existential angst
That was the shortest drama I've ever seen.
Did you make any kind of appreciable money off WebAds, if that's not too personal a question?
Just curious - cause I am not a big fan of them aesthetically...
> That was the shortest drama I've ever seen.
Who says its over? Safran threatened to sue unless I take down the offending post. The post is still up! He might sue!
eh, he'd only sue to unmask you, but it won't even get that far. Had he simply asked you to take it down, it would be one thing, but immediately threatening to sue? Put up more posts bashing the guy! There has to be plenty to mock in the "Vice President of Communications & Marketing" and "Senior Rabbinic Coordinator and New Companies rabbinic coordinator" at the Orthodox Union.
Luke Ford liked him as well:
http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=1049
"The newly certified products include Maalox® Regular Suspension cherry and mint; Maalox® Max Suspension cherry, mint, wild berry, lemon and vanilla crème; Maalox® Regular Chewable wild berry and lemon; Maalox® Max Chewable assorted fruit, wild berry and lemon and Maalox® Antacid Barrier Chewable cherry and mint.
Rabbi Dr. Eliyahu Safran, Senior Rabbinic Coordinator of OU Kosher, supervised the certification process of Maalox® and Triaminic®, and noted that the taste of the medication remains the same."
(From http://www.maaloxus.com/news.sht...tml?
news_kosher )
XGH, have any thoughts about how Safran could note that the taste of the medication remained the same?
"GH, have any thoughts about how Safran could note that the taste of the medication remained the same?"
No changes were made to the process save a mashgiach.
I am very dissapointed in this Rabbi Safran. You raised a legitimate criticism of sheitels. If he sued you for your theology which is impersonating Judaism, that would be another matter. (Just kidding.) Don't be cowed by this guy. He'll become a laughingstock if he proceeds with a lawsuit.
"You raised a legitimate criticism of sheitels. "
He did?
"He'll become a laughingstock if he proceeds with a lawsuit."
... and the Vice President of Communications and Marketing is unlikely to want to become a laughingstock. And even less likely to want the blogosphere's attention focused on the business activities of the Orthodox Union.
all i know is most all the kiruv rabbis ive read or listened to said a long shaitel is ASSUR.
Does he include that admonition is his book? if he doesnt he is a hyprocrite.
"all i know is most all the kiruv rabbis ive read or listened to said a long shaitel is ASSUR.
Does he include that admonition is his book? if he doesnt he is a hyprocrite."
Where do you come up with this stuff?
A long sheitel is better than a short one, as it is more likely to cover stray hairs!
daganev.
watch rabbi amnon yitzchak! the video of his trip to america where he gets woman to cover their hair with a tichel. he specifically is asked what about shaitels. He says, ASSUR, only permitted if the woman can not get over the fear of a tichel, and then only a short NON human hair one.
read the book/pamphlet , how to do kiruv.
both say a long shaitel is not permitted, even for askenazim.
just to close the loop.
Rabbi yitzchak then says EVEN for askenazim.
Its on video tape.
daganev.
Leah Kleim posts links to the video of rabbi amnon yitzchak that im talking about
i would paste the link here, but i dont dare go to her site during work hours.
"He did?"
As a matter of fact he did! Doesn't a sexy shaitel defeat the whole purpose or at least the spirit of the intended law? Disclosure - my wife wears these kinds of sheitels but I am not writing books about tznius.
>only permitted if the woman can not get over the fear of a tichel
What the heck does THAT mean?
I can understand being afraid of a 20' Moshe, but of a colored scarf?
Good move. It seems to me that this drama Rabbi Safran has started is now running on fumes. Your original post was clearly opinion, which is not at all legally actionable. Now that you are no longer affiliated with Webads, this has nothing to do with them either.
In the future, if an author would like to remove his wife's chosen profession from the discussion, he would probably be advised not to include said profession on the book jacket. But hey, that's just my opinion (with the operative word here being opinion).
