what will Hamodia do if Hillary becomes President?

[TimT]

I'm sure that whoever runs the some of these newspapers have a ruv that he asks questions to.

Most (if not all) heimishe magazines/papers have

[David Smith]

-.5

Do you realize what a perversion of that quote from OU this is? Just curious.

[koplonko]

1. And why didn't the beis din ch write one?
2. Not everything is so simple. I didn't see a quote from halacha though fwiw.

Why do the vast majority of lubavitchers visit COL are you accusing them all of choosing to not be chabad and breaking halacha?

ETA:  I'm not sure why you worded it as those that actually do mivtzoim it sounds like you are talking down to someone, as if they never did mivtzoim... I personally never found it so "bad".

1.See photo of beis din of ch point #5
2. The discussion with rav tzinner was regarding even haezer siman 21
3. The latter (many people drink cholov akum and shave)
4. Reality. ..

[gozalim]

If you wouldn't go into Manhatten for of parnassa, you are welcome to avoid going there for mivtzoim.
For business all of a sudden ליכא דרכא אחרינא? We consider our brothers' spiritual welfare as important as your own personal financial welfare

[David Smith]

If you wouldn't go into Manhatten for of parnassa, you are welcome to avoid going there for mivtzoim.
For business all of a sudden ליכא דרכא אחרינא? We consider our brothers' spiritual welfare as important as your own personal financial welfare

There's a bit of a difference between going straight to you office and standing in middle of Times Square, from a practical tznius level.

[Aaaron]

Do you realize what a perversion of that quote from OU this is? Just curious.

Not at all. Enlighten me, please.

[David Smith]

Not at all. Enlighten me, please.

The cited gemarah is saying that for one to conduct himself below the religious level he is currently holding on, even if not required by halacha, would be a CH. You are twisting that to mean that for one to conduct themselves on too stringent a level, that the world considers not normal, would be a CH.

If you would've been around in R' Yochanan's times, you would've been writing on the Internet about the CH this fanatic is causing by being so unaware of his surroundings and cut off from the normal world that he can't walk ten feet without slipping into his alternate reality and without his ridiculous prayer shawl and black boxes. You would consider him to be the ultimate disgrace to Judaism. That's why you're not in charge of deciding for G-d what a CH is.

[Aaaron]

The cited gemarah is saying that for one to conduct himself below the religious level he is currently holding on, even if not required by halacha, would be a CH. You are twisting that to mean that for one to conduct themselves on too stringent a level, that the world considers not normal, would be a CH.

If you would've been around in R' Yochanan's times, you would've been writing on the Internet about the CH this fanatic is causing by being so unaware of his surroundings and cut off from the normal world that he can't walk ten feet without slipping into his alternate reality and without his ridiculous prayer shawl and black boxes. You would consider him to be the ultimate disgrace to Judaism. That's why you're not in charge of deciding for G-d what a CH is.

Huh? It has nothing to do with level of religious observance. The example provided is not paying your non-Jewish workers on time, which is deemed to be a CH because it's perceived to be beneath a Jew to do.

Same thing with removing all women from all public life in certain circles. Not sure how it's different.

[David Smith]

Huh? It has nothing to do with level of religious observance. The example provided is not paying your non-Jewish workers on time, which is deemed to be a CH because it's perceived to be beneath a Jew to do.

Same thing with removing all women from all public life in certain circles. Not sure how it's different.

I guess paying workers on time has nothing to do with Judaism, and G-d couldn't really care less, as long as there is no CH. There must be no commandment about paying workers on time. Thanks for the correction. Give me a minute to edit my outdated copy of the bible.

[Aaaron]

I guess paying workers on time has nothing to do with Judaism, and G-d couldn't really care less, as long as there is no CH. There must be no commandment about paying workers on time. Thanks for the correction. Give me a minute to edit my outdated copy of the bible.

Correct. The times for paying Jewish vs. Non-Jewish workers is different according to the S'dei Chemed (as opposed to the Rambam). Not sure why you're pretending it's so cut and dry.

There's a reason the case used is withholding a NON-JEWISH employee's wages. Even if not assur, it's still a CH.  If publishing pictures of females is not assur, it can still certainly be a CH.

