Moral (and other) Dilemmas

[Jude]

I thought we could use this thread to present interesting moral dilemmas and what we would do in the situation.
Let's label them Moral Dilemma #1 and so forth, for people who come in later and want to respond to a particular issue - this will give us an easy one to refer to them.

Moral Dilemma #1

Do you think it's okay for parents to take cash/check gifts that their bar mitzva son gets, to pay towards the cost of the simcha? Ditto for wedding gifts.

[Ephy]

B"H


Moral Dilemma #2

Someone who is becoming more frum has got his family to keep kosher. However as he gets more frum, the more major problems with kashrut is found in his kitchen (hardly anything toived, not chalav Yisroel, plates not kashered lachatchila etc...) If he seperates himself and becomes more machmir, his family might drop their standard and there is the slightest chance that they might (chas vesholom) start eating treiph. And this person really doesn't like being too meikal with kashrus.
What does this peron do?????

[BLewbavitch]

BH

These are my own thoughts on them; they are not to be used as a reference for Halacha in any way.

#1) Morally I would think it's ok to (at least) take some sort of percentage towards the Simcha. Do I agree with it? (Personally) No. I think it should be put into some sort of bonds or something for when the child is older.

As to the Chosson and Kallah, it's the obligation of the parents to come up with the money for the wedding expenses, not the children. This being the case, I think it's wrong to take (if they want to give, Kol HaKovod to them) money from a newly-wed at such a crucial time, they have to set up home...

#2) There are a number of things one can do in such a case.

1) Make a point of using plastic to eat on (if possible), this way avoiding the Toiveling and the Treifing up of the dishes. This can be done until they feel comfortable enough, and them they can go back to regular dishes.

2) There is absolutely no reason to separate from the rest of the family, even if they don't want to use plastic and they don't/won't Toivel... You can eat together using plastic for yourself, while they use regular dishes. The food can be the same just one Cholov Yisroel and one not. (I know a family where every time they would go their grandparents house, the grandparents had two things of butter, one Cholov Yisroel and one not, so that the children and grandchildren would be able to eat the same food). I think working on it diplomatically will work.

3) Explain to them why you keep Kosher, and Davkah so stringently, do it diplomatically and with love. Explain to them the different laws concerning Toiveling... And what happens if something does happen. Remember, it's like a ladder, it must be climbed rung by rung, otherwise there is a possibility one may fall C"V. Therefore, there is no use pushing it...

[rebayzl]

On Dilema #1:

I think there are no rules in this. It all depends on the Financial status of the Family. I am sure those who give the gifts will be happy they should be used as the parents/children deem important. I don't know where the idea comes that parents are OBLIGATED to pay for an extravagant wedding. It has to be worked out by evry family according to their means.

Parents who can use, for example the Bar Mitzvah money to cover the costs of the BM, will eventually be abel to send him to a better camp, or do other things for HIM. So what's the point in making such strict calculations.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D The Rebbe clearly wrote (it is printed in Likkutei Sichos, don't remember now where) that simchos, whether weddings or bar-mitsvahs should NOT be extravagant.

The Rebbe spoke about the fact that there is a peer pressure amongst the women. They feel that they must outdo one another in splurging on all kinds of excesses.

The Rebbe emphasised that on the contrary, the more modest the gashmiyus of the simcha (within reason, of course), the more ruchniyus it will have.

It therefore goes without saying that for the parents to use gift money for excesses, claiming that it is le'shaim shomayim, that they want it to be "nice" for "their children", is wrong.

[rebayzl]

1. Why dont we see this clear instruction by the Rebbe enforced in our community? I just saw in The Jewish Observer that lots of Rabbonim came out with a call to stop extravagnt Simchos. Why isn't Chabad part of this?

2. So parents should not use their childrens money, but should go Themselves into debts, so eventually the child will suffer Chas VeSahlom?

[noahidelaws]

BS"D <<2. So parents should not use their childrens money, but should go Themselves into debts, so eventually the child will suffer Chas VeSahlom?>>

I think I made myself clear. I wrote: <<It therefore goes without saying that for the parents to use gift money for excesses, claiming that it is le'shaim shomayim, that they want it to be "nice" for "their children", is wrong. >>

I.e. if they should not squander their own money on excesses, they should certainly not take their child's money for that purpose.

[masbir]

Are Lubavitch simchas more extravgant than other simchas? (I think not)

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I really could not say, but in that letter the Rebbe was clearly referring to extravagance of Lubavitcher simchas.

[rebayzl]

Originally posted by masbir
Are Lubavitch simchas more extravgant than other simchas? (I think not)

I think the Music is more non-jewish

[Jude]

that has nothing to do with extravagance and can be discussed in the music thread
and it depends on the simcha, because I've attended simchos in which Chabad niggunim were played, exclusively

back to Moral Dilemma #1
in my opinion, unless the bar mitzva boy wants a particular detail for his simcha which his parents are not interested in having, and he is willing to pay for it himself and his parents do not object (for I can see that if parents don't want a certain item, but their son pays for it, other people don't know this, and the parents might not want others to think that they, the parents, found it necessary to have this at their simcha), and his parents are otherwise paying for a dignified simcha (are you with me?), the parents should absolutely NOT take a DIME of their son's gifts.

When people give the bar mitzva boy a gift, they naturally assume it's for the bar mitzva boy and not for anything or anyone else, certainly NOT to pay for the simcha! And if the father of the bar mitzva boy likes a particular set of sefarim his son gets, can he appropriate that ?!
Hey, maybe the parents can put out pushkas on the tables and collect for the affair :rolleyes:
It's the PARENTS' responsibility to provide for the son's bar mitzva celebration, at least nowadays ... In "A Tzaddik in our Time," R' Aryeh Levin describes learning away from home as a young child, and at some point some relative of his said - you know? I think you were bar mitzva already (?!), so he borrowed some tefillin until he could get his own pair.
So the fact that we celebrate as we do, is a social norm for OUR times, and no, we don't have to do what everybody else does.
My mother's philosophy is based on the fact that she says you never hear of anything further about the boys who have lavish affairs. In other words, there seems to be an inverse correlation here: the more lavish the simcha, the less likely the boy will grow up into anything special.
If parents have a tough time paying for a bar mitzva, let them cut out all frills and drastically cut the guest list to immediate family and truly close friends, as well as the bar mitzva boys' classmates and melamdim. I actually prefer such simchas to the crowd scenes.

And as far as wedding gifts, there's an inyan of giving gifts to the choson and kalla, and so the gifts are theirs and no one else's.

Btw: that people measure the gift they give by the type of affair it is, i.e. the cost of the gift matches the cost of their "plate" I find despicable. I could care less how much someone is paying for their simcha, whether it's at the Hilton or the local shul, and my choice of gift is not dependent on their choice of venue.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I recently heard a Rov speak on this. He emphasised that the supper itself should be for relatives only and that other guests should be invited afterwards for refreshments and dancing.

Another point: those parents who do act extravagantly (let us say because they reason that they can afford it) should know that by doing so they are applying pressure on other parents of lesser means to take out loans to do likewise.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

<<I don't know where the idea comes that parents are OBLIGATED to pay for an extravagant wedding>>

Rebayzl,

I feel compelled to clear up what I wrote. I never once mentioned an extravagant wedding (or and Simcha).

I merely stated about a wedding, how the parents want to make the wedding (so long as they are the one's paying for it), they can, whether it be extravagant (which in this case for sure it would be wrong to take money from them), or a "simple" wedding (which if you look at my first post, I also disagree with the parents taking money).

[noahidelaws]

BS”D From http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v24/mj_v24i52.html#CQB

From: rhendel@king.mcs.drexel.edu (Russell Hendel)
Date: Sun, 30 Jun 1996 20:40:24 -0400
Subject: Expensive Weddings--A Talmudic Precedent

I had a short thought on the recent discussion of expensive weddings and
the hardships they cause.

The Talmud relates that *funerals* used to be very expensive. The
situation was unbearable. Finally some great leader (I believe Rabban
Gamliel) ordered that when he died that the funeral, coffin, etc should
be simple. The Talmud relates that this "broke" the trend and made
people more comfortable going back to less expensive funerals.

Perhaps some distinguished people in the community could set similar
precedents for weddings and ease the anguish of the not so affluent. If
people were aware of the fact that this is a Mitzvah and that Rabban
Gamliel did it maybe it will encourage them further.

Russell Jay Hendel, Ph.d. ASA rhendel @ mcs . drexel . edu

______
From: Jeffrey Woolf <jwoolf@jer1.co.il>
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 17:34:48 +0400 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Wedding Extravagance

I thought I'd add another side to the question of wedding extravagance,
or actually, two sides.

1) Halakhic literature is replete with Takkanot which severely limit
opulence and extravagance. Yet today it is only Hassidut Gur which makes
a point of saving its members from penury in making weddings. When
Yeshiva tuitions are driving people into debt and reducing either the
birth rate or the quality of education, it is a sin to waste so much
money on food or 'feeding the fed.' I think Sumptuary Laws MUSt be
rigidly reintroduced.

2) For those blown away by American weddings, and envious of how much
simpler Israeli weddings tend to be (though the affliction has spread
here too), consider what the average Dati or Haredi parents are
expected to furnish their children with: 1) One half of the down
payment on an apartment ( along with furnishings): Est cost-
$175-250,000. 2) A Car( $15,0000-25,000) 3) A year to three year's kest
($50-60,000)-this is true mostly of Haredim).
We spent nine years in the US slaving and saving. So I can identify with
those who won't give Hachnasat Kallah for a Honeymoon.

