Unclear is why @test thinks that halachik infringement of Chassidim is sanctioned by traditional Jewry. It is not. They received their fare share, open a history book. The reason the vehemence leveled off is because of their unbridled passion for yiddeshkeit overall, which is grudgingly acknowledged to have kept many Jews on the beaten path. As the Chofetz Chaim once said they are a mazik bereshus. Modox however are mazikim shlo breshus. It's that simple. This should account for 99% of his comments.
Is that supposed to be some sort of defence? Typical yeshivish 'The chofetz chaim supposedly said XYZ'. End of matter. If the modox would use that form of justification for what they do....oy vevoy.. You know, modix have received their fare share......
Even if he did, what was the context? When? How? Was it specifically about kids in shul or something else. Who gave them the 'reshus'?
Does the chofetz chaim permit bringing boys barely out of diapers to the BH running around with bamba? Yes or no? Have you seen what he writes about children in shul?
"If the modox would use that form of justification for what they do....oy vevoy"
They cannot, dude that is the whole point.
"Even if he did, what was the context? When? How?"
This is recorded by his son in דוגמה לדרכי אב ז"ל. He writes similarly עלינו לשבח לעדת החסידים שהם אמיצי כח עושי דברו ביד רמה ובפומבי ועוד הם מגדלים בניהם לתורה ולעבודה כאבותיהם, רוממות אל בגרונם ולשונם כחרב חדה להשיב להחפשים אל חקים עשרת מונים בוז וקלון, ועל כל פשעים תכסה אהבת ד' שבם
The Modox are not מגדלים בניהם לתורה ולעבודה כאבותיהם unfortunately, and we are therefore less charitable.
"Does the chofetz chaim permit bringing boys barely out of diapers to the BH running around with bamba? Yes or no? Have you seen what he writes about children in shul?"
Yep. The chofetz chaim like all tzaddikim davened for chassidim that they should be forgiven.
And in good yeshivish logic, you turn that into some sort of justification to allow bamba fressing two year olds to run around the shteible. Good stuff.
"And in good yeshivish logic, you turn that into some sort of justification to allow bamba fressing two year olds to run around the shteible. Good stuff."
Oh dear. You are having difficulty following the conversation. This is so sad.
"In the context of Issur Eishes Ish, Rambam says that it takes effect with the Biah. Inasmuch as the whole context is Ishus, he doesn't mention the details (= the intention) of that Biah. For that you're meant to look in the beginning of Hilchos Ishus."
Classic yeshivish. When it suits, every word a rishon writes means something. And every word that is not written is also significant.
And when it doesn't suit, and a word that should be there to support a 'tzad' is not present, well, the yeshivish response is 'its obvious from the context'. Very weak indeed. I would expect a condition 'lesheim ishus', that creates a chiuv misah of eishes ish for a non-Jew, to be clearly stated. Since when is any 'tanai' in a halochoh left to 'context' to determine? One man's determination from context could be very different from anothers. The context of hilchos ishus (I am not conceding there is a clear context, what is 'context' exactly, and I have NEVER heard a rov create a halochoh from 'context', but even using your argument) is anyway 99.9% Jews, non-Jews have different rules and you cannot (well, people that really know how to learn and want to be mevakesh the emes rather than just demolish an argument cannot) infer one from the other.
It's all amost as good as the classic 'it doesn't not say it', or 'he doesn't not argue'.
At least you have conceded there is no 'mekor'. 'Context' is just a glorified version of 'its obvious'. Too vague to be meaningful. One man's derivation from context could be very different from another.
He still didn't find the mekor even though it's extremely basic. Anybody want to help him? If he really spent 30 years in kollel as claimed, our problems are worse than I thought.
"The shteebel is meant to be a homey place. Even 'Shteebel' is a homey name, and it was designed in contrast to the austere Bais Haknesess."
And this one too. In the classic sources, a beis hatefillah is meant to be a mikdah me'at, a place of avodah and of yireh - you know, like the palace of the king. We were always taught that shul is to be treated like the palace of the king.
But yet again, when it suits, the never changing mesorah never changes, and charedim happily ignore what the rishonim, acharonim and ba'alei mussar make clear how a shule should be treated.
"About bunches of boys with bamba, the same issue is in the private arena, when you take your young boy to shul, and he bothers your own davening. But you do it to acclimatize him to shul. Eventually he's gotta and gonna settle in.
Class example of when it suits chareidim, they completely ignore what has been written by gedolim of yesteryear about bringing young children to Schul who not only do not daven (cannot daven in fact, they are too young), they disturb every one around them. So much for the never changing mesorah. When the Modox would ignore what the gedoilim of prior years, all you know what breaks out........but if its heimish, anything goes.....
