Please have an open mind

amother

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 6:22 pm

There is something that I think about often, as I see this played out in real life as well as here on Imamother.

Sometimes someone will say something having to do with a certain practice she has, or she quotes a halacha and people immediately jump on her and tell her it's wrong. They do this because they are simply unaware that what she is saying is sourced in halacha, so they think she made it up or that its coming from a bad place. They sometimes accuse her of insensitivity or other bad middos for saying something that can easily be verified.

Of course, there are different ways to pasken halacha, and to interpret the gemara. But I believe, being that this is a frum website, that something that is in the gemara should be respected as a primary source. At the very least, it should be a starting point for the discussion. But so often we take offense at something someone said because we never heard of it, and we don't have the intellectual honesty to validate a source if it is given.

I remember when I was in high school, our teacher was once sitting shiva. One of the girls suggested that our whole class chip in to send her flowers. Everyone was excited about the idea and planned to bring in money the next day. But then one girl said that she thinks you're not supposed to send flowers to a shiva house. I remember that the whole class jumped on this girl accusing her of being negative, being stingy, and basically belittling her for saying what she did.

I remember walking home from school being so upset and turned off by this girl who couldn't find it in her to contribute a little money for flowers for our teacher who was sitting shiva, and felt the need to put down this idea that we all had by making excuses.

As I walked into the house, I mentioned to my mother that we were collecting money to send a bouquet of flowers for our teacher, and my mother remarked that we aren't supposed to send flowers to a shiva house...

You can imagine how shocked and mortified I felt. Here our entire class ganged up on this girl, accusing her of bring stingy when in fact all she did was quote a halacha...

I think about that story often because I see it all the time. People put down things they never heard of. And I see that happens often here as well.

Sometimes the gemara says things that are uncomfortable for us to hear. But I think it's respectful to acknowledge that there is such a gemara and then see how poskim have viewed that statement and how it applies to us today, rather than accuse the person who quoted the statement as being insensitive or callous. Just because this is an idea you never heard of doesn't make it "ridiculous".

Yesterday someone posed a question asking why children of BTs are considered to be pagum. What followed was a discussion based on opinion and emotion, in true Imamother style. One poster pointed out that the premise of this is from the gemara and shulchan Aruch, and posted a complete shiur on the topic. People took offense at that.

How we pasken today, and how the statement should be understood may be very different than just taking the statement at face value. (Hint: It is very different ) . But it should not be considered offensive to acknowledge that its a real thing from the gemara and, for anyone who is interested in an intellectually honest treatment of the subject, they are welcome to listen to the shiur.

Imamother is a wonderful community of women from all different ages, walks of life, educational and intellectual levels . We can all learn from each other. I am amazed at the amount of knowledge some Imas have on every subject under the sun, be it medical, government, history, halacha, law, etc. But no one knows everything about everything. It would be wonderful if people could approach things that they never heard of with an open mind instead of dismissing it as ridiculous.

Just had to get that out. Thanks for reading.

OOTforlife

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 7:18 pm

Not every thread is going to be a purely theoretical intellectual exercise. Good middos and basic social skills means understanding context.

The discussion that your OP jumps off of did not begin in a thread discussing a daf of the gemara or the halachic concept of pagum in theory. It began in a very practical thread that asked people whether they would consider a shidduch with a BT who had a non-Jewish father. The poster who introduced the concept of pagum did not merely note it as one of many relevant sources or factors to consider, but simply posted the following:

Quote:

For a regular child, from a full blown Jewish family, why on earth? Why would you marry someone who's 100% kosher, a descendant of Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yakov, to someone who's albeit a kosher Jew but is pagum (deficient)?

This was not a dry neutral mention of the source. It was itself an emotional reaction that did not even attempt to rationally analyze the topic. If you do not understand why people became emotional in the reverse, then that is something that, with all due respect, you need to work on.

And I don't mean that in a mean way. When I was much younger, my social skills were frankly lacking in the area of sensitivity and I also was often oblivious to context. I liked a good dry intellectual argument and I felt everything should be fair game at every time. But now I understand that one has to proceed in the appropriate manner manner to have an intellectual discussion on a sensitive topic.

This discussion launched from an entirely unintellectual and inflammatory post, so it is unsurprising that people reacted accordingly.

amother

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 7:40 pm

OOTforlife wrote:

Quote:

I actually did not see that thread at all. I was referring to a thread by Shabbatiscoming. I understand that her post was a spinoff of a locked thread (which as I said, I did not see.)
The spinoff thread asked why a BT is considered pagum. Its not an emotional question but a factual on. The shiur that was posted explains it from a halachic point of view.
I can see that this quote you posted here is very inflammatory, so that explains why people would be upset, and I'm sorry for those thatvwere hurt.
But my OP still stands. Just because you never heard of something, doesn't make it ridiculous.

