Difference Is the Norm on These Dating Sites

NYTimes

Sherry Nevius, single and 52, is looking for a mate with all the important adjectives — caring, sincere, intelligent, funny. Oh, and one more thing: disabled.

Born with cerebral palsy, Ms. Nevius uses a wheelchair. She is independent and mobile, but would prefer to meet a man who could roll alongside her.

“That way we’re on equal ground,” she said.

Ms. Nevius has dated several perfectly nice able-bodied men, but none seemed willing to start a serious relationship.

“I think they were a little bit scared because they didn’t know how to treat me,” she said. She lives in Normal, Ill., a town with few single men around her age, let alone familiar and comfortable with disability. [...]

פילוסופיה והעיר הקדושה

YNET

אברהם הוא אברך שמתגורר בירושלים. הוא נראה בדיוק כמו עוד אחד מאלפי החרדים שחיים בבירה - כולל הכובע והחליפה. שום דבר לא מסגיר את העובדה שהוא בעצם משהו אחר. בין לימוד בבבא קמא לסוגיה בסנהדרין, הוא לומד בסתר עם החברותא גם את אריסטו, קנט ושיפנוזה. חומרים שמוגדרים בעגה הישיבתית כ"מינוּת", כפירה.

אפיקורסים שמאמינים

מתוך כ-30 אברכים בכולל של אברהם, שבעה מתוכם הם, כפי שהוא שמגדיר, "בעניין". אברהם, כמו כל חרדי בעל דעות "לא קונבנציונליות", זהיר מאוד. אך במגרש הביתי, מול קהל מאזינים סקרן וצמא, מתגלגלים הטיעונים לוויכוחים לוהטים, ודעות מהפכניות ביחס לחשיבה החרדית יתכתשו אלה באלה, הרחק מעין הממסד השמרני.

 "הפילוסופיה מאז ומעולם הייתה בתוך עולם הישיבות", הוא אומר, ומבהיר שחיים נחמן ביאליק, והחבורה מוולוז'ין לא המציאו את קיומו של "הספר הנוסף" המוסתר תחת ספרי הגמרא. לדבריו, בישיבות כמו פונוביז' וחברון, השכבה האינטלקטואלית התעניינה בפילוסופיה מאז ומתמיד, בסתר כמובן.

Placebos Work Even if You Know They're Fake: But How?

Time Magazine

Physicians have long believed that some form of deception is essential to the placebo effect:  after all, if you tell people that you're giving them a fake drug, why would they respond by getting better? But new research suggests that it may one day be possible to use placebos in everyday medicine without misleading patients into thinking they might get active treatment.The study, which was published in the journal PloS One, included 80 patients suffering from irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a condition that causes abdominal pain, bloating and frequent bouts of either constipation, diarrhea or cycling between the two. There is no specific treatment other than managing symptoms, which can range from mild to severe.

Participants — who were mainly on the severe end of the spectrum — were randomized to receive either a placebo or no treatment. Those given the placebo were told that they would be taking “placebo pills made of an inert substance, like sugar pills, that have been shown in clinical studies to produce significant improvement in IBS symptoms through mind-body self-healing processes.”

They were instructed that taking the medication at the times and doses prescribed was “critical.” In essence, the researchers revealed that they were using placebos — but, unlike the approach used in typical trials, they told patients that the pills work. The no-treatment group simply interacted with the medical staff in appointments of the same length as those given the placebo. All patients stayed on medication schedules or diets they were already following — no changes were allowed during treatment. [...]

Pope's statement - Paedophillia was acceptable in the 1970's - outrages victims

IrishCentral  December 22, 2010

Clerical abuse victims around the world have reacted in fury to Pope Benedict’s claim yesterday that as recently as the 1970s pedophilia wasn’t considered an “absolute evil”.

During his traditional Christmas address last Monday to cardinals and other religious officials in Rome, Pope Benedict XVI also said that child pornography was considered “normal” by society.

“In the 1970s, paedophilia was theorised as something fully in conformity with man and even with children," the Pope said. "It was maintained -- even within the realm of Catholic theology -- that there is no such thing as evil in itself or good in itself. There is only a 'better than' and a 'worse than'. Nothing is good or bad in itself.”[...]

Mountain Biking Rehabilitation

Aish HaTorah

   

Rav Sternbuch: Blaming Torah

Rav Sternbuch: Ephraim or Menashe?

