Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Disclaimer: I never did anything with an s3 mini, nor did I read this whole thread that carefully. It’s late.
2 thoughts:
1. Did you try CM11 without gapps to see if it runs first? That would be my first process of elimination when troubleshooting.
2. I’ve had similar ROM problems with samsung htc and other phones which involved having outdated (or too new) firmware (especially the radio version) or the wrong kernel. Just be careful. Messing with firmware could brick things and you can lock things that you don’t intend to.
I’m done here. Good night.
Lior: The OP is discussing propriety. Good behavior. Rightness. Gan eden. The question is based on the viewpoint of the husband. Not beis din. Not the wife.
A husband whose wife wakes up one morning and firmly and permanently decides she wants a divorce, based on the way her dog sneezed that morning, is in a sad situation. He may have rights. He may have been wronged. BUT HE SHOULD STILL GIVE THE GET. Anything else is AT BEST revenge.
Every one of your arguments citing her responsibilities, how wronged he was, or bes din’s halachic perspective in dealing with evil/irrational people is missing the point.
The only moral argument you made that might make theoretical sense is regarding best interests of the children. What you aren’t addressing is that studies show that children do better through amicable divorces than they do through hostile marriages.
As someone who is familiar with lawyers generally but not IP law, here are some thoughts:
1. You need an engineering type undergrad degree
2. Lawyers do whatever their clients need them to do
3. Generating business (attracting clients) is the key to not having a boss. Not having a boss is generally a prerequisite to doing part time high quality legal work
4. Few if any are successful right out of school at generating business
5. Reputation is a very important component of generating business
6. Success at a big law firm is a common way of building a sterling legal reputation
7. Big law firms aren’t known to have great work-life balances
Lior: if the focus is on the woman’s right, you may be correct. However, this entire thread is (or should be) focused on the man’s responsibility.
“Veohavta lereiacha komocha” is a fundamental obligation which requires a man to allow his wife out of an undesirable relationship. There is no one in the universe who wants to be stuck in a marriage they don’t desire.
Wow. There are really people who think that it is OK to force a woman to stay married. I don’t envy their wives, children, or share in gehinomm (if they actually do that).
On an entirely separate note, there is the issue of using the procedural power of get-giving as a defensive mechanism to protect against other abuse. This is less clear. While in theory it seems justifiable, an objective, honorable and knowledgeable person must be consulted before such a drastic step is taken. It seems too easy to call anything “abuse” or “defensive.” After all the best defense is a good offense. Or is it the other way round?
Ariele- you mistake what the decision means. What it means is that the lower court must remake a decision using a higher level of scrutiny. It is a good decision. In the meantime, there has been no injunction and the regulation remains presumed constituitonal. It is still good law although it has a good chance of being overturned.
Lior – your viewpoint seems to have changed from someone who desires to be a lawyer but has religious doubts to someone who is set against it. Even if you aren’t Joseph I am not taking you seriously.
Malbim – you’re probably a jew, and you post too much.
I would like to publicly point out that the second circuit just got it completely right. Not that the reg is unconstitutional but that Judge Naomi was misleading and wrong. My “faith” in the federal courts has been partially restored.
(1 + 2) (+ 3) (- 4) (+ 5) (+ 6) = -1080
If mods let this through:
Nishtdaingesheft: I was about to point out that the OP was silly because it’s a man’s world but it ain’t nothing without a woman or a girl…
Francorachel: if the capital crime is voting for hamas, what of those that didn’t vote for hamas? What of those that would change their mind if they could? Certainly, you are not suggesting that there are no such people in gaza.
Focusing on the evils acts done by many does not justify killing people of whom you have no knowledge of their complicity in the evil.
The only thing that justifies the killing of innocents is that the necessity of defending one’s self justifies some tragic unintended collateral damage.
Any moral argument regarding the correctness of IDF actions in gaza must focus on the necessity of the tragedy. Arguments that say “the civilians/children had it coming” are morally bankrupt and are not all that far from Hamas’s evil mentality.
I’d like to point out the obvious: I have no idea whether the people killed are innocent. I have no knowledge of what motivated their choices or indeed what their choices were. Therefore I believe that their deaths should be avoided if at all possible. Obviously though, Israel has right to exist, exists, and thus has a right to defend itself.
I am seeing much unmitigated hatred poring forth (a little here and even more elsewhere) from many people that I’d likely otherwise respect. Hatred of evil acts is completely appropriate. Hatred of perpetrators of such acts slightly less so but understandable. Hatred of all things with a pulse merely because they live in a geographic area is IMHO unacceptable and reprehensible.
Isn’t this fun, people? Everyone’s opinion is valid. Majority wins with compromise. Democracy. The average answer is around 9. What, no one will compromise? A bunch of partisan fundamentalists here…
Bump… For entertainment purposes. Anything times zero is zero, right?
