Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
B’siyata D’shmaya, Miami Boys Choir
I am personally acquainted with a Kohen Ba’al Teshuva who had to divorce his wife when they found out that he wasn’t allowed to marry her since she was a Giyores. There were no Shalom Bayis issues, but the Halacha required the divorce. I was good friends with one of their sons who is a Challal, and whose younger brothers [from his father’s second wife] are Kohanim.
cantgetit, seahorse:
The Gemara there is discussing the legal possibility that a divorce may happen over such trivialities, not whether it is recommended. In fact, that same passage of the Gemara says that if someone divorces his first wife, even the Mizbei’ach cries over it. Divorce without strong grounds is strongly discouraged in our Halachic literature and in our culture. Halacha also prohibits a man from divorcing without legitimate cause.
In any case, if there were true Shalom Bayis, it is inconceivable that a man would divorce his wife over a burnt supper, or because he found a prettier wife.
Trachtgeet – “Nowadays some people become rebbeim just for the fact that they need a job and not because they want to teach and help kids reach their full potential.”
The Chofetz Chaim considers this the most reprehensible form of Lashon Hara/Rechilus: יורד עמו לחייו, and on an entire group of people to boot. Good luck getting all Rebbeim to be mochel you.
Way to malign the people you entrust with the education of your children. And then you wonder why “they’re not good role models?” It’s because you strip them of any respect they might have commanded in your children’s eyes before they even get to meet the students. Your children deserve better treatment for their Rebbeim.
I can’t imagine a person who doesn’t truly care about his students lasting in the field of Chinuch more than a year or two. It’s incredibly demanding and stressful, and that would be true even if Rebbeim were paid a decent living wage. Consider the typical compensation package at our Mosdos, and the idea that the Rebbe is doing it because he needs a job is laughable.
<Cue the ignoramuses who will bring up the 5% discount at certain stores, the $1000 Yom Tov bonus, and the need to find another job which doesn’t pay enough during the summer. Do you really think I can support my family because some grocery store owner feels bad enough for me to let me save ten bucks off my Shabbos shopping? Do you think I can buy new clothing for my children for Yom Tov with $1000? Do you think I can cover the massive extra expenses of summer vacation because I got a job as a Learning Rebbe/Counselor in some bungalow colony which doesn’t even have a bungalow for me to use for the summer?>
Your post is a direct insult to every Rebbe who has ever had to spend hours every week thinking about your son (that is, every Rebbe who has ever had your son in his class).
Speaking as a Rebbe who has a smartphone (albeit in an out of town community and school), it’s definitely a bigger issue that he checks it during class and davening than that he has it in the first place. Of course, everybody’s phone should be tagged (Rebbe or not), and I’m sure his phone is tagged. In the community where I live, there are dozens of Rabonim, Dayanim,Roshei Yeshiva, Roshei Kollel, Kollel Yungerleit, Menahalim, and Rebbeim who have smartphones, and a handful who don’t. I know of only one of those people who doesn’t have a cellphone at all (his wife does). With all that, these Klei Kodesh present a magnificent set of role models for the youth of our community (as well as the adults). Perhaps this is because we don’t use irrelevant and arbitrary markers to determine what constitutes a good role model. It’s more likely, I think, that parents here are very good at exhibiting respect for the role models of the community even when there are things with which they disagree.
Would you say the same about a person who doesn’t say everything he thinks when talking to you in person (which, hopefully, is every sane adult you talk to)?
It’s well known and well documented that people are less likely to self-regulate when communicating over the internet (even without the sense of anonymity, such as via email or social media) than they would when talking in person.
In that light, the Mods are, in a sense, compensating for the lowering of personal boundaries to which many people fall prey in a forum such as this one.
So the image presented by the posts that get through may be closer to the impression you would have of the person IRL than the OP suggests.Perhaps the difference is that “okay, Boomer” went viral and became a motto, so it caught my attention in a way that the other didn’t. For example, “Millenials…”, after all, as far as I know, was never used on the floor of Parliament to dismiss an opposing politician.
Maybe the difference is that I never saw the “Millenials…” epithet used directly at a specific person (at least, not that I recall at the moment).
It’s possible that I see them differently because it’s one thing to decry a particular character trait that a person (or generation) has, and quite another to write off the person himself (or the generation itself).
Personally, I never used the Millenial epithet, and I do not agree with it, or with stereotyping in general.
