough, I have no proof -- or, at least nothing that I would consider an iron-clad proof. Heck, I don't even think that the existence of God Himself is scientifically or logically provable*. If it were provable, I don't think you'd have so many atheists today. If there were logical proof that Judaism is the "one true religion," I don't think that over 75% of the world would be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. I certainly could be wrong -- maybe there is a proof out there that God exists and that Judaism is the one true religion -- but so far I've been able to poke a hole in every argument I've heard.
In addition, Champ, I think you're being somewhat naive about the need for absolute proof. After all, what proof do you have that you're not going to get hit by a car the next time you cross the street (God forbid)? None. And yet, I'll venture that you're going to do so at some point in the near future. You'll probably sit under a tree someday even though it might get struck by lightning or fall over and you'll probably swim at some point in your life even though there is a risk of drowning. You're going to get into a car even though thousands of people die every year in car crashes in the United States. If you're a woman, you'll probably give birth someday, an activity which carries a risk of death even today (although thankfully at a much lower rate than in years past). You have no proof that any of these activities are safe and yet you engage in some (and possibly all) of them on a regular basis.
The answer is that, whether or you admit to it or not, you (and I) live life playing the odds. You know that 99.999999% of street crossings end with no one being hurt, so you figure it's safe. You know that the vast majority of swimmers leave the water in safety, so you jump in the pool without a second thought. If you truly lived your life by an "absolute proof" standard, Champ, you'd never get anything done. You'd sit in your house, paralyzed by fear, refusing to go anywhere or do anything.
The answer, Champ, in every activity you perform, whether you realize it or not, you assess the chances of success and then make a decision based on those chances. Can I cross the street even though there is a car coming two blocks away? You quickly make a reckoning and then go or don't go. Are the rapids too strong to swim in? Again, you make a quick "back of the envelope" calculation in your brain (should it be called a "back of the medula" calculation?) and then decide whether or not to go.
In other words, you don't really live your life on an absolute proof basis. Virtually no one outside of a sanitarium does.
The same applies to my belief in Judaism and God. I don't have any absolute proof, and, truth be told, I don't need any. Just by looking at the wonderfulness of nature, from the macroscopic to the microscopic, I am convinced that God exists. When I look at the universe and consider the possibilities that it either sprung into existence by itself or had help, I take "had help." Yes, it's only a gut feeling and yes, it falls far short of proof, but that's all I need to live my life. But I'm also honest about it. I know that it's not proof, and I state the same up front to anyone who asks. I don't require "solid proof" for my beliefs -- and, if you seriously consider what I said, neither do you.
The Wolf
A commentator on the post, going by the moniker "Champ" posted some interesting questions and comments on my original post. I'm going to address one of his questions here, and then probably follow up with some of his other questions/comments later this week.
One of the questions that Champ asked of me is as follows:
Wolf,
I'd like to know why you "believe" in Judaism and not some other religion? Also, what proofs do you go by that convince you that the torah is divine? ...or do you just believe it is???
When it comes to religion and living a religious lifestyle for a purpose - believing is just not good enough...and for me, i need to KNOW...not just believe....
regards,
Champ
Later on, Champ follows up with another similar statement:
if i didn't get solid proof that Judiasm was true, i'd have an incredibly hard time living such a restrictive lifestyle - i can't live on what ppl think, theories, and maybes... i need solid proof.....you?
So, Champ, here's my response to you:
On the surface, Champ, I suppose it's a good question. Why do I believe? What proofs do I have that Judaism is the "one true religion?" How do I know that the Torah is divine?
As I've stated on this blog often enough, I have no proof -- or, at least nothing that I would consider an iron-clad proof. Heck, I don't even think that the existence of God Himself is scientifically or logically provable*. If it were provable, I don't think you'd have so many atheists today. If there were logical proof that Judaism is the "one true religion," I don't think that over 75% of the world would be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, etc. I certainly could be wrong -- maybe there is a proof out there that God exists and that Judaism is the one true religion -- but so far I've been able to poke a hole in every argument I've heard.
