Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ubiquitin,
I’m curious what you would say if say in Teaneck there was a rule that a person wearing a shtreimel cant daven for the amud?
If a streimel wearing Jew came to the CR and said, “come see Teaneck as an example of a lack of ahavas Yisroel! I visited a friend there once, and he told me that he asked the gabbai if I could daven for the amud, and the gabbai said never because I wear a streimel”, I would say the exact same thing I’ve been saying here. That sounds like rechilus and should not be believed – and there may be a shul policy that’s being misunderstood by someone in the chain.
coffeeroomlover,
first of all, if u can afford to smoke, then you can not have the chutzpah to go round collecting.
second, when the come round while smoking, they have a very negative attitude.
I disagree with these conclusions.
First of all – just because someone is smoking does not mean they can afford cigarettes on top of food and other needs. It’s natural that among the poor there will be a large fraction who do not handle their finances well or exhibit good future planning abilities – they make unwise purchases and then do not have enough left for necessities. That’s partly why they’re poor. Surely Hashem was aware of this yet still commanded us to help all of the poor among our people, not just the ones who budget smartly.
Second of all – it’s natural that among the poor there will be a larger number of people who lack proper social skills – these issues may be holding them back from employment, etc. That’s partly why they’re poor. Surely Hashem was aware of this yet still commanded us to help all of the poor among our people, not just the socially astute.
DaMoshe,
he said it to me while walking to shul for Friday night davening. The fact is they said no to any time because of the kippah I wear.
I feel uncomfortable with this, because based on your story, you learned this via rechilus, and I think it’s forbidden to believe what you heard from your cousin (although you can take precautions to protect yourself based on the information). You may well have been hearing a misinterpretation of a misinterpretation of the shul policy.
My issue is their assuming that someone with a kippah srugah is at a level that isn’t good enough for them.
This seems to be an extrapolation beyond even what you heard. At worst it is only a reflection of the gabbai’s own prejudices. Were you ill treated at the shul beyond not being offered the amud?
I’m not so obtuse that I believe that there are no people out there who look down on others because of what kippa they wear, or what shul they go to, etc. I cannot confirm or deny whether this was the case with this particular gabbai. What I’m addressing with my responses is a) that you accepted/believed this potential rechilus and b) that you’re using it to cast aspersions on an entire shul/community.
DaMoshe,
A person shouldn’t be judged on clothes. They should be judged on whether they are a good, frum Jew, with yiras shamayim.
I absolutely agree with every word you wrote.
I don’t think that a shul having a policy that anyone davening for the amud should wear a hat and jacket violates the above statements, however. You yourself provided the best reason by writing:
Remember, however, that the halachah is that a person should dress respectfully when davening, as they are speaking to Hashem
Different communities and shuls will have different definitions for dressing respectfully. You may disagree with their definition, and that is fine, but they have a right to their own definitions, and they have a right for their customs to be respected. Would you go to Japan and take offense from an innkeeper who won’t let you walk on his tatami floors because you have your shoes on? Or would you just take your shoes off and go in? I understand that this situation feels different because of the perception that your own culture is being degraded, but I honestly think that that unfortunate circumstance arose due to mistakes made by the people you interacted with, not the policy itself. Would it cause you harm to don a hat and jacket (or even a black velvet kippa) if you really wanted to daven for the amud at this shul?
The Baal Tefillah took off his hat and put the talis over his head. Shabbos morning, married men usually don’t wear hats, as they have a talis on.
I thought this story was regarding Friday mincha/Kabbalos Shabbos? Perhaps the shul would have no problem with you davening for the amud if you covered your head with a tallis too?
Syag Lchochma,
i agree. That was why I said ‘blog’, not ‘thread’. Maybe I misused the word.
Ok, that makes sense. The misunderstanding was on my end, not yours. Fortunately, it’s been my experience that most “real world” interactions among Jews have little acrimony. I think some of what goes on in the CR is a function of anonymity and Internet culture and the fact that this forum is geared towards debating.
I asked why DaMoshe received abrasive-ish responses to his story, which was very nice.
I agree that his story was nice, but I felt somewhat pained by his takeaway. I also didn’t detect any abrasiveness in the responses, just disagreement about the nature of relationships among Jews.
DaMoshe,
he said to me, “I would love to hear you daven for the amud. Unfortunately, it won’t happen. I asked the gabbaim this morning and they won’t allow it, because you wear a kippah srugah.”
