Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
They seem ready to me. They’ve always been doing it that way, going back many hundreds of years. They never changed. And they seem quite content and happy. May they so continue.
Aishes: There were far fewer inroads made by the Reformers in Hungary. And even whatever inroads they did make (Neologs) were a milder form than what happened elsewhere. The Chasam Sofer himself takes a large amount of credit for stemming the tide in Hungary.
Perhaps you are being cheated out of your adulthood by marrying later?
You must’ve missed the part of history where a preponderance of Tzadikim, Talmidei Chachomim, Rabbonim, and Gedolei Yisroel zt”l (Chasam Sofer, Maharam Schick etc. et al) indeed are from Hungary.
It was no error of history that Hungarian Jewry was able to maintain a strong allegiance to Torah Judaism whereas in many other lands (i.e. Germany, et al) the Reformers made much further gains.
Your moniker creates a situation of ??? Hungarian.
A true simcha in Klal Yisroel is when one Ungarisher Yid is m’shadech with another Ungarisher Yid continuing to the progeny of the elite of the elite in the klal.
gavra_at_work:
Are you making the bridge from the Gemorah saying female lightheadedness makes women easier to convince to sin to that it is easier to pry a secret out of a woman?
Many of the Gedolei Yisroel of yesteryear (Chasam Sofer, et al) came from the greater Hungarian lands. Today’s Czech, Slovakia, parts of Romania, even a small part of the Ukraine — the Carpathian (Ruthenia) region — that once was a heavily dense Orthodox Jewish and Chasidic geographical area, in addition to today’s Hungary proper were all part of pre-Trianon Treaty (pre-WWI) Hungary.
I wish you were my kids’ zeidy.
You’ll have to marry his daughter to accomplish that.
MAG: You’re way off base. Knowing Ran and Rashba is a much higher level than micro-biology and neuro-surgery. Additionally, if your complaint had any basis in fact, there would be an equal problem with unmarried men, whilst the issue is not that but rather the legends of women who cannot get married.
We saw a shrink and everything is now in order.
Perhaps he wants to continue the marriage. Not in all situation is she entitled to a divorce. Unless there are the requisite halachic justifications to insist on a get and the beis din orders him to give one, she would be deemed a moredes if she unjustifiably demands one.
an: My point was in response to mg’s point of how children are affected. I pointed out to her, that all too often the divorce exacerbates the tensions for the children, with the kids being forced to “take sides” or even worse being used as pawns in court or thereafter between the warring exes.
mg: And do you suppose the fighting after the divorce, which often directly involves the children as pawns, will be calmer or less tense for the kids? Studies I have seen (mostly in Europe but I don’t see why it would be much different elsewhere) indicate children of divorced parents generally are more troubled than their counterparts.
That’s a humongous risk for a frum girl to marry a semi-frum man. She is risking her own soul.
B”H I’ve never been inside a movie theater. But is there really a phenomenon where one can see a frum yid unabashedly going into a theater with a yarmulka?? That almost sounds like chas v’shalom going into a bar or strip joint with a kaputa!
Dr. Pepper works for Dr. Seuss?
Sanhedrin (81b) used the kipa when they thought the guy was guilty but there were technical reasons that they couldn’t give the death penalty. Kipa was a locked room where they’d feed him barley to make his stomach explode. They may use the kipah if there was aidus. The important thing to remember about kipa is that it is “self inflicted”.
There is a Ran in Droshas HaRan on Parshas Shoftim who says that aside from the system of beis din which was limited in its ability to punish, there would also be a legal system directed by the king or other authority who would have the ability to punish criminals without the halachic restrictions; for otherwise there would be anarchy. Beis Din itself had extra-judicial powers it could use when it deemed there was an emergency situation. This extra-judicial power could even allow it to execute someone even if normative halacha didn’t impose it.
Sanhedrin 37 tells of a man who saw someone chasing down another person into the forest and then saw him standing over the dead body, holding a bloody sword. And yet, this man could not bring the murderer to Beis Din even though it was obvious that he committed the crime, since he was only one witness, and technically, there was only circumstantial evidence.
With today’s advanced technology, most deaf people can be taught to speak (and cochlear implants can help them hear, although the status of these and other devices is questionable as to whether considered halachic hearing).
On the same token in regard to a shoiteh, whereas in previous generations he was what he was, with today’s medicine with antidepressents or other medications, perhaps there is a change in halachic status if he is medically able to function in a normal or semi-normal manner?
So is the question then a person who may have been categorized as a cheresh in another generation would not be today characterized as a cheresh? Or is the question whether a cheresh today is still patur from mitzvos, even if we acknowledge the person today does fall under the halachic category as a cheresh?
