onionsoupmix ([info]onionsoupmix) wrote,
@ 2007-04-10 21:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
My Shul is Being Taken Over by the Lubavitcher Talibanistim
Okay, now back to the serious stuff. 

Apparently Rabbi E. gave over a sicha this past shabbos between mincha and maariv. It was something about chesed and gevurah and the need to push away with the left hand, but draw closer with the right and so on. At some point there was a footnote which read that although our initial approach is usually to bring people closer with the middah of chesed, when it comes to the yetzer horah or women or children, we must use the gevurah approach first. 

 At that point, Rabbi E.  carefully checked if any women were present ( there weren't)  and then gave a whole big drasha on... the halacha of stomping on your bride's foot under the chuppah right after the glass is broken. According to Rabbi E., this is an extremely important halacha (yes, he used that term) because right away the man needs to show his bride who is the boss, who is the mashpia and who will be the mekabel in this relationship. Apparently, there is a machlokes about whether this is allowed when the bride is niddah and so some people have stopped following this rule altogether, but this is a terrible mistake and Rabbi E. is hoping to correct it. He is, in fact, teaching his sons the correct way to behave under the chuppah and he hopes that his audience will take this message to heart and teach their own boys the proper way to start off their marriages as well. 

And, in case you are wondering, no, nobody stood up and told Rabbi E. to shut his pie hole and go back to Afganistan where he may find more like minded people as himself. I found out about it, almost by chance, when I made some joke about Rabbi E. to my husband over Yom Tov and he shared what he learned this past shabbos. 

Happy Post-Pesach cleaning, y'all.



(Post a new comment)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 03:22 am UTC (link)
Hmm...
So, quoting a rare edition that can be viewed in Oxford is dubious, while quoting a hearsay on a Rabbi's words (which you couldn't have proven were said even if you were present at the first place) is conclusive enough to be offered to an innocuous reader?

Is there a readily available loophole in our critical approach somewhere?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 03:42 am UTC (link)
I knew you were going to write something like that. My husband was a first hand witness, while you, by your own admission, did not peruse anything in Oxford.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 03:43 am UTC (link)
Okay, but if you want me to ask this Rabbi E. to give you a call and tell you the importance of this inyan over the phone, I could probably swing that :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 03:49 am UTC (link)
My husband was a first hand witness, while you, by your own admission, did not peruse anything in Oxford
A good acquaintance of mine, prof. Jensen, was also a first hand witness. Will you agree now I offered you a bona fide proof?

Okay, but if you want me to ask this Rabbi E. to give you a call and tell you the importance of this inyan over the phone, I could probably swing that
Please do.
If you don't mind, pls ask him to bring meqorot as well.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 04:00 am UTC (link)
See, it depends on what your post is about. If I am writing about my shul and what this dude said, then my husband's first hand account is sufficient to show that he did tell me what this rabbi said. If you were writing a post about Professor Jensen who told you of what he supposedly found, your account of your conversation with this professor might be enough to prove that he did say to you whatever it was he said to you. Nothing else. If you are writing a post about historical kashrus standards for matzos, however, that level of "proof" is very inadequate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 04:02 am UTC (link)
If you don't mind, pls ask him to bring meqorot as well.

His mekoros are probably found in that very same rare manuscript from Oxford, take a look next time you visit:D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 12:11 pm UTC (link)
I still do not see how you justify a hearsay being a more serious support of a thesis than a quote from a reputable source that can be actually empirically verified.
BTW, would it make any difference for you if I told you I read the actual hard copy of the manuscript myself?

Does it mean you've gone back on your offer of having Rabbi E. call me?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 01:06 pm UTC (link)
A hearsay is a support of the thesis that you heard someone say something. If you had told me that you read the actual copy yourself, it would be my judgement of whether or not you were serious. If I thought you were serious, it would interest me to the extent that I might look to other sources to verify your claim. IF, being the operative word :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 02:13 pm UTC (link)
So, we agree to brush aside the question of whether the manuscript itself (or Rabbi E, for that matter) is to be trusted.
Now, what qualifies your husband's testimony better than that of prof. J?
BTW, if you insist, I could arrange for Dr Jensen to give you a call...