This is very unfortunate, and must have made you feel very excluded from your cousin’s community. On its face, it seems to me that your cousin spoke rechilus. I cannot see any possible good reason for him to repeat to you what the gabbai said. You apparently did not ask to daven from the amud at his shul, and you in all likelihood would have been content simply to go and daven with your cousin. In his attempt to compliment you, your cousin ultimately drove a wedge between you and his shul and community.
This was a very large shul in Lakewood. Is this achdus???
To address the shul’s policy and achdus – I would imagine that the shul has a policy that any shaliach tzibbur wear a hat and jacket, and the gabbai (assuming he said exactly what your cousin repeated to you) erroneously and insensitively extrapolated that kippa sruga wearers don’t wear hats and jackets, so they cannot daven for the amud.
Syag Lchochma,
DaMoshe is saying we are usually apart but we come together at times. Your comment implies we are usually together but come apart at times. You can’t possibly believe that is true. Even among this one blog it isn’t true.
Can you provide your working definition of achdus so I understand where you are coming from? I’m not weighing in on the debate between DaMoshe and Gamanit at this point, but I am surprised that you perceive the discussion above as proof of a lack of achdus. Both sides stated their points respectfully as far as I can see, and I believe there is a difference between achdus and lockstep agreement on all issues.
I thought it was a really nice story and Im a bit confused about why it brought him abrasive-ish responses
What was abrasive?
You forgot to write lol at the bottom of your post.
This did seem a bit abrasive to me.
Francorachel3,
Are we not creating a generation of spoiled children?
I see it in almost the exact opposite way. If a family has the means to pay for a lavish vacation that their kids will love, why not use those funds to elevate their joy of Yom Tov?
Just for the record, we stay home for Pesach every year.
gavra_at_work,
There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension skills. If you feel that I have missed your point by a mile, then it’s highly likely that your point can be more articulately stated.
gavra_at_work,
Do you think that the Torah should be updated for a non-agrarian society. Hm….. No. If I did, I would (rightfully) be called a Reform Jew.
Your response is a red herring; you didn’t answer my question.
And no, the Torah does not need to be updated so that it deals with a non-agrarian society. Your assertion that my question can only be answered with Torah reform indicates that perhaps you believe Hashem cannot predict the future or write the Torah in such a way that it can deal with multiple societies. You kofer. 🙂
That is the same “your Cheshbon” point DY brought. Asked and answered.
And countered successfully by DaasYochid. If someone asks you for money, it gives you the right to tell him yes or no. It perhaps gives you the right to investigate his situation to inform your subsequent yes or no. It does not give you the right to throw Chazals at him in his pain and dictate to him what you think is best for his learning.
Since you are missing the point, (and DY is a Kofer anyway, so no-one will listen to him :), I’ll explain.
I understand your point, but if all you are trying to do is state that since Chazal say aniyus is good for Torah learning, a society that values Torah learning above all else should ergo embrace aniyus, I’ll respond that it is a rather strange point to make in a thread about tzedaka, in response to a poster noting the dire living conditions for Chareidim in E”Y.
If I came across a man about to hand $50 to a beggar, and pointed out to him that each and every dollar given to tzedaka is holy, and that even a dollar given is a great mitzvah, what I said was absolutely true, but was I doing a good thing or a bad thing in context?
Your point was not made in a vacuum, and it is valid for us to make inferences and ask questions based on juxtaposition.
gavra_at_work,
Hate to do this, but Chazal say that Aniyus is a necessary quality for Kinyan HaTorah (I don’t think anyone is at the point where they are beyond eating only bread, salt & water, and sleeping on the floor of the Bais Medrash).
Two points:
1. Do you think poverty can or should be defined in this way for a non-agrarian society? Are you asserting that there is no food or housing insecurity among Chareidim in Eretz Yisroel?
2. You are quick to mention what the gemara says about the sacrifices that should be made for Torah, but what does the gemara say about supporting limud Torah? Does the concept of tzedaka end once you think that everyone has some bread, salt, and water and there are enough batei midrash to provide sufficient floor space for all to sleep?
If the end goal is to learn as much as possible, you (and other Charaidim) should embrace Aniyus.
While this may be proper for someone to hold this for himself, I do not think it is proper to say it to someone else.
Good one, The Goq!
Lior,
“old man” also vouched for the letter’s bonafides.
He did not; he stated that the letter satisfied his opinion of the Israeli Chareidi mindset. Your googling suggestion was much more helpful.