Poskim today can not claim that earlier sources didn't know the metziius (reality)

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Klausenberger Rebbe (Divrei Yatziv O.C. 113): Concerning the view of Rabbeinu Tam and reality. Our holy faith is that Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his (Rosh HaShanna 25b) and   that rule applies to all generations. Look at the Divrei Chai (Y.D. #105) in his discussion of the status of the Ohr HaChaim as well as the Beis Shlomo (O.C. 2:112). See also the language of one of the great contemporary gedolim in the Letters of the Chazon Ish (32), “What difference does it make if the angel Gavriel or Michoel tells me – in fact weren’t all the Rishonim fiery angels?… and it was through the holy spirit which appeared in them that they knew how to decide issues – whether to push aside a gemora and establish the tradition of the Geonim or whether to push aside the tradition of the Geonim because of the decision of the gemora… We relate to the Gra in the line of Moshe Rabbeinu, Ezra, Rabbinu Hakadosh, Rav Ashi, the Gra…” Consequently it is known that all poskim whose words are accepted which were given to Moshe on Sinai as the Talmud. Therefore if someone, G﷓d forbid, should express himself against one of the poskim it is that he is criticizing a Tanna or denying the Torah of Moshe – G﷓d forbid! This is the root of heresy. Just as we saw the Karaites who believed only in the Written Torah so there are heretic that believe in the Talmud but G﷓d forbid – not in the poskim. But we view a continuous line from Ravina and Rav Ashi to the Chasam Sofer and the Divrei Chaim and other major poskim. One who is dismissive of a posek is included in what was written by the Divrei Chaim (2:33). Therefore when the poskim themselves disagree – we with dim eyes and for whom bribery and lust blind the eyes even of the wise – we simply can not see the underlying reality of the debate that enables us to decide the issue ourselves. For example, we can not decide on elementary kashrus issues such as “tato gavar” based on the scientific understanding of chemists…  even though we can attempt to analyse their holy words from sources in the gemora. At best one who has great ability is able with his greatness in Torah to bring proofs from our Sages and to ascertain what the majority of poskim rule in this particular halacha. Look at the Divrei Chaim (Y.D. 2:45) where he is very upset about the disrespect against the prince of Torah – Rashi. He says, “Even though his words are occasionally difficult for us to understand with our dense brains, nevertheless that which is distant from you is that way only because of our limited intellect. But the main point is, Who in our generation would we say are able to make halachic decisions against the great Rishonim such as these. We have only the ability to accept their words with love and to follow after the majority view – as was done by the Shulchan Aruch itself. Therefore we can not deviate from the rulings of the Shulchan Aruch just because we have some question since we are well aware of of how lowly we are in recent generations..”  And since the words of the Rabbeinu Tam and the Geonim are the words of the Living G﷓d – they are able to disagree with each other regarding the appearance of which stars defines the beginning of night and what is the definition of night. Therefore if someone in our day comes says that one of the poskim erred in the definition of night – he is considered a heretic who has attacked the holiness of the poskim who have said otherwise. We are allowed, however, to say that the customs of which places follows which posekim. For example Shabbos (130a) states that in the place of R’ Eliezer they would cut wood to make charcoal.. However, G﷓d forbid to say that the custom in one place was different in this place from the other poskim because the reality that we see with our bleary eyes is different i.e., that the poskim erred in understanding the underlying facts. That is because obviously the Beis Yosef, the Pri Chodesh… saw the reality of the stars in Yerushalyim, Tzfas, and Tevirya and they ruled what they ruled…

Child abuse - Rabbis & Calling the Police: A common misunderstanding

I just received the following comment from David Morris who wrote a review of my book - Child & Domestic Abuse - that he published on his blog Tzedek-Tzedek . It raises a very important issue - i.e., what are the parameters of consulting with a rabbi in these matters. I am posting the question - which expresses a misunderstanding of Rav Sternbuch's views - and my answer to the comment. My comment also appears on David Morris's blog Tzedek-Tzedek . This comment clearly indicates the dangerous ignorance and distortions that exist on this topic -  and why it is important to read my book.


Shmarya Rosenberg (http://profile.typepad.com/6p00d83451b71f69e2) has left a new comment on your post "Child & Domestic Abuse":

What Rabbi Shternbuch actually says is that if there is "clear evidence" of child abuse, one should disregard any rabbi who instructed him not to go to police. But what about when there is evidence, but it isn't "clear" – meaning overwhelmingly certain – the person is guilty? Then you have to listen to the rabbi.

In other words, according to Rabbi Shternbuch, it is rabbis who should decide whether or not police should be called. And this is a big problem when rabbis have played key roles in so many coverups of sexual abuse.

