My Shooting Star
Okay, I know the narrative is rather familiar, but when you think of it, I’ve been out on so many dates that, statistically, I can’t avoid meeting the very same material every now and then.
This was a few years ago. I think two, maybe three years.
I went to visit a friend of mine who just got married, she made me stay for supper so her husband could have the chance to torture me with trying to convince me to go out with a guy from his yeshiva, though I already told them that I’m taking a break from shidduchim, that I think I need a bit of breathing space and that there’s no chance of me dating anyone in the near future.
His wife, spreading all those revolting “I’ve-been-married-for-two-days-and-the-world-loves-me-to-bits” smiles all over the kitchen, went to get the wedding album and pulled out this guy’s picture.
Ahem.
Okay, this guy was, seriously, state of the art. Perfect. The hell with breathing space, I say. It can wait.
A designer once told me that beautiful things come in beautiful packages. Fascinating outlook. I didn’t even bother to ask about him, rock worlds and do the little research thingy, it was like I’ve regressed to my early elementary school years, and my eyes were gleaming with the hope of things to come. (Heh, I’m making an “Oh-you-used-to-be-so-naive-and-idiot” face while writing this. I’m still an idiot though, can’t really say I’m above it.)
We set a date and agreed that he’ll come and pick me up from where I live.
I live with tons of girls, might I add.
Now, does anyone remember the scene from Notting Hill, where they leave his friend’s house and hear all the communal mad screams of shock and excitement from inside the house? It was just like that. He came to pick me up and there were girls EVERYWHERE and when I finally left and closed the door behind me, the only sound both of us could hear was those girls screaming like groupies in a rock concert. Yes. Girls can basically ruin your life. Or make you go deaf.
I was so embarrassed. Trying to do some damage-control, I used the same line from the movie to get myself out of it, “They always do that when I leave the house”. He smiled.
I smiled.
We sat down to have coffee at some hotel lobby, ordered our drinks and started chatting casually.
He wasn’t talkative, was quite apathetic actually, he had no opinions, was very quiet, sat there with a silly expression on his face, looked very disoriented and indifferent even to his disorientation. But that’s okay. He was still handsome so it took me quite a while to lose my patience with him. Um, 5 minutes actually, until he started picking his nose.
I ignored that and continued talking, hoping to salvage something out of this date.
I just got back from a long vacation out of the country, and I was telling him how on my night flight I had my face attached to the window and how I saw at least five or six shooting stars and how wonderful and magical it was, while he sat and looked at me with this handsome, expressionless face and a finger up his flawless, straight nose.
A beautifully manicured finger, fair play to him.
He still had that dumb look on his face, only now it got worse. This guy was practically radiating question marks left right and centre.
I couldn’t see what was wrong, but then he just went ahead and said, Wait, I dont get it, A shooting… – star? Shooting? Star? Shoot?
(doh)
He didn’t know what a shooting star was. Never seen one. Never heard of the expression. How romantic.
It’s alright, I suppose. It’s only the MOST COMMON PIECE OF KNOWLEDGE KNOWN TO ANY BLOODY SOUL IN THE GALAXY.
I mean, you would think this guy was brought up by wolves or something.
There I launched onto a long and tiring astronomic explanation, not that I really know how it works, but I remember the basics from some book I once read. I properly felt like a rocket scientist next to this guy. Not a usual feeling, I am usually the explainee, to be honest, not the explainer.
I’m not sure he got all that I was saying, as he just sat there and shrugged stupidly while picking his nose and fixing his hair at the mirror wall behind me.
He was gorgeous, but I think that was when I had to face the agonising fact that we wouldn’t be together forever.
Actually, we wouldn’t be together at all. Ever.
He called a couple of times, said practically nothing, and was as indifferent as a newt when I said I can’t date him.
May 2nd, 2003 12:44
It would be nice if shallow religious women who one would think would want to judge a man on more substance than something as shallow as looks (like character maybe?)could somehow learn to do that without first admitting how shallow they are by going on and on about how “perfect” a guy is just because Hashem chose to make him handsome.
May 2nd, 2003 14:15
I’m very shallow. Nothing new there.
May 2nd, 2003 14:20
oh please!!!!!!!!!!!! this how She writes!! she always does that…. being more cynical about herself and her fantasies than about teh other person. admiting your “shallowness” and laughing about it is why we like this site
May 2nd, 2003 14:31
No, She is not shallow!!!
đ
May 2nd, 2003 14:33
Oooh ooh but I am! I am! Honest!
May 2nd, 2003 14:43
Try having a great 3-hour phone conversation with a guy and then as soon as he sees you, he runs in the other direction – talk about shallow!
May 2nd, 2003 15:52
Nose picking? Oh dear … I was once on the phone with a guy who told me a story involving his bowel movements. He did not understand why I didn’t want to go out again.
May 2nd, 2003 16:26
dbcf – are we to assume you’re never attracted to someone because of how they look? if so, kol hakavod – you’ve beaten out dovid hamelech in virtues.
She, sounds like a winner. i’ve always been curious about that whole picking one’s nose in public bit. when did it become socially acceptable to do that? did i miss the announcement?
although (nothing against you stunning guys out there) i find that the large majority of *gorgeous* guys have nothing else going for them. cause they don’t need to. sad, isn’t it? it’s gotten to the point where i’ll meet a v good-looking guy and shun him based on his looks. deep tought of the day – weeping brings tears to my eyes (thanks eddie). : ) shabbat shalom!
May 2nd, 2003 20:52
Trying to talk to someone while he picks his nose is for sure the most awkward position possible. What’re you supposed to do look away while they do it and pretend you didn’t see it?
Dani, dbcf didn’t say that people aren’t judged based on their looks, he said it would be nice if people would “want to” judge them on character. For example, a proper person would judge a person on character yet feel bad if it didn’t work out bc that person is just so darn ugly. Whereas she was just upset that his personality was just so bad that it would never work out.(No offense) It’s a question of priorities.
May 2nd, 2003 22:38
sorry, dbcf seemed kinda rude for my tastes…
May 2nd, 2003 22:41
I wonder, do frum guys watch sports?
Because usually men sit on their couch watching a game, drinking, expecting to be served while they stink from not taking a shower in the previous week, and naturally, picking their nose from time to time.
