Tuesday, August 25, 2015
Raising Kind Children - Shittas Harvard
Ask parents how important it is to instill kindness in their kids, and most will rank it high: even as their very top priority, according to Harvard researchers.
But children surveyed by the university’s Making Caring Common (pdf) project said, overwhelmingly, that they were getting a different message. The researchers spoke with 10,000 kids at a range of middle and high schools in the US in 2013 to 2014. Nearly 80% said that their parents taught them that personal happiness and high achievement were more important than caring for other people.
But all is not lost. The study makes some recommendations for raising children that genuinely believe kindness is important:
1) Give kids opportunities to practice being kind. Children aren’t born with an innate ability to act kindly, but learn it in the same way as they might pick up an instrument or a language. Daily opportunities to practice—something as simple as helping another child with homework—can make a difference.
2) Children need to learn two important skills. These will help kids build a wider “circle of concern,” the researchers say. Children need to learn to “zoom in” on individuals, and truly listen to them. They also need to be able to “zoom out” to see a bigger picture—effectively, learning to put human experience in context.
3) Kids need role models. That doesn’t mean being perfect parents. It means working on empathy, and demonstrating concern and sympathy so that children can be exposed to it.
4) Help children manage destructive feelings. Shame, anger, and jealousy can override the intention to be kind. Kids need to know that such feelings are normal, but can be addressed in different ways. Children are “moral philosophers,” the researchers write. “When adults spark children’s thinking with ethical questions they put issues of injustice on children’s radar and help children learn how to weigh their various responsibilities to others and themselves.”
5) Adults should stop passing the buck. Parents worry about children’s moral state, the researchers note, but it’s hard to find adults who admit they might be part of the problem. Adults need to interrogate the messages they’re sending, and ask themselves: what values am I really instilling?
The Problems With The "Dignity Of Man"
The gemara [Brachos 19b] says that כבוד הבריות the dignity of man, is so great, that is overrides a לא תעשה שבתורה. The gemara concludes that this לא תעשה is לא תסור which means only דיני דרבנן. [It also overrides דיני דאורייתא in cases of שב ואל תעשה where the rabbis have legislative power - see Rashi and Tosfos ד"ה שב ואל תעשה].
What is so troublesome about this holy gemara is that it NEVER TELLS us what the source is that גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה. It just takes it as a given. Why is it so pashut? And takeh [a French word meaning - "I would LOVE a cup of wine"], what is the source? Is it מדאורייתא or מדרבנן? If it is מדאורייתא then it is not גדול כבוד הבריות that is דוחה but a di-oraisa that is דוחה a דרבנן [according to the gemara that says that rabbinic enactments are only rabinic and לא תסור is an אסמכתא]? If it is only מדרבנן then how do we know that the דרבנן of כבוד הבריות trumps other דרבנן's? And it is such a strong דרבנן that it can even override דאורייתא's in cases of שב ואל תעשה.
Rashi in our sugya is ALSO silent on the issue, adding to my angst....
However, if we take route 160 and traverse the long road to Shabbos [81b], there Rashi lets us in on the secret. It is really מדאורייתא and is derived from the law that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו need not return a lost object which is stated in the words והתעלמת מהם - sometimes one need not return a lost object. So we see that כבוד הבריות is דוחה the mitzva of השבת אבידה [which is also a לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם which Rashi doesn't mention but I guess is understood]. Rashi says the same thing in Megilla [3b]. If that would make me feel better [it doesn't because then it is not just כבוד הבריות which is דוחה but a דאורייתא] then I am STILL not at ease. Because the gemara in Brachos mentions this source and REJECTS IT because matters of איסור cannot be derived from monetary matters. Thus, גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה [in matters of איסור] cannot be derived from the [monetary] law of השבת אבידה.
Why would the greatest talmudic commentator say something like that? There are big סודות here. I just don't know what they are...
Once we are already asking.....
The gemara says that דרבנן's are really only דרבנן and the pasuk לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך is but an אסמכתא. The Ramban uses this gemara to ask on the Rambam who holds that all דרבנן's are really מדאורייתא. How can the Rambam defend himself?
I would like to further share more comments on this gemara but, alas, other responsibilities beckon.
ועוד חזון למועד!
I am sending this post in an email to a top notch "gemara expert" besides the many תלמידי חכמים who read the blog and HOPE for some insight להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה!