PS I'm not out to prove I was being serious about matzah, but rather that your line of argument was (is?) invalid.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 04:48 pm UTC (link)
well, let's clarify the goal of the post. My goal was NOT to show that this tradition is prevalent among Orthodox people. The goal of this post was to show that in my shul, chabad people with the title Rabbi hold misogynistic views and say ridiculous things that make other Orthodox rabbis look bad. If you want to reframe your post to suggest that professors that you know, especially those with the last name Jensen, say ridiculous things that make other professors ( especially with the last name Jensen) look bad, I am happy to accept your testimony of your conversation with Professor Jensen as adequate proof of that fact. You could even state that you did not speak to Professor Jensen yourself, but merely heard his idea from, say, your wife.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 10:23 pm UTC (link)
If you want to reframe your post to suggest that professors that you know, especially those with the last name Jensen, say ridiculous things that make other professors ( especially with the last name Jensen) look bad
I have no such intention whatsoever.
Indeed, my initial post did not imply that all Jewish people make matzah with blood - but rather that a rabbinical authority of the old did write such a psak. How is prof. J less reliable on the subject than my wife in your example?

PS Once again: your thesis regarding the blood in matzah may well be right, but your reasoning and "rebuttal" is faulty.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 10:43 pm UTC (link)
Indeed, my initial post did not imply that all Jewish people make matzah with blood - but rather that a rabbinical authority of the old did write such a psak.

Again, a lie :)
You clearly wrote that those who follow Jewish tradition make matza with blood. Here's what you wrote :

все мы - те, кто принимает на себя более строгие правила, чем обязательный минимум - стараемся достать мацу "Шмуру" (букв. "устрожнённую") - т.е. такую, в которую добавлена капля(!) крови нееврейского ребёнка.
Не поймите меня превратно и не спешите честить наши обряды: всё это происходит под наблюдением не только раввинов, но и врача, сугубо с согласия ребёнка и его родителей (за средние века не поручусь, но в наше время однозначно так).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]e_kvetcher
2007-04-12 01:09 am UTC (link)
>>You clearly wrote that those who follow Jewish tradition make matza with blood...

Not to be pedantic, but what he wrote is that it is a chumra, which not all would follow. "те, кто принимает на себя более строгие правила, чем обязательный минимум." But that's neither here nor there...

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Anonymous)
2007-04-11 05:17 am UTC (link)
Could you find out what sicha it is?

-MF

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]batya_d
2007-04-11 07:00 am UTC (link)
Gosh, y'all are so serious!

This post made me go "whaaaa?"

My husband and I are quite makpid not to stomp on each other's feet during niddah. It is a very important halacha.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Batya, LOL. But these people are serious.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]batya_d
2007-04-12 09:46 pm UTC (link)
I know. sigh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 01:10 pm UTC (link)
Yes, I was wondering that myself. I will try to call Rabbi E. today or tomorrow.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 03:44 pm UTC (link)
Could you find out what sicha it is?

Okay, I spoke to his wife who asked his son. The son said it was cheleik 17, the first pesach sicha. Let me know if that is accurate.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]llennhoff
2007-04-11 10:55 pm UTC (link)
Sichos in English talks about leaping and bounding in the context of Pesach, but says nothing about husbands, wives, or feet.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 10:57 pm UTC (link)
Your link is to chelek 12, not 17.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zev_ari
2007-04-11 02:12 pm UTC (link)
To be honest, it sounds like the rabbi was joking. I highly doubt that anyone in their right mind really thinks that purposely stepping on your bride's foot in public to show her who's the boss while still under the chuppah is the right way to start a marriage.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 02:19 pm UTC (link)
No, I assure you that joking is not part of this person's social repetoire.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-04-11 04:49 pm UTC (link)
If he was serious, this idiot needs to speak to someone with semicha and a brain. Such people do exist.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 07:38 pm UTC (link)
Just like the real Taliban people, this guy considers anyone who does not adhere to his version of Judaism to be watering down our mesorah to fit social norms.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]ymarkov
2007-04-11 10:58 pm UTC (link)
it sounds like the rabbi was joking.
I did hear about this "minhag", but know nobody who takes it seriously, B"H. It certainly wasn't a part of my "bridegroom training," which focused on the Kitzur Shulhan Arukh.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 11:00 pm UTC (link)
I know, I also thought it was a joke type minhag, but this guy was not kidding and no one in shul laughed in response.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]zachkessin
2007-04-11 06:43 pm UTC (link)
I can say that if anyone tried this one one of my (step) daughters it would be a very short marriage, like not even 24 hours.

Let me just say that when it comes to things like this I am not amused.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 07:31 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, I was not amused either. What bothers me is also that he "checked" if there were any women. Obviously there is a reason why women are not taught some so-called "halachos"- they are misogynistic. It would be my guess that rabbi Friedman from Minnesota probably skips these particular halachos when teaching BTs.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]batya_d
2007-04-12 09:48 pm UTC (link)
"It would be my guess that rabbi Friedman from Minnesota probably skips these particular halachos when teaching BTs"

LOL, for sure, else they'd never have managed to reel in those of us with brains...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


(Anonymous)
2007-04-18 11:07 pm UTC (link)
Yeah, because they actually teach this to FFB's in schools (roll eyes). I love the 'deceptively reeling in the less intelligent' stereotype.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]llennhoff
2007-04-11 08:23 pm UTC (link)
I hate to introduce logic into this, but how can you reconcile concealing this halacha from your wife with her learning to be submissive when you do it? Is physical intimidation without explanation to be a standard trope in our marriages?