Whataboutisms aside, I do think that using pejoratives reveals poor character. Same for not appreciating the value of an older generation.
And I reiterate that the Torah attaches great importance to respecting elders.
I’m not a boomer or a millenial.
I don’t think it’s an offensive term per se (it has never been considered one), I just think that using it in a dismissive, disrespectful way to show the contempt in which you hold an entire generation is offensive.
It is offensive to me as a human being, because it shows that the people who use it really do not appreciate the value of another person.
More than offensive, however, it engenders a profound feeling of dismay. When I hear people in general (and especially members of governments!) use this term, it makes me worry about the future of human society.
It is precisely in opposition to the attitude the Torah teaches us to have towards our elders.
Use of this term reflects very poorly on those who use it, and not at all on those against whom it is used.“Many”, of course, is a relative term.
Of all the possible candidates to put up against Trump, why would they choose the only one who has proven she can lose to him, and who will not be able to make his corruption the major issue of the campaign?
Either she’s just looking for attention, or she is delusional (I know, they’re not mutually exclusive).
LOTR92
Thanks for this thread, it’s really entertaining.
Randomex,
True. The point I was trying to make is that frustrated talents (and interests) often force themselves to be expressed in a way which could be more detrimental than any supposed danger of cultivating and channeling them properly.
This is not to say that a person who does not have an inborn talent should not pursue a skill in which he is interested.Haimy,
With all due respect
Please do not denigrate Va’ad Hashemitta
They are working to preserve קדושת הארץ in a very real way
And advertising worksWell…
If it’s the same people who return their air conditioner to Walmart at the end of the season,
If it’s the same people who pretend that their children are young enough to get the cheaper rate at attractions,
If it’s the same people who perpetrate any number of other types of geneivas da’as and/or geneiva,
Why are you surprised?I think we need look no further than Dovid HaMelech, נעים זמירות ישראל, to answer this question.
I have no musical talent to speak of, but one of my children does, and we are trying to help her cultivate her talent as much as we can.
On a basic level, it’s always best to “go with the grain” of a person’s individual nature for so many reasons.
On a higher level, if Hashem gave someone a talent, it is obviously meant to be utilized למען השם.
On the other hand, if it is not channeled properly there is a danger that it will force itself to be expressed in a negative way.Of course, there is a Mitzva of Hochei’ach Tochi’ach. However, the Torah cautions, Lo SIsa Alav Cheit. Correcting your friend must be done in a way which does not offend him, and which will cause him to do the right thing.
The first step is to determine whether in fact the “Halacha” in question is a bona fide Halacha. For this, do not rely on “what you were always told,” or even what your Rebbe said in High School. Go ask a competent, practicing Rav. Proceed only if a true Halachic issue is present.
The second step is to determine whether there is some extraneous factor which will prevent the other person from listening to you. (For example, is there some existing relationship between you and him in context of which he will automatically feel defensive when you approach him?) If so, get someone else to approach him.
The third step, once the first two have been satisfied, is to prepare a nonthreatening, friendly, SINCERE, way of presenting the problem to him. (It is important, for example, that this is done in a dispassionate manner, without condescension.)
My experience (repeated many dozens of times without fail) is that if this procedure is followed, people are grateful for the assistance and happy to change.
Honestly, as much as I find it highly inconsiderate to park in multiple spots, it has never occurred to me to “do anything to their car.” If I could, I would move it over so that I (or someone else) could park in one of the spots.
As far as the point that was made that “you never know what’s going on with the other guy,” this logic works for an extraordinary situation. Unfortunately, I see the same cars parked in an inconsiderate manner very often. I do not believe that these people have “emergencies” or the like every time I see their car taking up two spots when I’m trying to get to night Seder.
דן לכף זכות does not mean that we should assume that the owner of the vehicle is secretly also a field medic performing emergency surgery in some undisclosed location. It just means that we should assume he doesn’t do it deliberately to bother other people, he perhaps doesn’t even realize that he did it, and if someone would tell him about it he would be more careful in the future.
Ubiquitin,
The issue here (for me) is not about “farginning”. I am very happy for people who have the means and who enjoy a higher standard of living than I can afford. This includes the well-known “mega-gevirim”, as well as the wealthier members of my own community and family. I do not feel resentful or bitter in the slightest towards them, or about my own (rather difficult) financial position.
The issue (for me) is that, as a society, we have adopted norms which are beyond the reach of a huge portion of our people. Now, one might say, “You’re a big boy; if you don’t want to do it, don’t do it.” To me this sounds as contemptuous as “Let them eat cake.”