Jeffrey Woolf
Dept of Talmud
Bar Ilan University
_____________

From: Anonymous
Date: Thu, 27 Jun 1996 11:49:04 -0400
Subject: Weddings

Regarding weddings, and their expense, the following thoughts come to
mind:

1) One is required to have nothing other than a chatan, a kallah, 2
kosher witnesses, an item worth more than a pruta (@chatan's expense),
and a ketuva. The approximate expense for the above comes to $10.00 for
a preprinted ketuba + 1.x pruta for the kidushin item + good will on
behalf of the witnessers. Anything above and beyond this is at the
discretion of the ba'alai simcha (parties to the happy occasion) and is
TOTALLY OPTIONAL. . The fact that some feel compelled to spend above
their capacities for a wedding for fear of losing face among their peers
is a hashkafa (religious philosophy/outlook) problem that should be
dealt with in its own manner - through the Rabbanim of the community
teaching the more fortunate that extravagance is a form of ga'avah
(haughtiness) and the less fortunate "ayze who ha ashir - hasameach
bechelko (who is considered wealthy - the one who is satisfied with his
portion).

This same hashkafah problem ("keeping up appearances" beyond ones
ability) is also manifest in areas apart from weddings such as housing,
clothing, the types of car one drives etc. In sum, the outcry about
wedding expenses is but a tip of the iceberg of the larger question of
our values. Thus, there should be no sense of outrage at the costs of
making a wedding - one does what one can or feels is appropriate. The
anger and resentment sometimes detected in complaints about wedding
expenses seem to be more borne of the frustration between the shortfall
between others expectations and one's financial realities. This energy
is misdirected and should be directed towards hashkafic self
improvement.

2) If a person of means wants to make a big simcha, he is allowed to
make a big simcha. Suppose this person gives 20% of his income to
tzdakah. Suppose he is a ba'al chesed. If he wants to make a big
simcha with a "yad rechava" (an wide (open) hand) and he wants others
join in his simcha he is allowed to. One should not be jealous of a
"gvir" (wealthy individual), but rather, we should be happy for him, and
be honored if we are asked to join in the simcha. This should not be an
occasion for us to look at our selves and feel inadequate and small.
Carping about the expenses involved seems like jealousy transformed into
fault finding to me. Again this is misdirected energy.

In closing, I would like to relate a story that helped me very much with
respect to feelings of jealousy regarding other's "good" fortune. There
was once a Rabbi, old and respected and the leader of his community.
Into this community moved a young man who was smarter, more
knowledgeable in Torah, and more eloquent than the Rabbi. This bothered
our esteemed Rabbi no end, for he could not match the intelligence and
communicative ability of the recent arrival, for his gifts in these
areas were more meager. People would admire the young man and comment
approvingly on his depth of knowledge and wisdom. Meanwhile the Rabbi
was burning up inside - not only was he coming up short in comparison to
this young man - this was a "kid", not a learned older man. Whenever
the Rabbi saw this young man in his community, anger and jealousy would
rise within him, and he was always looking to find finding flaws in the
young man, often seizing upon trivial matters in the young man's dress
and actions.

And so it happened after a particularly difficult day, that after the
Rabbi went to sleep, he saw HIS teacher in a dream. He related to his
teacher his troubles with the young man. The teacher than asked our
Rabbi "Do you believe there are people in the world who are smarter than
you?" The Rabbi said " Yes". The teacher continued "Do you believe
that there are people in the world who have greater depth of learning
than you"? The Rabbi answered "Yes." The teacher continued "Do you
believe there are people in the world more eloquent than you?" Again
the Rabbi replied "Yes." Finally the teacher asked "Then why can't this
smarter and more eloquent person in the world be this young man?"

[noahidelaws]

BS"D Now THIS is beautiful:
From: Oren Popper <opopper@amanda.dorsai.org>
Date: Wed, 3 Jul 1996 10:16:01 -0400 (edt)
Subject: Wedding Cost

ohayonlm@BIOMED.MED.YALE.EDU (Lisa Halpern) wrote:
> I'd like to add another idea to the "wedding-cost" dialogue. As
> centerpieces on each table at their weddings, two friends of mine had
> beautiful food arrangements. One was a basket filled with drygoods,
> arranged with ribbons, warapped with tissue paper, etc. The other was a
> professionally done vegetable-flowers-candle centerpiece from a local
> florist. After their celebrations, the food gifts were sent to local
> organizations that distributed them to needy families. I think is this a
> terrific way to start one's married life - both enjoying family and
> friends, and sharing with others.

At the Yechidus with the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which my wife and I had
prior to our wedding, the Rebbe stressed the custom of the Chosson and
Kallah giving additional Tzedoka on the day of their wedding. The Rebbe
added that all those who are related in any way to the Chosson and
Kallah (kol Yisroel arevim ze la'ze) should do the same.

Inspired by this idea, my wife and I decided to have Tzedoka Pushkas
(charity boxes) as centerpieces on each table! We also printed a synopsis
of the Rebbe's words and enclosed a coin to be given for Tzedoko with
the 'bentchers' which were distributed right at the beginning of the
meal.

[Jude]

Moral Dilemma #3

Here's the situation:
A couple is driving home from a wedding. Someone asks the husband for a ride. He says, sorry, this is one of the rare times I have for speaking to my wife.

Did the the husband do the right thing?
Can we say that the chesed of spending the time talking to his wife should supersede giving someone else a ride?
Should he not forego the opportunity of helping someone out, especially since the person approached him and asked for the favor?
We don't have other information, like when would be his next opportunity for talking to his wife, Apparently, private time is rare for this couple.

What do you think?

[rebayzl]

Anyi'ey 'Ircha Kodmin!

You cannot do favors to others on the expense of your own family relationships.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

I agree, family comes first especially husband and wife.

[ChachChach]

it sounds like he did the correct thing. my only question is: if they hadnt gone to the wedding, when else would he have been able to talk to his wife? maybe they should set aside some more time for talking , instead of depending on simchas....just a thought:)

[noahidelaws]

BS"D If there is no-one else available, then there is no question that one should give him the lift.
It also depends how far away they are and how much private time he would be losing.
Why not ask the wife if she minds - if she is the generous and hospitable type, maybe she would NOT want the husband to forgo doing a favour for another Yid due to her?
This kind of situation happens often when returning from the Ohel to CH.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

<<maybe they should set aside some more time for talking , instead of depending on simchas....just a thought>>

This is a great point. (I was actually going to suggest it - Thanks)

<<Why not ask the wife if she minds - if she is the generous and hospitable type, maybe she would NOT want the husband to forgo doing a favour for another Yid due to her?>>

Because most of them wouldn't mind, but the bottom line is you would be taking away from their quality time together. Even if they agree, it's wrong.


<<If there is no-one else available, then there is no question that one should give him the lift.>>

This is a whole different scenario. Here, there is no other choice...

[rebayzl]

<<Why not ask the wife if she minds - if she is the generous and hospitable type, maybe she would NOT want the husband to forgo doing a favour for another Yid due to her?>>

Sorry, this is such a Sexist comment! Why do you make it sound as if the husband does the wife a favour by talking to her, and she can forgive him?! Keeping a realtionship between spouses is equally important to both, and if the husband needs it, it's also more important than doing a favor to others, b/c in the end the family unit will suffer.

[Rabbi_D]

Originally posted by Jude
Moral Dilemma #3

Here's the situation:
A couple is driving home from a wedding. Someone asks the husband for a ride. He says, sorry, this is one of the rare times I have for speaking to my wife.

Did the the husband do the right thing?
.................................................. .........................................
What do you think?
Why is it that riding home from a wedding "is one of the rare times" he has for speaking to his wife!? This itself is a problem! (Perhaps, instead of going to the wedding, he and his wife should go out somewhere and spend time talking!)

And rather than advertise how busy he is, and how neglectful he is of his wife, I would suggest that he be "meshenah" and just say, "Sorry, but we are not going straight home," or something along those lines. (And they can stop off somewhere on the way home, so as not be telling a lie.)

[ChachChach]

moral dilemma #4

is half a truth considered truth or considered a lie?

ex: (silly example, but here it is)
you were supposed to call someone, but you forgot. the next day, when asked about it, you say"oh i did call you," bc technically, in the past you have called them. the person now thinks that you called them YESTERDAY, when in reality you never did.

is misleading someone considered cheating them? if there is a way to twist around your words so technically you never lied, but the other person gets the wrong impression, have you sinned?

[rebayzl]

1. Ask Bill Clinton.
2. It seems to me that lying is immoral, even a white lie, unless you are trying to achieve a "Bigger goal", for example, you want to avoid hurting someones feelings etc.

[masbir]

Yaakov used that tactic by using Ani Binchu, Esov Bechorechu. (as Rashi comments)

[Jude]

it's called geneivas daas
see Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, siman 63, se'if 4

[masbir]

Thats (in Kitzur) a law of the market, not just fudging the truth when sale is involved.

[Jude]

se'if 5 goes on to say: don't invite people when you know they won't accept; don't give a gift when you know he won't accept it; so too for anything like this when you are echad b'peh v'echad b'lev - (exactly as in Moral Dilemma #4), appearing to honor his friend, but not meaning it sincerely - this is forbidden. Constantly, one's mouth and heart should be in sync, and one should conduct oneself truthfully, with upright spirit and pure heart.