There are two broad types of questions that might be asked on this topic:
1. What should I do? How should I dress? What is required of me? What is ideal for me?
2. What should we do about the broad “crisis”? How do I control others’ behavior? How come everyone else dresses like either a Muslim or a harlot?
The first line of questioning is not only ideal but required of all Jews. The second line of questioning is very tricky. It is possible for someone to ask these questions with altruistic motives, in which case they are only USUALLY wrong for doing so, but often times they arise out of catty pettiness in which it is difficult to envision it ever being okay.
The obvious issue with the kv: men looking at “tzivonim” has both a kal and chamur aspect. Kal – clothing vs. women. Chamur – man looking vs. woman dressing.
DY- No one is saying hashkafa is unimportant. The orchos tzadikim is an important sefer and everything in it should be taken seriously when one is working on one’s self. When one is dictating dress codes to others, however, one is required to prove one’s position from a halachic source. And, obviously, the burden is on the dictator.
New yeshivos/seminaries are an excellent business opportunity. How else is one supposed to get a six digit salary while pretending that they remain in klay kodesh, that they are talmidei chachamim, and that they are successful, right out of kollel?
Occasionally, someone opens a yeshiva with the intent to fill a deficit in what’s available to the community. This intent is admirable. If they do so for a minimal salary, even more so. However, my cynical perspective seems to see people opening institution with a focus on themselves. This seems quite wrong to me. Being a rosh yeshiva and wearing a frock does not necessarily a great man make. Or even a good one.
PAA- Firstly, one can say that your [hashkafic] source is focused on when the intent is to dress up for the men (similar to yeshaya hanavi above).
Secondly, I’m having a hard time understanding the kal vachomer. Is it from the issur of men to look at clothes to the issur of a woman dressing up for men? If so, one can only make such a k”v if the intent of the woman is to attract. Otherwise the burden would be on the man just like it is with the clothes. Even as such the k’v is difficult as for a man to have hihurim is clearly the primary issue.
kedushaskohen- in the real world, people will only pay you if they think you are worth it. Being worth it means being perceived as better [for the money] than your competition.
The problem currently for law grads is that there are so many grads for so few entry-level positions. This makes [hyper-competitive] people feel desperate.
In order to get employed out of law school you need to persuade a potential employer that:
1. You will work harder than your competition
2. You will do better work than your competition
3. You will make the firm look good
4. You will bring more money in to the firm than you will take
If any one of those four are lacking you will have a hard time finding a job working for anyone else.
6 hours to make 70-80k? Why only 6? I think 2 is realistic. ‘Cuz everyone else is only offering 1…
etidure – You should be careful to read decisions entirely. Smith explicitly doesn’t overturn Yoder as there are competing first amendment rights other than free exercise. See Smith at 881 and fn 1. Scalia actually mentions Yoder as one of the benchmark cases which Smith would not apply to. The 9th circuit recently (in ruiz-diaz 703F.3d483) tried saying (in dicta) that Smith overturned Yoder. Thankfully, the 9th circuit’s dicta is far less relevant to the issue than the text of Smith.
I was aware of Smith before I posted. Perhaps you shouldn’t jump to conclusions.
Etidure- care to elaborate? I am not saying that homeschooling is protected I’m saying the government can’t force a frum kid to go to public school.
Do you know of any case in which the government was successful in compelling public school attendance against religious protest? Can you distinguish Yoder in a meaningful way?
Rebyidd – I don’t know your story. My understanding of constitutional law remains. If there was a school available that didn’t go against your religion it can be argued that your belief, however genuine, was not “religious.”
I would not understand an argument that tried to say that the desire of an orthodox jew to not send their children to a secular public school is not a religious one.
Yoder is still good law. It requires that any law compelling school attendance against the genuine religious wishes of parents must withstand strict scrutiny.
jfem – you said “it’s not the government’s fault…” No one said it is. Even a neutral law of general applicability may not force a child to go to school against [the parents’] religious belief.
Zahavasdad – as long as the reason against attending school is a genuine religious belief I see no reason to distinguish jews from the Amish.
None of what I’m saying is justifying the sad situation with the schools. I’m just getting sidetracked with what I believe is the incorrect assumption by rebyidd that the kids are legally required to go to public school (or more specifically “It’s against the law not to be in school.”).
If no suitable religious school exists, it would seem that any law requiring school attendance is unconstitutional.
Actually, it is illegal for the government to force school attendance if doing so violates religious freedom. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972) which applies strict scrutiny and upholds the right of Amish parents to withdraw their children from high school for religious reasons.
I’d like to make a few points:
1. This is an age-old discussion. The gemara of “oker harim” and “sinai” implies that both methods are valid.
2. One can make the case that a “sinai” in the days of abundant seforim and electronic resources – while remaining important – is less so.