Most of the dangers mentioned by the RY are equally applicable in the U.S.
You and I are in basic agreement here. I’m not disputing the portion of the letter discussing college education. The dangers discussed are real. What raised red flags for me was the dichotomy between the first portion of the letter, which alluded to food insecurity, and the latter portion, which implied that kollel families made ostentatious purchases. Old man is right, I am not inside the Israeli Chareidi world, but among all the kollel families I know in my area, I don’t see any luxurious wasteful spending.
The RY may have been concerned about the perception you mention (i.e. ivory towers) due to the illegitimate external criticism made on these topics which inevitably filters back into our communities.
This is possible, and perhaps the R”Y would have a very different response to an individual than what he wrote in this letter which was targeted to a community as a whole. I guess I read it from the perspective of an individual.
“Rabbi, we don’t have enough money for food. Can I go to Kefira State University to get a degree in computer science?”
“No, for X, Y, and Z, reasons.”
“OK Rabbi, but what should I do about feeding my family?”
“Stop spending 4 bucks on Starbucks every weekday, that’ll save you $1252 a year.”
“But I don’t buy Starbucks…”
About the Borsalino thing, maybe there’s some kind of mishegas going around the more well-to-do families in EY about frequently getting a new hat. Who knows; there are certainly far worse bad habits in the secular world.
Maybe.
Lior: What do you think about an expansion of distance (e.g., online, or even through correspondence) courses and accelerated degree programs that allow people to attain a degree without having to go to a campus or take unrelated liberal arts coursework?
Woah, your kiddush sponsors must’ve already traded in the salads for better scotch.
DaasYochid,
I don’t know if this letter exists or not, nor can I comment on the status of the various educational institutions being referred to. However, I think most who have commented here have missed the point.
The letter isn’t saying that because Hashem provides, we therefore do not need to do hishtadlus. It is saying that a certain type of hishtadlus is unacceptable, and as a result, we must avoid it, and use other means of hishtadlus, and even if it seems difficult, we must trust in Hashem to provide.
I got the overall point of the letter, and I agree with its descriptions of the dangers. I think the issue may be even more pronounced in Israel, because whereas in the U.S. most college instructors are non-Jewish and generally ignorant of and supportive of Orthodox Judaism, that is not the case in Israel.
What bothers me is that this letter, which was introduced by a poster whose OP is the sole post on the account, and then “confirmed” by the second post ever made by another user (can anyone else confirm it, btw?), are two things:
1. The writer goes out of his way to try and dispel a notion that rabbis are locked in ivory towers and unconcerned about the plight of kollel families. No, they are in the trenches with these families and feel their pain. My question: why would he assume that kollel families felt this way about their rabbis? I don’t think that they by-and-large do. Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe the letter is not directed at kollel families, but that’s the way it reads to me.
2. Then, as an almost perfect foil for this earlier point, the writer’s sole example supporting the notion that the primary cause of the sense of poverty among kollel families is that they are living overindulgent lives is a claim that families must buy a new borsalino hat for each son at the start of every zman! Is that really a thing in Bnei Brak?? I don’t think so.
Lior,
So MO shuls charge so much more because they pay their rabbi so much more than chareidi shuls and they have larger shul staffs?
Not sure you can pin it to MO vs. non-MO shuls, but your reasoning is basically correct. Different shuls have different needs or philosophies about what services a shul will provide to its community. A shul with the sole purpose of providing a small space for men to daven will have the lowest overhead costs. That setup is feasible in areas where a frum infrastructure is already well established. Other shuls require the full time participation of one or more rabbis and other staff to provide additional services that the community wants or needs, and they may have a larger or more expensive building.
Get another shul or sue them under the ADA. In secular court.
lol, a trollish response to a trollish thread.
So where was this letter published originally? It’s simply, uh, fascinating how closely it parallels recent CR discussions right down to the frequency of Borsalino hat purchasing. Hmm…
DaMoshe,
My wife once asked her, “Doesn’t it get hard? Don’t you sometimes want your husband to help out financially?”
I feel like your wife’s question to your cousin was somewhat inappropriate, and her “strange” response had more to do with discomfort at the personal intrusion than brainwashing.
Salt becomes largely ineffective at melting ice once temperatures drop below 20 degrees. At those temperatures, sand is a better bet to provide some traction for walkers and vehicles, but it won’t make things perfect.
Someone must have heard somewhere about knitting on Motzei Shabbos and dedcided this was the halacha and told someone else.