[masbir]

Thats not gneivos daas. (in there it says (in parenthesisi) gneivos daas does not apply by gifts.

[WanderingJew]

hey, i'm still on moral dilemma 3 about the guy who wouldn't give someone a ride cause he had to talk to his wife:
i have three words for someone like that:
GET A LIFE!!
if a drive home from a wedding is the only time the couple has for communication, and he can't spare it to help someone out...a tad strange.
Let him drop the guy off at home and go for another drive if the car is the only place he can have some privacy with his wife?!

[masbir]

But look in Alter Rebbes Shilchos Aruch Chosohn Mishpot Hilchos oi'nou seif 14 it seems that geneivos daas is when you deliberately fool a person to make him think you really like him even though thats not th case, but to just show respect the other person you are allowed say a thing even if dont mean it.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

<<And rather than advertise how busy he is, and how neglectful he is of his wife, I would suggest that he be "meshenah" and just say, "Sorry, but we are not going straight home," or something along those lines. (And they can stop off somewhere on the way home, so as not be telling a lie.)>>

The point is not how often they speak to each other, or the reasons they have to give, it is happening, what do you do? All the other "strange" questions can come later. We are talking about now, this second. All these calculations are for later, a different dilemma!

Re: Half-truths... This is a moral question, and morally I think it's wrong.

Min Hadin it may be different, but as we are Chasidim and [one of] the definition(s) of a Chasid is to go beyond the letter of the law...

The fact that it's called "half the truth" implies that the other half is?? It’s misleading. (At least morally)

[WanderingJew]

well what about "adjusting" the truth for reasons of holding the peace? not davka lying, just trying to protect pple's feelings for peace reasons
...what about Aharon who "lied" to make peace between two rivals?
what's that if not a half-truth?
there obviously is some leeway here for these matters.
there is a fine line between being honest, and being a fool, by not knowing when to talk and when to keep silent...

[Jac]

Which sage was it that forbade his son to continue his practice of telling his mother that his father wanted the exact opposite of what he wanted--He did this to preserve peace, because his wicked mother would do exactly the opposite of what his father wanted. When his father found out, he forbade his son to continue doing this, because even though it was done for good purposes, it could lead him to become familiar and easy with lying.

[I'm sure you people out there can provide the sources and names:). Thanks.]

What does this story say?

Jude, regarding that halacha you quote: does that mean you shouldn't send invitations to people who are definitely not going to make it to your simcha? If your wedding is out of town and the people of your community will definitely not come, are you not to send invitations??

[noahidelaws]

BS"D It was Rav and his son Chiya. The question is asked by the Maharshal: if it is permitted and desirable to "be meshaneh" i.e. lie for the sake of promoting marital harmony, and Rav surely knew that, why was he upset at his son? The answer is that that only applies to an occasional lie. But to constantly lie, even for this lofty purpose, is unacceptable, because one thus teaches oneself to lie.

ummm. That was from memory. I just did a search and found this:

WHITE LIES

After Yaakov’s death, Yosef’s brothers are afraid he will now take revenge on them for selling him into slavery. They tell him that Yaakov himself ordered him to forgive them (Bereshit 50:15-17). The Gemara justifies this story, using it as an example of the principle “A person is allowed to change [the facts] for the sake of peace” (Yoma 65b).

Another well-known example of this idea is the custom to praise the bride with the expression “Kala naah vechasuda” – lovely and gracious bride”. Beit Shammai opposed using this phrase if the bride is lame or blind, pointing out that the Torah commands us “Distance yourself from lies” (Shemot 23:7). Not only is lying forbidden, but we are actually required to distance ourselves from it, avoiding even stretching the truth. Beit Hillel point out that the groom at any rate views the bride as lovely and gracious, and a person should adopt a point of view which takes account of other people’s views. We rule like Beit Hillel. (Ketubot 17a, SA EHE 65a.

Presumably Beit Hillel view the verse in Shemot as referring only to court judgment.)

The Midrash relates how Aharon would reconcile feuds by telling each side, “Your friend is not avoiding you because he bears you a grudge; on the contrary, he knows he is wrong and he is ashamed to face you.” By saying this to each side he was able to persuade both to forgive and forget (Avot DeRebbe Natan chapter 12).

We see that despite the supreme importance of truth, which is “the seal of the Holy One, blessed be He” (Shabbat 55a), peace (shalom) can be even more important. Yet this order of importance is valid only in exceptional circumstances. We learn this from the story of Rav and his son Chiya. Rav had a somewhat strained relationship with his wife, and in some areas she would do the opposite of what he requested. When Rav relayed directions through his son, he noticed that she would do what he requested. When he mentioned to Chiya that his mother seemed to be more cooperative, Chiya explained that this was only because he was reversing Rav’s directions!

Even though this is an obvious example of dissembling for the sake of truth, Rav asked his son to stop, citing a verse from Yirmiyahu (9:4) which accuses the wicked of accustoming themselves to lie. (A similar message seems to stem from the story of Kushta on Sanhedrin 97a.)

One way of understanding Rav’s direction is that peace is more important that truth once in a while, but not on an ongoing basis. A more consistent understanding is that peace is always the supreme value. Why then may not we lie to achieve peace on a regular basis? The answer is that the trade-off is a false one, because peace itself is dependent on truth. On an ongoing basis, being truthful is the surest way of creating harmony and trust, and being deceitful the surest way to create friction and enmity.

Only if we adopt a steadfast habit of being truthful and straightforward can a rare and occasional artifice be effective in fostering peace. The Midrash we mentioned about Aharon cites the verse, “A Torah of truth was in his mouth, and injustice was never found on his lips; with peace and righteousness he went with Me, and many he turned from sin” (Malakhi 2:6). Aharon’s peace stemmed from a basis of truth and righteousness.

[ChachChach]

of course for sholam bayis, shalom bein adam lachaveiro, you would be allowed to twist around the words (didnt rashi say that Hashem did that in order to keep shalom between Avraham and Sara?).

i'm talking about in situations where you would be saving your own skin.

i guess the issue bottles down to this question:
is a half truth a lie or the truth.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

i'm talking about in situations where you would be saving your own skin.>>

Wow, as I was reading I was thinking about this. You took the words out of my... Keyboard.

[nachmans]

I think a half truth is a lie. But it doesnt matter what it's called. The question is whther we are allowed to do it. And the fact is that in some cases it's allowed. So Semantics and Defintions are superflous.

[Jude]

Feel free everyone, to post responses about previous moral dilemmas.

Moral Dilemma #5

The following should never happen to anyone. It's just meant as food for thought (and responses). Someone sent it to me.

You are engaged to be married and you learn that your fiancee:

1. Will become a paraplegic.
2. Has an illness that may be terminal.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

Now this is a hard one.

I think it depends largely on the case, a one-by-one case.

Morally, I don't think it's wrong to break off the engagement. If anything, I think it's immoral to leave someone in such a situation. Unless of course they both agree to it.

We are talking here about a life-long commitment, an everlasting union...

I also noted, you wrote before the marrige.

Morel dilemma #6: What about after the marriage R"L?

By the way, what do you mean by "Will become a paraplegic"

[Jude]

polio for example

[ChachChach]

question on moral dilemma #5

if the person with the problem just learned about it, that's one thing.

but if they were aware of it before, but just broke the news after the engagement...question:WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? i thought marriage was all about trust....

you could connect this to the half-truth moral dilemma. if you lead someone on, pretend to be one thing, while really you're another, arent you in essence lying to them? do you think that someone would have gotten engaged if they would have know about that problem?

[noahidelaws]

BS"D This case is much worse than a "white lie," which we said above is permitted for the sake of making peace.

In Nisuin Kehilchosom, pps. 89-94, these laws are discussed. It is written there that if the sickness is severe and dangerous it must not be concealed from the prospective spouse. If it is then according to some opinions the marriage is invalid (because it is a mekach to'us) so due to this deception they end up living together in a forbidden relationship for their entire lives. So that answers your moral dilemma #6, BLewbavitch.

However, if the sickness is not severe it may be concealed.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

<<However, if the sickness is not severe it may be concealed.>>

We are talking about whether it's moral or not.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D If it is a mild sickness, then we are talking about a different moral dilemma, because Jude was clearly talking about a severe case. So that makes this moral dilemma #7.

(Perhaps there might be a difference in this respect between the person with the problem him/herself and a third party. The third party has the interests of both in mind, i.e. the mitsvah to make a shidduch. I.e. although it may be somewhat unethical to conceal a minor fault, it is by the same token unethical not to suggest an otherwise promising shidduch. Whereas the person himself can only be said to have his own interests in mind, so it may be more unethical for him to conceal. But this is merely my own speculation.)

If there is doubt as to whether the fault qualifies as "mild" or "severe", there is no doubt that a Rov (practicing Rabbi) must be consulted.

Btw as I look in this sefer Nisuin Kehilchosom I find that R. Moshe paskens about the case of a girl who had committed immorality that she must inform the prospective groom of this fact. However the Maharsham disagrees.

[ChachChach]

moral dilemma #8 (what was 7 again?)

are shadchanim allowed to withhold a vital piece of information when they suggest a shidduch? although no one wants the other side to know EVERYTHING, do you think its fair that a * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * is set up on a date, and is totally disapointed bc the other side is not at all what they were led to expect.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

There’s a very good reason people go out, to make sure they are compatible... A Shadchan can only assume what is good (and of course, as mentioned, may not be good at that either).