If I lived alone on a desert island, I would not spend that money. However, I am fortunate enough to live in a wonderful community. Part of the cost of this is a certain degree of conformity to societal norms. I do not think it is fair to tell my daughter, “Listen, sweetie, I know all of your friends and classmates are getting married in beautiful halls with gowns, etc, but we can’t afford it, so your wedding will be in the school gym with regular Shabbos clothing.” How do you think the typical 18-24 year old girl would feel about that?
The fact is that the joy of the wedding would not be any less if done in a cheaper venue, with Shabbos clothing, without makeup artists and hairstylists, and with a more economical menu and guest list. However, the switch to such weddings can only be done on a broad scale.
Think about this: The cost of a cheap Orthodox Jewish wedding today is at least $20,000. The average annual household income in the United States is just about $60,000. Does this make sense?
יהי רצון שירבו כמותו בישראל
The amount of money that is spent on weddings and related expenditures is obscene.
There is absolutely no reason for it. It does not make the married couple any more likely to have a happy marriage (I wonder if the opposite is true).
The person who successfully implements a change such as this one on a large scale will have innumerable zchusim to his credit.
If רבן גמליאל were alive today, he would make a point of marrying off his own children in such a way.Shtusim.
GH,
Well, then, we would have finally put the question of nature vs. nurture to bed.Joseph, I don’t remember the exact details; his father was a Ba’al Teshuva, and I think his mother was a Giyores. Presumably, his father subsequently found out that he was a Kohen.
Laskern, yes, they would be. I don’t believe there is any question about this. (There was a debate among the Poskim about fifty years ago regarding the status a child from artificial insemination using donor sperm. Rav Moshe Feinstein ruled that he is not a Mamzer because the Mamzeirus status depends on a מעשה ביאה).
It is Assur for them to remain together. They must divorce. Any children they had together are Challalim (their sons are not Kohanim, and their daughters may not marry Kohanim).
A good friend of mine is a Challal for exactly this reason (no DNA test involved, but it was a case of accidentally violating the Halacha).YO,
R’ Elazar Ben Azarya was chosen because he had Zechus Avos (which, it was hoped, would protect him from whatever K’peida Rabban Gamliel might have), but not because he had “rights” to the position. It should be noted that he was approximately four hundred years removed from Ezra.If you listen to many of the Chassidishe Maiselach, the Ba’al Shem Tov sounds like a Jedi, complete with force projection.
So maybe Yoda was the Frierdik’e Rebbe?@Neville:
“So, you’d be fine marrying a Reform Jew, I assume? They are all Jews, no?”
At best, that’s a straw man argument. At worst, you are equating all Torah-observant Jews who are different from yourself with Reform Jews.
The point Jewish1 was making was that the differences between Jews of all these varying streams are actually much less important than the similarities. Therefore, the general question, “Would you marry X type of Jew?” is much less important than the specific question, “Would you marry this particular Jew?”
Of course, in the case of a Torah-observant Jew marring a Reform Jew, the similarities are, unfortunately, decidedly less important than the differences.
To be sure, this in no way undermines the love, care, and concern we ought to have for our irreligious brethren; it simply renders us incompatible with them for building a home together.I’m so confused. Are we now making the argument that the increasing commonality of divorce is a good thing?
I must attach myself to those who rejected the outright libel of the Modern Orthodox community. The premise that people marry in the same way they try a new flavor of soda is not only absurd, it would be rightly perceived by members of that community as hurtful and condescending, to say the least.
Most boys, being human, do prefer to marry someone they find attractive. It has been this way since the beginning of time. The Gemara states clearly that a man is required to see the woman before marrying her to avoid problems stemming from a lack of attraction.
It is true that our society has become obscenely obsessed with materialism and pleasure, and this certainly expresses itself in Shiduchim. Nevertheless, most Bochurim seek and receive guidance from levelheaded, objective, experienced Rebbeim, and are able to make appropriate decisions about whether or not to marry a specific girl, considering her physical appearance as well as a host of other factors.
It is easy to assert that others are practicing “fake religiosity,” but this is no more than slander. The fact that many people purchase homes, cars, and many other things which are unnecessarily ostentatious is not, in today’s world, irreconcilable with sincerity in Limud HaTorah, Avodas Hashem, or Gemilus Chasadim.
It’s worthwhile to make the effort to see the positive side of people; it makes your own world a much brighter place.
