Thursday, June 30, 2022

FASCINATING: New Local Business Selling Fish Shirayim from Rebbe’s Tischen

 https://lakewoodalerts.com/fascinating-new-local-business-selling-fish-shirayim-from-rebbes-tischen/

Currently, the business is selling necklaces ($50) and keychains ($40) with tisch fish inside them – and there are plans to expand. Its proprietor is also working on adding fish-filled cufflinks to its line of products, which she says she has received many requests for, and has now launched a website for its products – tishnecklaces.com

28 comments:

  1. it is geneivas daas, which is to be expected from such extremist cults.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Please explain why you think that this is considered "geneivas daas".

    ReplyDelete
  3. It is selling garbage, with the idea that it is holy garbage, just because it was destined for the Rebbe trash can.
    Cult tactics #101

    ReplyDelete
  4. it is actually far worse than geneivas daas, it is also real geneiva. And it it is avodah zarah.

    If they started selling the rebbe's toilet paper, would there be idiots who would buy it?

    ReplyDelete
  5. As long as there is full disclosure, and it contains the genuine material being sold, then no one's Da'as has been tampered with.
    They might be idiots for buying the product, however there is still no misrepresentation involved.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 1, 2022 at 4:58 PM

    Do you think this is from sinai? if it takes off big time and becomes an established minhag?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 1, 2022 at 7:00 PM

    depends - it's making profit by creating a false spirituality.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Avoidah zarah masquerading as Torah.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The "false spirituality" was not created by the sellers.
    It was already created in the mind of the customers, by themselves. So no G'neivas Da'as here.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Irrelevant to the issue of G'neivas Da'as.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 3, 2022 at 1:09 AM

    you mean the daas was already ganuv by other factors?

    Fair enough, this is just exploiting that.

    ReplyDelete
  12. This week’s parsha Balak has God’s plague killing 24,000 for avodah zarah “Those who died of the plague numbered twenty-four thousand.” (Numbers 25:9 ). See my theory
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/23486

    Balaam counselled the women of Moab and Midian to invite Jews to a sacrificial festival to cause the ruin of these Jews.

    “Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor למסר מעל בה' על דבר פעור, so that the Lord’s community was struck by the plague. (Numbers 31:16). Balaam’s wicked advice.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is just like the Pet Rock craze from 1975
    https://www.petrock.com/
    Pet Rock
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pet_Rock
    Pet Rock The Original by Gary Dahl
    https://www.amazon.com/Pet-Rock-Authentic-Approved-Original/dp/B07KN9FK4B
    From Tickle Me Elmo to Squinkies: Top 10 Toy Crazes
    http://content.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1947621_1947626_1947687,00.html

    ReplyDelete
  14. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 3, 2022 at 7:03 PM

    I remember the pet rock craze from my childhood. I knew it was a scam then, and I considered picking up a rock from the garden, to avoid paying for the "real thing " in the shops.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 3, 2022 at 7:06 PM

    She buys 1000 key rings for eg $25. Fills them with trash, andsells for $50 / unit.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Kalonymus HaQatanJuly 3, 2022 at 8:47 PM

    Pet rock was gneivas daat. They claimed that the rock would move if you moved towards it.
    Rubik-s cube, lehavdil, was a real educational puzzle.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Pet rocks didn't stink like fish.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Claiming that the rock would move if you moved towards it, would be a fraudulent claim.
    I doubt that they would risk making such a claim.
    Do you have a source for that false claim?

    ReplyDelete
  19. If anyone is foolish enough to buy it, that's their problem, but you can't invoke a Halachic term (G'neivas Da'as) when it doesn't apply.

    ReplyDelete
  20. "The fish is placed in resin before being applied to the necklace or keychain. This ensures that there is no smell, preserves the fish, and also hardens it so that it will not decay."

    ReplyDelete
  21. yea, the "source" was in the instruction leaflet at my friend's house. It says nonsense like "this rock will move towards you, if you move towards it, the distance is less, so it is moving towards you". The same kind of logic they use in baal teshuva yeshivas.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Here is the pdf of the booklet , and the excerpt i must have seen in the 70's:



    "your face light up as you say, COME
    BRUTUS, C'MON FELLA, HERE BOY,
    and stuff like that. Now, start walking
    slowly toward your rock. Incredibly,
    as you walk toward your rock you
    will notice that it actually is coming
    closer. This means your PET ROCK
    is learning the command, COME.
    Praise your rock and give it a pat"



    http://csinvesting.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/The-Care-and-Training-of-Your-Pet-Rock-Manual-by-Gary-Dahl.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  23. here is a more trusted pdf if you don't wish to open the previous one

    https://archive.org/details/pet_rock_manual_original/page/n7/mode/2up

    ReplyDelete
  24. great, so in 10 million years, they can extract the DNA of the then extinct fish, and recreate it, like they propose to do with dinosaurs now.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 119a
    “MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE etc. It is quite proper that she shall not contract levirate marriage since it is possible that [her rival] is pregnant and that she would in consequence cause an infringement [lit. meet] [of the prohibition against marriage] of a brother's wife, which is Pentateuchal; but why should she not marry [a stranger]? The majority of women should be taken as a criterion [lit. go] and the majority of women conceive and bear children! Must it then [since the majority principle is not followed] be assumed that [the ruling is that of] R. Meir who takes a minority also into consideration [Hul. 6a; and since some women do not conceive and bear, the possibility that the rival belonged to this minority must be provided against by forbidding levirate marriage. Would then our anonymous Mishnah represent the view of an individual!]? It may even be said [to represent the view of] the Rabbis; for the Rabbis follow [lit. .when do they go] the majority principle only where the majority is actually present [ lit. which is before us] as, for instance, in the case of nine shops [which were selling permitted meat, while one shop in their vicinity was selling forbidden meat. If between these shops a piece of meat was found and it is not known from which shop it came, it is assumed to be permitted meat, since the majority of the shops were selling meat of such a character. V. Hul. 95a] and Sanhedrin[A majority of whom (twelve against eleven) are in favor of a certain decision. V. Sanh. 40a] but in respect of a majority that is not actually present [The majority of women in general who are assumed to conceive and bear] the Rabbis were not guided by the majority principle.”

    Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands Yeebom when two brothers Reuven and Shimon, Reuven married, to X (his 1st wife) and to Y (his 2nd wife) and Shimon to Z. If Reuven dies with no offspring, Shimon must take X or Y or do chalitzah to X or Y. Reuven takes just Y to Australia leaving X in Israel. Reuven and his second wife Y don’t return from Australia but witnesses testify Reuven is dead. Follow KA, IR, and Garnel? Rabbi Meir says (the Mishnah) Y (Reuven’s 2nd wife) is not free to remarry anyone. The Sages allow her to marry anyone. Reuven is dead and so Y is a widow. Rabbi Meir is strict on the remote possibility X (Reuven’s 1st wife) is alive, and actually had a baby boy in Australia that has to do yeebom to Y (widow of Reuven).

    I like this. Why? Very likely Reuven goes to Australia with X (his first wife), high likelihood Reuven has sex with X, X become pregnant and X delivers (nobody does abortion in our story) with 50-50 a baby boy. The Sages reject [Y] MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE etc as not a true majority likelihood. Not 50-50 a baby boy, sad to say, many deliveries dead babies especially in Gamara times. The ruling [Y] MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE etc is a Rabbi Meir ruling not halacha.

    ReplyDelete
  26. This week’s parsha Balak has God’s plague killing 24,000 for avodah zarah “Those who died of the plague numbered twenty-four thousand.” (Numbers 25:).

    Balaam counselled the women of Moab and Midian to invite Jews to a sacrificial festival to cause the ruin of these Jews.

    “Yet they are the very ones who, at the bidding of Balaam, induced the Israelites to trespass against the Lord in the matter of Peor למסר מעל בה' על דבר פעור, so that the Lord’s community was struck by the plague. (Numbers 31:16).

    ReplyDelete
  27. Torah thought daf hayomi Yevamot 119a
    “MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE etc. It is quite proper that she shall not contract levirate marriage since it is possible that [her rival] is pregnant and that she would in consequence cause an infringement [lit. meet] [of the prohibition against marriage] of a brother's wife, which is Pentateuchal; but why should she not marry [a stranger]? The majority of women should be taken as a criterion [lit. go] and the majority of women conceive and bear children! Must it then [since the majority principle is not followed] be assumed that [the ruling is that of] R. Meir who takes a minority also into consideration [Hul. 6a; and since some women do not conceive and bear, the possibility that the rival belonged to this minority must be provided against by forbidding levirate marriage. Would then our anonymous Mishnah represent the view of an individual!]? It may even be said [to represent the view of] the Rabbis; for the Rabbis follow [lit. .when do they go] the majority principle only where the majority is actually present [ lit. which is before us] as, for instance, in the case of nine shops [which were selling permitted meat, while one shop in their vicinity was selling forbidden meat. If between these shops a piece of meat was found and it is not known from which shop it came, it is assumed to be permitted meat, since the majority of the shops were selling meat of such a character. V. Hul. 95a] and Sanhedrin[A majority of whom (twelve against eleven) are in favor of a certain decision. V. Sanh. 40a] but in respect of a majority that is not actually present [The majority of women in general who are assumed to conceive and bear] the Rabbis were not guided by the majority principle.”