What is so troublesome about this holy gemara is that it NEVER TELLS us what the source is that גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה. It just takes it as a given. Why is it so pashut? And takeh [a French word meaning - "I would LOVE a cup of wine"], what is the source? Is it מדאורייתא or מדרבנן? If it is מדאורייתא then it is not גדול כבוד הבריות that is דוחה but a di-oraisa that is דוחה a דרבנן [according to the gemara that says that rabbinic enactments are only rabinic and לא תסור is an אסמכתא]? If it is only מדרבנן then how do we know that the דרבנן of כבוד הבריות trumps other דרבנן's? And it is such a strong דרבנן that it can even override דאורייתא's in cases of שב ואל תעשה.
Rashi in our sugya is ALSO silent on the issue, adding to my angst....
However, if we take route 160 and traverse the long road to Shabbos [81b], there Rashi lets us in on the secret. It is really מדאורייתא and is derived from the law that a זקן ואינו לפי כבודו need not return a lost object which is stated in the words והתעלמת מהם - sometimes one need not return a lost object. So we see that כבוד הבריות is דוחה the mitzva of השבת אבידה [which is also a לא תעשה of לא תוכל להתעלם which Rashi doesn't mention but I guess is understood]. Rashi says the same thing in Megilla [3b]. If that would make me feel better [it doesn't because then it is not just כבוד הבריות which is דוחה but a דאורייתא] then I am STILL not at ease. Because the gemara in Brachos mentions this source and REJECTS IT because matters of איסור cannot be derived from monetary matters. Thus, גדול כבוד הבריות שדוחה לא תעשה שבתורה [in matters of איסור] cannot be derived from the [monetary] law of השבת אבידה.
Why would the greatest talmudic commentator say something like that? There are big סודות here. I just don't know what they are...
Once we are already asking.....
The gemara says that דרבנן's are really only דרבנן and the pasuk לא תסור מן הדבר אשר יגידו לך is but an אסמכתא. The Ramban uses this gemara to ask on the Rambam who holds that all דרבנן's are really מדאורייתא. How can the Rambam defend himself?
I would like to further share more comments on this gemara but, alas, other responsibilities beckon.
ועוד חזון למועד!
I am sending this post in an email to a top notch "gemara expert" besides the many תלמידי חכמים who read the blog and HOPE for some insight להגדיל תורה ולהאדירה!
Monday, August 24, 2015
MESHUGGGENNAAAAAAAA!!!
A mix between evil, crazy and many other things.
Shanghai-based art collector Liu Yiqian recently spent $36.3 million on a tiny porcelain cup with a humble chicken painted on its surface. But for many in China, the most shocking thing wasn’t the amount he paid, or the fact that he paid with an American Express card.
No, it was the fact that Mr. Liu decided to celebrate his Ming-dynasty purchase by sipping some tea from it.
The cup in question is one of China’s so-called “chicken cups,” which were forged in imperial kins and possess a particularly silky texture. Though fakes abound, only 19 genuine articles are known to exist. To art experts, they’re known as the “holy grail” of Chinese porcelains.
Mr. Liu bought his in a heated Hong Kong Sotheby’s auction, in a bidding war that lasted seven minutes. Late last week, when he paid up—by swiping his American Express card an individual 24 times, according to Sotheby’s—he also decided to take a celebratory swig from the cup.
On Monday, Mr. Liu told China Real Time that he wasn’t trying to show off his wealth. “It happened when I was paying,” said Mr. Liu, who made his fortune in finance. “A Sotheby’s staffer poured me some tea. I saw the [chicken cup] and excitedly poured some of that tea into the cup and drank a little,” he said. “Such a simple thing—what’s so crazy about that?”
From over-the-top weddings to bouquets made out of dollar bills, the antics of China’s wealthy have stirred up considerable social resentment amid the country’s entrenched inequality in recent years. Thanks to its rapid industrialization, China is home to 152 billionaires, and many more have been catapulted into considerable wealth—one that’s helped power the rise of a buoyant art market that has seen record-breaking purchases like Mr. Liu’s.
However, it also remains a country where more than 175 million people live on less than $1.25 a day, according to the World Bank.
“Emperor Qianlong has used it, now I’ve used it,” said Mr. Liu of his chicken cup, referring to one of the Qing Dynasty’s most celebrated emperors. “I just wanted to see how it felt.” The cup, he added, “isn’t a commercial product appropriate for the masses.”