A Shadchan merely sets up two people, whether for the good or worst, they are not always compatible. Bearing this (the going out anyway theory) in mind, they don't/won't always tell of all the (seemingly) minor problems.

Is it wrong? I think morally it may be. But in practice a lot of Shadchonim do this.

[ChachChach]

i know (personally) of someone who went out with a girl, got married to her, and a few months later found out she was on pills. turns out, she was schizo, and took pills.

now, no one, not the shadchanim, not her friends, not even her family, considered telling him that.

of course they wanted this girl to get married. but dont forget-she's marrying someone else too-how moral is it that someone finds out their wife has a chemical imbalance in the brain (she decided she didnt need her pills anymore...the rest is history...) after they've been married?


(some parts of this post have been edited due to the extreme lack of sensitivity on my part. sorry)

[Jac]

(This has nothing to do with the topic at hand, but please, let's use more refined terms when referring to people with emotional and/or mental problems. "finds out his wife is NUTS"?! I'm sure it was unintentional, but let's use a little more sensitivity please.)

[BLewbavitch]

BH

ChachChach,

Hence, "Is it wrong? I think morally it may be."

[noahidelaws]

BS"D Chach - Withholding such information is clearly forbidden, as I quoted above. In fact, even someone who is not asked must volunteer such information. If he fails to do so, he transgresses the negative command of "lo sa'amoid al dam rai'acho".

However, if it is only a minor fault, it may be concealed. The Sefer gives 3 examples:

1) A faulty yichus (though permitted to marry a Yisroel).
2) A mild sickness, even if it requires a certain diet.
3) An older woman marrying a younger man need not feel obliged to volunteer her age if she is not asked.
4) If the bochur is not so learned, this need not be told to the girl.

In fact, the Sefer goes even further and says that when such faults may be concealed, they SHOULD be concealed.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

I think it's a moral obligation for both sides (as well as the Shadchan) to provide all necessary details, including health, monetary, learning abilities...

There is no reason why people withhold information, and thus R"L maybe causing Sholom Bayis later on in the marriage. We know that Sholom Bayis is one of the most important issues, to the extent that G-d lets His Holy Name be erased for it... So if this can be stopped, why not?

One can never decide if certain issues will indeed cause Sholom Bayis problems later on for certain individuals (couples), hence, withholding vital information!

[masbir]

There is an amazing maamer by the Alter Rebbe where he explains why shadchonim have to be liars! He explains that since shiduchim are irrational endeavers, so they can't happen through logical channels, therefore the deception which avoids reality is the only way the abundance of Hashem can manifest itself!

[noahidelaws]

BS"D That's not what the sefer says, and it is Halacha. It differentiates between minor, mild faults which SHOULD NOT be revealed and severe ones which MUST be revealed. Why not look it up for yourself and then decide?
Since this is a matter of Halacha, if in doubt one would be obliged to consult a Rov, as I wrote above.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

1) Masbir, So what's the use of Shadchonim and De'ah Zogers? If they are irrational endeavers (which I don't doubt), why do people even have to try and set them up... (I'm just trying to clarify here, I'm not C"V implying otherwise)

2) Noahidelaws, You already wrote what the Sefer says. I'm asking a rational question here.

I'll ask it again, if Sholom Bayis is one of the most important things, to the extent that G-d allows His Holy Name to be erased. How can someone (maybe/probably) cause this to happen? (This has nothing to do with the moral dilemma of whether it’s a lie or not)

Please explain.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D <<What's the use of Shadchonim>>

Hashem wants a Jew to work within nature.

<<(I'm just trying to clarify here, I'm not C"V implying otherwise)>>

Well, that's what I understood because before you wrote: <<I think it's a moral obligation for >> etc.

It seems clear to me that if the fault is indeed minor, once the couple marries, they will learn to live with each other's minor faults and therefore these faults need not cause marital disharmony ch"v.

[BLewbavitch]

BH

I still think it's just the "right thing" to do to tell people, either way the will find out, so what's the difference? If anything you are also causing them to look at you as a liar, scoundrel... For not telling them all.

Again, I'm really playing Devil's advocate here; I want to clarify so that everyone can understand.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D It seems clear to me. If it is a minor fault, that is what Torah and Halocho say should be done. If it will be resented, too bad. Looks like that's a risk that Torah takes on its shoulders.

But the Torah seems to be saying that chances are, though, that if they agreed to get married, they actually like each other, and so once they find out about the minor faults of the other one of which they were unaware, they won't mind. They see primarily the other one's good qualities, and are happy to be married, and work to grow and improve together. :)

[mendelp]

I have a basic question on the whole premise of this thread. what is the distinction between moraly wrong and halachicaly wrong? Who defines morality? If morality is defined by society then ultimately anything goes, b/c I will make my own society (even if it is comprised of only me) and define my own rules. If it comes from outside of us (i.e. hashem) well then the torah (i.e. halacha) defines what is moral. once we establish what halacha is we can then discuss v'osiso hayashar v'hatov (which I believe also has halachic implications) and lifnim mishuras hadin etc.

[rebayzl]

What, you never heard of "novol bershus hatorah"?

[mendelp]

And what makes a novol birshus hatorah wrong? Torah b/c it calls him a novol (b/c he is following halacha!). And that would be covered either under v'osiso hayoshor v'hatov or lifnim mishuras hadin. IOW in all these dilemmas we have to first know the halacha. and then decide whether there is an issue of being novol which would require us to go lifnim mishuras hadin.

[CybeRabbi]

I dont understand the question on the premise. Is it a question of semantics what the word moral means? Moral means "musri" or Hilchs derech Eretz, Hilchos De'yos the part of Halacha dealing with Moral dilemmas. There are many sorts of behavour which the Shilchon Aruch doesnt adress ir in black an white. I see most posters use Halacha to come to conclusions. Take for example cloning, its a moral question, perhaps you can find a solution for that in Halacha, but its a moral problem nonetheless.

Besides, as the famous Gemara in Eruven says "I'lu lo nitne torah (ChV) ho'yinu le'meidim Tznous mi'chotul..."(=If the Torah wouldnt be given we would learn modesty from a cat), we would learn morality from animals. So there exisits some forms of rational inate moralities of the natural order.

[mendelp]

moral questions are those in which we have to decide right from wrong. hilchos derech eretz (I'm assumming you mean manners) are not an issue of right and wrong (except in the sense that since it is a halacha one has to follow it). Hilchos de'yos are and therefore we have a shulchan aruch and a rambam to know what the halacha is. IOW in any issue in which we have to decide right from wrong the torah will have something to say about it (even cloning, it is a purely halachic issue) and if it is not stated clearly in shulchan aruch one should consult with a rov. b/c the definition of moral is right and in every situation torah defines what is right and what is wrong.

concerning "I'lu lo nitne torah (ChV) ho'yinu le'meidim Tznius mi'chotul..." Lich'ora it means if we would not (chv) have torah we would have to decide moral issues on our own and we would learn it from the animals vchu'. so even though there are rational motives for morality we do it b/c it says in torah and not for the rational motives.

[Jude]

A valid question indeed (post 60). And the answer is that this thread is meant to raise and address issues that don't have a halachic right or wrong answer. Sometimes though, when someone poses a question, they may not realize that halacha has something to say about the matter (as in lying - in general and in shidduchim).
So the situation about giving a ride for example, doesn't have a halachic right or wrong answer. No posek will pasken that one must either give the ride, or one may not.
Another way of putting it is, the issues raised here should NOT be halachic ones, but rather those that fall into the category of reshus or the "fifth chelek of Shulchan Aruch" - sensitivity issues.

So back to the engagement question - no posek will say the person MUST marry. In fact, even without this health issue, a person is permitted (though not encouraged) to break an engagement!
Hence, it becomes a issue in which there are various considerations which we can discuss.

[CybeRabbi]

In your first post on the subject you claimed that there is no such a concept of objective moral code outside the Torah. I understood it to mean, as you yourself wrote: "b/c I will make my own society (even if it is comprised of only me) and define my own rules", that human minds on their own can not make any Judgement on their own if something is right or wrong. I brought the Gemara which says that even without Torah there exists morality (called also: Mishpotim).

How you answered it -- I dont understand. You say that: "so even though there are rational motives for morality we do it b/c it says in torah and not for the rational motives". But initially you denied the whole notion that such thing as objective moral Judgement exists. (Of course, now we do it because of Torah, but even without Torah such a thing as morality exists. I thinks its poshet.)

On the first point, I see it purely as semantics and liguistic what the term moral means and if applies to here, I see nothing wrong with premise of this thread, using Torah to decide moral questions. I fail to see the problem with this thread.

[mendelp]

Jude

The situation with the ride is not "moral" question if anything it is a relationship question (as many posters said (posted?)). If it is finfte chelek question it is again not a moral issue maybe mentchlichkeit or sensitivity. However in order to know when one is confronting a halachic issue as opposed to a sensitivity one should always consult a rov.

Cyberabbi

obviuosly there are rational motives for morality but they are not objective. b/c given two rational societies they will come up with two moral codes which will both be rational. To give a stark example the nazi(yimach shemom) moral code was rational. If someone is not of the super race kill him. That is a rational statement b/c it ensures the survival of the super race. but other rational moral codes will not accept such behavior b/c they value all life equally which is also rational.

On the first point. true it is semantics but then again chachomim hizoharu b'divreichem. in the first post it says >> I thought we could use this thread to present interesting moral dilemmas and what we would do in the situation. << what we would do? what ever torah demands of us.