I didn’t get that from the OP. The OP heard from somewhere that knitting was assur motzai Shabbos and asked the CR for a source.
Someone heard it was assur to eat Pizza on Motzei Shabbos and told someone else and now they think they are doing wrong by eating Pizza on Motzei Shabbos.
If a hurricane were bearing down on my city and I stayed in my beachfront house because I heard from my neighbor Bob who heard from his pal Joe that the storm was turning away from the coast and I didn’t need to worry, and I failed to check the latest information from the National Weather Service, or whether an evacuation order was given, wouldn’t I be stupid? Honestly, if halacha is important to me, why would I change what I do towards either stricture or leniency based on what someone heard from someone else who heard from someone else? Or even a non-halachic book? I have a rabbi and a brain, and if I fail to use them properly and do something wrong or unnecessary as a result, then it would be my own fault!
Rema711,
Only when I visit popa_bar_abba…
zahavasdad,
When you write a book, you need to know who your audience is.
So if I want to publish a book, I should refrain, because Heaven forbid someone outside of my intended audience may find it, read it, and get offended? Sorry, it’s a free country, and R’ Meisels can publish whatever he wants. Nobody commanded you to buy it and adhere to every letter.
Perhaps this book should have been written in Yiddish and not english.
Guess what? R’ Meisels did not write the book in English. It was translated into English by R’ Avraham Finkel.
The Anglo crowd is different than the Yiddish crowd and this book did not seem to be aimed at Yeshivish Anglos either.
I sometimes eat pizza on motzai Shabbos. For some reason, when I read a passage like what WolfishMusings quoted, I don’t take offense and think some rabbi is trying to pry pizza out of my Saturday night hands. I am comfortable enough in my own skin and close enough to my rav to know that it is perfectly fine for me to eat pizza on motzai Shabbos. I can also learn from the passage some tidbits about the importance of the minhag of melava malka, and perhaps incorporate some of the spirit that he described – slowly letting go of the Shabbos atmosphere – into what I do on motzai Shabbos.
Chicago metro area’s population: 9.5 million.
BosWash corridor’s population: 45-50 million.
That’s why the latter region’s storm potential made the media go bonkers 🙂
Uh oh, better hide this thread before Popa finds it!
I mostly agree with DaasYochid’s position here.
1. It is absolutely ok for a frum publication to have a policy of not publishing pictures of women.
2. The editors of Hamevaser were either unaware or uncaring of the reaction the doctored photo received. I don’t think they did this for attention, shock, or an “in your face” gesture.
3. The negative reaction was primarily engendered by anti-Chareidi Jews in Israel, and was subsequently magnified by global media outlets that seek to equate Israelis and Islamic fanatics in order to maintain their ideas of moral relativism in the Middle East conflict. I don’t think Hamevaser should be totally blamed for this.
All that said, while Hamevaser had no bad intentions and their edits did not change the substance of the photo, I think doctoring photographs for any reason would be regarded as dishonest by most, since there is an expectation that photographs are accurate representations of what the photographer saw through his/her lens. Even if it is not intended to be dishonest, therefore, I think that frum outlets should avoid altering photos based on darchei noam. Especially in the current atmosphere. There surely were other photographs available that suited the magazine’s needs without needing to photoshop.
DaasYochid and Lior,
Wouldn’t the difference be between people who follow Rav Moshe Feinstein’s ruling that chalav stam certified by USDA in the U.S. is kosher, but it’s still good to be makpid on chalav Yisroel (thus they eat chalav Yisroel, but aren’t so concerned about the keilim) vs. people who don’t hold by Rav Feinstein regarding chalav stam (thus they would be concerned about keilim since they consider chalav stam to be non-kosher)?
Lior,
Avram: Which Rambam are you claiming that the Mechaber paskens against?
I was referring to the method of compulsion. The Shulchan Aruch does not state a method, but I believe the Rema favors the non-lashing methods.
000646,
The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan: the exact words are “??? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????? ????? ????”.
I think when the Rambam say that the matter should be clarified according to the way the dayan sees fit, that is referring to the method used for confirmation (e.g., unrelated woman in home or neighbors, etc.), not that the Beis Din can do whatever they want with or without confirmation.
I do not think whatever the woman brought into the marriage is hers if she arbitrarily walks out on her husband. Doesn’t that only happen in the case of divorce? (I know I may be wrong here, please correct me if I am)
I am by no means an expert myself, but my understanding is that the principal of what a woman brings into a marriage remains hers, but profits go to the husband while he supports her. For example, if the woman owns property, that property remains hers, but the husband is entitled to the rent income while he is supporting his wife. If they separate and the husband is no longer obligated to provide for his wife, she keeps the property and takes control of the profits.