------------------------
Sweet friends - before we criticize him, let us look at the frum community. Aren't we also afflicted with the illness of spending excessive money in unnecessary luxuries while our brothers and sisters live in poverty??
Shanghai-based art collector Liu Yiqian recently spent $36.3 million on a tiny porcelain cup with a humble chicken painted on its surface. But for many in China, the most shocking thing wasn’t the amount he paid, or the fact that he paid with an American Express card.
No, it was the fact that Mr. Liu decided to celebrate his Ming-dynasty purchase by sipping some tea from it.
The cup in question is one of China’s so-called “chicken cups,” which were forged in imperial kins and possess a particularly silky texture. Though fakes abound, only 19 genuine articles are known to exist. To art experts, they’re known as the “holy grail” of Chinese porcelains.
- Mr. Liu celebrates his purchase.
- Courtesy of Sothebys
On Monday, Mr. Liu told China Real Time that he wasn’t trying to show off his wealth. “It happened when I was paying,” said Mr. Liu, who made his fortune in finance. “A Sotheby’s staffer poured me some tea. I saw the [chicken cup] and excitedly poured some of that tea into the cup and drank a little,” he said. “Such a simple thing—what’s so crazy about that?”
From over-the-top weddings to bouquets made out of dollar bills, the antics of China’s wealthy have stirred up considerable social resentment amid the country’s entrenched inequality in recent years. Thanks to its rapid industrialization, China is home to 152 billionaires, and many more have been catapulted into considerable wealth—one that’s helped power the rise of a buoyant art market that has seen record-breaking purchases like Mr. Liu’s.
However, it also remains a country where more than 175 million people live on less than $1.25 a day, according to the World Bank.
“Emperor Qianlong has used it, now I’ve used it,” said Mr. Liu of his chicken cup, referring to one of the Qing Dynasty’s most celebrated emperors. “I just wanted to see how it felt.” The cup, he added, “isn’t a commercial product appropriate for the masses.”
------------------------
Sweet friends - before we criticize him, let us look at the frum community. Aren't we also afflicted with the illness of spending excessive money in unnecessary luxuries while our brothers and sisters live in poverty??
Vi-haya Machanecha Kadosh - Ballisitc - Weird? - 3 Proofs - No Veils - 36 Million
A few words on the title from a pasuk in this week's parsha.
A lot of people are going ballistic about the custom in the religious press not to publish pictures of women.
It is important to note that there are numerous sources that maintain that it is forbidden for a male to look at a woman. It might sound crazy but only because we are not used to the idea. For a not frum Jew or a non Jew, the idea that a married couple is not allowed to touch each other, or even hand things to each other [for about half the month], seems crazy. But for those who are used to the idea it is normal...
To look at a woman in order to enjoy her beauty is forbidden according to ALL SOURCES. ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם and other sources.
There are a number of proofs that one may not look at her even if one's purpose is NOT to enjoy her beauty.
A] The gemara [Ksubos 17] says that one may not look at a kallah, even in order to make her chosson feel special that people are looking at his kallah [לחבבה על בעלה]. It seems from here that even of one is looking not in order to enjoy her beauty but for the noble purpose of helping the chosson appreciate his kallah, it is forbidden.
B] The Rosh [and Shittah Mekubetzes] ask that if one may not look at the kallah, who is going to testify that she was wearing a veil and her hair was exposed [a proof that she was a besulah at the time of the wedding]? We see that one may not even look at a woman in order to testify.
3] The gemara [Avoda Zara 20a] says that one may not look at a woman's clothing even when they are hanging out to dry. If that is the case then CERTAINLY one may not look at a woman herself.
This being said, we are all gong to continue looking at woman, so what is my point? Everyone will say that they follow the poskim who permit one to look for a short time if the purpose is not erotic חס ושלום.
1] We are - but the less the better.
2] If we have to because we are talking to her that is fine, but why look at a picture of a woman? What benefit is there?
3] Why make fun of a practice which elevates standards of modesty??
This doesn't mean that women must walk outside in veils. It does mean that men should not look unnecessarily. It is also a fact that every man [except for a small percentage who have other problems...] enjoys looking at an attractive women which according to all sources is a serious breech in kedusha. If one is careful not to look at any [as much as possible] then he will certainly not stumble with one who sticks in his mind afterwards and brings to illicit thoughts and tumah at night .