Now why is it, David, that you don't mention this?

Posted by Shmarya Rosenberg to at 23 December 2010 03:14
===========================
On Thu, Dec 23, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@gmail.com> wrote:

    It is obvious that the commenter has not read the book or he would know that what he is asserting simply not true. He is making a misleading comment and it ignores the complex reality of abuse cases as well as overestimates the value of the police in being able to help. While there is no question that there have been cases and there are still cases where rabbis have insisted that a child not be helped even when in danger - that is not what Rav Sternbuch said as can clearly be seen from what he wrote and what he approved in my book - as well as what he told me and permitted to be publicized in his name. He said that you are to decide whether to listen to the rabbi and whether his response endangers the welfare of a child. He clearly said you do not listen to a rabbi if you feel there is a possibility that he is giving you bad advice.

      1) If it is clearly a immediate danger to the child and there is no time to speak to anyone - call the police. 2) If it is uncertain if there is abuse but if the child is in danger than he can only be protected by the police - than call the police. 3) If it is certain but you know that a complaint won't be filed and therefore the police won't do anything - then it is important to contact a rabbi who is experienced in these matters and  consults with experienced therapists and community leaders and the police. 4) If you have a suspicion - i.e., you saw a man hugging children or being very friendly with them  - then go to the experienced rabbi. If you are not satisfied with his response than ask another rabbi (the responsibility is not the rabbi's but yours). 5) If you have a child in your class that is withdrawn - but there is no complaint but it might be the result of abuse - then go to your experienced rabbi. You should also consult with a mental health worker who might advise what the next step is. 5) If there is mandatory reporting - then you obey that law and go to the police.

    In sum - the rabbi is not a substitute for your good judgment but is a consultant to help bring clarity and objectivity as well as protecting the rights of others. If he tells you not to do anything and you think that might be a danger to the child - than go ask another rabbi. At no time are you to allow a child to be in danger (according to your evaluation) nor are you to violate mandatory reporting laws. The rabbi is there to represent the community, provide objectivity and prevent against mob rule -  and protect others against false accusation. He is not a dictator that requires total submission - either in deed or thought. You are not to listen to him if you feel he is telling you to do something which is endangering a child or even possibly endangering a child.

Shulchan Aruch was written with divine inspiration & guidance

from Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

Kitzur Takfo Kohen (Choshen Mishpat 25:124): … When a law is mentioned in the Shulchan Aruch in which both Rav Yosef Karo and the Rema omit the dissenting minority view – I have a tradition and I have seen this done by expert judges and I myself do it  - that a claim of “kim li” [utilizing a minority view to defend against monetary loss] is not accepted. It is well established and accepted by the sages over the generations to observe and do precisely what it says in the terse language of the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema. There is no doubt in my mind that it was all written from G﷓d Who guided their hands. This can be seen from the many questions of the Achronim on the Shulchan Aruch and the resulting sharp and brilliant answers. And thus within its sweet and terse language are many laws. There is absolutely no question that [Rav Yosef Karo Aruch and Rema] did not consciously write it that way. Because how would it be possible that they be conscious of every detail of their writing - given the awesome task required of them in this work for heaven. Who is capable of writing a book on the entire Torah based on the Rishonim and Achronim and not be overwhelmed by producing this work for heaven. It is obvious that it was only accomplished because they were infused with the spirit of G﷓d so that their language would precisely express the halacha – even though they had no awareness of this when they wrote it. That which G﷓d desired was successfully done through them. Therefore  - G﷓d forbid to say “kim li” against the halachic decisions of the Shulchan Aruch and Rema…

Philosophers for Kung Fu: A Response

NYTimes

Thanks to all the readers who have commented on my previous article in the Stone “Kung Fu for Philosophers.” I found many comments thoughtful and inspiring, for which I am deeply grateful. Instead of trying to respond to all, as it is obviously impractical, I would like to offer some additional remarks to supplement my previous article as my response.

Several years ago, I was invited for lunch by a man named Wu Bing, who was the former martial arts coach of the kung fu movie star Jet Li. Mr. Wu and I did not know each other, and I had no idea why he invited me for lunch. I was more puzzled when I got there — Mr. Wu insisted that I be seated in the most prominent spot, and placed himself and all his associates at the table in lesser positions. With the ritual setting in order, he then humbly presented me a classic martial arts manual, and asked if I could explain the introduction of the book for him. “It is full of philosophical terms,” he said. “I have trouble understanding it.” [...]