3. The modern day yeshivos (for good reason) focus on making learning fun (read: “geshmak”). The sources above are seemingly focused on the objectively best method to acquire genuine torah knowledge. They may agree that an “eis la’asos laShem” type mentality applies nowadays.
4. Generally, quantity vs. quality is always a legitimate discussion. Both are necessary. Either one when taken to an extreme is silly.
5. One can acquire, review, and retain plenty of new information within an iyun-type seder, showing that the two ideas have vague boundaries.
The real question is: can it change who you were in a previous gilgul? Presumably if one has a natural proclivity toward toeiva it’s to compensate for previous gilgulim’s choices. If so perhaps there’s potential to change a person’s natural nisyonos. Let’s do this!
Isn’t Staten Island a risk for flooding? Isn’t that why it’s so cheap?
Patur: Reading what you posted, it would seem to me that the issue of paskening from the sh”a is not a question of whether the sh”a is right, rather it’s a matter of applying the correct laws of the sh”a without the proper background knowledge.
In other words, everyone agrees that the sh”a is the basis to be machria on the underlying issues.
PulsingFlower- I see it as ignorance. The concept isn’t difficult. The issue is that many people have never come across the concept in a way that they remember. This shows a lack of schooling (or an awful memory, which perhaps might be pitiful, but it doesn’t seem that you were thinking along those lines), and lack of any real life experiences that require simple math rules. Many people have no need for such knowledge and live complete lives without it. I don’t see inherent value in knowing simple math rules, thus I have no pity for those who were never exposed to them.
I’m confused about the opening question’s premises. College is a means not an ends. As opposed to focusing on how to do the means with an indefinite goal, focus on defining the goal. Your real question is what should I do with my life. The correct answer to that depends on your circumstances. It is also your own job to define.
Charliehall- I personally enjoyed the Freudian typo: “And I don’t think that marijuana should be illegal even though I personally have ever smoked a joint.”
Are you still ever smoking? Lol. I just don’t understand the “even though.”
DY: The (admittedly stupid) diyuk was a roundabout way to make my point (which hasn’t yet been convincingly disputed here). The point: Oz Vehadar Levusha should absolutely NOT be learned as a practical manual, particularly for young american girls.
The two reasons for my opinion have been discussed but I’d like to reiterate them.
1. It’s not halacha
2. Even if it would be partially or fully halacha, it is nonetheless counter-productive.
[It might be something like the equivalent of starting groups for young boys teaching them from a sefer which advocates not to walk daled amos without thinking in learning. There is a source that such behavior is a good thing but see points one and two above.]
IM Shluffin – you said “the tznius sefer, oz vehadar levusha.” Is the sefer tznius, or do you believe that it is THE tznius sefer? I would have written “a” tznius sefer, or better yet, “a book chronicling what ONE respectable rabbi believes about what the standards of tznius SHOULD be in Gateshead.” Rabbi Falk is well-intentioned but just because it is the most comprehensive book on tznius in English does not make it binding halacha on all (if, indeed, it is binding on any).
Tomorrow’s headline: COMputer POST on YWN calls NYP comPOST. Everyone cares.
MW13: Furthermore, for the sake of interesting hypos, respond to this one:
Which act is more repugnant, the fellow who kills his obnoxious neighbor who stole his parking spot every day for twenty years with one bullet, or the fellow that hacks his neighbor into 50 pieces for the sake of satisfying his curiosity?
Obviously, strange people who do strange wrongs create stronger moral outrage, even when the evil committed (in the hypo – murder) is equal.
mw13: Your “right to be [] judgmental” is based on your subjective sense of right and wrong. So yes, I guess. But to me, my right to be judgmental will lump you into the same hogwash that is NK.
The reason why I relate to (even non-tinok shenishba) chilonim more than NK, is because I have been tempted to become a chiloni, and I have never been tempted to become an NK. Thus, to me, the chiloni seems far more rational and relatable.
It’s a machlokes. ‘Cuz a rebbe said a few months ago that makeup on young girls is what causes cancer. Must be two different cancers.
The Torah says “uvchukoseihem lo seileichu.” R’ Moshe Feinstein zt”l (yd vol.4 ch.11 p.168) explicitly explains that this only refers to a behavior which may possibly stem from idol worship–NOT modern stadiums.
The above is, and should be, conclusive, to end that part of this discussion for mainstream, non-chassidic, american, orthodox jews.
R’ Moshe also says that such places should be avoided due to bitul torah and leitzanus.
R’ Moshe might very well write similar words regarding eg the BMG coffee room.
Bitul torah and leitzanus are relative concepts which must be evaluated in the context of subjectivity and alternatives.