Maybe picking his nose was this guy’s honesty, stating, “this is me, I don’t want to fool you by being polite and letting you discover my bad habits only after the glass is broken.”
No, I don’t really think so.
By the way, if frum guys do watch sports, maybe you’re better off with the glass unbroken anyway.
no no, I don’t really think so.
May 2nd, 2003 23:37
Rude? I guess I could see where your coming from, but I don’t think dcbf was trying to be.
May 2nd, 2003 23:47
And I guess it’s hard to tell since there’s no tone of voice or facial expressions when posting messages.
May 3rd, 2003 01:03
beb, i think it comes down to “can’t live with ’em…but can’t live without ’em!”
May 3rd, 2003 11:03
Funny you should post this, I was thinking how beautiful some people are until they open their mouths. For instance David Beckham. By all reports hes very good looking (whether I agree is another issue) and most girls would give an arm to date him (provided theyre not jewish and even some of the jewish ones) but I recently saw and interview with him and not only does he APPEAR to be dumb as dust but that ACCENT! He has a whiny girlish voice with a horrendous accent… so its true you shouldnt judge a book by its cover đ ..in the same way some people are truly beautiful only when they open their mouths some people are only beautiful until they open their mouths and start speaking.
May 3rd, 2003 22:55
Picking the nose is a very ancient Jewish tradition and symbolizes the bottle of sex. Reference â the brilliant Monty Pythonâs Life of Brian, Scene #2.
And Dani, shame on you! Do u suggest David Hamelech, fall for the look of Bat-Sheva?!
How can that be?
May 4th, 2003 02:24
snarky darky, i don’t know. maybe it’s just me being judgemental re: a man wanting to marry a woman he saw bathing. yeh, that’s it. my bad. : )
May 4th, 2003 02:31
Snark… you bring back old memories…. (haven’t seen that movie in long)
Just brilliant.
May 4th, 2003 02:45
Dani, read the old book again. He didn’t want to marry her after ha was watching her bathing he only wanted to… ehm (little kiddies go to sleep). The marriage part came only after she got pregnant and her husband got mad…
But of course, âkol haomer David chata â eino ela toeâeâ, So what can I say. I guess I just read the story in a wrong way.
May 4th, 2003 02:47
Hey She, this is my favorite part of the movie.
May 4th, 2003 05:12
We share the same brain, dear.
May 4th, 2003 05:36
She, You should check into writing the column ‘IYH BY YOU’ in the Jewish Press…. seems everyone who writes it gets engaged and needs to give it up… You’re a writer. Want to get married. Why not?
May 4th, 2003 05:46
They’ll fire me on the second day for slacking, I promise you.
May 4th, 2003 06:27
Saying that most good looking guys don’t have a good personality is just as bad as saying good looking guys are “perfect”… there are good looking guys with great personalities, good lookinig guys with bad personalities, ugly guys with good and ugly guys with bad… one had NOTHING to do with the other!
May 4th, 2003 08:02
And then there are effeminite (?) guys, who are more like gals, with and without personality.
May 4th, 2003 08:27
Hi Dani & Snark,
You guys really needs to reread Tanach.
Dovid Hamelech saw Bat Sheva, and wanted her.
He found out she Married, and had her husband sent to the front lines of the war, with the intention he would get killed.
Bat Sheva’s Husband got killed and Dovid Hamelech took her as a wife.
Snark your comment that she got pregnant to Dovid Hamelech goes in contrast to his other actions, like locking away his concubines after his son AvShalom cohabited with them. It was forbidden for any man to even touch them. Thus it would have been the same for Bat Sheva.
Seperately, Beb Most frum guys that show a keen intrest in watching sports before marriage, will want to keep that Minhag. Oh and going to a live game is a Hiddur Mitzvah.
May 4th, 2003 08:56
The effeminate guys are usually english đ
May 4th, 2003 09:33
Hey Asif, I saw something recently in the Aussie press about it. Even put Ian Thorpe into that category.
I was going to compare David Beckhamm to Elton John, but David Beckhamm at least has kids.
Oh and don’t forget 20% of people in Sydney are Hetrosexually challenged, So I guess Australia isn’t really immune đ
Maybe you should listen to Kevin Bloody Wilson’s statement on Poofters
Yes I agree with you, The effeminate guys, usually talk with an english accent.
I have noticed even the Israel male youth are going that way. There was a fashion thing about two years ago for guys to wear girls headbands.
May 4th, 2003 09:52
Ahm,
I don’t know what “Hiddur Mitzvah” is…
Anyone kindly explain?
May 4th, 2003 10:02
D boy,
Reading my version of the bible, which I believe to be the Jewish canonical version, I must disagree with you. Reading Shemuel B, chapter 11, there is no other way but to understand that David enjoyed B-S company while Uriah was fighting at the front. B-S got pregnant and called the king hysterically to announce that her husband will suspect since he was away so how can it be that she is pregnant. Only than, in order to solve this problem, David summoned Uriah back urgently, trying to convince him go sleeping with B-S so he could appear as the father, Uriah refused (probably realized what is going on) and only then David sent him to die at the front.
I truly have no idea about the version of your story. Why donât you just go read it again? If u manage to read a different story than mine please tell me the publishing house of your bible and I would be very glad to adopt it since the events described in those chapters really bother me.
May 4th, 2003 10:09
As for the âlegalâ matters, obviously chazal were bothered by it just like you are and thatâs why in the Gemoro, chazal invented the âfictionâ of âget yotsei hamilchamaâ (meaning that every soldier is getting divorced before he is out to the front), another answer in the midrash says that Uriah was indeed married to B-S but never had his way with her so she is not forbidden to David. Another midrash suggests that Uriah was indeed Chiti and not a Jew and therefore his marriage to B-S are not legal⌠all those excuses only shows that the events were the way I described it, otherwise there is nothing to explainâŚ
May 4th, 2003 10:52
Beb, Hidur Mitzvah means Strictness in the performance of a Mitzvah. An example of a Hidur Mitzvah is eating matzah in Bags on Pesach, to avoid any contact with the crumbs from the Matzah with liquid which could be consider Chametz.
Snark, I am searching for an online Jewish version now.