My point was only to respond to Super Speed who intimated that CH is very narrow and doesn't apply here.

[David Smith]

If publishing pictures of females is not assur, it can still certainly be a CH.

Better you say the logical outcome of your cited gemara than I do.

[koplonko]

The cited gemarah is saying that for one to conduct himself below the religious level he is currently holding on, even if not required by halacha, would be a CH. You are twisting that to mean that for one to conduct themselves on too stringent a level, that the world considers not normal, would be a CH.

If you would've been around in R' Yochanan's times, you would've been writing on the Internet about the CH this fanatic is causing by being so unaware of his surroundings and cut off from the normal world that he can't walk ten feet without slipping into his alternate reality and without his ridiculous prayer shawl and black boxes. You would consider him to be the ultimate disgrace to Judaism. That's why you're not in charge of deciding for G-d what a CH is.

+1000
Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean hashem is uncomfortable

[Yammer]

To summarize....😉

1) Papers that do not put pictures of women...had there not have been the Clinton Photoshop incident, (CH) there seems to be nobody here having a problem ( free country, right?). They haven't been putting pictures of women  for over 50 years, therefore if there was one now doesn't mean that it's a terrible thing. They simply must learn how to adapt to new digital age where these things reach the mainstream press.

2) Chabad- if their Rebbe told them to do and took full responsibility ( which he did) it's not a question whether it's allowed or not. All the issues boil down to, do you question his integrity? ( you know what I mean...don't troll me for it...😱)

[Aaaron]

Better you say the logical outcome of your cited gemara than I do.

I don't recall if the Gemara specifies whether the butcher was Jewish or not, so I can't say until I go back over the sugya, but I still maintain that this can be a CH.

+1000
Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean hashem is uncomfortable

My comfort means nothing.  I'm not inherently uncomfortable with what they do.  I only have a problem since it's a CH, IMO.

And to touch on that point by DS, leading whatever life you choose is your business; level of stringency does not make anything a CH, until it reflects badly on Jews.  And of course I don't get to make a determination of what is or is not a CH, but it's not all pre-determined either.  As the OU said:

The reason for this mitzvah is gratitude to God. He created us and gave us everything. How horrible would we be to act in a fashion that makes Him look bad and causes people to say, “That’s how Jews act?” or “That’s how religious people act?”

[koplonko]

The reason for this mitzvah is gratitude to God. He created us and gave us everything. How horrible would we be to act in a fashion that makes Him look bad and causes people to say, “That’s how Jews act?” or “That’s how religious people act?”

Question: if torah /halacha mandates or even approves something, should we care that people say "“That’s how Jews act?” or “That’s how religious people act?”
You can start saying that about shaking woman's hands, taking a mincha break, not joining your co-workers for lunch. vedal .
Halacha is halacha.

[koplonko]

My comfort means nothing.  I'm not inherently uncomfortable with what they do.  I only have a problem since it's a CH, IMO.

A chilul hashem is based on what hashem considers a chilul. Hence :

+1000
Just because it makes you uncomfortable, doesn't mean hashem is uncomfortable

[Aaaron]

Question: if torah /halacha mandates or even approves something, should we care that people say "“That’s how Jews act?” or “That’s how religious people act?”
You can start saying that about shaking woman's hands, taking a mincha break, not joining your co-workers for lunch. vedal .
Halacha is halacha.

Yes, you should care, but obviously a clear assei/lo sasaei will override it.

However, when something is being implemented as a geder or out of a personal decision to be more stringent then it's given more weight.

[Brian93]

Question: if torah /halacha mandates or even approves something, should we care that people say "“That’s how Jews act?” or “That’s how religious people act?”
You can start saying that about shaking woman's hands, taking a mincha break, not joining your co-workers for lunch. vedal .
Halacha is halacha.

Even in הלכה there is the idea of דרכי שלום though

[Aaaron]

A chilul hashem is based on what hashem considers a chilul. Hence :

Right, and anything that makes people say "look at those Jews" Hashem considers a chillul.

[Centro]

Right, and anything that makes people say "look at those Jews" Hashem considers a chillul.

Wrong wrong and wrong!