000646 wrote:
Are you claiming that if a Husband went to B”D these days and said that he is not mochel these obligations the B”D would force her? We both know that wouldn’t happen, and no one would even claim that it should.
Lior responded:
It’s an issue if it’s brought before Beis Din. If it’s brought before Beis Din, it’s enforceable. Today like previously.
I agree with 000646 on this point. Since our custom is to be mochel on these particular obligations since today they are considered degrading, then unless there was a clear stipulation between chosson and kallah beforehand that they were going to ignore this custom and she would consider herself obligated to wash his face, I don’t believe a Beis Din would rule in favor of the husband.
And we don’t hold like the Rambam in this case, either!
000646,
The Rambam seems to be saying that she could be lashed at the discretion of a Dayan
Not if it’s unestablished whether any violations have taken place. A kosher beis din was not lash-happy. And there are opinions that the court did not lash in this circumstance at all.
change it to something that would be considered common courtesy today and my point would still stand.
I think one reason this concept (punishment for refusal to do something) seems strange to Americanized sensibilities is that civil law rarely regulates what people do for others, whereas Torah law does. Being rude in the U.S. is not against the law, but in some cases, it could be against the law in a Torah based society.
U.S. law forbids lashing, but does imprison people, which I think can be more damaging to a person than lashes (e.g., long-term separation from family and friends, inability to develop as a person, risk of prison assaults, declines in health due to confinement, etc.). An overwhelming majority of Americans polled whether they would hypothetically prefer 10 lashes or 5 years imprisonment chose the lashes. It may very well be that in 200 years, an “enlightened” society that lashes will look back at this era in U.S. history with its 2.3 million imprisoned and say, “gosh were they immoral!” And a large number of imprisoned people are confined simply because they bought and ingested some plant that the government happens to dislike.
Torah law metes out lashes in some circumstances, we cannot get around that fact. If you think they are never right, fine, you disagree with Torah law. It seems like you are trying to limit your argument against lashes to this single case involving a wife, why? I think courts ordering lashes in any case (and especially this one) was very rare, you think they did it like candy, we’ll have to agree to disagree.
However even if he said what you say he says, throwing a woman into the street with no money, food or personal belongings is practically the same thing, especially hundreds of years ago
Conjecture. Also, any principal the wife owned before the marriage is still completely hers. And this whole argument is getting silly. Who would get themselves thrown out (or throw someone out) over washing a face?
That is a BELIEF.
NOW it is because we are in golus and don’t have a Torah society at all, but when there is a Torah society, it won’t be, since knowledge of G-d will fill the earth as waters fill the sea.
000646,
I wrote:
You’re interpreting the halacha as “if he doesn’t wash my face, he can chain her in the basement and starve her until she does!!” That is NOT right.
Indeed not only is that not right, it is not even written right. It should read: “You’re interpreting the halacha as “if she [the wife] doesn’t wash his [the husband’s] face, he can…”
Sorry for the typos.
Lior,
I believe you can cook something pareve in a clean dairy utensil and then eat it right after a fleshig meal; however, you cannot cook something in a clean non-kosher utensil. People who hold that they cannot cook with chalav stam utensils (e.g., they are not kosher), therefore, would have a problem.
000646,
1.) I believe that if a Government that was faithful to Halacha ever ruled E”Y (I think there was) and the Rambam was correct on his assessment of Torah law in the case above (I would err on the side of saying he was correct.) Then yes women were brought in front of Batei Din and lashed for not washing their husbands feet.
I disagree. The conditions required to come together for such an event are so unlikely, that I find it exceptionally improbable that a woman was ever lashed by a kosher Beis Din for such a reason.
1. You are projecting ethnocentric notions of our society where we have sinks and showers into other societies that lacked those amenities. Today it is easy for people to wash their own face, hands, and feet, and thus it would be insulting to demand that someone else do so for you. This was not so in the past. Helping someone to wash most likely was considered a basic courtesy.