May 4th, 2003 11:14
Snark, you can Whack me in the head you’re correct.
http://www.hareidi.org/bible/2_Samuel11.htm#1
It clearly says he was a Chitite. and David had his way with her. It even mentions she went to Mikvah before hand.
But it does not make sense to say that Uriah was not properly married to her, because for him to be at war would go against the commandment in Devarim chapter 20 vs 7 “20:7 ‘Is there any man among you who has betrothed a woman and not married her? Let him go home, so that he not die in war and have another man marry her.’ ”
http://bible.ort.org/books/pentd2.asp?ACTION=displaypage&BOOK=5&CHAPTER=20#P1
This is the Aryeh Kaplan Z”L version
May 4th, 2003 11:17
Snark, you should also read the last line of that chapter in Shmuel B chapter 11 vs 27
“And when the mourning was past, David sent and took her home to his house, and she became his wife, and bore him a son.
But the thing that David had done displeased HaShem.”
May 4th, 2003 17:06
http://www.cyberus.ca/~dbclinton/batsheva
Here… check out the link above. I found it on Torah.org.
May 4th, 2003 18:11
woah. i was not trying to tell over the story precisely there, it was a joking reference. can we not fight over this? the meparshim do that enough. let’s leave it with the idea that we are not to criticize dovid for what he did, and move on. sorry for making a joke, sorry for opening up re: my horrible habit of assuming good looking ppl are boring. i did not mean to offend, simply to share.
May 4th, 2003 21:51
So, was Dovid technically Modern Orthodox, or was he mamish Yeshivish, the difference being if he learned in Brisk, we might find him a heter according to the Gra-R’Chayim Volozhin Paradox: Gra had ruach hakodesh because R’Chayim Volozhin said so; and since R’Chayim was the greatest student of the Gra, according to the Gra, it must be as he said, because the Gra knew everything, because R’Chayim said so.
May 4th, 2003 22:04
If I want to bite yeshiva bochurim – they are cute, some of ’em – will I evolve one day into Rabbi Akiva?
May 5th, 2003 07:00
…?
May 5th, 2003 07:44
Don’t mind me reader, I wrote that in a state of temporary insanity. A dybuk entered me, and comming out from my finger tips forced me to type that vileness.
May 5th, 2003 13:40
I swear I left a post here yesterday. It must have been the little bit-worms.
I was a bit of sarcastic with the midrash and the gmara. All those answers are really written but they are far from soothing my mind. Even if I will not find them ridiculous, they do not say anything about the moral charges which bother me much more than the halachic charges of the technical details of kidushin etcâŚ
May 5th, 2003 17:04
Snark, Let’s see you see pretty girl, and take an intrest in her. You find out she is engaged, but you are infatuated.
From the way I read the story Bat Sheva is just as much to Blame for the incident, she goes willingly, no resistance, and even goes to Mikvah.
So what is your problem?
May 5th, 2003 18:15
Whether B-S is to blame is a totally different question. The king saw her after sheâs been to the mikveh (or while in the mikveh) âvâhi mitkadeshet metumataâ if I remember it correctly. âMyâ problem is the king. When I see a pretty married girl I do not sleep with her. I certainly do not plan the death of her husband (chazal find it bothering too so they say that Uriah refused the kings order and therefore should die. The order was â âgo sleep with your wife to cover meâ. ).
I may sleep with this girl I desire if was a powerful king. As far as I see it, the moral of the story is âpower corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, even if you are David of Psalmsâ.
May 5th, 2003 18:58
Snark,
You seem to forget that David knew through prophecy that he was SUPPOSED TO HAVE A CHILD WITH HER, and that child would be the next king of Israel. Also there is a Gemara I believe in Avoda Zarah that says that Hashem gave David such a strong temptation so that he would sin just to show the power of teshuva to all future generations (even after the sin he was still beloved by Hashem). The same concept is accepted by commentaries reguarding Yehuda and Tamar. In order to teach Yehuda a lesson, he had to sleep with Tamar, therefor Hashem made it too hard to resist.
May 5th, 2003 19:06
“dybuk” and “temporary insanity” always seem to go hand in hand these days… I suppose I’ll just take your advice and ignore it…
May 5th, 2003 21:17
with all the tension on this board, it looks like there will soon be some broken noses on unbrokenglass
May 5th, 2003 21:24
Dear Rabbi Reader,
sometimes, to ignore is to be capable of critical thinking; it’s cool when we make a concerted effort to master that advanced skill: I do it all the time.
I can’t imagine what would happen to Rav Shach, z”l, if he did something on the lines of Dovid? How many copies of Even Ezri would there be in our Yeshivot? Yeshivos? Yeshiboth? Jesyvaudz?
đ
May 5th, 2003 22:23
Lets have some order. Reader and Abcdef….yr, Iâm the Rabbi of the site. I was appointed by myself after passing my very strict examinations.
As for the prophecy or âRuach hakodeshâ, I believe u mean the Gmara âreuya B-S leâDavid me7 yemei bereshit, ela sheâachala pagaâ (=B-S was planned for David from the 7 days of creation, but David had her before time).
1. even if it is true, Iâm not sure David itself knew it.
2. Couldnât he get some sense of timing along with his prophecy?
3. I donât take prophecy as an excuse for immoral things.
The other Gemara you mentioned âDavid hekim ulah shel teshuvaâ. We must agree that David has sinned, otherwise what is the relevance of âteshuvaâ?
The concept of Yehuda and Tamar is totally different due to the basic fact that Yehuda couldnât recognize Tamar. It was also before âmatan toraâ and spare me the story of the ancestors that kept the whole Tora. The protagonist (which I admire) of this story is clearly Tamar and not Yehuda while the main character in our discussion is David.
May 5th, 2003 22:27
Was that you or the dybuk talking? Seriously, I tried to keep my mouth shut about the David HaMelech debate especially after dani’s last post asking us to just move on, but when it got started up again I just couldn’t help myself. Now that I’ve said all I care to on the topic, I second the notion that we should just leave it and move on. (But then what will we do with all our newfound spare time?! Oooh television…)
May 5th, 2003 22:36
Uh-oh.
Does that mean I need to write a new story now to supply a new fight material?
May 5th, 2003 23:04
Yes. The dybuk. We’re the drugs?
