Pinnie the Pooh said to his friend Seymour, "Hey, Seymour, what's going on?" Seymour groaned and said, "Life is terrible. If you were a sheep you'd know life was terrible. But no, you're a Pooh, so you think life is good." Pinnie the Pooh was disconcerted for a moment, but then he thought of a sure way to cheer his friend. "Hey Seymour!" said Pinnie the Pooh, "do you want some of my delicious pot of cholent? Yum Yum!"
At that moment little Goatlet bounded onto the scene and squealed, "Oh boy, cholent!" Cower (the cow) bounced in at this point and proceeded to upset the pot of cholent all over Seymour. Goatlet wasn't very happy at this turn of events, and Seymour said, "See, I knew this wouldn't turn out well."
Chezky ambled by and cleaned up the mess that had been made. He admonished Cower for making such a tumult, and brought them all inside to have their teeth be brushed and say shema in preparation for bed.
(And that's exactly where I'm going!)
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Pinnie the Pooh-by M. M. Farmilnt
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
32 comments:
What's this supposed to mean? anything?
Of winnie the pooh you never heard?
i got that it's a take on winnie the pooh. Seymour is like eyoor, except that he's a sheep. goatlet=piglet. Cower=tigger. chezky=chris r. but what's the point?
The point is...there is no point!
where'd you get that pearl of wisdom from? (by the way, I'm no longer koching in that. I guess that's a good sign.)
Oh? What do you hold of now?
i've internalized the essential non-pointhood of the whole general mishmash, that i no longer need to koch in anything at all.
Ahh, you are one with the zen. Good doggie!
The point is that TRS needs to stop taking Matzo Balls laced with Acid . . .
Winnie the Pooh just feels wrong like this!
Seymour - Good choice.
Mottel: no, I have to stop hanging out with Hungarians from monsey.
le7: thanks. I figure he's a bt.
Jewish Umberto Eco you are.
Oy vey. The chassidish obssession with removing all vestiges of beheimos tmaios from speech has to stop somewhere.
At locusts.
CA: who is umberto Eco?
Modeh: it's not chassidish, it's Jewish.
Nobody that a bochur should know about. e may like him, though.
who is this character whom I might like?
Look him up. Or his book, Pendulum Foucault.
foucault's pendulum sounds interesting. I requested it from the Brooklyn Public Library.
OK. It was another book full of appikorsis that led me to Yiddishkeit in a totally “backhanded” way.
Ha! There were books about Yiddishkeit which led me to apirkorsus in a backhanded way. For example, "Playing with Fire" by Tova Mordechai.
Never heard of it. My plan is to start reading books about Yiddishkeit after I am finished learning all of Yiddishkeit.
In general, there are very few good books “about” anything. I am yet to find a good book about Neuroscience, which is not a textbook or a journal. My friend says the same thing about music.
But I didn’t say this book is about appikorsis. This book is appikorsis.
great! I'll get the real thing.
BTW, a set theorist would go nuts trying to categorize books as "about" something or "of" something.
Seems to be very clear. Mishna Brura is a book about Halacha. Alter Rebbe’s Shulchan Aruch is Halacha.
If someone expresses an original or an authoritative thought vs. when someone discusses other people’s thoughts. OK, I agree, sometimes there is a grey area. But you can also think of whether it is written for popular audience or for people who want to seriously study the subject on a professional level (which doesn’t mean they are professionals — they just want to know the subject on the same level).
CA: more accurately the mishna brura is halacha and the beur halacha is about halacha. The alter rebbe's shulchan aruch is halacha, Teusday's hayom yom was about halacha or more accurately minhag.
TRS: no one else has a problem giving their kids a teddy bear. All this because the rebbe didn't like mickey mouse.
Modeh: from what I've heard, actually, nowadays in bnei brak and other such bastions of chareidism they are careful about this sort of thing.
And anyway, the Rebbe had no problem whatsoever with mickey mouse. The problem was with Mendel the mouse.
The litvaks have been increasingly adding to their culture the worst aspects of chassidus while at the same time leaving the best and discarding teh better aspects of snagginess.
And if the rebbe disliked mendel it was obviously because it was an imitation of mickey. therefore he probably didn't like mickey either.
This is the worst aspects of chassidus? Trying to be mechanech our children al taharas hakodesh?
And if you'll watch the sicha (it's on the most recent Living Torah DVD) you'll see that the Rebbe really didn't have a problem with mickey mouse. I don't know where you got these ideas from. Alternatively, you could learn the sicha-it's in hosafos somewhere, I don't remember where.
Hello! There's nothing wrong with non-Jewish kids playing with non-kosher animals--they can freaking eat the non-kosher animals. So why would the Rebbe have a problem with a character who's meant for non-Jews?
In what way is Mishna Brura Halacha? Nothing he writes there can be authoritative, since he was not qualified to give psak din. Of course, it’s a very valuable work for those learning Halacha, since it talks about Halacha.
He was qualified but not certified. Since today's smicha is basically a "we the bes din trust you and therefore everyone else should too" document and he got smicha at age 80+ from a talmid in his yeshiva, he would be considered certified by popular acclaim with no need for a bes din.
What makes a finite being qualified to interpret the Will coming from the Essence of the Infinite Light? As one Russian poem goes, “oftentimes, simple things seem silly”.
Post a Comment