Different insights into the status of women
Peace be upon the Grand Master Shlita.
I got to thinking about why liberalism perceives revealing clothing as part of women’s liberation. It’s exactly the opposite. Not only is wearing short clothing the humiliating aspiration of every man, but it is also humiliating. In the past, only slaves walked around half-dressed. Recently, I realized that wearing short clothing is part of the postmodern rebellion against the culture combined with religion of Europe in particular and humanity in general. In the past, a civilized person would wear long clothes and a hat, etc. Women are ashamed to wear short clothing today as part of the rebellion against culture. My generation has removed the formal clothing of previous centuries. Over time, short clothing has become part of the feminist-liberal struggle that sees the old culture as the enemy. Does the rabbi agree with this explanation or does he have a different opinion on the matter? By the way, I don’t quite understand how wearing too long clothing creates chauvinism. On the surface, it seems nonsense, but the more chauvinistic the society is, such as Islam, the longer the clothing?
I got to talk to the rabbi about the surrogacy law. The rabbi rightly argued that there is freedom of occupation and that true liberalism is that everyone should do what their heart desires and not what the Enlightenment determined was right to do. However, those who accepted the laws of the Enlightenment (most secularists, in fact) can no longer attack the religion that requires a woman primarily to be a mother and raise children. Does the rabbi agree?
The Jewish religion encourages a certain patriarchy. Any honest person will admit this (apart from society in conversation). Of course, not to the exaggerated levels that are talked about by religion haters, but still, I think there is a certain logic in patriarchy. It seems that men have an advantage in the desire and ability to be the rulers. It sounds bad, but it seems that in a certain respect, men have more qualities of control, toughness, etc., and women have more aesthetic qualities, as the rabbi once observed. These differences are not as great as the difference between a man and a cat, but they exist. Perhaps that is why the Torah generally prefers the man as the head of the family in the priesthood and in the observance of all the commandments. Feminism demands the abolition of male rule, but it never asks itself why it started. Does the rabbi have an opinion on the matter?
Some time ago I corresponded with the rabbi about the difference between Reform and Halachic. We agreed that as long as a community or individual makes innovations based on a halachic source, they can be wrong at most. But what about communities that change things based on social norms, such as removing the partition, etc., or based on beliefs, such as that keeping the Sabbath was for an agricultural society and not a modern one, that the prohibition of sexual intercourse was only remembered if it involved a sin, etc. Is it possible to make changes based on norms or beliefs, even those that so-called Orthodox sometimes act on the basis of which boundaries are drawn in this area?
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
I don’t know if it’s intentional (probably unconscious intuition), but your first three comments make the same incorrect assumption that I made in my article about cola:
In my article, I explained that the prohibition to recite a blessing when in doubt is not a quola (doubtful blessings are easy) but a hawmara, since it prohibits reciting a blessing. The quola is that one is not obligated to recite a blessing, and on top of that there is a hawmara, if one is not obligated then one is prohibited from reciting a blessing (because of the name of God). My conclusion is that the quola is not a suggestion of an easier solution but rather the opening up of more options. Whereas hawmara is the negation of some of them. Even if more difficult options are opened up (such as those that allow fasting for two days on Yom Kippur), this is a quola compared to those that prohibit fasting for two days, which is a hawmara. And look carefully. Now to our point.
1. Liberals do not demand that a woman wear short clothes, but rather demand that she be allowed to wear short clothes, meaning whatever she wants, and especially short clothes. The others demand that she wear long clothes, meaning not whatever she wants. The debate here is not whether to wear X or Y clothes, but whether there is a particular type of clothing that she must wear or not. Therefore, even if your assumption about short clothes is correct, liberals are still lenient and conservatives are strict. And look carefully.
2. The same goes for surrogacy and the requirement that a woman raise children. The same mistake. When something is demanded of a woman, it is harsh and restrictive. If the woman chooses to raise children – excellent. No liberal would oppose this (unless, in his opinion, she had no real choice, because there is social pressure, etc.).
3. The same answer applies to patriarchy. If a patriarchal structure is imposed, women are restricted. And then even in the case where the woman in the house is more suitable to be the patriarch, she will not be able to be. The liberal opposes this because it closes down options.
4. In your last question, I see no connection to the definition of the kola. As for the matter itself, I see no limit. There are strictly Orthodox arguments that are structured like this (I think I once brought up the example of “you shall not congregate,” a prohibition on two courts in one city, which was only in force when the world was local, and today it is null and void as a blasphemy by all those knowledgeable about religion and law). A consideration of the type you brought up is a conservative midrash, as I defined in my article here:
https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%94%D7%90%D7%9D-%D7%99%D7%A9-%D7%A2%D7%91%D7%95%D7% 93%D7%94-%D7%96%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A0%D7%90%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%94-%D7%A2%D7%9 C-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%97%D7%A1-%D7%9C%D7%92%D7%95%D7%99%D7%99%D7%9D-%D7%95/
And see also here:
Leave a Reply
Please login or Register to submit your answer