2. To even get to the point where the Beis Din would take action to “compel” the woman to fulfill her obligations, we would have to have a scenario where a woman understands that there is a halachic requirement that she is expected to meet and an understanding before the marriage that she was expected to do it (and in this era these requirements were not degrading – they were a basic courtesy, and halacha states that the wife should help partly because it would be a breach of tznius to have a maidservant help, and it would be strange to have a manservant help), she then openly refuses to fulfill the halacha during the marriage, witnesses observed this, and the husband dragged the wife and witnesses to Beis Din. That’s a lot of extreme and unusual actions. Even if we do get this far, the woman can just say she finds her husband to be repulsive to her and leave! And given the sequence of extraordinary events that led to this Beis Din appearance, that’s likely what she’s saying.
As an aside it seems from a simple reading of the text that the only time that is a judicial matter is where she says she is washing his feet or whatever and he is saying she isn’t
If your “simple reading” of the text leads you to believe that Rambam is advocating for the husband to hit, then you are indeed misunderstanding a lot of these halachos. These halachos are not written for a husband and wife to read so that they know how to relate to each other. They are being presented so that a Beis Din knows how to act in case CV”S there are legal disputes between husband and wife.
Husband wants to go from being a tailor to a sailor? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the wife. Husband wants to go from splendor to scholar? Wife disapproves? Rule in favor of the husband. These are what the halachos are about.
One more question, How do you understand what the Raavid says? (I don’t have the exact text in front of me, if you do and could post it that would be great)
I don’t have the text either, but it’s pretty clear that it’s talking about his obligations to provide food, clothing, and shelter. You’re interpreting the halacha as “if he doesn’t wash my face, he can chain her in the basement and starve her until she does!!” That is NOT right. At most the Raavad is saying, “if she doesn’t wash his face (e.g., do what is halachically required for a wife to do), he is within his rights to ask her to leave without necessarily beginning divorce proceedings.” And if the wife then declares that she finds her husband repulsive and wants a divorce, the Beis Din usually orders the husband to divorce after a 12 month extension.
2.) Believing that Hashem is immoral makes no sense.
Why not? You are already CV”S basically declaring that His Torah is immoral (though it’s apparent that you are severely misunderstanding it), so why not just take it the next logical step?
I do happen to believe that PEOPLE killing other people for violating a tenet of any religion is definitely immoral. I doubt anyone would really disagree with me on that one. (unless obviously it is a tenet like “do not kill” which besides for being a religious rule is one that is made for the good of society. In a case like that killing someone becomes somewhat debatable)
That is an arbitrary line you are drawing. If Jews in Eretz Yisroel began violating halachos (e.g., shmitta, Shabbos, forbidden relationships), then they would lose Hashem’s protection and become vulnerable to attack from the nations around them. Therefore, violating these mere “tenets” could very well get innocents killed.
Also, who’s to say anyone has a right to kill another human, even if that human also killed? Exile him to an island where he can no longer harm anyone!
00646,
do you think that a society that brings women to court and has them whipped for not washing their husbands feet or making his bed etc is a moral society?
Do you think that a woman has ever been brought before a kosher Beis Din and was lashed because she refused to wash his face, hands or feet and make his bed? I doubt it. So you’re really asking a question about an imaginary society, not any real Jewish one, past or present.
But let’s take your question one step further. Do you CV”S consider Hashem to be immoral because He commanded that a man be executed simply because he gathered some sticks on one day of a week as opposed to another?
Popa is Brian Kelley’s top adviser 🙂
000646,
I wrote:
The rest of the halacha that you omitted
I apologize, you did quote the whole thing – I should read things more carefully.
Lior,
Halacha has no concept of the secular-style ongoing alimony other than the one-time kesuba payment.
You are essentially correct, and I may have mistakenly made a spurious analogy. Whereas alimony continues after a civil divorce is finalized, in halacha there is the payment of the kesuba, after which the husband has finalized things. One exception is if the ex-wife is nursing his child; he is obligated to pay her the wages of a nurse maid through 24 months. He is also obligated to pay for his kids’ needs through age 6 when the mother has custody.
My alimony reference was directed at a husbands obligations in certain circumstances before a get is given.
His obligation to support his wife while married does not obligate him to support her out of his home if she decides to separate,
I didn’t say “if she decides to separate”, I said, “in many cases where the couple R”L separates.” Separations don’t just happen when the wife walks out.
and his support obligation is fulfilled by stocking his fridge with food and the closet with clothes and inviting her to live in his home to utilize that support.
Not necessarily.
If he forces her out of the home then that obligation of his would continue wherever she is.
Can you clarify this statement? Do you mean him stocking his own fridges and closets?
His rights to her earnings can only be ended by her agreeing to waive his obligation to support her.