May 5th, 2003 23:30
snark,
I’m talking about Seinhedrin 107b.
1)Yes, David did in fact know it
2)No, he can’t get a sense of time on his prophecy, he saw her bathing (mikveh style) from his rooftop (not that he was checkin out the naked married chicks going to the mikveh, he was just walking on his palace rooftop) and as when he saw her he also saw that she was meant for him
3)Noone is saying that David didn’t sin, he spent many years doing teshuva as he said “my sin is always before me” Tehillim 51:5
What I am saying however is to fulfil the commandment of “do not judge your fellow man until you have stood in his place” the Tanya in chapter 30 states that it is not a physical place but the environment that causes him to sin. Only after realizing that David a)was given a nearly invincible yetzer harah in this case, and b)had a rationalization that Bat Shevah was really supposed to be his, can we asses the situation. It’s not so simple “David follows his lust just like every other sinner out there”
The concept of Yehuda and Tamar is not different; as you said Yehuda didn’t recognize her, as you didn’t say bc her face was covered. Strange that he would lust so strongly for someone without seeing her face, in fact lust to the point where he would give up his lifelong value system just to sleep with her… well its not so strange if you accept what I have previously said: Hashem made his yetzer harah too strong to resist bc He wanted him to sleep with her. The same concept is used with David and Bat Shevah.
Sorry everyone I know I said I’d stop, but I just can’t help it. I only saw snark’s message after I posted mine. You can see the time is just minutes apart… oh well it was worth a try but the debate continues reguardless…
May 6th, 2003 00:57
Well, reader, yours is surely the approach of the Sages. The question is: does it merit consideration? I mean, I can also say many fancy things about Dovid, and Shelomo for that matter. I can say that Shlomo has 1000 wives because he wanted to be mekarev them to Chasidus and Kedushah and Taharah; that he only wanted to be a Tzaddik. Rebbe Shlomoh Carlbach z”l too was reaching out, to pretty twenty year-old girls, with warm embraces. But that doesn’t mean that Shlomo didn’t enjoy life. Is he called the wisest MAN for naught? The greatest wisdom is how to negotiate your needs with Torah values. Do what’ good, and looks like right. Rebbi said … what did Rebbi say? … what’s the path of the straight? Do what looks glorious infront of men, and what feels glorious to you. Well, sort of.
May 6th, 2003 02:17
The laws of Dan l’kav z’chut closely coincide with the laws of common logic. We don’t need to ask why Billam nailed his donkey bc, as we all know, Billam was a rashah. However if you have studied the laws of Dan l’kav z’chut you’d know that when a tzaddik, David Ha’melech for example, sins you are obligated to see if it as bad as it seems, even if there is no doubt in anyone’s mind whether or not he did the deed. Shlomo Ha’melech too has a rationalization for his actions: Being the smartest man ever, he knew the reason for the restriction on wives, he also believed that, being the smartest man ever, he could protect himself from the dangers of having so many. Furthermore, I never said “I can say…” Everything I’ve said has a source/halachic reason for saying it. Not to mention logic; if you are going to believe ANYTHING about David Ha’melech, you would need to believe all of it bc it all comes from the same source. The same book that tells of David’s sins also tells of his merits. It would be stupid and halachicly forbidden to say that someone so great could do something so wrong without there being exceptional circumstances.
I’m sorry if any of this came off as rude, I really don’t mean it that way. And, of course, I don’t hold anything against anyone for thinking differently than myself.
May 6th, 2003 03:29
It wasn’t me it was the dybuk. I don’t believe a word he said. I know the sages were right really.
May 6th, 2003 04:24
I knew you wouldn’t be so ignorant. I say we kill the dybuk by chopping off those fingers! Kinda like in that movie Idle Hands… then the fingers’ll run around killing people! Or just starting online arguements…
May 6th, 2003 08:39
âIt would be stupid and halachicly forbidden to say that someone so great could do something so wrong without there being exceptional circumstancesâ â Halachicly forbidden?????
I see u leave no room for criticism because we all know that the bad guy (Billam) is the bad guy and we all know that the good guy (the Rebbe, or David) is the good guy and therefore we act hypocritically and say â âoh, we can criticize the bad guy (we marked him as evil) but oh-no, we cannot judge the good guy. Too bad this rule is extracted toward all Rabbis or the ppl âon our sideâ but it is always very easy for us to judge the ppl that we donât like⌠(the other Rabbi, the other community, the non-religious or the non Jewish).
Then after we use this excuse of the âgreatnessâ in order to âlehachshir et hasheretzâ we also claim that this is the HalochoâŚ.
Gimme a break!
(Btw, I have a great “yezer horo” myself. I think I’m going to use it now… nothing can stop me. it’s Gods will).
May 6th, 2003 09:07
a)Who said anything about the Rebbe?
b)Go buy yourself a shulchan aruch and study the laws of dan l’kav z’chut. You’ll find that that is in fact how it works. If someone is a rasha you do assume he did something wrong without good reason (unless of course you have good reason to believe otherwise), if someone is a tzaddik you assume that he didn’t do anything wrong. If you know he did something wrong you MUSTlook towards the circumstances.
As far as you rationalizing something for yourself, be my guest. Just remember, ultimately, I don’t judge you, you don’t judge yourself. G-d is the true judge jury and executioner, and He knows exactly how strong your yetzer harah is.
May 6th, 2003 09:18
Actually I was learning in a chasiddus shiur about what is free-choice vs Preceated destiny from Hashem. The concept is that some things are predestined like who one is going to marry, to meet, to be friends with etc, But the choice to do evil or good in Hashem’s eyes is what is ours.
Like a person decides to continue watching football rather than going to mincha or maariv.
May 6th, 2003 09:36
dboy that is the general rule but like so many it has its exceptions. For example Pharoh’s heart was hardened bc he a)lost his chance to do teshuva or b)so that Hashem could show us the great miracles.
By the way snark, how else should dan l’kav z’chut work? If you catch your friend with his hand in your wallet the conclusion you’d come up with would definatly be different then if you saw a known criminal’s hand in your wallet.
May 6th, 2003 14:42
Maybe it would be different to you reader, but to me they would both be criminals on the same level.