[masbir]

maybe a different thread is needed for that.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D IMHO relationship and sensitivity issues are moral issues.

[mendelp]

Please explain why

[noahidelaws]

BS"D mor·al adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Thus if certain permitted behaviours between man and his fellow man are nevertheless improper, then they are immoral. Or, as we said before, a case of being a novol bi'reshus haTorah.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D See this site about shidduchim halochos and dilemmas: http://www.shemayisrael.com/rabbiforsythe/zivug/loshonhora.htm

[ChachChach]

Originally posted by noahidelaws
BS"D It seems clear to me. If it is a minor fault, that is what Torah and Halocho say should be done. If it will be resented, too bad. Looks like that's a risk that Torah takes on its shoulders.

But the Torah seems to be saying that chances are, though, that if they agreed to get married, they actually like each other, and so once they find out about the minor faults of the other one of which they were unaware, they won't mind. They see primarily the other one's good qualities, and are happy to be married, and work to grow and improve together. :)

no one is perfect. of course shadchanim will fudge the figures a little. for example, if the girl isnt the prettiest looking person, they might focus on her intellectual achievements.

but those are things that can be worked out. that's what marriage is all about.

but i'm talking about major things. things that the shadchan knows will bother the other side, or things like chemical imbalances and pills.

is the shadchan obligated (according to halacha) to let the other side know about this?

[noahidelaws]

BS"D <<but i'm talking about major things. things that the shadchan knows will bother the other side, or things like chemical imbalances and pills.

is the shadchan obligated (according to halacha) to let the other side know about this?>>

I wrote in post# 44 above:

<<In Nisuin Kehilchosom, pps. 89-94, these laws are discussed. It is written there that if the sickness is severe and dangerous it must not be concealed from the prospective spouse. If it is then according to some opinions the marriage is invalid (because it is a mekach to'us) so due to this deception they end up living together in a forbidden relationship for their entire lives. >>

And in post # 52:

<<Withholding such information is clearly forbidden, as I quoted above. In fact, even someone who is not asked must volunteer such information. If he fails to do so, he transgresses the negative command of "lo sa'amoid al dam rai'acho". >>

[ChachChach]

thank you for clearing that up....

so would that mean that a person would have to give over the information BEFORE things got serious, or after?

[mendelp]

>>BS"D mor·al adj. 1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.

Thus if certain permitted behaviours between man and his fellow man are nevertheless improper, then they are immoral. Or, as we said before, a case of being a novol bi'reshus haTorah.<<

I stand corrected. being that any action of ours has to be in consonance with ratzon ha'elyon, therefore it can be judged in terms of good and bad and is a moral issue. the corollary to that is that every action of ours has to be discussed somewhere in torah b/c otherwise we have no way of knowing ratzon ha'elyon. so ultimately the question with the ride should be addressed to a rov.

BTW an argument can be made that the novol birshus hatorah is not immoral b/c the torah permits his action (hence it is not bad), but at the same time he is not moral b/c hashem wants him to go beyond the letter of the law (hence not doing ratzon ha'elyon which is not good).

[noahidelaws]

BS"D <<a person would have to give over the information BEFORE things got serious, or after?>>

Umm... good question. I just checked it up in Nisuin Kehilchosom and it is not so clear. What is clear (in section 14 there) is that someone else may not suggest such a Shidduch knowing of a serious deficiency in that person. But I could only find a clear statement obligating the deficient person him/herself to reveal the fault when they are "oimdim le'hishtadech" (about to be engaged) i.e. things are getting serious.

[Jude]

To clarify Moral Dilemma #5 - the question was not about a situation in which information was hidden. The question was about something happening, and whether that "something" would be a reason for someone to break off the shidduch. A more current example than polio would be someone injured in a terrorist act.

Here's an answer I received from my uncle:

<<I met --- on her 17th birthday, October 27th, 1950.
It was love at first sight for me (23 years old, July 23) but it took some courting to convince ---- I was serious.
On or around Thanksgiving, she was not feeling well - alone in NY from LA - and I was taking care of her.
It turned out to be polio.
I brought, first her sister from Philly and then her mother from LA.
When I told my father zal that she had a low-grade infection, he (a pharmacist) said: Something like polio; but don't leave her; she's for you.
When she came to my parents for the first time SHE WAS WEARING PANTS!
TO COVER HER LEG BRACES!
My dear late parents treated her royally, although their ----- was a Magna Cum laude college graduate, learning in a Kollel (not done in those days), ++++++
FROM THE MOMENT I MET HER I WAS IN IT FOR BETTER OR WORSE!
NO DILEMMA HERE!>>
------------------------------------------------------------
my response:
Love at first sight is one thing ...

I think that speaking from a technical viewpoint though, an engagement is not binding. So for example, if the couple had delayed to check with Dor Yesharim about taysachs, and then checked and discovered they were not compatible, most people would understand their breaking their engagement. I don't think people would say they should get married anyway, even if it means they may bring children into the world who will die a horrible death.
So too, if they later discovered that the person would become seriously ill or crippled.
This is especially so in shidduchim among many frum/Chassidic people where there is very little dating, and not much of a connection before marriage. This is not to say that if a couple chooses to marry anyway, that they shouldn't. It's up to them. Though I wonder, from a halachic perspective, whether a Taysachs couple is allowed to get married when the chances of catastrophe are so high.

[rebayzl]

. Though I wonder, from a halachic perspective, whether a Taysachs couple is allowed to get married when the chances of catastrophe are so high.

Cyberabbi, we need you for this one.

From my Daas Baalei Batim it seems that Halachically there is no Issur on Marriage in such a case. Then again, perhaps it fits in the dictum of The Talmud the a midget should not marry one like him etc. [What is the Halachic "source" foir that dictum?]

[Rabbi_D]

Originally posted by rebayzl
[B]. Then again, perhaps it fits in the dictum of The Talmud the a midget should not marry one like him etc. [What is the Halachic "source" foir that dictum?]

Said Resh Lakish: An abnormally tall man should not marry an abnormally tall woman, lest their offspring be [like] a mast. A male dwarf should not marry a female dwarf, lest their offspring be a dwarf of the smallest size. A man abnormally white-complexioned should not marry an equally white-complexioned woman, lest their offspring be excessively white-complexioned. A very dark-complexioned man should not marry an equally very dark-complexioned woman, lest their offspring may be pitch black.
Bechorot 45b

[rebayzl]

Thanks.

My question was really from which Halacha did Resh Lakish derive it? [That is why I put "Source" in quotation marks].

[ChachChach]

Is the fact that a tall person cant marry a tall person etc. the FINAL halacha? I.E., sometimes something is written in the gemara, but later poskim added to the din.

[masbir]

It is just advice not halacha. it is not codified in Shilchon Aruch Even Haezer simon beis. It is no different than hundreds of advice in Talmud which is not Lehalacha but only advice.

So 1) No Halachic source is needed for that (dealing with REBYZLS post) 2) No Halacha results from that (ChachChachs post)

[Jude]

just to emphasize: he said abnormally tall, not just "tall"

and another thing: "just advice"?
G-d's wisdom, as He compressed it into Torah for mortals to understand, "just advice"?

[rebayzl]

Jude: Some statements in the Talmud are only given as "Advice" and have no Legal Binding. The fact that this is G-d's wisdom is irrelevant.

Masbir: You're right, but I am sure that this advice is derived from some undelying principle. So you think we cannot learn from this that people with a genetic disorder should refrain from marying each other? Maybe it is part of "Linfey Iver" or "lo saamod". But it's a chidush to say that this applies to an unborm child.

[Jude]

I understand that it's not legally binding, but to say, "The fact that this is G-d's wisdom is irrelevant" seems most astonishing. I mean really now, rebayzl! If you're not going to take G-d's advice, whose advice will you take?

[rebayzl]

First of all it's Resh Lakish's Advice not "G-d's Advise" (it is G-d's wisdom).

Secondly, since it's not legally binding, you have to measure it against other legal (halachic) obligations and other considerations.

Also, it's even possible that this entire statement by RL is not even meant literally.

[Jude]

Reish Lakish's advice?
It's G-d's wisdom as it is expressed through R.L.'s advice!

<<Secondly, since it's not legally binding, you have to measure it against other legal (halachic) obligations and other considerations.>>

now you're talking!

<<it's even possible that this entire statement by RL is not even meant literally.>>

why would you say that here
it's very practical

[masbir]

First of all about Judes comment, how can we say its just advice when its G-Ds wisdom. Well, Torah is Divine wisdom and Divine will: the parts of Torah which are not meant Lehalacha is the Wisdom of G-D; and the Parts which are Lehalacha is the Will of
G-D.

In the parts which are the wisdom of G-D, there are many categories: Advice for particular people and situations only; the opinions which are refuted, as Beis Shamies opinions; the allegorical parts of Aggadah. So, to the contrary: when we are talking about non practical parts of Torah, we are indeed dealing with G-Ds wisdom, for the practical parts is called the Ratzon of G-D (and not wisdom).

But going back to the Sugua in Bechoros, and the search for an Halachic underpinning. After a second look, I think that perhaps Resh Lokish is speaking about Kohanim only. The Mishna in there speaks about the blemishes which disqualifies Kohanim from priesthood, and lists: "The black,... the pale, the tall (who stoops), the dwarf... are disqualified".