OOTforlife

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 7:50 pm

amother [ OP ] wrote:

OK, I understand that you didn't see the thread, but many, if not most, other posters did. That is the post that started the discussion, from which the next thread spun off. The spinoff OP itself was upset, understandably and things went from there.
That to me very easily explains why the discussion went quickly downhill and it is not realistic to expect the context to have no effect.

In general, the rabbis that I know, from left to right, are all very capable of discussing controversial sources on sensitive topics.
When they do so, they take tremendous care to set a proper tone.

In general, topics can be tricky in different ways. For example, a discussion on s_xual halachic questions could easily descend into inappropriate remarks or humor. You probably wouldn't want to deliver even a dry highly technical shiur on these topics at an informal lunch n learn where people are used to schmoozing. Once the environment is created, you can't necessarily neutralize that just by saying "let's switch gears now," or online by starting a new thread.

amother

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 9:12 pm

OOTforlife wrote:

Ok. I just read the original thread. I can understand why everyone got upset at that poster, especially since all the answers up until her comment were basically positive.

Then she came along with a highly inflammatory comment and then posted a blog discussion from some random person that noone has ever heard of.

I don't know if you can assume that most other posters saw that thread, but, be it as it may, I do feel that when someone starts a new thread, it should be considered a new topic. The OP of the spinoff worded her question in such a way that she looked at Pagum as something that people choose. I either consider you pagum or not, based on my opinion. In reality the designation of pagum goes according to halachic criteria, not according to how open-minded you are. So the premise of the question was incorrect. And in that sense, that poster from the original thread was correct, although the way she worded it was socially off.

I understand what you are saying about context, though I don't necessarily agree that the spinoff went the way it did because of that context. Read the beginning of the spinoff. People were answering the question respectfully as it was asked, and only at some point did someone mention the idea of a BT being pagum because he is a ben nidda, and that's when people got upset. That is where the ignorance and unwillingness to be openminded comes in.

In any case, all I was asking is that people respect our sources and keep in mind that there may be things they never heard of but that doesnt make it wrong. And judging by some of the responses here, this seems to be an issue in general, not just in this example.

Thanks for giving me the background to this discussion.

amother

Wed, Mar 24 2021, 11:40 pm

LovesHashem wrote:

There's many peo loopple on this site that are "pagums".

Even if it's from the genarah you need to be very sensitive how you talk about BTs and geirim. There's a specific mitzvah to care for, love, and not treat them (BTs also?) geirim differently I believe and it's an extra specific aveirah you get for hurting a ger. (Not sure if this is also for BTs)

Agreed. And yet, in that thread, the OP was asking why they would be considered pagum. She was the one that made it a statement that people can choose to view them as pagum.

However, and this is why I posted that shiur by Rabbi Glatstien, I was trying to stress that it should not be taken at face value. Although the halacha says that a ben niddah is pagum, there is a wealth of nuance and halachic qualifiers for that statement. I posted it so that any BT who came to that thread and heard that others consider them pagum should have the opportunity to listen to the shiur and gain greater clarification. I posted it so that people who hesitate to take a shidduch from a BT family should be reassured..I posted it because to leave it at simply saying- "oh well, all BTs are pagum" would, in essense, be false.

That is why I was taken aback when a poster accused me of trying to "harp" on this issue in order to denigrate "fine immothers,". It couldn't have been further from the truth. She said that only because she did not listen to the shiur (and, in fact, refused to) so she misunderstood what I was trying to do.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind it (I guess she thought it would cause her to view her BT friends in a lesser way) it still caused me to Can't Believe It

, because it was just so off and smacked of ignorance.

Frumme

Thu, Mar 25 2021, 12:02 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Agreed. And yet, in that thread, the OP was asking why they would be considered pagum. She was the one that made it a statement that people can choose to view them as pagum.

However, and this is why I posted that shiur by Rabbi Glatstien, I was trying to stress that it should not be taken at face value. Although the halacha says that a ben niddah is pagum, there is a wealth of nuance and halachic qualifiers for that statement. I posted it so that any BT who came to that thread and heard that others consider them pagum should have the opportunity to listen to the shiur and gain greater clarification. I posted it so that people who hesitate to take a shidduch from a BT family should be reassured..I posted it because to leave it at simply saying- "oh well, all BTs are pagum" would in essense be false.

That is why I was taken aback when a poster accused me of trying to "harp" on this issue in order to denigrate "fine immothers,". It couldn't have been further from the truth. She said that only because she did not listen to the shiur (and, in fact, refused to) so she misunderstood what I was trying to do.

While I appreciate the sentiment behind it (I guess she thought it would cause her to view her BT friends in a lesser way) it still caused me to Can't Believe It

, because it was just so off and smacked of ignorance.