May 6th, 2003 14:52
Wow! y’ know, you never know what you are going to find when you log on here. This set of voices has more biblical sources then my rosh yeshivas last talk. Any way, don’t forget to sing Happy Birthday tonight to our beloved Zionist State.
/ys
May 6th, 2003 15:19
The problem with dan lekaf zechut is that you’re basically throwing away our mind because of this rule of thumb. Just because someone did something good, or even many things good, doesn’t mean he’s an angel. Just because I said couple of things that are right doesn’t mean everything I’m going to say now on is going to be right! The basic principle of Torah is that it’s Wisdom, if your Torah is about throwing away your mind where is this Wisdom that Torah is supposed to be?
May 6th, 2003 18:49
Jerolemo,
No one is saying that you should throw away your brain- just to use it. Saying something right or wrong is a little more black and white, but take this case for example: there are two students in high school, one always does his work on time and has built his reputation as such with all of his teachers and fellow students. The other, however, is a classic slacker. He misses assignments and hands them in late on a regular basis. One day they both miss turning in an assignment and ask if they can have an extension. The teacher would assume that the hard worker had a good excuse, whereas he would only give it to the slacker if he had been convinced that the slacker was sincerely trying to change his slackiness.
dboy,
that sounds like a pretty callous statement. I’m not talking about someone whom you just met and think is cool to hang out with, I’m talking about a friend that you’ve known and trusted for years. The first thing that would go through my mind is that he wasn’t going to take anything (whereas the criminal obviously would), if I knew that he did then, being that I’ve known and trusted him so long, I’d ask him if there were some explanation. Maybe he was going to pay me back (still wrong but not as wrong, as I’ve said you don’t make unreasonable explanations to say he did nothing wrong, just not as bad), maybe he paid for my movie ticket and never got paid back so he thought I wouldn’t mind if he just took it and told me later. The list could go on and on. Years of trust doesn’t just dwindle away because someone does one thing that LOOKS bad, if it does, you probobally never really trusted the guy to begin with. (Pretty sad if its your best friend we’re talking about.)
May 6th, 2003 19:53
Reader, you’re fighting a losing battle. Ein hamikra yotze eleh mepshuto.
May 6th, 2003 20:42
I wouldn’t bother to fight if it would win without me… but thats besides the point.
What point exactly was I wrong about? You see in business terminology we would call that a ‘red herring’ Rather than state facts, or opinions with facts to back them up, to prove me wrong or support your own opinion, you choose to attack me with PERIPHERAL statements like that. Everything I have stated, I have established as fact as if we were in an introductory philosophy class. That is why no everyone stopped debating those points, including you. You resort to the tactic used by the real losing yet still stubborn side. The “I’m sorry your wrong” tactic. I have already established that you were wrong about it not being halacha and I have establishe that it is logical as well. I have established details to back myself up, such as David knowing the profecy at the time, such as that of Yehuda and Tamar’s story. It is a fact that no commentator wonders why Billam screwed his donkey and many ask why David and Yehuda sinned. As far as the simplest explanation: I stress this once again- No one is saying that David didn’t do anything wrong, but is it really reasonable to say that his actions were the same as that of any other adulterous man’s? is it reasonable to say that if your best friend is looking through your wallet, he’s trying to steal something? Don’t bother answering those questions bc the fact that you didn’t answer them before shows that the true answer, the answer you believe, is consistent with what I have said, just as all the facts are consistent with what I am saying. Indeed, the red herring is categorized as a fallacy for a reason.
May 6th, 2003 21:19
Rabbi reader,
Do names such as Rav Saadiah, Rav Shmuel b Chofni, Rambam, and Ralbag mean nothing? Or does authority start and end with Tanya? The Baal Hatanya was an intelligent person, but Harkavy wasn’t a moron either, neither was Mahritz Chiyos. Many of the Gaonic authorities sanctioned rational intellectual interpretation in relation to Tanach, Talmud, Jewish philosophy. Why must we take every statement of the Talmud dogmatically, literally, and or Cabbalistically. The Talmud was neither written by the prohets, nor by the students of the prophets, rather by scholars who lived around 900 years after the era of prophecy ended. During these years the oral tradition was just that, an oral tradition. Do you expect me to take every word of the Talmud literaly and dogmatically without first subjecting it to critical judgement? And to get a wider view of Talmudic Aggadah please consult The Encyclopedia Judaica “Aggadah”.
May 6th, 2003 22:31
Jerolemo,
Thank you for giving me a chance to clear this up. In no way am I suggesting that the Tanya is the ultimate source of halacha. The Baal Hatanya has his own sources and interpretations that you may or may not agree upon. I only used the Tanya in the earlier stages of the debate to make more clear a point defined by many rishonim and stated in the shulchan aruch; dan l’kav z’chut is a clearly stipulated halacha. This “rule of thumb” is a little more complicated than you might be thinking. I honestly think that if you seriously and open-mindedly investigate it, you’ll find that it makes plenty of sense. It doesn’t suggest that one should assume that a known criminal wasn’t trying to steal when it looks as though he is. Also, I’m not suggesting anything about the Talmud other than believing that which it clearly states. (That David did have the prophecy.) I think you’d be hard strung to find any authority from any period that would suggest that the Talmud would be blatantly mistaken with the facts. Just as the Amoraim can’t argue with the Tanaim, we can’t argue with the Amoraim. Everything they say they say either bc they learned it out (then it will say where and how it was learned out), or bc they were told by their rabbi who was told by his rabbi, who was told… until it gets down to the person who knew through prophecy or with his own two eyes. If you think that they just made so many unclear mistakes then why don’t we eat milk and meat? Why do we wear Tefillin and why not literally between the eyes? If we don’t use the Talmud we wouldn’t know if it was cooking a baby goat in it’s mother’s fat. We would have no idea what Tefillin is. If you can find a differrent way to interpret the Talmud without saying that they’re mistaken, then that is good and encouraged analytical thinking, but if you say that they just made things up or didn’t know what they were talking about, then you are effectively taking our religion and chucking it out the window.
Keep in mind that all of this is digressing off of the main point. I suppose that if you don’t allow me to use ANY sources in the talmud or shulchan aruch, then I am stuck with only the arguement of basic common sense (which either way I have established.) Being that there seems to be a general consensus by nearly everyone here that the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch are in fact reliable sources, I’d say that this debate is just about wrapped up.