The rule is - always be a mentsch but always be holy. Holiness is separation of the genders [Rashi - beginning of Kedoshim]. Don't allow modern standards of immodesty to corrupt our values. Torah is forever. Today's newpaper is going to be in the garbage by tomorrow.
After 36 million [!!!] people were found to have registered to a website that facilitates adultery, I think that the "extremism" of shmiras einayim is refreshing. ודוק!
A thought that needs much more analysis and discussion but time is of the essence and I must go....
For who want sources that forbid looking at pictures of women or looking at them at all -
עי' באר משה ח"ד סי' קמז אות כ"א שו"ת דברי מלכיאל ח"ג סי' נ"ח בן יהוידע נדרים דף כ ספר מחזה עינים מחזה ד אוצר הפוסקים אבן העזר כ"א א סק"ז ובאריכות בס' תורת ההסתכלות.
I feel compelled to stress that this is not against women. It is against men. A mere glance at a woman OFTEN brings out the less holy, more animalistic side of man. This is NOT my opinion [alone] but that of all Torah sources.
יומא ע"ד - טוב מראה עינים באשה יותר מגופה של מעשה
לזכות כל בנות ישראל הצנועות הצריכות לכך שיזכו בקרוב לזיווגן
A lot of people are going ballistic about the custom in the religious press not to publish pictures of women.
It is important to note that there are numerous sources that maintain that it is forbidden for a male to look at a woman. It might sound crazy but only because we are not used to the idea. For a not frum Jew or a non Jew, the idea that a married couple is not allowed to touch each other, or even hand things to each other [for about half the month], seems crazy. But for those who are used to the idea it is normal...
To look at a woman in order to enjoy her beauty is forbidden according to ALL SOURCES. ולא תתורו אחרי לבבכם ואחרי עיניכם and other sources.
There are a number of proofs that one may not look at her even if one's purpose is NOT to enjoy her beauty.
A] The gemara [Ksubos 17] says that one may not look at a kallah, even in order to make her chosson feel special that people are looking at his kallah [לחבבה על בעלה]. It seems from here that even of one is looking not in order to enjoy her beauty but for the noble purpose of helping the chosson appreciate his kallah, it is forbidden.
B] The Rosh [and Shittah Mekubetzes] ask that if one may not look at the kallah, who is going to testify that she was wearing a veil and her hair was exposed [a proof that she was a besulah at the time of the wedding]? We see that one may not even look at a woman in order to testify.
3] The gemara [Avoda Zara 20a] says that one may not look at a woman's clothing even when they are hanging out to dry. If that is the case then CERTAINLY one may not look at a woman herself.
This being said, we are all gong to continue looking at woman, so what is my point? Everyone will say that they follow the poskim who permit one to look for a short time if the purpose is not erotic חס ושלום.
1] We are - but the less the better.
2] If we have to because we are talking to her that is fine, but why look at a picture of a woman? What benefit is there?
3] Why make fun of a practice which elevates standards of modesty??
This doesn't mean that women must walk outside in veils. It does mean that men should not look unnecessarily. It is also a fact that every man [except for a small percentage who have other problems...] enjoys looking at an attractive women which according to all sources is a serious breech in kedusha. If one is careful not to look at any [as much as possible] then he will certainly not stumble with one who sticks in his mind afterwards and brings to illicit thoughts and tumah at night .
The rule is - always be a mentsch but always be holy. Holiness is separation of the genders [Rashi - beginning of Kedoshim]. Don't allow modern standards of immodesty to corrupt our values. Torah is forever. Today's newpaper is going to be in the garbage by tomorrow.
After 36 million [!!!] people were found to have registered to a website that facilitates adultery, I think that the "extremism" of shmiras einayim is refreshing. ודוק!
A thought that needs much more analysis and discussion but time is of the essence and I must go....
For who want sources that forbid looking at pictures of women or looking at them at all -
עי' באר משה ח"ד סי' קמז אות כ"א שו"ת דברי מלכיאל ח"ג סי' נ"ח בן יהוידע נדרים דף כ ספר מחזה עינים מחזה ד אוצר הפוסקים אבן העזר כ"א א סק"ז ובאריכות בס' תורת ההסתכלות.