The distinction is a fine line between those two considerations, but nevertheless perhaps critical to answering the question.
Why would a cheresh have a different status today than in the past?
Why would a cheresh have a different status today than in the past?
Having the same issue with my wife. Looking forward to everyone’s replies.
I thought the problem with folding a tallis is that you are preparing it for the next Shabbos. Also there is an inyan to fold it on motzei Shabbos.
So you leave your tallis unfolded from after Shachris until Motzei Shabbos?
And what of the S”A cited by yitayningwut?
One Thousand Mitzvos in Five Minutes: The Chofetz Chaim (Toras HaBayis, Chapter 2) writes that when one enunciates words of Torah, he can say approximately 200 words in one minute, and each word constitutes a separate mitzvah (as explained by the Gra in his commentary to Mishna Peah 1:1) for which a separate “defense attorney” malach is created. This would mean, of course, that if one established a five-minute seder after Ma’ariv or before going to sleep, he would accumulate 7,000 mitzvos (and defense-attorney malachim) a week, or 365,000 for the solar year. In a lifetime, this translates into millions upon millions of mitzvos. We mention the five-minute seder specifically after Ma’ariv and/or before going to sleep, because the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chayim 238) devotes an entire siman to the absolute requirement to set aside time to learn at night. We urge you to study the fascinating and uplifting words of the Mishne Berurah on this siman. TONIGHT IS THE NIGHT to start this “multi-million mitzva” five-minute k’viyus itim as a z’chus for yourself, your family and K’lal Yisroel. (From: Hakhel)
Is there any problem starting to daven maariv immediately after finishing davening mincha?
Are you the maid blinky? You sound quite guilty.
I’m still hurting from my last fall.
Are you a member of the shul of the famous Rabbi Avi Weiss from Yeshivat Chovevei Torah?
It’s bad enough as it is even with the mechitza, with men going into the woman’s section and r”l watching their dancing at a wedding and with women congregating in the men’s section at the wedding. The mechitza gets pushed around too much as it is, and it too frequently gets opened and even pushed out of place in parts of its length.
I wonder how poskim of yesteryear (pre-xerox) maintained a copy of their teshuva after they mailed it to the person asking the shaila. Did they have to write it twice, once for the inquirer and once for their own records (for future publication)?
As soon as my (now) wife got on her knee I immediately said yes!
So Kula Shopping is the order of the day?
shev, you can’t dress like a prutza and simply tell men not to look. Women have obligations in how to dress, in addition to men’s obligation not to look.
IS: From your comments it appears you are a member of the modern community, so perhaps things are different there with girls learning Talmud and boys focus on secular studies precluding their mastering of Torah and halacha. But certainly in the Chareidi communities, where the boys know Torah and halacha cold inside and out, with less focus on secular subjects that would distract their limud, it is no comparison to the girls learning Navi and mainly the halachas that are relevant to girls.
A husband is obligated to advise his wife and daughter.
I have never heard of such a thing!
If you never heard of such a thing, what is the issue here? Merely theoretical?
popa_bar_abba – I don’t pretend to be an expert, if there ever was one. And I’m sure our experiences may have different nuances on this side of the pond. Nevertheless, from the admittedly limited experiences I’ve encountered, the folks that are subscribers to chivalrous practices would be quite remiss to force their princess to exert herself in closing the door.
2qwerty – I understand your point, and I suppose it would work if he does as you say, opens the door and leaves before she gets in, and she closes it herself. Although I should point out I’ve never heard it done in this manner. From what I’ve seen there are only two situations, either he opens and closes it for her (in which case the aforementioned problem is present) or he doesn’t open it for her altogether. Your idea of him opening and immediately leaving prior to her getting in would work in theory, but in practice once he opens it he may feel compelled by social pressure to wait for her to get in (with the aforementioned consequences that you’ve acknowledged.)
2qwerty – Actually a car door is an even larger problem, since it provides the greatest amount of exposure when seating herself in the vehicle.
Satmar and Stolin.
That would be enough to make Shticky Guy correct, though it was also way too low the neckline.
There seems to be quite a bit of misconception and misinformation here. The ONLY thing someone can gather from an email, is your ip address. Not who you are or your address. The only one who has that info is your internet provider. And they will not divulge it unless there is a court subpoena alleging a crime or something. Not even to the police without a subpoena, unless there is an immediate bona fide life or death emergency.
Now if the same person emails someone from two different email accounts from the same physical location, the receiver can see they both came from the same ip address, even though they are different email accounts.
cherrybim: There are many obligations listed. You can cite whichever you refer to, though I don’t know why you would think one’s rights would invalidate one’s halachic obligations.