Now, here comes Resh Lokish and offers advice for the Kohen how to prevent those four blemishes from happening to his childern in order to keep them qualified for preisthood. (read Rabbi-D post, for the whole Talmudical excerpt and you will see that they match those four blemishes)

[ChachChach]

moral dillema #9

Everyone knows that you're supposed to judge your fellowman/woman fairly. We're all supposed to be dan likaf zechus.

My question: To what extent? If someone has a certain reputation, are you supposed to ignore that and up getting hurt, or listen to what everyone says about them.

Here's a practical example.
You know someone has a reputation for ruining books. They really dont take good care of them. One day, that person comes over to you and asks to borrow a book from you.

On one hand, you're supposed to be dan likaf zechus, and not listen to what everyone says about them, no?
On the other hand, you're not interested in losing out on your books-books dont grow on trees!

(Okay, it's a silly example, but you get the point)

Is it morally right to listen to what everyone says and not lend your book, or should you ignore rumors, lend the book, and end up suffering.

[masbir]

In the Chafetz Chaim he dedicates a chapter or two to sort out all the details when, and to what degree, you can act on accusations and reputions which is based on Lashan Hara.

[rebayzl]

1. I think that from a legal prespective you should not give the books.

2. But if you want to go above and beyond the legal, you should give the books and take the risk (like lending money to a person you don't know).

3. I think Chofetz Chaim talks about it.

[Jude]

moral dilemma #10
What if you're invited to something (a performance for ex. or graduation) by a relative or friend who's performing in it, and you have no interest in attending.
Do you 1) attend anyway out of loyalty to the friend/relative 2) say you won't be making it

is it selfish or disloyal not to go?
should one attend something to make someone feel good?
would they want you to attend if you didn't enjoy it?

[rebayzl]

Why should "enjoying" be even part of the criteria of doing the right things?

People go out of thier way to make others feel good. And this is the same. Now if you're talking about wasting a lot of precious time etc., so the issue is how important is it to the other person you should come. Still, I think the simple asnwer is: Go.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D If it is a simcha, I think it is the decent thing to do to go. There your very presence is a Mitsvah. But if it is something mundane, I don't think it is necessary. Just say something like: oh, sorry, I am already booked for then and wish the person all the best.

If you are busy and spend your time productively and that is very obvious, the person will acept that.

But if you have reason to think that despite your explanations the person would be devastated if you would not attend, then that would be proper.

My relatives know not to bother me to take part in something mundane because they know I would be really bored and suffer at the wasted time.

Unless it is something especially to promote family achdus.

[ChachChach]

moral dilemma 11:

What if by posting on this site you give people the impression that you're something that you really arent? I know we all have to strive to reach our best, and in truth, we really do have the potential to do all of the things that we know/say we should be doing.

But here is a situation of Ideal Vs Real.
Idealy, you know you should be behaving a certain way. You know that all of your actions should be for the sake of Heaven, that nothing you do should be for stam pleasure, and that you should be totally given over the the Rebbe. And maybe while you're posting here, you really do believe it. And you come across as something that you arent.

And then you reenter the Real world. You go about your daily life. You act sometimes in a way that's contrary to the exact thing you just said. And maybe you really do believe all the things you say-and you know they're true-but when it comes to actually living it, its a different story.

Isnt it dishonest? Shouldnt you let people know who the real you is on this site, and not the ideal you? Say what you want, when you come to this site, you get inspired to act better. It could be that sometimes you say things that you know you should be doing (and at that moment, you really are doing it) but the minute you log off this site....

This is not only for spiritual situations. What if you're coming across as something you really arent. What if you sound like an adult, when you're really a teen, or if you sound like a male, when you're really a female (or vice versa).

[Jac]

Ah, Chachchach, what a great dilemma.

The basic response is, I believe, that if you're sounding more spiritual and more frum than you really are, it's your TRUE essence coming out here, and not vice versa. Without all the external trappings, worries over peer pressure, etc., it's possible for your true feelings and level to come across as they truly are.

That leaves me wondering, what if a person comes across as less religious than he truly is....

As for the end of your post, about giving over wrong impressions: I agree, it can feel dishonest, and probably should--it's good to maintain your sense of honesty and integrity. OTOH, it's pretty irrelevent to the subject matter whether you're adult or teen, male or female (usually). --especially since the effect can be counterproductive, if you get what I mean-no real need to know the age, gender, and location of all members.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D This is discussed in the "Authenticity vs. Masks" thread.

Re age: there are some people who are really mature beyond their years and whose words would not be taken as seriously if their age were known.

There is a famous Chassidishe saying that the age of a Chossid is not measured by one’s passport, so is seems that this site facilitates that perspective.

Re gender: for a female not to reveal her gender may be understandable, because statements made by men are regarded as more authoritative, as is clear from post #25 in the "A Formal Framework For Educating Girls" thread.

(On the other hand, as far as this site is concerned, perhaps we should keep in mind that Chazal say that one of the reasons a woman may not wear a man’s clothes is so that she not go and sit amongst the men, leading to lewdness. Is this applicable to this site? Dunno.)

But this would only seem to justify not revealing that one is female, but not deliberately giving the impression that one is male.

But for a male to pose as a female seems pretty warped to me. I wouldn’t suspect a frum Yid of doing that.

[ChachChach]

moral dilemma #12

Everyone knows that you're supposed to get up for an older person.

Unfortunately, they know this too. I say unfortunately, bc the sad fact is that some older people take advantage of this.

They'll come late to an event, squeeze to the front, and expect a younger person to get up for them. They'll ignore the fact that they came late, they'll ignore the fact that the younger person came extra early davka to get a seat, and they'll ignore the fact that if the younger person gets up, they'll be pushed to the back or something and wont be able to see/hear what's going on.

Or how about when they come to shul late on yomimtovim, when everyone knows that if you want to hear the chazan, you have to get to shul extra early. They'll assume that because their older, younger people will be jumping with joy to give up the seat that they had to wake up early to get.

Of course you have to get up for them.

My question is: how right is it that they take advantage of this.

[Jude]

very good question! when a person went out of their way to get the special seat, are they mechuyav to abandon it? Who says the older person has to sit in the front?
and what age people should be offering their seats? what if they're on a bus - should children stand? is that more dangerous for them?

[Jude]

moral dilemma #13 is about getting paid or not getting paid for jobs like babysitting, tutoring etc.
When should it be an act of chesed with no $ involved? it seems very murky to me
for example, if you help a classmate prepare for a test, you wouldn't dream of charging her, yet you get paid for tutoring jobs or you wouldn't do them! So you might say, well, but you also need to study for that test. True, but is that the reason not to charge? What about post-school, learning with someone your age, let's say a BT who wants to brush up on skills? On the one hand you can say - you too should be studying the sicha, parsha etc. and shouldn't be paid. On the other hand, you want to be paid!
What guidelines should parents provide for their children - babysit as a chesed? get paid?
if you babysit out of the home, you get paid - but if you babysit at home - you don't?
should parents EVER pay their own children for jobs, errands, chores? or NEVER? or sometimes? :confused:

[Bittul]

One must show respect to an older person no matter what their own personality is like. That's a Halachah, not a moral dilemna. And it's just as dangerous for an older person to stand on a bus.

[Jude]

I don't think the question is about personality, or is it?

Bittul: what would you say then, if a girl experiences this once too often, that she got up early to get a good spot, only to have to relinquish it, that she conclude: forget it! I just won't go. It's not worth putting in the hours only to have to forego it for some person taking advantage of me?
What are you going to say - go anyway, and hope for the best? (i.e. that this mitzva doesn't come your way?)

[Bittul]

Getting up doesn't mean giving up your seat. And if there are seats in the back, then giving them your seat in the front is not necessary for them to be able to sit. So I don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. Why would you give up your seat? On a bus, eventually there aren't enough seats period, not just in the front.

[Jac]

Bittul, it seems to me from the original question that Chachchach agrees that one IS required to get up for an older person.
What she has a problem with, apparently, is the attitude that some older people assume--taking advantage and being inconsiderate of the younger folks, by consistently taking it easy and showing up late, knowing that they have a seat guaranteed for them.

[ChachChach]

Originally posted by Bittul
Getting up doesn't mean giving up your seat. And if there are seats in the back, then giving them your seat in the front is not necessary for them to be able to sit. So I don't understand why this is an issue in the first place. Why would you give up your seat? On a bus, eventually there aren't enough seats period, not just in the front.

Yes, but what if they davka go over to you and ask you for a seat? You cant tell them no-and its quite disgusting of them, bc they're taking advantage of the situation.

Are you obligated to get up if you had to work hard to get that seat, ie, get up early, come early, and stay there the whole time, if someone comes late and asks you to get up for them?

(And before you say that this never happened, it happened once in shul. It was during the yomim tovim, when its IMPOSSIBLE to get a seat if you dont come early, and an older lady came over to my friends and I and TOLD us to get up.)

[noahidelaws]

BS"D Do you mean in 770? lol 770 has rules of its own...

[Bittul]

I think these dilemmas will be settled depending on your personality. I might be a laid-back kind of person who tolerates ?#$*&$ like that and give up my seat, or I might be a more indignant kind of person who would tell them: "NO! If you want a seat up here, come earlier! You should be setting the example for me!" Or, you might take the middle path of, "Sure! I'll scoot over and sit on half the seat, and you can sit on the other half!" It's also a sure way to get rid of whoever it is...