In addition, Champ, I think you're being somewhat naive about the need for absolute proof. After all, what proof do you have that you're not going to get hit by a car the next time you cross the street (God forbid)? None. And yet, I'll venture that you're going to do so at some point in the near future. You'll probably sit under a tree someday even though it might get struck by lightning or fall over and you'll probably swim at some point in your life even though there is a risk of drowning. You're going to get into a car even though thousands of people die every year in car crashes in the United States. If you're a woman, you'll probably give birth someday, an activity which carries a risk of death even today (although thankfully at a much lower rate than in years past). You have no proof that any of these activities are safe and yet you engage in some (and possibly all) of them on a regular basis.
The answer is that, whether or you admit to it or not, you (and I) live life playing the odds. You know that 99.999999% of street crossings end with no one being hurt, so you figure it's safe. You know that the vast majority of swimmers leave the water in safety, so you jump in the pool without a second thought. If you truly lived your life by an "absolute proof" standard, Champ, you'd never get anything done. You'd sit in your house, paralyzed by fear, refusing to go anywhere or do anything.
The answer, Champ, in every activity you perform, whether you realize it or not, you assess the chances of success and then make a decision based on those chances. Can I cross the street even though there is a car coming two blocks away? You quickly make a reckoning and then go or don't go. Are the rapids too strong to swim in? Again, you make a quick "back of the envelope" calculation in your brain (should it be called a "back of the medula" calculation?) and then decide whether or not to go.
In other words, you don't really live your life on an absolute proof basis. Virtually no one outside of a sanitarium does.
The same applies to my belief in Judaism and God. I don't have any absolute proof, and, truth be told, I don't need any. Just by looking at the wonderfulness of nature, from the macroscopic to the microscopic, I am convinced that God exists. When I look at the universe and consider the possibilities that it either sprung into existence by itself or had help, I take "had help." Yes, it's only a gut feeling and yes, it falls far short of proof, but that's all I need to live my life. But I'm also honest about it. I know that it's not proof, and I state the same up front to anyone who asks. I don't require "solid proof" for my beliefs -- and, if you seriously consider what I said, neither do you.
The Wolf
Friday, March 20, 2009
First Day of Spring
Today, Friday, March 20, 2009, is the first day of spring. Enjoy!
Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/5.0, 1/320 second
Taken in Hudson River Park, close to Pier 40
As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Canon XSi, 100mm macro lens
f/5.0, 1/320 second
Taken in Hudson River Park, close to Pier 40
As always, comments, criticisms and critiques are welcome, encouraged and appreciated.
The Wolf
Previous Photos:
Duck Again!
Llama -- an Unorthodox Picture
Yellow Flower
Koi
Panorama: Empire State
Borei M'Orei HaAish
Orchid
Floral Macro: How Close Can You Get?
Shutter Speed & Light Trails on the Brooklyn Bridge
On The Wings of Gerber Daisies
Sometimes, an Out-of-Focus Shot Works Well Too
The Ghosts Of Grand Central
Third Night
Shooting From A Different Angle
Duck!
Gargantua
Sunflower Arrangement (discussion of lens apertures and depth of field)
Empire (basic discussion of lenses)
Hovering Bee
Sunflower Macro
Statue of Liberty
Trinity Church, September 11, 2008
Manhattan Tulips
Dragonfly
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Just What We Need -- Milk With Four Hechsherim...
Matzav is reporting that a new brand of milk and yogurt, named Machmirim, will be hitting the markets shortly. The dairy products from this brand (cholov yisrael, naturally) will have not one, not two but *four* hechsherim.
I've got to admit, to me, this sounds like a parody. But then again, who knows? The (frum) world is crazy enough that it just might be true.