Unclear is why @test thinks that halachik infringement of Chassidim is sanctioned by traditional Jewry. It is not. They received their fare share, open a history book. The reason the vehemence leveled off is because of their unbridled passion for yiddeshkeit overall, which is grudgingly acknowledged to have kept many Jews on the beaten path. As the Chofetz Chaim once said they are a mazik bereshus. Modox however are mazikim shlo breshus. It's that simple. This should account for 99% of his comments.
Is that supposed to be some sort of defence? Typical yeshivish 'The chofetz chaim supposedly said XYZ'. End of matter. If the modox would use that form of justification for what they do....oy vevoy.. You know, modix have received their fare share......
Even if he did, what was the context? When? How? Was it specifically about kids in shul or something else. Who gave them the 'reshus'?
Does the chofetz chaim permit bringing boys barely out of diapers to the BH running around with bamba? Yes or no? Have you seen what he writes about children in shul?
"Is that supposed to be some sort of defence?"
Literacy not your thing, eh?
"If the modox would use that form of justification for what they do....oy vevoy"
They cannot, dude that is the whole point.
"Even if he did, what was the context? When? How?"
This is recorded by his son in דוגמה לדרכי אב ז"ל. He writes similarly עלינו לשבח לעדת החסידים שהם אמיצי כח עושי דברו ביד רמה ובפומבי ועוד הם מגדלים בניהם לתורה ולעבודה כאבותיהם, רוממות אל בגרונם ולשונם כחרב חדה להשיב להחפשים אל חקים עשרת מונים בוז וקלון, ועל כל פשעים תכסה אהבת ד' שבם
The Modox are not מגדלים בניהם לתורה ולעבודה כאבותיהם unfortunately, and we are therefore less charitable.
"Does the chofetz chaim permit bringing boys barely out of diapers to the BH running around with bamba? Yes or no? Have you seen what he writes about children in shul?"
Classic whataboutisim, lol
Yep. The chofetz chaim like all tzaddikim davened for chassidim that they should be forgiven.
And in good yeshivish logic, you turn that into some sort of justification to allow bamba fressing two year olds to run around the shteible. Good stuff.
Are you allergic to peanuts?
What do you have against Bamba?
"And in good yeshivish logic, you turn that into some sort of justification to allow bamba fressing two year olds to run around the shteible. Good stuff."
Oh dear. You are having difficulty following the conversation. This is so sad.
"In the context of Issur Eishes Ish, Rambam says that it takes effect with the Biah. Inasmuch as the whole context is Ishus, he doesn't mention the details (= the intention) of that Biah. For that you're meant to look in the beginning of Hilchos Ishus."
Classic yeshivish. When it suits, every word a rishon writes means something. And every word that is not written is also significant.
And when it doesn't suit, and a word that should be there to support a 'tzad' is not present, well, the yeshivish response is 'its obvious from the context'. Very weak indeed. I would expect a condition 'lesheim ishus', that creates a chiuv misah of eishes ish for a non-Jew, to be clearly stated. Since when is any 'tanai' in a halochoh left to 'context' to determine? One man's determination from context could be very different from anothers. The context of hilchos ishus (I am not conceding there is a clear context, what is 'context' exactly, and I have NEVER heard a rov create a halochoh from 'context', but even using your argument) is anyway 99.9% Jews, non-Jews have different rules and you cannot (well, people that really know how to learn and want to be mevakesh the emes rather than just demolish an argument cannot) infer one from the other.
It's all amost as good as the classic 'it doesn't not say it', or 'he doesn't not argue'.
At least you have conceded there is no 'mekor'. 'Context' is just a glorified version of 'its obvious'. Too vague to be meaningful. One man's derivation from context could be very different from another.
He still didn't find the mekor even though it's extremely basic. Anybody want to help him? If he really spent 30 years in kollel as claimed, our problems are worse than I thought.
"The shteebel is meant to be a homey place. Even 'Shteebel' is a homey name, and it was designed in contrast to the austere Bais Haknesess."
And this one too. In the classic sources, a beis hatefillah is meant to be a mikdah me'at, a place of avodah and of yireh - you know, like the palace of the king. We were always taught that shul is to be treated like the palace of the king.
But yet again, when it suits, the never changing mesorah never changes, and charedim happily ignore what the rishonim, acharonim and ba'alei mussar make clear how a shule should be treated.
"About bunches of boys with bamba, the same issue is in the private arena, when you take your young boy to shul, and he bothers your own davening. But you do it to acclimatize him to shul. Eventually he's gotta and gonna settle in.
Class example of when it suits chareidim, they completely ignore what has been written by gedolim of yesteryear about bringing young children to Schul who not only do not daven (cannot daven in fact, they are too young), they disturb every one around them. So much for the never changing mesorah. When the Modox would ignore what the gedoilim of prior years, all you know what breaks out........but if its heimish, anything goes.....