RebYidd23
“Rather than “playing nice” how about being nice?”
One of the best comments I ever read on the CR.
יישר כחך
Joseph, excellent example of the dramatization that Shopping613 was talking about.
It’s easier to believe that there were “a bi-yon” people at Trump’s inauguration than to think of him and a Lamed-Vuvnik in the same sentence.
ubiquitin
The reason people do this is that we are not careful enough about צניעות.
Uri22,
“However i am mature enough to understand that this is a result of growing up in a very sensitive culture that doesn’t reflect the Torah’s view on these issues.”
Was this meant as a thinly veiled insult? If so, it is self-contradictory. If not, it is very poor writing.
Either way, it is illustrative of the attitude that you know better than everyone else in the room, including many Gedolim. Rav Wolbe and all the others did not bemoan our unwillingness to practice this Halacha properly.You may well “be aware of the Maharal’s understanding…,” but it does not seem to me that you understood it well. There is a profound difference between a value statement and a deterrent (or, what you would call a “scare tactic”).
It would hardly be the effective scare tactic which can be circumvented by simply ignoring the Hasraah (instead of responding with a positive affirmation, or קבלת התראה), and which Beis Din is invested in avoiding, to the point of deliberately tripping up the witnesses.
Rav Hirsch goes to great lengths to show that, in all but three cases, the punishments which the Torah prescribes are NOT intended as deterrents, but as statements of values. [The exceptional cases of זקן ממרא, בן סורר ומורה, and מסית ומדיח requiring deterrent punishment precisely because the offense is more dangerous than is superficially apparent].
As a “value”, I think it is quite obvious that the Torah approves of corporal punishment by both parents and Rebbeim. However, this approval is not in a vacuum. The Torah presumes a certain contextual relationship within which such punishment would be meted out. Gedolim of recent decades as well as our contemporary leaders have made it clear (and, honestly, anyone who works with kids for a few days should know this on their own) that we are not able to establish such resonant relationships with our students in today’s society, and that therefore corporal punishment is impracticable.
Uri22,
“Every time someone transgressed a lo saaseh with hasraah”? How often does this happen? I doubt that it occurred more than a handful of times since the Mekosheish Eitzim.
The Rambam, Maharal, and many other of the greatest Jewish thinkers have written that the Torah’s intention was not the practical implementation of these punishments, but the value system their prescription teaches. In truth, this is very nearly explicit in the Mishna which derides the Beis Din Katlonis.
The broader implication of your post is that you believe you have a better understand the values of the Torah than Gedolim such as Rav Wolbe and Rav Shteinman [who was quite emphatic in his rejection of corporal punishment], along with רוב מנין ובנין of contemporary Mechanchim and Poskim.
Sure, you’re entitled to an opinion…
This is stupid.
I can’t speak for all teachers, but I and all the educators I know do not want to hit children. But that is like a police officer saying he doesn’t want to shoot black people. What would you think of a doctor who is forced to declare that he does not want to commit malpractice?
I regard the premise of this thread as an assault on teachers, and its proponents as the assailants. It maligns us, and compromises our ability to do our job. Ultimately, it hurts our students.
What the OP may have intended as a ‘harmless’ troll is in fact הוצאת שם רע which borders on יורד עמו לחייו and has real victims – both teachers and students.
DY, unfortunately, it’s too late for your kids. They are doomed to a lifetime of health and well-being. The best you can do is educate them so that they do not pass on the mistakes you made.
I don’t use it on יום כיפור, and Kal Vachomer not on שבת.
If someone near you cracking their knuckles during davening even registers as something that bothers you, I think you should thank Hashem for such a wonderful life.
Syag,
Excellent point about the distortion of what “many posters” have written.
Otherwise, I think we have reached the point where Yitzchok/Joseph does not deserve the dignity of a response on this topic. His positions are so demonstrably absurd that the only result of responding to them would be to lend them credence.
Mentsch1,
Did you read my posts in this thread? I think I made it abundantly clear that children of divorced parents (among whose number I count myself) should NEVER suffer because of their domestic situation.
I also did not argue that divorce must be avoided at all costs; I simply pointed out that it is true that too many people divorce for insufficient reasons, and that Rabbanim are trying to stem the tide of this problem.
I certainly am happy that my parents did not stay together, and I know a number of cases where divorce was the best possible outcome. I noted the point about the מזבח in response to the citation of שיטת בית הלל. My point was simply that the Halachic possibility of divorce does not necessarily equal a Halachic recommendation of divorce.