>Now that you are no longer affiliated with Webads, this has nothing to do with them either.
He is still threatening webads unless GH removes the post.
He is still threatening webads unless GH removes the post.
Um, this has nothing to do with Webads. They are not the host of his blog, and GH is not their employee. Now that he is out of their network, I really can't imagine how Rabbi Safran can justify making any sort of threats aimed at Webads at all.
>Um, this has nothing to do with Webads. They are not the host of his blog, and GH is not their employee. Now that he is out of their network, I really can't imagine how Rabbi Safran can justify making any sort of threats aimed at Webads at all.
Legally, he has no chance. But thats not the problem here.
> Legally, he has no chance. But thats not the problem here.
The problem is people who cannot stand to be criticized on a blog, and go beserk if it happens.
However, I said nothing personal against either Rabbi Safran or his wife, and simply wondered by he was writing a tznius book when his wife sells sexy sheitels, because that seemed very incongruous to me.
""He did?"
As a matter of fact he did! Doesn't a sexy shaitel defeat the whole purpose or at least the spirit of the intended law? Disclosure - my wife wears these kinds of sheitels but I am not writing books about tznius."
Umm no, it does not.
What is the purpose of the head covering? We learn about it from sotah, that the covering must be removed. If your hair is not showing, and it can be removed, so that your hair does show, then it follows the spirit and letter of the law.
If you hold like some, then the women's hair gains kedusha when you become married, and that kedusha must be covered by any means.
Tzniut is a different law then hair covering. (I recently had a conversation with my wife about her feeling uncomfortable wearing a bathing suit with her hair covered, I thought that seemed a bit ironic, and she explained the differences between tzniut and hair covering to me.)
GH
you are obviously right. But there is another side here. Have you talked to 'him' yet?
"However, I said nothing personal against either Rabbi Safran or his wife, and simply wondered by he was writing a tznius book when his wife sells sexy sheitels, because that seemed very incongruous to me."
Umm, that is saying something personal about him and his wife.
>Umm, that is saying something personal about him and his wife.
Lets just say this was true, does this mean he needs to sue? Get money out of it? GH dident lie about anything. He just said he thinks its stupid. This equals lawsuit?
Either way, I think Safrans reputation if he goes through with this will be tarnished. He will be eaten alive ( I hope) by bloggers and what could have been easily forgotten will be everywhere now.
>If you hold like some, then the
>women's hair gains kedusha when you
>become married, and that kedusha must
>be covered by any means.
That sounds alot like the Ari's kaballah, not exactly in favor here. By the way, it holds that men's hair gains kedusha with marriage too, which is the convenient excuse for men not wearing a tallis before marriage.
>Tzniut is a different law then hair
>covering. (I recently had a
>conversation with my wife about her
>feeling uncomfortable wearing a
>bathing suit with her hair covered, I
>thought that seemed a bit ironic, and
>she explained the differences between
>tzniut and hair covering to me.)
>Daganev | 11.14.07 - 2:59 pm | #
Actually, the gemarah ascribes it mostly to "dat yehudit" ie- what good frum women do, which sounds more like tzniut than just a chok for its own sake.
You are following your convictions.That is something to be proud of.
"Actually, the gemarah ascribes it mostly to "dat yehudit" ie- what good frum women do, which sounds more like tzniut than just a chok for its own sake."
Really?
"It is what good people do" sounds much more like a chok to me, than attributed to anything regarding a particular category of law.
Q: Why do we eat chullent?
A: It is what good Shabbos observant Jews do.
Does this mean that people eat chullent for chok reasons, or because they are proving something to the sadducees? Does this mean that a person is breaking some principle of shabbos if they eat cold cuts for lunch?
"Lets just say this was true, does this mean he needs to sue? Get money out of it? GH dident lie about anything. He just said he thinks its stupid. This equals lawsuit?"
If you read the contract and terms and conditions, he can't sue.
But I wouldn't say that XGH didn't say anything personal about them.