Nonetheless, I think we have to ask ourselves -- of what extra value is it to the consumer to have four hechsherim on milk? I seem to recall, deep in the recesses of my memory a rule called "eid echad ne'eman b'issurim (a single witness is believed regarding [ordinary] prohibitions)"? In other words -- suppose I come home in the evening and my wife has a delicious pile of chicken cutlets waiting for me (hint hint Eeees!). How do I know that they are kosher? I didn't see her buy a package of kosher cutlets? I wasn't watching to make sure that she didn't throw milk in the pan while cooking them? How can I eat her delicious chicken cutlets?
The answer is the rule I quoted above. If she tells me that they are kosher, then she is to be believed. It's really that simple. If she tells me that she picked them up from a reliable butcher and followed the rules of kashrus in the food preperations, then that's all I need. I don't need to anything further to ensure that the food is kosher.
That being said, can anyone explain to me why milk needs four hechsherim? Even if you're going to argue that two are necessary (as many companies -- for reasons [aside from marketing] that baffle me -- have two hechsherim on products) then of what value is the third and the fourth?
Or is it all simply marketing? Is it simply a company deciding to position itself as a holier-than-thou dairy company (hence the name "Machmirim") and preying on the cluelessness of the general public regarding kashrus?
As a final point, the slogan of the new company is "Anachnu Machmirim b'nei Machmirim" (we are the more stringent, the sons of the more stringent). Perhaps the best commentary on this was said by a Matzav commentator who used the (ill-advised) name "Avi Kolko:"
A sign of the times.
Machmirim bnei machmirim has replaced
Ma’aminim bnei ma’aminim.
The Wolf
I've got to admit, to me, this sounds like a parody. But then again, who knows? The (frum) world is crazy enough that it just might be true.
Nonetheless, I think we have to ask ourselves -- of what extra value is it to the consumer to have four hechsherim on milk? I seem to recall, deep in the recesses of my memory a rule called "eid echad ne'eman b'issurim (a single witness is believed regarding [ordinary] prohibitions)"? In other words -- suppose I come home in the evening and my wife has a delicious pile of chicken cutlets waiting for me (hint hint Eeees!). How do I know that they are kosher? I didn't see her buy a package of kosher cutlets? I wasn't watching to make sure that she didn't throw milk in the pan while cooking them? How can I eat her delicious chicken cutlets?
The answer is the rule I quoted above. If she tells me that they are kosher, then she is to be believed. It's really that simple. If she tells me that she picked them up from a reliable butcher and followed the rules of kashrus in the food preperations, then that's all I need. I don't need to anything further to ensure that the food is kosher.
That being said, can anyone explain to me why milk needs four hechsherim? Even if you're going to argue that two are necessary (as many companies -- for reasons [aside from marketing] that baffle me -- have two hechsherim on products) then of what value is the third and the fourth?
Or is it all simply marketing? Is it simply a company deciding to position itself as a holier-than-thou dairy company (hence the name "Machmirim") and preying on the cluelessness of the general public regarding kashrus?
As a final point, the slogan of the new company is "Anachnu Machmirim b'nei Machmirim" (we are the more stringent, the sons of the more stringent). Perhaps the best commentary on this was said by a Matzav commentator who used the (ill-advised) name "Avi Kolko:"
A sign of the times.
Machmirim bnei machmirim has replaced
Ma’aminim bnei ma’aminim.
The Wolf
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Time Has Come To Speak Up
Rabbi Horowitz has written a column about the recent conviction of Elhanan Buzaglo. Buzaglo, who was working one of the "modesty patrols" in Israel, was paid $2,000 to beat up a 31-year old divorcee who, it was felt by some members of the community, did not live up to their ideals of tznius. After agreeing to a plea bargain, Buzaglo will be in jail for four years.
In his column, Rabbi Horowitz suggests that we have reached the point where we can no longer be silent. If we are going to address the problem of abuse and violence in our community, we have to first confront it, stand up in public and denounce it, and demand of our leaders (both religious and secular) that it has to end.