That is almost exactly what I said, except sometimes these waivers are enacted by a Beis Din due to unfortunate circumstances.
000646,
That Rambam does NOT ever give a husband permission to strike his wife. The rest of the halacha that you omitted makes it clear that such issues are brought before a Beis Din, and witnesses are needed.
And yes, the Raavad disagrees and states that a woman is not compelled with lashes. And nowhere does it say that the husband can starve his wife. Look at Ishus 14:8: “she is not like a captive…”
Again, I think you have some pretty big misconceptions about the Torah.
000646,
I think you have some really big misunderstandings about Torah law in regards to marriage.
Nowhere in Rambam or anywhere else does it say that a husband can deprive, starve, or hit his wife!
According to Torah law, a husband has numerous obligations to his wife, including providing food, clothing, shelter, etc. In many cases where the couple R”L separates, the husband continues to be obligated to provide these benefits until he gives a get and kesuba payment. This is somewhat similar to the concept of alimony, except that is is more extensive! In other words, Torah frequently provides greater protections for the wife in case of separation than U.S. law does!
There are other circumstances where a husband’s obligations to provide the funds for food, clothing, shelter, etc. are waived when they separate and before the get is given. Correspondingly in these cases, the husband’s rights to his wife’s earnings and estate also get waived. It is no different than separations in the U.S., where the estranged parties have to find their own way. The wife is free to move into her own home, get a job, etc. This is very different from the “starving” that you are thinking.
WolfishMusings,
You’re not entitled to a chosson Shas – even if it’s “standard.”
Perfectly stated.
anIsraeliYid,
The recent events in DC are quite relevant in that they highlighted and hightened the discomfort that many female potential Gerim (Gerot?) have with being observed by men. Yes, the situations are not identical, but there’s enough of a relationship between them that one does influence the other.
I must disagree. The horrendous events in DC were caused by violations of both halacha and civil law. They did not arise due to correctly following halachic protocols, nor from any fundamental flaws arising due to that halachic observance. To make sure nothing like it happens again, stricter oversight and privacy protocols are needed, not changes to halacha. I think those groups who are abusively taking advantage of this sad situation to promote their own ideas are bringing further harm to the victims by distracting attention from the real changes that must be made and creating uncomfortable tensions surrounding the mikveh.
zahavasdad,
so to say I have a problem with yiddish speakers is just wrong.
I didn’t say that. You said:
For some reason Yiddish Speakers never got this message and do tend to speak Yiddish even though they know everyone around them speaks english
And I am asking why, given that many X-speakers speak X even though they are surrounded by Y-speakers no matter the languages, you singled out Yiddish speakers.
zahavasdad,
When you speak another language besides english people get paranoid and THINK you are talking about them even if its not true.
I agree that in most cases, common courtesy dictates that people should avoid conversing in a different language when around others who don’t speak that language. The paranoia you describe, however, is not as much a result of the lack of courtesy as it is a reflection of the listener’s xenophobia.
For some reason Yiddish Speakers never got this message and do tend to speak Yiddish even though they know everyone around them speaks english
I work in an office where a lot of people speak Chinese, and many times in break rooms and meeting rooms I hear people conversing in Chinese around non-Chinese speaking Americans. I have lived in areas with a lot of Spanish speakers, who converse in Spanish around English speakers. Just the other day two women in a store were conversing in Russian in front of me at the checkout line. Everybody does it, so why are you picking on Yiddish speakers?
Isn’t talking badly about other people in any language, whether or not they understand you, a bad thing to do? Am I missing something here?
zahavasdad,
Its demeaning because you didnt like my answer.
Ummm no. I thought your response to ask a shaila because the situation might not be as clear cut as the OP thought in the moment was a good one, and I actually agree with it. There may be some wiggle room in a case where gift giving is a part of the office culture, there may not be depending on where the money is going. We don’t know. What was demeaning about your response was your assumption that the OP and respondents “do not understand that … everyone is equal.”
Like you, I have spent my entire adult life in majority non-Jewish office settings. Just because I may disagree with you does not mean that I lord myself over others, am ignorant of how to be a team player in an office, or anything else like that.
The OP was confronted with an inappropriate question where he felt compelled to give an immediate response without being able to ask a shaila first. Your suggestion to put off the question and then ask a shaila was a good one, but I think such a response doesn’t eliminate the potential to irritate the administrative assistant, who just wants to ship off the card and donation and be done with it.