Are you the same poster who didn't want to "spoil" the shiur? I think it would have been helpful to summarize the main points of the shiur since not everyone has the time to listen to an hour long class.

OOTforlife

Thu, Mar 25 2021, 12:06 am

amother [ OP ] wrote:

Read the beginning of the spinoff. People were answering the question respectfully as it was asked, and only at some point did someone mention the idea of a BT being pagum because he is a ben nidda, and that's when people got upset. That is where the ignorance and unwillingness to be openminded comes in.

The beginning of the spinoff was itself emotional. The thread title literally had a sad face in it. The OP twice expressed that the thought of BTs being considered pagum made her sad.

The first bunch of posts made no attempt to answer the technical question of what makes a BT pagum, but instead debated the pros and cons of marrying a BT, including issues such as instability. This is also an emotionally laden topic for many, and not a technical halachic discussion of pgam.

Amother salmon made the first attempt that I see to actually address the issue of being a ben/bat nidda, and her treatment was certainly not limited to a dry technical intellectual response:

Quote:

When a child marries a BT who's parents or grandparents did not keep Taharas Hamishpacha, that is a let down, because they almost feels like all that effort was in vain.
If the child might anyways have children from such yichus, why put all the effort in keeping every little minhag and halacha of taharas hamishpacha?

I am not going to parse the remainder of the thread, but it is obvious to me that this is not how one sets the stage for a purely intellectual discussion of sources.

Edit: I see Burlywood amother mentioned it a few posts before Salmon, but her mention was buried among a list of potential disadvantages of marrying BTs that had nothing to do with the halachic technicality.

amother

Thu, Mar 25 2021, 12:31 am

Frumme wrote:

Yes I am, and perhaps you're right. However I did not summarize the main points honestly because Rabbi Glatstien's style is to really pack it in. He doesn't say fluff or repeat himself. He imparts so much info into a 50 minute class, that I really felt it would not do it justice if I just summarized it.

I also didn't want to give spoilers because I thought his presentation was masterful and wanted to give people the chance to experinece it without spoilers.

However if anyone would have asked me to give a summary, I would have. No one asked.

amother

Thu, Mar 25 2021, 12:47 am

amother [ Babyblue ] wrote:

In general I agree with you OP. I’m not reading through this whole thread. However, thats not what happened in the thread you mention.
There was tactless and inappropriate bringing up of chazals and halacha out of context. In what started off as an emotional not intellectual discussion.
So there needs to be some education about why that is a problem!

And that happens often.
In emotional health there is so often solution oriented responses to vents which may have truths but are not helpful or effective. Theres also the, “oh me too...”. I see this even in closed forums. Where I expected more support...
human nature ...but it is upsetting..

I would have to go back and read the thread again, but I dont recall any bringing up of chazals and halacha out of context.

Also, you are saying it started off as an emotional, not intellectual discussion..possibly, but the two are often related. In this instance the OP asked an open-ended question. Some of the responses had to do with people's comfort level. But the "pagum" aspect is clearly an objective thing, not emotional. And the way the question was worded assumed that it was subjective. That was my whole point.

Look, there is no way around it..obviosly, this is a sensitive subject. So maybe it should never have been brought up. The OP of that thread as well as the one before it opened it up, and that is like opening a can of worms. Its a bit disengenuous to insinuate that its ok for the OP to ask a question like that, but that people should not be able to answer honestly. These topics should be able to be discussed honestly because they are very real for us.

Rabbi Glatstein spoke about this question not for fun, but because it is part of Torah. Of course, people should always use tact and sensitivity. And I'm not here to defend posters who were rude or callous. But as far as I'm concerned, this issue should not be taboo, just as any other subject that is relevant to people. And if you think it should be taboo, the fault lies with the OP, not with those who are responding to her question.
Jmho.

amother

Thu, Mar 25 2021, 12:57 am

Crookshanks wrote:

I think you do need to differentiate though, between what another gold in the first thread said, and what every other ima thinks. She said something reprehensible, and I don't think anyone else here agrees with her. Because of this, on the second thread, anytime someone brought up a reason why someone may not want to marry a BT (lack of supportive family, exposure from secular cousins), they were attacked with all the emotion brought up from another gold's post.
This however is not fair, as you're attacking other posters who don't agree with amother gold with your reaction to her post.

Exactly.
I, for one, had not read Gold's comment in the original thread, but as OOT explained, her comment was transferred to the second thread. Its important to keep in mind in general when these things happen, people tend to line up on "two sides." For or against.

So while I agree that Gold's comment in that thread was reprehensible I dont think it's reprehensible to ackowledge that there is truth in the concept, especially when the source is the gemara and shulchan aruch.