My primary point in this conversation is this: Sometimes, preserving the marriage is child abuse. Sometimes, divorce is child abuse. At all times, treating children of divorce as second class is child abuse.Yet, everybody agrees that מזבח מוריד עליו דמעות.
The issue that people who are apparently adults get divorced for petty reasons is due to the influence of our surroundings, and it is something that Rabbanim should and are trying to deal with.
That said, it is shocking to me that someone would suggest treating children as second class as a divorce deterrent. Why not just take the kids out behind the shed and put them out of their misery?
The issues raised by CTL are real, although the degree varies from place to place and from school to school (even from teacher to teacher). I can say that the vast majority of educators with whom I am acquainted endeavor to overcome the natural biases endemic to the human condition to the greatest extent possible. Most of us actually overcompensate, as we try to give each student according to their need.
One concrete thing I can say is that the one Yasom and the few children of divorced or separated parents who have been in my class over the years were treated as the most equal among their peers by their *** Grade Rebbe.
I certainly can empathize with your struggle. I know how hard it was for my mother to raise us, before, during and after the divorce. I can understand how overwhelming your situation can seem.
Of course, no two cases are the same, and I do not presume to speak to your particular experience. I do feel a responsibility, however, both as the product of a divorced home, and as a Rebbe with many contacts in numerous schools, to protest the blanket allegation that “children from divorced homes are treated as second class citizens.” My experience has been the opposite. School administrations and Rebbeim/Teachers go out of their way to accommodate the specific needs of every student, especially those with challenging domestic environments.
Unfortunately, it is often the case that the divorced parents’ enmity causes them to sabotage their children’s experience in school in many ways. Perhaps this is the real cause of your troubles.
Avi K, that’s a red herring.
The key word is “average”.
I don’t think there can be any question which of those professions has a higher average net income, after taxes and all job-related expenses, outliers notwithstanding.
The elephant in the room in this conversation is the fact that in general, people whose Hishtadlus lies in certain fields generally make more money.
A doctor, for example, doesn’t necessarily work harder or more hours than a trucker, but the average income for doctors is significantly higher than it is for truckers.
The question, then, is this:
How do we reconcile this reality with the well known positions of the Torah referred to above?
This is a very complex issue, and much time, thought and research must be devoted to it in order to have, if not a comprehensive explanation, at least a coherent approach.
Two points that I think are very important to contemplate are:
1. Not all people are equally governed by Hashgacha Pratis. To some degree, all people are governed by Teva. [That is to say, the Ratzon Hashem is that the general system He created, to which we refer as Teva, should govern those who do not merit or who, by dint of their own shortcomings, would not benefit from His direct governance.] This naturally results in generalities such as doctors earning more money.
2. Depending on the specific nature of a person’s mission in this world, the way he exercises his Bechira could entail Hashem granting him more money. For example, person whose purpose in life is to be Marbitz Torah, but who chooses to become a lawyer, may be very successful so that he is able to fulfill his purpose by supporting institutions which are Marbitz Torah (Rav Dessler’s example, not mine).
If you prefer sippy cups to straws, you are presumably happy that Starbucks is discontinuing the use of straws.
I, for one, prefer hot coffee anyway.
DaMoshe,
It is true that “these people” have a terrible Nisayon. It is true that they require sensitive guidance. It is true that the individual should not be chased away from our community, provided that he has committed to maintaining the standards of Torah. It is true that everybody has difficulty living up to the Torah’s demands, one way or another (more often, it’s actually one way and another). These truths were recognized and discussed by no less “Chareidi” a Rabbi than Rav Elya Svei, approximately twenty years ago.
It is not true that a group of people wishing to whitewash their inability to overcome a terrible test have license to usurp the institutions of the Torah in order to gut the Torah itself of any meaning. It is not true that an apparently observant man can assume the title of Rabbi in order to sanction the systematic disposal of Torah values.
The assertion that, “Since I – who am admittedly prone to doing Aveiros – received an Aliya in Shul last week, it is acceptable to support an anti-Shul whose mission statement is the emasculation of the Torah,” is an outrageous perversion of the Torah.
These distinctions are voiced most cogently by Rav Shamshon Raphael Hirsch ZT”L in his essay “Outrage in Hamburg” (Collected Writings volume IX).