May 6th, 2003 23:31
I didn’t tell you to chuck our Religion out of the window. If that’s the way clear thinking makes you feel, you can’t say that I’m purposefully & perniciously intending you to have that feeling: that’s your personal feeling, between you & your conscience & Hashem.
Halacha, is no single book; it isn’t shulchan oruch, neither the Rambam, nor the gemara, neither is it a unified system, but a very vague general value-concept of how one WALKS in the ways of Hashem: which includes such rules of thumb as following the majority, community, your teachers, written sources, and sometimes even your hunches. When you say something is a halacha are you sure there are no 2,3 or 1000 ways about it?
Are you sure it’s impossible to find among one of those millions of ways, rules of thumbs, etc, or in some their combinations, one in which Dovid would appear in a less flattering light than the one you’re suggesting?
For instance dan lkaf zechut doesn’t have a shiur. How do you know to what exact extant one must judge a righteous king favorably? And I don’t know how correct it is to jumble together good midot and eitzot tovot together with ritual halacha. How about anger? Is anger absolutely asur? To what extant? What is the source? Each person is the final arbitrator in deciding how to apply the halachic principles to him/her self. The torah stipulated that the Levites and Cohanim be Rabbis, but that rule was done away with a loooong time ago, since the days of 2nd Temple. So there is no prophet, no single judge, no Levites and Cohanim. What do we have? Books and our own sechel. Mine suggests that since in the days of prophecy it was always too easy to misinterpret one’s prophecy or to make a mistake between a false prophecy and a true one, and even most prophets “didn’t understand what they were prophecying”, Dovid probably had some feeling of inspiration or a state of mind which he misinterpreted as an OK flag to diddle with B-S. But not that he was so superhumanly righteous as to defy our comprehension. No. Dovid too, used to go the rest-room sometimes – even though he was a prophet.
Now I understand that it might be difficult to curb ones urge when one is a monarch. But I don’t think that Dovid was so any more righteous than a good ultra-orthodox or even modern orthodox jew of today. That’s not to denigrate Dovid but to raise the opinion of world jewery, which has been multiplying restrictions and rituals and observances and keeping up to them since ancient times. The body of nomistic Law grows with each passing generation.
So, figurem if Dovid managed to make a big sin in the ancient of days when there were relatively wide-ranging liberites and relatively few restrictions, imagine how righteous he would be in todays ultra-Orthodox environment. In fact, I think Dovid wouldn’t be religious today at all. But inthose days he was a righteous person even a prophet. In those days almost anybody who was anybody was a prophet. If you had a flare for eloquence and you were humble, you were called a prophet: not neccesarily a true prophet, but a prophet nevertheless.
May 7th, 2003 00:33
First of all, again with the fallacies. Do you think that trying to make everyone here believe that free thought makes me feel a certain way will magically make your opinion more valid? Perhaps you should re-read what I wrote. I used SPECIFIC EXAMPLES to establish that if you do not accept the Talmudic scholars to be competent, you are in effect taking our religion as we know it and “chucking it out the window”
Second of all, while halacha is no single book, I challenge you to find a single source that disagrees with my sources on the interpretation of dan l’kav z’chut. When you can do that, please get back to me about halacha.
Third of all, “Dovid would appear in a less flattering light,” it would do you good to read from some of the websites posted earlier. The Tanach clearly states Hashem saying that David was a good servant who kept all his commandments (I Kings, 11; 37 – 38). This being after this incident. For anyone to say that David was such a bad guy would be to use one part of the Tanach and ignore the other. How exactly do you answer that? (as I have asked so many times)
And furthermore, “What is the source?” I’m surprised to hear you ask such a question after stating something so bold such as “For instance dan lkaf zechut doesn’t have a shiur.” Really!? well why don’t you take your own advice (and mine) and find a source. As far as my sources, I stated them ALL previously and challenged you to find a reliable source that disagrees.
“Each person is the final arbitrator in deciding how to apply the halachic principles to him/her self.” If you really believe that then why do you see no problem in condemning David? I do agree that we are all free to define our own limits in Judaism, but as I told snark ultimately I don’t judge you, you don’t judge yourself, G-d judges you. And if He agrees that you made the right calls then your all in the clear. But a more safe method would be to take R Akiva’s advice given in the end of Pesachim “hang yourself from a tall tree” interpreted to mean that if you do what a competent scholar tells you to do you can blame it on him if you were wrong.
As I have stated/established, unless you want to chuck our religion out the window, you must accept the fact that David did have a prophecy, a real prophecy, there’s no way around that. Also, your stating a lot of assumptions about “those days” without any sources. From what I’ve learned, I don’t see any resemblence to some of the things your saying in my minds eye. Please, I’d like to know where your coming from, but I just don’t see it.
May 7th, 2003 03:43
I have a good idea of what you’re talking about,
I’d probably agree with you on account of Dovid and Baat Sheba. But not on you dogmatic insistance to take Aggadot as absolute authority in understanding things in general and this one in specific.
SOURCES:
“No halacha can be derived from aggadot” Yerushalmi Peah (2:6, 17a)
“Is aggadic interpretation a matter of belief? No, but make interpretaion and receive due reward therefore” (Yerushalmi Nazir 7:2 according to the reading quoted in Middle Ages)
“In the aggadah everyone may interpret as he thinks fit, ie ‘possibly’ ‘maybe one can say’ and not a fixed thing” (Rav Hai Gaon, Ozar HaGeonim Hagigah (1931) 59-60)
“Each one explained the verse according to his fancy and according to what came into his mind” (
Shmuel haNagid, Mevo L’Talmud)
“Aggadic interpretations are not the main part of the Torah itself… nor are the traditional, and they are not even to be taken as explanations of the law… being mere tentative suggestions
(Rav Avraham ben HaRambam, essay on Derashot Chazal)
Derashos “are comparable to metaphors of poems”
(Rambammoreh Nevuchim 3:43; see also Pirush HaMishnayot Sanhedrin 10)
“If they contradict reason, we are not obliged to accept them” (Rav Shmuel ben Hofni Gaon; Ozar HaGeonim on Hagiga 2-5; cf. 54; [B.M. Levin ed. (1931)] )
All culled from Encyclopedia Judaica vol 2 “Aggadah” p 354-355
May 7th, 2003 04:56
I’m glad you agree. I don’t know where you came up with the idea: “dogmatic insistance to take Aggadot as absolute authority” When did I ever do that? What I was doing though is just the opposite. Using the halacha to stipulate guidelines for interpreting aggada. While aggada is not the main point of the Torah, that doesn’t give us license to interpret it however we want to. In some cases, it wouldn’t make a difference how we interpreted it. In this case (this one and only one in debate,) there is a halachic problem (as I have already established)with interpreting it your way. Not to mention lack of sheer logic (as I have also established) and, of course, the contradiction to the Tanach, the same one that you would quote to say that he sinned in the first place. The quotes you’ve provided in no way refute what I have said. If I’ve somehow missed the point, I apolagize. What you could do to help me understand would be to specify a little more. Either tell me which source is supposed to disprove which of my statements, or match your sources with your specific statements that are supposed to disprove me. I’m not trying to play stupid, I seriously don’t know what your trying to prove with those quotes. It seemed that only when my “losing battle” seemed to be doin a little better did the arguement become over things I never said.