[ChachChach]

:)

Maybe they should realize how rude it is to take advantage of the younger generation

[Shlucha]

moral dilemma #14

There are some things that are talked about (in the world in general, not the jewish world), for example, like how to prevent another attack on America. So people are saying, well, don't let Arabs in flight school. on the one hand, that would seem good, that way, you prevent anything else from happening. but on the other hand, that's not fair to them! what if they had this burning desire to go to flight school, and they really had on bad intentions?

or like about putting the japenes into those internment camps during world war II. on the one hand, you'd say it's good-it prevented anything else from happening. But on the other hand, that is really unfair! Just b/c we are at war w/ a coutnry, doesn't mean all those kind of people in our country are spies!

as jews, we are kinda stuck, b/c all this discrimination happened to us, and we know what it feels like, so why should it have to happen to others? but on the other hand, if that could prevent something, lets go full speed ahead! i'm kinda confused about this. What do you say?

[Shlucha]

Originally posted by Bittul
I might be a laid-back kind of person who tolerates ?#$*&$ like that
bittul, on a lubavtich website, i am SHOCKED to hear (see) someone talk like that. even though techinically you did not say a bad word, it was implied. couldn't there be another way to say it that wouldn't imply such grub language? i am around non-frum people all day, and it really hurts me to hear them speak like that. but to come onto a lubavtich website (my outlet) and see the same thing??? :( it really makes me upset.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D If he would write "expletive" would you mind?
Anyway, I am sure that Bittul is not the type to curse in real life.
Btw I agree with you about cursing. I would never curse (I just find it repulsive).

[Jac]

Shlucha, what you're asking is basically: How can we tolerate discrimination when we've been so discriminated against ourselves?

Well, we can't take up the cause of every race and creed existent. :) I'd say that we should be as tolerant and understanding as possible, but if it can possibly cause a lack of safety...well, I'd rather be safe than sorry. It's nice to get philosophical and stick up for these people's rights in theory, but if it's your life on the line...Not too diplomatic, but true.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I thought Shlucha was referring to the manner in which Bittul's protest was worded, i.e. cursing, not the very fact that Bittul was protesting to opposition.

[Jac]

I was responding to post #110--Shlucha wrote two posts, one following the other.

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I'm really sorry! I didn't notice that.

[Jude]

hey! did nobody have an opinion on moral dilemma 13 in post 101? or did it get overlooked? :confused:

[Shlucha]

Originally posted by noahidelaws
BS"D If he would write "expletive" would you mind?
Anyway, I am sure that Bittul is not the type to curse in real life.
Btw I agree with you about cursing. I would never curse (I just find it repulsive).

NO! that's not the point! The point is that it shouldn't even be IMPLIED. Why couldn't they have just said "things"???? Maybe it's just me who can't stand it. Would you talk like that in front of the Rebbe? NO WAY! The Rebbe is with us all the time! OK, maybe that is a little bit extreme, but would you talk like that in front of your mashpia???

[ChachChach]

For Jude (ps-in post #117, I do believe you have employed a double negative.)

<<for example, if you help a classmate prepare for a test, you wouldn't dream of charging her, yet you get paid for tutoring jobs or you wouldn't do them!>>

The difference is, a tutoring job requires commitment. When you help a friend, you arent taking responsibility in ensuring they get a good mark. You're doing them a favor, and helping them

But when you tutor someone, you're going there with the intention of a)going on a steady basis, not just "whenever I have time" b)You're going there specifically to raise their mark.

Naturally, I'm sure that you're going to point out that when you help a friend, you're also trying to help them get their mark raised.

But the difference is, by a friend, they know that you arent taking responsibility-they know that you're going to try to help them, but whatever happens, happens. By a tutoring job, you're HIRED specifically to improve the person's mark.

[Shlucha]

Hey, Jude, that is a good one. I don't know what to say... I can see both ways!! I guess it might be who it is for... if you babysitting/tutoring someone who you know is kinda short of money.. it really wouldn't be fair to charge them! But you ARE doing them a service. If they offer to pay, why not agree?

[noahidelaws]

BS"D <<NO! that's not the point! The point is that it shouldn't even be IMPLIED.>>

You know, I admit you are 100% right. A refined person would not even IMPLY such language, and we as Yidden and especially Chassidim should be sure always to speak in a 100% refined manner.

This is in fact a clear ma'amar Chazal: leoilom yesaper odom beloshon nekiya (one should always speak in a clean i.e. refined manner).

Thank you for pointing that out to me!:)

[Jude]

Don't know that this qualifies as a moral dilemma, perhaps there are laws about it -
but someone I know is looking to rent an apartment and is extremely peeved because apartments are offered that need repairs or electrical work that the landlord expects the tenant to make. This is bad enough, but what compounds it is when only a one year lease is offered! So the tenant fixes things up, benefits for the one year, and then the landlord can say goodbye and benefit from the work the tenant put into his place!

Anybody know anything about this whether from the perspective of Torah (any halachos regarding this?) and legally?

Is is okay (whether halachically or legally) to say, "this is what it is, take it or leave it"?

[rebayzl]

The end of Bava Batra (learned lately in Daf HaYomi) deals with similar issues. I am sure the Shulchan Aruch talks about it too.

[Jude]

Scenario: A man is rowing a boat containing his mother, wife, and child. The boat capsizes and he can only save one person. Who must he save according to Jewish law?
[yeah, I know this could be in Halacha, but ...]

[RebYid]

What happened to the mother-in law? No shaalo, I guess.

[icewolf770]

hahahah.... as for a moral dillema i got one for you....

what if one knows about a married person who is committing a greviouse sin, are they obligated to inform the spouse?

[Jude]

well ... that's a halachic question
some factors are: is it the male or the female who's committing the sin, and what is the sin
for ex. if the woman is committing adultery, her husband is forbidden to her by halacha

[pretzel999]

Originally posted by Jude
Scenario: A man is rowing a boat containing his mother, wife, and child. The boat capsizes and he can only save one person. Who must he save according to Jewish law?
[yeah, I know this could be in Halacha, but ...] There is a mishna at the end of tractate horayos daf 13 IIRC which deals with theses issues. A man since he is chayav in more mitzvos, takes precedence over a woman. Ones Rebbe takes precedence over a father, a minor and a woman.......hmmm, don't remember if it's enumerated there. A mother or wife, my guess is the mother because of kibud ov vo'em

[Jude]

so for discussion's sake (not argument's!) if the passengers on the Titanic had all been Jewish, then the rule would have been Men First, not women and children! Correct?

[pretzel999]

yup, clearly stated in mishna ibid

[pretzel999]

Another moral dillema dealt with there
A man is in prison and in danger of being molested, same for a woman,enough money to bail out only one of them.......................tough eh??? What think you.....

[Jude]

I peeked. Mishnayos Horiyos 3:7
Man before woman when both in life threatening situation.
Return man's lost object before woman's (why does his being mechuyav in more mitzvos make a diff. here?)
Woman takes precedence over man in being provided with clothing since her shame is greater, ditto with food, ditto with redeeming from jail (since greater likelihood of zenus with woman)
but if both a man and a woman are in danger of rape, the man is rescued first (since this is unnatural for him and his shame is greater.)

[icewolf770]

WHAT????!!!!!!

ok... anyway as for rape, what if a woman is married and is raped is the husband still obligated to seperate? i heard that he needs to seperate for nine months...

but as for a man getting molested...

but when a girl gets raped its as if all hell (pardon my language) lets loose... i guess thats because it is more obviouse for a girl than a guy...

but back to the original question... what is someone obligated to do if we know of another person who is committing adultery? are we obligated to tell the spouse???

[Rabbi_D]

Since a single witness is not believed, not only does he not have an obligation to tell the spouse, but it could be construed as lashon ha'ra.

Naturally, halacha le'maaseh, ask your LOR.

[icewolf770]

ok, then what if there is a child from that union? what then?

[noahidelaws]

BS"D "A crookedness that cannot be straightened (Kohelet 1:15) - this refers to one who has relations with someone forbidden to him and gives birth to a mamzer." Chagigah 9a, referred to in Tanya chapter 7 at the end, where it is explained that "though the sinner undertakes such great repentance [as "repentance of great love]," he cannot cause the vitality to ascend to holiness, since it has already descended into this world and has been clothed in a body of flesh and blood."

[icewolf770]

meaning what??? in lay man's terms...

[noahidelaws]

BS"D (What I wrote doesn't answer your question, it is just relevant to the subject.) One cannot correct the birth of a mamzer through teshuva, even the highest level of teshuva ma'ahava, because the sin has already enclothed itself in a physical body.

[mendelp]

Halachicaly we assume that any child of the wife was fathered by her husband even if she also had relations with some one else. IIRC there is a tshuvah from r' moshe that one does not have to tell a spouse that they were being cheated on. I think his rational was that the obligation to seperate is only if the husband knows that she cheated and he is not doing anything wrong if he does not know.

[icewolf770]

but what if g-d forbid that child might one day marry thier sibling??? when should this topic come to light?

[mendelp]

if you are asking concerning what I wrote Halachicaly the childs siblings are only those fathered by it's mother and the mother's husband. Unless we have proof otherwise.

[abiselseichel]

Originally posted by noahidelaws
One cannot correct the birth of a mamzer through teshuva, even the highest level of teshuva ma'ahava, because the sin has already enclothed itself in a physical body.

Lehoir that in the story of R' yosef Baal Agoloh, after doing t'shuvah, his kids (from a shikse) died!!

I also heard from a real eltere chossid, that the words of the alter Rebbe are "iy efshar LO l'ha'alos hachayus l'kedushoh" - "it is impossible for HIM to elevate the energy to kedusha". This chossid was medayek, that it's impossible for HIM, however a Rebbe can elevate it.