As he writes:
In his column, Rabbi Horowitz suggests that we have reached the point where we can no longer be silent. If we are going to address the problem of abuse and violence in our community, we have to first confront it, stand up in public and denounce it, and demand of our leaders (both religious and secular) that it has to end.
As he writes:
The time has come for us to speak out, telling our children and students in unequivocal terms, “These people are criminals and sinners – and do not represent us!” Our publications should begin reporting these incidents in the news sections of our papers, condemn them in our editorials, and call upon the police to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.
We should stop using politically correct terms like “misguided youths” to describe cowards who beat women for sitting in the “wrong” sections of buses and physically assault peaceful citizens who do not dress according to their standards – observant or otherwise. “Misguided youth” implies that they engaged in a prank, like a water fight, or that they went overboard in pursuit on a noble goal. There is nothing noble about these acts – or the terrorist mentality that glorifies them.
and
We must clearly and unequivocally condemn the violence each time it happens in the strongest language. Halachic (Judaic law) rulings ought to be issued, that those who commit violence against innocent people are rodfim (individuals who present a real and present danger to others) and one is obligated by our Torah to defend the victim and report the criminals to the police.
I am posting this column on my website (www.rabbihorowitz.com ) and I respectfully call upon charedim worldwide to post a comment at the bottom of the column with your name and email address and the city where you live supporting the sentiments expressed here.
I *strongly* urge you to go to Rabbi Horowitz's site and sign - preferably with your real name and city, but if not, at least go and lend your support in the thread. As Rabbi Horowitz concluded:
If enough Torah-observant individuals stand up, distance ourselves from these criminals, and demand action from our elected officials, we might affect changes which will restore honor to G-d’s name and end these acts of terror that plague us.
Amen, V'Ken Y'hi Ratzon...
The Wolf
Monday, March 16, 2009
Why Are You Even Bothering With Med School Then?
From Chabadtalk:
I'm engaged in the study of medicine and in modern medical textbooks there is very little (if any) restraint in what pictures they post of people and body parts. Ranging from very explicit diagrams, to real-life pictures of private organs, both living and otherwise, to pictures of cadavers etc...
I know the Rebbe opposed using cadavers for medical study but beyond that I'm not sure
My feeling is these pictures are not appropriate, but firstly it's very hard to avoid when studying the reproductive system etc.
OK, let's get one thing straight... I'm not a doctor (Psychotoddler, are you out there?), but I would be *highly* surprised to find that there exists any medical school in the United States that does not require a basic anatomy course which involves studying all parts of the human anatomy -- male and female. Furthermore, I would think that anyone who is intelligent enough to qualify for medical school would have known this going in.
If this is really a problem for you, then you shouldn't be studying medicine.
(Can you imagine what the state of medicine would be like if doctors could only study anatomy from pictures of *clothed* subjects? Can you imagine a gynecologist whose first look at a woman's vagina comes from his/her first patient?)
The Wolf
I'm engaged in the study of medicine and in modern medical textbooks there is very little (if any) restraint in what pictures they post of people and body parts. Ranging from very explicit diagrams, to real-life pictures of private organs, both living and otherwise, to pictures of cadavers etc...
I know the Rebbe opposed using cadavers for medical study but beyond that I'm not sure
My feeling is these pictures are not appropriate, but firstly it's very hard to avoid when studying the reproductive system etc.
OK, let's get one thing straight... I'm not a doctor (Psychotoddler, are you out there?), but I would be *highly* surprised to find that there exists any medical school in the United States that does not require a basic anatomy course which involves studying all parts of the human anatomy -- male and female. Furthermore, I would think that anyone who is intelligent enough to qualify for medical school would have known this going in.
If this is really a problem for you, then you shouldn't be studying medicine.
(Can you imagine what the state of medicine would be like if doctors could only study anatomy from pictures of *clothed* subjects? Can you imagine a gynecologist whose first look at a woman's vagina comes from his/her first patient?)
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)