    Beautiful. My theory. The Torah commands Yeebom when two brothers Reuven and Shimon, Reuven married, to X (his 1st wife) and to Y (his 2nd wife) and Shimon to Z. If Reuven dies with no offspring, Shimon must take X or Y or do chalitzah to X or Y. Reuven (childless) takes just Y to Australia leaving X in Israel. Reuven and his second wife Y don’t return from Australia but witnesses testify Reuven is dead. Follow KA, IR, and Garnel? The Mishnah says Y (Reuven’s 2nd wife) is not free to remarry anyone.on the possibility Reuven is childless and Shimon must do yeebom or chalitzah to Y. This is the view of Rabbi Meir, not halacha. The Sages allow her to marry anyone. Reuven is dead and so Y is a widow. Most likely Reuven died childless. Rabbi Meir is famous for worrying over remote possibilities --- good possibilities that Reuven did not die childless.

    I like this. Why? Very likely Reuven goes to Australia with X (his first wife), high likelihood Reuven has sex with X, X become pregnant and X delivers. Nobody does abortion in our story. The Sages reject [Y] MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE etc. The ruling [Y] MUST NEITHER MARRY AGAIN NOR CONTRACT LEVIRATE MARRIAGE is a Rabbi Meir ruling not halacha. Rabbi Meir says she can't marry outside because maybe Reuven was childless. Rabbi Meir says she can't do yeebom or chalitzah because maybe Reuven did have offspring.. The Sages say no maybes here just high probability Reuven died childless.

    ReplyDelete
  28. “FASCINATING:” Yevamot 119b
    “A Tanna taught: If the one [of two sisters-in-law who stated that their husbands were dead] had witnesses [to confirm her statement] and also children, and the other had neither witnesses nor children, both are permitted [to marry again] [The former because of her children who exempt her from the levirate bond; and the latter, because witnesses had testified to the death of her levir while she herself is believed in respect of the death of her husband]. IF [Cur. edd. do not indicate by the usual stops that this passage is derived from our Mishnah. Cf. however, Bomb. ed.] THEY CONTRACTED LEVIRATE MARRIAGES, AND THE LEVIRS DIED, THEY ARE FORBIDDEN [TO MARRY AGAIN]. R. ELEAZAR RULED: SINCE THEY WERE ONCE PERMITTED TO THE LEVlrs THEY ARE PERMITTED TO MARRY ANY MAN. Raba inquired: What is R. Eleazar's reason? Is it because he is of the opinion that a rival [By a statement whereby she injures her associate] is eligible to tender evidence in favor of her associate or is it because [he holds that] she would not [By a statement whereby she injures her associate] cause injury to herself? What practical difference is there [between the two assumptions]?”

    Beautiful. My theory. Reuven married to Rachel and Simon married to Leah Reuven and Simon are childless and take their wives to Africa. Only Leah and Simon return from Africa. Is reuven dead? Is Simon dead? The Sages say that sisters-in-law have a huge hatred for each other. Reuven and Simon have other brothers each having wife and offspring. These other brothers do their yeebom duty and contract levirate marriage with Rachel and Leah in addition to their wives. O no! these other brothers die and Rachel and Leah are twice widows 1)from Reuven and Simon and 2)from the other brothers. The first opinion is that Rachel and Leah cannot remarry. The magid shiur says because testimony without any proof of a sister-in-law on the death of the sister-in-law’s husband is meaningless. A woman cannot remarry with meaningless evidence of death of her husband. Sages say hatred שנאת עולם of sisters-in-laws and would lie to get the other in a legal mess. Easy to make false claim the brother-in-law is dead and then, perhaps years later, the brother-in-law appears. It’s easy for one sister-in-law to get the other in big legal issues with false charges. R. Eleazar is lenient and permits Rachel and Leah to remarry. I like this. Woman must have some minimal proof her husband died. Thursday we start Ketuboth, a new Gamara. They say that Ketuboth is much easier.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.