ObOldJoke: "That's one!"

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-11 08:29 pm UTC (link)
Well, we want the women to be submissive, but this will only work after the husbands have asserted themselves adequately. If there are any women who have not experienced this relationship modality and they are in shul, listening, this explanation of sicha footnote will not influence them appropriately. I imagine that's what he was thinking. I don't know. Nuts don't tend to have cohesive logic in the first place.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)


[info]elcour
2007-04-11 10:25 pm UTC (link)
I like the "footnote" term!

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bringing_peace
2007-04-12 12:45 am UTC (link)
because right away the man needs to show his bride who is the boss

I'd say, who is the klotz....

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]bringing_peace
2007-04-12 01:54 am UTC (link)
and if the white shoe gets dirty, good-bye, Shalom Bais

rofl

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]bringing_peace
2007-04-12 01:57 am UTC (link)
You may also ask your Rav why does the Kallah stand on the hosson's right side in the light of his latest drasha -
don't we put the most important objects on our right?
How does this age-old HALACHA tie in with a relatively-new-withought-reliable-sources-foot-noted thing ppl do?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-04-12 04:46 am UTC (link)
He might say that the kallah stands on the right to show that it is very important in halacha that the chosson step on her foot :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]hannahsarah
2007-04-12 07:54 am UTC (link)
A friend of mine stomped on her husband's foot under the chuppah, "accidentally" ;-)

She now has 4 beautiful, observant children and 15 grandchildren. Maybe the wife should stomp first!

(Reply to this)

Here's the source
(Anonymous)
2007-04-13 02:27 am UTC (link)
See the last paragraph

http://www.islamonline.net/iol-english/dowalia/society-7-2-2000/society2.asp

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Here's the source
(Anonymous)
2007-04-13 02:29 am UTC (link)
Sorry that was me
RJ

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Here's the source
[info]bringing_peace
2007-04-13 03:42 am UTC (link)
wonder what came first - muslim custom or the Jewish one........
(I am serious and am not poking fun at anybocy)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: Here's the source
(Anonymous)
2007-04-15 01:26 pm UTC (link)
So if in my shul, nobody (and I mean NOBODY) follows this "halakha" (in fact NOBODY probably ever heard about it), does that mean that we:
a) do not follow the Jewish halakha (i.e. Kitzur Shulkhan Arukh)? or
b) do not follow Lubavitch (big deal :-( ) or
c) do not follow the Islamic Shari'a (which clearly put us in peril with Al Qaeda - and they are serious about blowing up anybody who does not adhere with that stuff) or
d) we just do not follow some Yemenite (Muslim) min'hag (which is not that serious offence)

I will ask my Yemenite Jewish friends whether they follow that particular stuff, but BTW, even in the Yemenite Muslim world it is considered to be a fun contest, not an halakha

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Crazy!
(Anonymous)
2007-04-18 07:21 pm UTC (link)
That guy sounds absolutely meshuga! And we end up with such people on shlichus how? any man with a brain knows that he should listen to everything his wife tells him if he ever wants to be happy, especialy since they know far better what will make him happy than he does. But seriously, this is just stupid. especialy under the chupa things should be loving kind gentle and happy between the couple, and preferably for the rest of their lives. HNC http://yonirants.blogspot.com

(Reply to this)

Why didn't I try that out?
(Anonymous)
2007-04-25 05:42 pm UTC (link)
Maybe I would have been a lot less henpecked!

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-05-06 11:19 pm UTC (link)
about 8 years into my marriage my husband stepped on my foot albiet accidental he bursts out "I'll show you whose boss" ... needless to say ... my foot just happened to kick him out of the door - permanently ... look who is stepping on whose foot now ... just me;)

(Reply to this)


(Anonymous)
2007-06-28 05:06 pm UTC (link)
i am imagining the rabbi's wife being a little mameleh.
I hope that he adhered to this strict halacha on his own wedding day.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]onionsoupmix
2007-06-29 12:54 am UTC (link)
In fact, she is a little mameleh. Shock of shocks.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

!-Âàæíî. Âëàäåëüöàì ñàéòîâ è ôîðóìîâ.
(Anonymous)
2007-07-20 10:16 am UTC (link)
BaIIIa påêëàìà íà ôîðóìàõ.
1000 postov=5WMZ
forum.promo@gmail.com



(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…