At first I thought that abit of a strecth, however shuv ro'isi that it says clearly in chassidus many times, that (only) a Tzadik can actually elevate the chayus in Sholosh klipos hatemayos!!

[Jude]

the kids from the shiksa were not mamzerim!

back to the question of fear of marrying one's siblings - it's good and well to assume that any children this couple has is fully theirs, but what if the husband knows he has fathered children outside of his marriage?

[mendelp]

How does he know (the knoweledge has to have halachic validity)?

[pretzel999]

we always in halacha go after the majority:therefore even in the case of an adulterous woman we say that most of her relations are with her husband: therefore her children are his children.
Even in the case that someone fathered a child with a single woman, we are not worried that this child unbeknownst to him/her will marry a sibling since the 'rov'(majority)of the jewish populaTION are not his siblings

[pretzel999]

Just an interesting aside: if a married jewish woman (to another jew) has kids from a gentile illicitly the kids are NOT mamzeirim! Only a jewish man can cause mamzeirim (unless the woman herself is a mamzer)

[icewolf770]

wow.... but what about some one who is not married, the father is a goy... the kid is not a mamzer? then what is the catagory?

[Jude]

the child has a "pegam" (flaw)

unlike the English translation, the term mamzer in halacha is used only for the offspring of a marriage forbidden by Torah and which carries the death penalty

new moral dilemma (inspired by babysitter question):

If you have a friend that either sells clothes, is an accountant, styles wigs, is a plumber, whatever - should you davka use them (paying them of course) or not?

yes, use them - they're your friend, so of course you should patronize them!

no, no don't use them - if you want to remain friends don't do business with them!

[shoyn]

might be a convenient way of terminating a relationship that you are finding to hard to maintain!

[icewolf770]

true true... if you want someone to leave you alone lone them money... especially when you know that they cannot return it... they'll disapear and you will be free!!!

[shoyn]

getting them to provide the service for you and then arguing over whether the job was done reasonably is cheaper!

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I didn't notice that the previous dilemma was resolved.

IIRC there is a tshuvah from r' moshe that one does not have to tell a spouse that they were being cheated on. I think his rational was that the obligation to seperate is only if the husband knows that she cheated and he is not doing anything wrong if he does not know.

Huh? :confused: if someone is eating traif but thinks it's kosher, he's not sinning? If his tefilin or tsitsis are posul, and it is an avaira to wear them, you don't have an obligation le'afrushi ma'isura - to prevent him from sin? Source, please, and more explanation!

Originally posted by abiselseichel
Lehoir that in the story of R' yosef Baal Agoloh, after doing t'shuvah, his kids (from a shikse) died!!

Yes, and that story is quoted in Lessons in Tanya on that chapter. The relevance of it is beyond me. A mamzer is a Jew like any other. How could one wish for a Jew to die? So the damage of his being a mamzer is irreparable, and that's what "a crookedness that cannot be straightened" means.

[icewolf770]

well imhop...... i would first tell the person who was cheating what i knew and that i did not like being in that situation... afterall its not pleasent having to keep something of that magnitude inside... second of all i would firstly (sorry) check and see if it was true... and then do the first thing...

but in essence...i think that it comes to a point where it is not up to me what happens... i am not them and i do not run their life... they would need to check with a rav or mashpia about the situation... assuming that they were at that level... then again you never know

[noahidelaws]

BS"D I am told that R. Moshe and other poskim ruled as above.

from http://www.tora.co.il/english/parasha/Eretz_Hemdah/yitro.htm

The mishna in Nedarim 90b rules that a woman who says she was involved in an adulterous relationship and is, thus, forbidden to her husband is not believed. The Rama (Even Haezer 178:9) brings two opinions on the question whether the husband is able to say that he believes her and force her to receive a get even after she retracts her admission. There is a fear that the husband does not really believe his wife and claims to believe her only to obviate cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom, which forbids him from divorcing her against her will. However, the Noda B'yehuda (II, EH 120) says that if the husband professed his belief of her admission while she was still holding by her story (which he may do), then we cannot compel him to change his mind when she changes her story. Indeed, in the earlier court appearance, when the wife said she had been properly married, he had concurred. Therefore, the wife must accept the get and cannot invoke cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom. Regarding the woman's monetary claims against her husband, we already pointed out that in monetary matters, one cannot make a contradictory claim after leaving court. Therefore, the husband does not have to receive her new version and is exempt from the payments she demands.

[mendelp]

see igros moshe even haezer 1 teshuvah 14.

[icewolf770]

that still dosen't delve into the emotional aspect of the issue.... which is what my main concern is with...

[Shlucha]

Ok, what about this. A non-frum person asks you for an opinion of how this untznius article of clothing looks on them. If you say its nice, they'll probably buy it. But how can you tell them its nice, and then cause them to wear something (else) untznius?? Ignoring them is rude, telling them no can also be rude. So what do you do???

[Torah613]

Say it's not their problem - as no one should be looking...
(Just joking - sort of...!)

[iamachassid]

another moral, legal issue. whats the deal with institutions etc. hiring ppl. "off the books"? I think that basically means its a job you dont pay taxes for and the govmt. cant know of its existence.

[BrookAve]

Gelt unten tish? Never heard of such a thing!

[iamachassid]

this year I tried to apply for something from the goverment . They asked me where i worked and I told them. I was later told that if they called that place they could have closed it and gotten a few people into deep trouble

[Jude]

sounds like a great blackmail opportunity ;) probably more lucrative than a writing career

[iamachassid]

yeah, except that you dont get to write down any experience! But the place that I worked in doesnt consider it blackmail and they will continue doing it. I just dont understand how they can justify it.

[Torah613]

They can't.

[iamachassid]

for themselves. and from what I understand a lot of organizations do it

[Torah613]

Doesn't make it right.

[iamachassid]

and what about boys who go to I srael to learn for a year with only a three month visitors' visa?

[Shlucha]

Originally posted by Torah613
Say it's not their problem - as no one should be looking...
(Just joking - sort of...!)

HHHMMPPPHH!!! That's a TOTALLY different issue! Wearing something not-tznius is saying, "Hey, look at me!!" Going to the Ohel to daven is NOT.

[Shlucha]

Lots of camps pay under the table. in fact, I've never heard of one that didn't. If they didn't, the counselors (who were under 16 or 18 in some places) would need a work permit, and then need to pay tax. And who wants to bother with that??? Ma'aser's enough already.

[Torah613]

Originally posted by Shlucha


HHHMMPPPHH!!! That's a TOTALLY different issue! Wearing something not-tznius is saying, "Hey, look at me!!" Going to the Ohel to daven is NOT. The problem there was 1) the behavior 2) the mingling (wether purposeful or not) 3) many are not ddressed up to standard. etc.

[Shlucha]

oish, you're really going to hold a grudge against me on that one!!

[e79]

Not sure if I've got the correct count :)

anyway, how about this: you're driving your son (who you see roughly for one Shabbos a month) to / from yeshiva for x number of hours. Another couple of bochurim ask you for a ride. You cherish this time as the only evening you can spend in a quite private conversation with your child just once or at best twice a month. If not for you, the other bochurim will have to take public transit for say x+2.5 hrs - their parents are not about to drive them this time or take turns with you another time. Of course, personally, I'd be happy and even feel obliged to help whenever I could - but if it becomes a dovor tmidi, you loose out on this opportunity altogether. On the other hand, of course, you'd loose the opportunity to do chesed lishmo (in case you don't necessarily enjoy the extra company). So what's one to do (i.e., other than saying do whatever you feel like)?

[Avrami87]

Let them take the bus. Doesn't one have a chiuv of the Rashab's daily 1/2 hour? Can't we apply the reasoning behind 'anie ircha kadum'?

[noahidelaws]

I agree. You have to first look after your own family needs.

[betterhalf]

If you are a teenager and that is how you get paid, well live and learn.

But for older people, I consider it stealing on the part of the payor and payee. Why is it done? To avoid taxes and hide income/the size of one's business. I could almost understand it if one were some kind of radical Libertarian, but I don't think that is what's going on in much of the frum community.

If you get paid under the table, or have your full compensation understated (it is easy to lie to yourself about this and let it happen, especially if you happen to be in a clergy position with certain leniencies in income reporting and non-cash compensation) you are stealing. If you then enroll your kids in a gov't health insurance program based on those falsified earnings, you are doubly stealing. And if you then get food/housing subsidies based on your lie, that is stealing a third time. Top it off then by sending the yeshivas your income tax return that is the real, dishonest one you sent to the government and you are now stealing from the community.

Even if someone feels comfortable doing this, he should know that if he is a shaliach it will work against him. Having worked for Chabad organizations and shluchim and watched this whole process in action, I can tell you it has slowly, subtly, and fundamentally shaken my faith in Chabad as it exists as an organization.

[noahidelaws]

I think it's wrong too, but it has nothing to do with Chabad per se; it's a problem all over the frum world.

[Avrami87]

Check out Babba Kama 113-4, where it talks about Taxes and the Jewish community.
Although I agree with you, and many BT's find this fact very frustrating; check out the source and it will give you a better understanding of the arguments brought today by those who evade taxes.
By the way, you know the famous pun; what does F.R.U.M. stand for? Food stamps, (not sure about the R), Unemployment, Medicare/cade.

[gyf]

R is for "rent subsidies".

That is an old one. LOL