And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end (Ecclesiastes 12:12) A pdf version of this essay can be downloaded here [*] Years in brackets refer to an individual’s or book author’s year of birth Thought experiment for the day: Anyone born 1945 would be pushing towards 80 and mostly past their prime. So name any Charedi sefer written by someone born post war that has or is likely to enter the canon, be it haloche, lomdus, al hatorah or mussar. Single one will do for now — IfYouTickleUs (@ifyoutickleus) July 27, 2022 A tweet in the summer which gained some traction asked for a book by an author born from 1945 onwards that has entered the Torah and rabbinic canon or is heading in that direction. I didn't exactly phrase it this way and some quibbled about 'canonisation'. The word does indeed have a precise meaning though in its popular use it has no narrow definition. Canonisation, or ‘entering the canon’ is generally understood to
UOHC-Thames Water Powerpoint by ifyoutickleus on Scribd
So UOHC brought to the meeting a Dayan, a lawyer, indeed a technician, a handful of arsekonim and a token woman. Truly eye watering stuff.
Does the UOHC Rabbinate insist that it is prohibited to walk past a CCTV camera?
ReplyDeleteMisasek (I want water, not to turn a meter) + gerama (I didn't flick a switch, I turned on a tap, llowing a flow of water (under pressure from a pumping station) causing a rotor in to move several meters away, which movement is measured electronically) + pesik reisha d'lo nicha le (nobody likes water bills) + electronic equipment which does not get hot is (scientifically at least) a derabban anyway (not m'a'aver and makka b'patish non issue as doesn't complete a circuit) = no issue here. Unless you happen to be a purveyor of mehadrin water meters?
By the UOHC's bizarre definition, turning on the tap itself is prohibited (the pressure in the pipes is from electrical pumps (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_water_supply_infrastructure#Pumping_stations). Which presumably is not an issue until a mehadrin water pump is found?
This is all so completely unnecessary - and very much a potential chillul hashem.
Not to mention d'rabbonons are muttar lechatchila for kovod habriyos. Even without coming on to dovor shelo b'mischaven and all that.
DeleteEspecially as Rav Padwa z'l permits walking past a motion activated light even lechatchila and you know its there.
ReplyDeleteYou have all missed the main (pun intended) point.
ReplyDeleteThames Water bills are produced on computers that do not have a TAG filter and according to the UOHC ruling of September 2012 any connection with such devices or anyone who uses/owns them is completely forbidden. These takonos are (their words) "basic foundations of Yiddishkeit with many important Torah principles dependent on them".
Ok? Nuff said?
Tickle refers to paragraph 42, a self serving paragraph in which the court attempts to deny its own agency:
ReplyDelete"It is important at the outset to be clear as to why the court – the State – is involved in
the present case. It is because the parents have been unable to resolve their family difficulties themselves, whether with or without the assistance, formal or informal, of
the community, and because one of the parents, in this case the father, has sought the
assistance of the court."
This is nonsense given the frankly chilling paragraph 77, in which the courts make it quite clear that the views of the parents are in the final analysis irrelevant and entirely subservient to the judges' own views on what a "judicial reasonable parent" should do:
"Is it enough simply to proceed on the basis (para 185) that “These parents decided to bring up their children according to the narrow ways of the community, and they continue to agree about this (emphasis added)”? Should I not directly and explicitly challenge the parents and the community with the possibility that, absent a real change of attitude on their part, the court may have to consider drastic steps such as removing the children from the mother’s care, making the children wards of court or even removing the children into public care?"
I personally strongly disapprove of the restriction of all direct contact with the father -
it's repugnant and unnecessary. It's not in the best interests of children. It's unhalachic, motivated by what Rav Steinman would have called "ga'ava, ga'ava, ga'ava" (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gk1y8R6nfZ8)
I also strongly disapprove of these self proclaimed "judicially reasonable parents" threatening to remove the children from the care of the only stable caregiver in their lives - the mother - for reasons of an ideological purity all of their own.