May 7th, 2003 06:39
K, i’m ready for a new topic.
May 7th, 2003 14:34
Happy Birthday to you, Happy birthday to you happy birthday to you my beloved land of israel, happy birthday ot you! (…and many many many more).
Did anyone do anything fun for yom haatmaut? I had an exam đ ..no fun for me.
May 7th, 2003 19:03
Actually my mom’s Hebrew birthday is on Yom Haatzmaut. She’s 50! Born on Israel’s 5th anniversary. Her English birthday however is April 20th, Hitler’s birthday. Kind of freaky, huh? Happy 55th and many more!
By the way this Dovid Hamelech discussion is quite fascinating. Let me just point this out – only in the Torah can you find such objective honesty about our past history. What other people can argue about a long dead king’s indescretions with such passion? In any other religion this kind of thing would never have been mentioned.
May 7th, 2003 19:28
I’m ready for a subject change too, really I am. I like shimra’s outlook and think that we should just leave it at that. So is this over yet?
May 7th, 2003 19:45
I have not yet begun to be gone.
May 7th, 2003 20:05
I consent that Dovid was a Tzadik but not that he never sinned. How about that?
May 7th, 2003 20:19
I must have said A MILLION TIMES: NO ONE IS SAYING HE NEVER SINNED.
May 7th, 2003 20:22
Now that we have found something we both agree upon, can we begin the begoning process?
May 7th, 2003 20:32
Play nice, kids.
May 7th, 2003 20:38
But you wrote “While aggada is not the main point of the Torah, that doesn’t give us license to interpret it however we want to.” Meaning that when the aggada says that Dovid didn’t really sin (he just made a small booboo), and it does say that, we have no right to say he did sinned big time. I’m saying Dovid sinned Big Time, but then made a teshuvah. Not just a boo boo. What are you saying? You’re saying I can’t say that because I have to be dan lekaf zechut. And I’m saying I don’t havet o dan lekaf zechut because Hashem Himslef said that Dovid sinned big time. And as far as aggadah, I take it with a grain of salt, like any aggadah that tries too hard to make national heroes look good.
May 7th, 2003 20:44
She, I can’t play nicely because the redemption of the world is at stake here. You know, I assume, that I’m the gilgul of Dovid HaMelekh. And it’s my mission to reveal and confess my full guilt, so that Moshiach can come. I’m not saying I’m the Moshiach, although I did dream last night that I gave my neighbor a ride on my donkey. There!
May 7th, 2003 20:57
…back to Life of Brian then.
Though I still think that The Holy Grail is better.
May 7th, 2003 21:06
LOL.
What movie was that, is that the one about jesus? Like was there a line where one guy exclaims “jesus!” and the guy goes “what?”
May 7th, 2003 22:02
Lets initiate a new fight. I think Brian rule!!! I like the Holly Grail (though I’ve already got one) but Brian is much much much much better.
Happy B-D Shimra’s mom. Many happy returns of the day.
May 7th, 2003 22:43
Jerolemo,
Yes, in a nutshell, that is what I am saying. I have spent waaay more time than this is worth providing facts, examples, and halachic sources leading to the firm conclusion of both the logical and halachic necessity of giving David the benefit of the doubt. From your responses, it doesn’t appear that you have researched dan l’kav z’chut or checked out the sites posted above. You continually reinforce statements that have nothing to do with what I am saying. Hashem never said the words “big time” In fact, some mepharshim draw the conclusion that David didn’t even sin, it was just a moral issue bc the Tanach says it was “evil in the eyes of Hashem” Throughout his life, David does makes many minor mistakes which seem to upset Hashem much more, such as counting the Jews. Towards the end of his life David wgets punished for cutting Saul’s clothes years earlier. David has a track record for getting into a lot of trouble for almost nothing. Now your proof that he screwed up “big time” is that Hashem was upset? I understand what your saying, but you happen to be wrong. You want to use the simplest explanation, but the simplest explanation severely complicates things to the point that it’s not even simple. I think the problem is that I’m giving too mand questions and proofs for you to reasonably respond to so let’s just leave off with one: If David did commit adultery with Bat Sheva, then how could he do teshuva while being married to Bat Sheva(, being that the adulteress is forever forbidden to both her husband and the adulterer)? And we know that he did teshuva based on what I’ve said before (I Kings, 11; 37 – 38).
She please post a new story so we can all forget about this and I can go back to the good ‘ol days when the keyboard just sat in front of me and did nothing.
May 7th, 2003 23:17
Hey “reader” u should change your name to “writer”. The world ink resources would not be sufficient if this wasnât a digital media.
About the story in question â I just promised myself that Iâm off with this debate and I will not be provoked so Iâm keeping silence. Big time. Like David.
If you wish to stop talking about this matter as u were stating more than once, just keep quite. We, ordinary ppl, call it self-control. Like with David, even if itâs not a sin to act (as you hint), we all agree that it could have been much better with a bit of self-control.
May 8th, 2003 02:46
I would respond with paragraphs of how I would never have even joined the conversation if it weren’t for you. But, as you said, self-restraint. Besides my fingers are gettin tired…
May 8th, 2003 06:38
Jerolemo
The movie you were refering to earlier is “Mel Brooks’ History of the world part 1”. What a great movie.