I feel compelled to stress that this is not against women. It is against men. A mere glance at a woman OFTEN brings out the less holy, more animalistic side of man. This is NOT my opinion [alone] but that of all Torah sources.
יומא ע"ד - טוב מראה עינים באשה יותר מגופה של מעשה
לזכות כל בנות ישראל הצנועות הצריכות לכך שיזכו בקרוב לזיווגן
Thanks And Admission
I thank a dear friend for obliging my request to translate Rav Kook's commentary on the word מודה in the מודה אני. I also thank this friend for being the only one who consistently brings to my attention mistakes relating to the blog. שגיאות מי יבין - everyone is liable to error and doesn't catch things before going public and I am fortunate that someone not only notices [many people notice] but takes the time to tell me.May this person be blessed with the fulfillment of כל משאלות הלב לטובה and much bracha in everything!:-).
I will note that Rav Kook was not a normal human being and his soul was by far the dominant part of being being, the body consisting of only a minute percentage of his persona, making his words descriptive of matters beyond the realm of mere verbal description. But it is nice to taste ruchniyus from someone who was so completely there even though we [meaning me] are light years away...
I will note that Rav Kook was not a normal human being and his soul was by far the dominant part of being being, the body consisting of only a minute percentage of his persona, making his words descriptive of matters beyond the realm of mere verbal description. But it is nice to taste ruchniyus from someone who was so completely there even though we [meaning me] are light years away...
מודה
ראשית ההופעה של צהלת החיים מביאה עמה את השמחה העליונה בחדות הקודש, שהיא מתבטאת בכל מלא הודה בבטוי "ההודאה". הכרת התודה לאלהי עולם, אדון כל המעשים, המחיה חיים בטובו, היא אוצר הטוב, הכולל בקרבו את כל התוכן של מילוי החובה וכל התוכן של העידון הרוחני ממלוא תנובה האהבה בחוברת והנשמה מתנהרת בה ומתמלאה אורה ושמחה.
The initial appearance of the delight of life brings with it the elevated happiness of holy joy that is expressed in all its glory by the word הודאה - acknowledgement/thanks. Gratitude to the Eternal Gd, Master of all Creation, Who gives life in His goodness, is a treasury of goodness, containing within it both the fulfillment of an obligation as well as spiritual refinement filled with a bounty of love and the נשמה is illuminated by it and is filled with light and simcha.
ההוראה הלשונית של חובת הודאה, בבטוי "מודה" ביחוד, משותפת היא להודאה מגזרת תודה, הבאה מתוך הכרת הטובה של המיטיב, ומגזרת התודות והודאה על האמת. והדברים מתאימים זה לזה.
There is a lesson in the language of the obligation of הודאה: the particular expression of "מודה" is connected to הודאה in the sense of תודה, thanks, that comes from recognizing the good of a benefactor, and also in the sense of התוַדוּת, admitting and acknowledging truth.
And these two things fit together:
צהלת החיים הראשונה, הפוגשת את האדם בהקיצו משנתו ומוצא הוא לפניו עולם מלא וחדש בכל מלואו וטובו, היא מרימה את אור השכל הפנימי להכיר את אור החיים וזיוו ביסודו, ותחת ההשקפה העכורה החמרית, שהיא מוטבעת בטבע הבשר, מתעלה הרוח להשקפה אלהית צחה, לראות את נשמת אור חי העולמים ביפעת מפעלה.
That initial joy of life, which greets a person when he awakens from his sleep to find before him a fresh world of goodness and plenty, elevates the light of his mind to recognize the light of life and the radiance of its foundation, and in place of the murky material mindset which is etched into the nature of flesh, his spirit is elevated to a pure, G-dly perspective, to view the soul of the living light of the worlds in the splendor of its activity.
והאדם ברגש תודתו מודה הוא על האמת, ומקיים את עומק אמתתה של ההכרה הרוחנית, ומעיד על כל אור החיים והיש, שהוא נובע כלו ממעין הטוב ומקורו, ממקור חסד עליון, המשפיע שפעת חיים לכל המון עולמים וכל יצוריהם.
And man in his feelings of gratitude is admitting truth, and fulfilling the depths of the truth of spiritual recognition, and testifying that the light of life and existence all flows from the wellsprings of goodness and its Source, from the Source of chesed elyon, Who pours down the שפע of life upon all worlds and all creation.
Link
An insightful often humorous account of an Israeli who spent a weekend in New York [in Hebrew].
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
