Tuesday, January 02, 2007

IM conversation about rabbis


I just got yelled at by my chavrussa for writing this post (erased) and I wanted to clarify. There are a lot of good rabbis out there. I personally discuss a lot of things with my rabbi, besides just basic halacha.

There is a definite problem with the AGENDA of the rabbinic establishment, which is mostly what I was bashing. when halacha becomes a basis for pushing your agenda then a lot of people get lost along the way.

The answer is not to ask and accept blindly. The answer is to read the sources yourself and understand the topics. Then when you go for a psak, you have the ability to differentiate between the different aspects of the answer. You can then ask questions based on the sources and if the rabbi ignores your question or pushes it off without answering it, then you now there is probably room to delve in deeper.

The answer to the establishment is learning Torah, so that you will not be taken in by their FUD tactics.


Anonymous said...

one correction: Shroder proved that sceince IS consistant with Torah.

btw, love the name. Can I use the n word now?

Anonymous said...

another correct, I didnt go to sleep.

gotta be accurate with the facts here.

Anonymous said...

Who eats a whole pizza as a snack?

Just Shu said...

I have

rockofgalilee said...

i don't know very many people who haven't.

stillruleall said...

I had a pizza as a snack the other day. It was a long snack, it went from around 7 PM til 11 AM but I finished my pie.
I'm glad I caught the article before it was deleted, very insightful

Robyn said...

I missed the original. The problem is that the powers that be have an agenda or a "the" agenda? Or was that in the original not edited version?

rockofgalilee said...

The original and the edited have no real similarities. The problem is that _the_ agenda has taken priority to the truth.

My chavrussa pointed out, this is more of a problem in the chareidi/american world and less in the national religious.

However, that is not always the case. See rulings during the disengagement period.

Anonymous said...

snack meaning in addition to three meals a day... so you've eaten an entire pizza within three hours (before or after) of a full meal? and an entire pizza meaning something like 8 slices?...just to get this clear.... and the all nighter thing is different, food in exchange for sleep always works.

rockofgalilee said...

a snack doesn't have to be in addition to 3 meals a day.

When I eat an orange in the morning, I don't consider it breakfast and if I have a bag of chips in the afternoon then it is not lunch.

Also if I eat 8 slices of pizza it is not a meal.

Robyn said...

I vote that an orange eaten in the morning is deffinately breakfast.

Deffine "the agenda" and "the truth". There are a lot of deffinitions of those things floating around out there...

rockofgalilee said...

an orange is certainly healthy and an important part of my morning, but it is not a "meal."

The agenda is defined here, for those academicians, as protecting the establishment at all costs.

Truth is defined here as Torah.

Example of agenda being taught instead of truth: When a bais yaakov school tells their students that the halachos of tznius require them to dress above and beyond what the halacha actually requires.
I'm not saying the schools don't have the write to tell the girls how to dress, but it should be defined as a dress code, not as black and white halacha.

Anonymous said...

can you define what is meant by a meal? and what's it matter if it's a snack or a meal? food's food.

rockofgalilee said...

Food is not just food in Jewish law.

A meal is an event that includes bread. A pita to go is a meal, while sitting down for a steak is not.

The question here is what is the definition of bread. pizza dough is made with bread, water and yeast. But it doesn't look like bread and is not considered an important food.
Other opinions say that since all of the properties of bread are used in making the dough it is bread in any case.
A confusing opinion, held by many, is that if you eat more then 2 slices then it is considered bread and if not then it is just a snack and it is not considered bread.

Some people include a little fruit juice inside their pizza dough just so that it does not come to a question of whether it is bread or not.

Anonymous said...

I am becoming obsessed with pizza. From what I remember, ancient high school stuff, even on cookies and breakfast cereals made out of certain grains, once one eats over a certain amount (250 grams or so) one must say bircat hamazon, and it doesn't matter that the pre-bracha was mezonot. no sources except for memory... but i may go look this up soon.

then it wouldn't make a difference if there's fruit juice in it or not, if it's a chocolate cake or half a pizza, and it wouldn't matter if an individual considered it a snack or a meal. (except to their cholesterol levels. i still can't imagine someone eating a whole pizza as a snack.)

The difference of calling it a meal or a snack would be in what primary bracha is said. ever heard of this 250 gram for what bracha acharona bit?

rockofgalilee said...

I have heard of the concept that if you are full then you have to say a birchas hamazon. However, everyone very clearly agrees that if you eat enough fruit to fill yourself up then you would not say a birchat hamazon. You would still say a borei nifashos.