May 8th, 2003 09:23
Snark you reminded me about this:
Do Not Look Below this Line!
—
You just failed the ‘Iskafya’ Test.
Iskafya means Suppressing Desires, Self Control, subjugation, and the suppression of evil, it is a Chabad Chasidic concept rather than a literal word.
May 8th, 2003 10:21
Old woman?
Man!
May 9th, 2003 01:49
For the High Holiday of the Infidel Zionist State I took part in an ancient relidgious ceramony of burning parts of deceaced animals in the company of many friends. Good beer was had by all and we hope for many more such fun-filled, sun-drenched, carnivorous holidays.
As I’m writing this it occures that there is little in this post for people to tangent on / respond to. Hmmm Maybe a good thing/YS
May 9th, 2003 02:57
I object your honor!
Whom and where did you BBQ! And who was the high priest. And did anybody get stoned, which is a good thing!
May 9th, 2003 06:02
All i could think about yesterday is if i was in israel i would have gone to the annual bbq at hte beach and then walked through the streets of jslem – rich with the smell of everyone elses bbq’s.. *sigh*.
On the upside if we can veer off hte topic of Dovid Hamelech to talk about me đ which is far more important I assure you(!), I got my name on my first scientific paper. There thats it. I just wanted to tell you that because its a big deal, to me at least :)!
DId anyone else have nice stuff happen to them this week?
Shaabat Shalom lekulam.
May 9th, 2003 06:16
http://crew.tweakers.net/JvS/zooi/realhussein.swf – this is an excellent link. Very funny.
May 9th, 2003 17:27
Hey AsIf are you a scientist, what do you study, and in which university?
May 9th, 2003 19:49
Yes, wonderful things happened. I just came home with a parking ticket and my side-view mirror hanging on one pathetic wire.
I hate brooklyn.
Oh, I checked out the site. Really cute. And congratulations on your paper!
May 9th, 2003 21:21
This not real. (Updike)
I love Brooklyn.
May 10th, 2003 21:44
100!
May 10th, 2003 22:51
101!
May 10th, 2003 23:22
We all could use a life. I can’t belive that I check this site so frikkin often! Save Me!!
Ahhem…. 102!!
May 10th, 2003 23:42
ys You made me feel so good!!
103… Posts are nothing but a number!
May 10th, 2003 23:49
I am not a number! I’m a free man!
May 11th, 2003 00:22
Kisses forom 100.
May 11th, 2003 00:23
From
May 11th, 2003 01:31
It says something about judaism that a topic that dovid hamelech who has been dead and buried for the last 3000 years can inspire 103 posts (104!) yet She’s exlpoits on the dating scene can only manage a paltry 60 or so đ
May 11th, 2003 08:06
AsIf, The Dovid Hamelech arguement, is only supplemental to the article. The general argument is whether we are able to “judge a book by its cover”.
Now go learn some Gemorah and you will see the similar types of arguments to what we all contribute to here.
May 11th, 2003 08:28
Congradulations Asif,
Everyone else… I’m soo sorry it came to this. I’ll try to excersize the self-control/restraint thing in the future. Oh well what can I say… 108!
May 11th, 2003 08:30
Actually the last one was 109
…110!
May 11th, 2003 09:33
MONTY PYTHON ROCKS!!! (though I didn’t like the movie “Brazil” very much–at least the 2nd half, the first half was funny.) I agree with whoever said that the Holy grail is funnier.
Best sketch in that movie: Bridge keeper: “What is you name?”
Sir Galahad: Sir Galahad
BK: “What is your quest?”
SG: to search for the holy grail
BK: “What is your favorite color?
SG: Blue, no orange…AHHHH!
đ though I’m not sure it was sir galahad, I haven’t seen it in forever.
“I bring you these 15… no, 10. 10 commandments…The inquisition, what a show”– History of the World Part 1
also, something you might have missed in the movie:
Oedipus: give to Oedipus, give to Oedipus…Hey Josephus!
Josephus: Hey Mother f—er, what’s happening?
i.e. He’s OEDIPUS!!!!!! (pardon the lang., but it’s necessary for the joke!)
LOL. Be back soon, it’s finals time!:( Please wish me luck!!!
-MB
May 11th, 2003 16:54
MB I know how you feel, its finals for me soon too (but im actually relaxing (relatively speaking) since I did all the hard work already. Good Luck!
DBoy – truthfully I thought the whole discussion was a moot point and I stopped reading after the third post but it was just a joke, it was more in praise of judaism that they can keep people interested in such a topic for so long, that’s it.
May 11th, 2003 23:56
She, happy Mama’s Day!
Wishing you to get married and become a mama by next Mama’s day! Ie I’m giving you 3 months to get married.
May 12th, 2003 08:29
er.. Omein?
May 12th, 2003 23:20
How do we get back to the topic of our discussion. Why was Dovid wrong to do what he did?
May 13th, 2003 00:55
I dare you. I double dare you đ
May 13th, 2003 01:41
I’ve got little to lose, really. What’s the worse that can happen you’ll post my ISP. The whole world will know who I am. Eternal shame. My friends and mentors will shun me. I’ll be the ridicule of New York. I will have go into hiding, or move to Alaska. Not that bad. Deer-meat tastes good.
May 13th, 2003 04:19
mmm… dear meat…
May 13th, 2003 08:12
Its amazing how most of the people who write on this site are suffering from the same mental illness.
May 13th, 2003 09:44
USB Port you know it yourself you don’t need this site to prove that you the ridicule of NYC
May 13th, 2003 14:29
d boy you hurt my feelings.
May 13th, 2003 23:09
I am sorry, can we backtrack a bit?
Was your date actually picking his nose and that was not creative embelishment?
Not that I doubt story’s truth, but I am horrified on your behalf!
Please, in future, ask him if he needs a tissue.
May 14th, 2003 01:18
I pick my nose, teeth, and ears; and if somebody would offer me a tissue I would politely refuse. Thank you very much
May 14th, 2003 03:34
Oh, that’s just disgusting…
May 14th, 2003 04:38
Contrariswise, that’s the essence of etiquete: thank you and please.