The notion that it would be acceptable for purposes of Kiruv to take this position would be laughable if it wasn’t so appallingly contrary to the Halacha. Normative Halacha prohibits even inviting irreligious Jews to a Shabbos meal if their attendance would require Chillul Shabbos; how, then, can we condone taking this position, whose raison d’etre is לטהר את השרץ?
It is wrong to be דן לכף זכות in this case. He has said and done things that are plainly אסור. Our fixation with דן לכף זכות has led to a situation where, like שאול המלך, we are מרחם במקום שצריך להתאכזר all too often, at the expense of כבוד שמים.
This is a repulsive call-to-arms against the Torah, and we should not allow ourselves to be lured into complacency by specious arguments. Of course, nobody is perfect. Even the most egregious Ba’alei Aveira should be encouraged to do Teshuva. This, however, is no mere individual sinner. It is a communal statement of ideology in conflict with the Torah, and must be condemned in the strongest terms.
ע’ משך חכמה על הפסוק לא אוכל עון ועצרה (כמדומני בהפטרת חזון) משכתב בענין זה
Rav Yosef’s Psak is not binding on me as an Ashkenazic Jew. I will follow the Psak of the Ashkenazi Gedolim referenced earlier, namely, that Ethiopians should undergo Geirus L’chumrah. The fact that if they are really Jewish they would therefore be Sefaradim would have no bearing on the Psak which I should follow.
Beis Shamai’s Psak that the child is not a Mamzer would have no relevance for members of Beis Hillel, despite the fact that the child’s family were members of Beis Shamai.
What’s with all the vitriol in the CR recently? I thought this was a place for thoughtful, dispassionate debate, not violent rhetoric.
[By the way, Yitzchokm, I would ask that you end the moratorium and respond to my posts on the “smoking hurts others” thread, which bring up an angle to that issue not previously touched upon in that discussion, as far as I saw.]
Amudim is a very highly regarded organization, which is strongly endorsed by many leading Rabbanim. They have a lot of experience dealing with terrible things that have actually occurred. It is possible that the policies they are advocating are slightly over-vigilant, but I don’t think they are extravagantly so, and we are discussing a potential catastrophe, so I think it makes sense to be a little bit extra cautious.
Quoting the Gemara which says that the Yetzer Hara for Arayos doesn’t apply to close relatives certainly doesn’t change the facts for those people who were actually abused. The reality is that in current times, the Yetzer Hara for Arayos is not necessarily limited in the ways described by Chazal, and this does not refer exclusively to relatives. We can stick our heads in the sand, but that’s the situation.
Now I see that YitzchokM said that he is done with the topic. I sincerely hope this is just rhetoric, since we are supposedly having a rational, dispassionate debate, and, as shown in my previous post, he is absolutely wrong to assume that the question of whether it is permitted to smoke in public depends solely on the issue of whether it is permitted to smoke at all.
In any case, I’m not sure I agree that “you can’t be a Rodef if it’s Halachicly okay.” After all, the Gemara says clearly that Pinchas was a Rodef, and Zimri would have been within his rights to kill Pinchas, whose actions were most certainly Halachicly okay. A fetus in utero can also be considered a Rodef, despite not having done anything that is not Halachicly okay.
YitzchokM, Although I oppose your position on this topic, I agree that in order for a discussion to be intelligent it must be dispassionate.
It is true that Rav Moshe stopped just short of outright prohibiting smoking, however…
This conversation is incomplete without mention of Rav Moshe’s Psak [the same Rav Moshe – this Teshuva is in Choshen Mishpat 2:18] that even if smoking is permitted, the fact that it is damaging, or even bothersome, or simply annoying, to others can not be discounted. He therefore rules that you may not even smoke in your own home if the secondhand smoke will damage, or bother, or even simply annoy, your neighbor.
There is such a product, marketed by and for people who have no knowledge of the Halacha. Such ציצית are absolutely פסול because of the rule of תעשה ולא מן העשוי. Suppose you have a garment has three corners, and you attach ציצית to them, and then modify the garment so that it has a fourth corner. שלחן ערוך says clearly that you will need to untie the three ציצית which you had attached prior to the garment having had four corners, and put them on again (משנה ברורה points out that this means they must be completely untied).
MDG, I think you’re referring to a case where the original marriage was without קידושין. If the original marriage was with קידושין, however, she would be אסורה עולמית to the original husband once she was נבעלת לרצון [or even באונס if the first husband was a כהן] whether or not the second union was considered a Halachic marriage.