Daganev, Shmilda is right. Look at the gemara in ketubot 72a and the SA Even Haezer 21 and 117 (IIRC).
But I wouldn't say that XGH didn't say anything personal about them.
I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. Had GH cast aspersions on a sheitel that the woman herself wore, I would say that would be over the line of decency. But for GH to point out some issues he takes regarding a wig that she sells on her company's website - when her involvement in the company was highlighted by Rabbi Safran himself in his bio - seems impersonal enough. Had Rabbi Safran himself not mentioned his wife's company and profession I might feel differently about this, by the way. But he did, and it's fair game to make a fair point, whether it's one you or I choose to agree with.
I can't believe you even had a hava amina to give in. I remember when you were unbelievably disrepectful to the true gedolei hador on issues of real importance. Now you get a bit of feedback about a lighthearted post and go all wobbly?
"Daganev, Shmilda is right. Look at the gemara in ketubot 72a and the SA Even Haezer 21 and 117 (IIRC)."
Right about what?
I'm not arguing that it is a chok, I am arguing that it is not just another "tznius issue." It is its own law with its own spirits and letters.
"I think that's a bit of an exaggeration. "
I think suggesting that he wrote a book on tznius as a sublte hint to his wife about her Sheteils, and thus also suggesting that he can't have a normal conversation with her about these things is pretty insulting. Also on top of that, to imply that his book suggests that sexy sheitiels are not appropriate.
Orthomom is right.
I mean, is Safran REALLY not thinking? Does he REALLy want such negative publicity?
Same deal as that crazy person who sued OM. People have an over-inflated sense of ego, are overly litigious, and somehow think they have a legitimate case when they don't.
> I think suggesting that he wrote a book on tznius as a sublte hint to his wife about her Sheteils, and thus also suggesting that he can't have a normal conversation with her about these things is pretty insulting.
That line was totally meant in jest. In fact, I thought it would 'soften' the post. As my wife always says, I'm clueless about tact. I can take that one line off I guess, it's no big deal.
I'm defining chok as something we do because the Torah says so, rather than something we culturally do because we suppose our forbears did.
Irrespective of all that, my point is that hair covering is part of tznius. It's not a separate mitzvah. Yes, there is the asmachta from sotah, but that only functions to prove that good frum married women (as opposed to the sotah) cover their hair for tznius - nothing more. And IIRC the size of the covering/amount that must be covered is far from clear in that gemarah.
But this is all way off the topic of tznius books, web ads, and frivolous law suits. Carry on.
>I can take that one line off I guess,
>it's no big deal.
Why bother? I'd guess that he already regrets stirring this up.
Shmilda, the pasuk from sotah is used by Ketubot 72a to learn a d'oraysa (דת משה
of not covering hair at least with a קלתה(basket). The extra amount is what is covered by דת יהודית.
"If you hold like some, then the women's hair gains kedusha when you become married, and that kedusha must be covered by any means.
Tzniut is a different law then hair covering. (I recently had a conversation with my wife about her feeling uncomfortable wearing a bathing suit with her hair covered, I thought that seemed a bit ironic, and she explained the differences between tzniut and hair covering to me.)"
Oh, okay, if your wife says so. When you find an actual pre-20th century source for hair kedushah, let me know.
Why is the Rabbi threatening to sue XGH rather than threating to take him to Beis Din?
ooh, good one!
... and how is R' Safran going to sit down on the chair in court if it's never been checked for shatnez? Hey, that's an entirely new line of business for the OU, certifying chairs. I should demand a cut for this brainstorm.
>Why is the Rabbi threatening to sue XGH rather than threating to take him to Beis Din?
I was asking the same thing. Ofcourse, my experience in life has shown me that one stops being a mitvah keeping torah true jew when it comes down to money.
Nice to see that the rav has his priorities straight. So many important issues and he managed to narrow it down to the most important of all.
This is a test... this
more test
Commenting by HaloScan