I also think that the OP erring on the side of caution where there was a potential A”Z issue was also a good spot decision. All of the discussion here is done in hindsight.
A n-jewish -worker dies and the whole office goes to the Funeral
In this case, there is time to ask a shaila. The answer may be no!
A co-worker has a Toeivah Marriage and the entire office buys them a gift and you are expected to give.
A parallel question to the OP’s case, and this one might be less fraught with issues.
A co-worker has a mixed marriage and the entire office buys them a gift
Ditto…
Business Relationships with members of the opposite gender (Issues of Yichud, Travel, Shaking hands)
Business lunches and Dinners
These are more general office issues, and shailos can be asked beforehand – these situations are less likely to be put someone “on the spot” like the OP was.
You have to figure out how to navigate these roadblocks without making yourself look selfish and have to be a team player.
And I think the OP did a good job of this! Why don’t you?
Being a Team player is very important in an office
And being a Jew is more important.
Also, being a team player in the office is a lot more about how you conduct yourself on a daily basis at work than it is about cards, flowers, handshakes, holiday parties, and the like. Help others, get your project contributions done on time, show respect for others in meetings, be nice to your co-workers, and you’ll be a team player even if you don’t go out to dinner with the co-workers after hours or participate in the office “secret santa.”
I think a Rav might be able to figure out a way out like maybe for example the charity is to feed the poor rather than fund the local Hindu Temple.
Maybe, but boundaries do exist in Judaism, and there are cases where you might have to handle a “no” in an office situation gracefully.
zahavasdad,
I am sure most here will congradulate you for what you did, however they do not understand that in an office everyone is equal and it was not a kiddush Hashem and you will be seen as “above others”
Wow, that was demeaning.
I am no Rabbi and you should probably have asked a Shaila before saying no. (Make an Exuse you are busy now and will reply later)
And what does the OP do if the rabbi says it is assur to donate?
I don’t think you caused a chillul Hashem with your explanation.
I’m confused about how the situation came about. If there was a card and envelope on someone’s desk, why couldn’t you just sign the card with your sympathies and put nothing into the envelope? If the envelope was stuffed with a mixture of cash and checks, how could the administrative assistant keep track of who donated or not?
Personally, I feel uncomfortable with the idea of someone going around collecting donations at the office, especially if it’s a manager or someone close to a manager. I think that it was downright inappropriate for the administrative assistant to ask you why you refused to donate. The problem wasn’t with your response, but the fact that you were asked the question.
HaLeiVi,
It is a strange phenomenon how hate is contagious. I still remember getting long speeches from Avram in MD (and others) because a technical issue caused some mods to link me with Joseph.
I did not remember tangling with you in that way, but after some digging, I found a thread from over 3 years ago where I mistakenly assumed that a poster (not your current username) was Joseph, because the moderators linked it with another username that I did think was a Joseph sock puppet (also not your current username). The latter username was blocked.
My response to what I thought was a Joseph sock puppet was strong, and admittedly lecturing, but certainly wasn’t intended to be hateful CV”S towards Joseph, you, or anyone. I apologize for causing you hurt, and I will be more careful to consider the potential tone of my posts before submitting them.
I have subsequently largely avoided posting in these types of threads after it became known that the moderators were mis-identifying users as sock puppets. I still feel very strongly that the use of unethical tactics (e.g., sock puppetry, insults, information gathering, stalking and real life threats to posters) to “defend” Torah is very harmful to Torah itself. I have also read some scary, invasive stuff here, but threads like these don’t really address those issues in a helpful way, and have resulted in hurt feelings, e.g., you, AYC, Jothar.
Patur Aval Assur,
It’s not loftier in the sense that either way you are really doing it for your own benefit.
This supposed “conundrum” has been answered numerous times in this thread. The difficulty only arises because you are creating an artificial catch-22.
You ask why a person would have any motivation to do something that G-d asks of him/her if it has no personal benefit to him. The only solution you’ll accept to this question is to come up with such a scenario and demonstrate why a person would do it. This is impossible, however, because you have broadened the definition of personal benefit so much that there is no such thing as a scenario where G-d asks something of someone and it has no personal benefit for that person. Therefore, you say, “aha! He’s doing it for the personal benefit! My question stands!”
I think your question is a fallacy designed to be a trap rather than a reflection of reality, and I think that what the sages are saying, that it’s better for our relationship with Hashem to motivate us to perform mitzvos than expectations of rewards, makes perfect sense.