Yeshivaguy45- Using anecdotal evidence regarding what gedolim of yesteryear thought about sports has no relevance to the discussion regarding whether or not it is appropriate for a frum yid today to go to a game. Additionally, it wasn’t just gedolim who didn’t appreciate sports, it was nearly all eastern europeans of his generation. R’ Shlomo Heiman zt”l might have said similar things about many aspects of american culture which are now a significant part of the yeshiva world.
Sadly, people often confuse cultural differences for hashkafic differences. In other words R’ Shlomo may have been saying “serious people don’t know anything about sports,” which is a statement that is far less true for american born people today.
Bottom Line – We were created to be productive. The most productive thing we can do is become close to God. All decisions should be viewed in that context including the one involving whether or not to have an enjoyable family outing on chol hamoed to a ballgame.
One thing is for sure: what the “average yeshivishe family” does should have little to no bearing on the subjective aspects of this or any decision (unless sadly there is some detestable blackmail like getting your kids into school or married off).
Finally, I like following sports. When my team wins, I feel good. Keeping updated on the stats, standings, news and discussions are enjoyable to me. That is a fact. Should I feel this way? While my answer is “I think so,” the more important point is that I do feel this way. Telling me I shouldn’t feel something and/or making fun of my feelings won’t help me change them. I’d have to understand WHY I feel this way and why it is destructive before I can work on the underlying reasons, otherwise I’d just become conflicted and in denial. And if I was a child, I might become guilt-ridden, confused, sullen, disconnected, angry and rebellious. It might be just me. It might even be partially my choice. But I think there are others like me out there. And I think that for their sake, their rebbeim should perhaps go easy on some of the anecdotes from previous generations.
First Pshat: Eizehu ashir, hasameach bechelko; eizehu mechubad, hamechabeid es habriyos.
Second P’shat: Similar, but different twist. The right wealth, the right honor.
Third Pshat: while the never-ending pursuit of wealth and honor – at the expense of all else – is clearly a bad thing, wealth and honor per se are good things.
Wow without having read all of this ancient thread, here are my thoughts:
There are three main parties (no pun intended) involved in the collecting on purim
1. The Institution
2. The Collectors (read bochurim)
3. The Donators
The institution does more or less whatever will make it the most money. The fact that its bochurim are not well-served by what occurs on purim seems to be believed morally compensated for by the fact that the institution serves them well the rest of the year in its own opinion. Does the means justify the end? As usual, when money is involved, yes.
The bochurim are not slave labor. Purim is supposed to be fun (I mean geshmak, fest, and toasted). You want them to spend their day collecting for you? Make it fun. Otherwise, someone else will. Or -gasp- they’ll spend the day doing good productive things. That would be the scariest option.
The donators are the trickiest to figure out. On the one hand it says kol haposhet yad nosnim lo. On the other hand, there is clearly a limit to that general rule. If someone keeps asking? If the person asking is representing a dati leumi cause? Where to draw the line is the question. As usual, things that are a problem on the systemic level, are often overlooked at the individual level in the orthodox community.
Additionally, there is much kavod involved if you have a full house of people, a line out the door, and MBD and Shwekey coming to entertain for a few minutes. It makes you feel rich and important. It’s a lot cheaper than a fancy yacht.
Bottom line: the money people give to tzedaka on Purim is significant. The transaction costs on Purim are significant as well. In a utopian world, if tzedaka be the only goal, all the money would be donated without the need for the shenanigans. However, we are not in utopia unitl either moshiach comes or (lehavdil) we have a few drinks. Then a few more. L’chaim!
Charlie is right, a well-stated response, couldn’t have put it better myself. Almost as though it’s from a script. Popa is right, the white house could have done more. But should they have? If individuals like Refael Elisha deserve special intervention from the scientific process due to political networking, votes, and a heartbreaking story, who doesn’t? Either the scientific process (which is what I’m calling the FDA procedures) works or it doesn’t. This is a policy question which Refael Elisha’s heartbreaking details shouldn’t change.
What this whole thing does call into question is the silliness of trying to get change from the petition process. The only thing the petitions do is raise awareness, and provide some political pressure. But when all it takes to get some signatures is a sad story on social media, who exactly should be taking the petition process seriously?
1. Obviously this Yeshiva is not “very fine.”
2. The full tuition that all the other parents pay doesn’t provide enough to pay for shabbos meals?
3. Forget the working guy aspect, what about the kashrus? Is it yayin nesech?
4. How can the Yeshiva be so negligent so as not to provide the oversight that I as a parent always provide? My children at home are never exposed to anything I don’t monitor. Especially the teenagers.
5. My erliche tmimusdike son came home smelling like smoke the other week. Are the bal habatim there during the week too and exposing him to smoking? Is it shayich? Maybe I should be choshesh that the bal habos started him smoking on shabbos! Oy my kid’s at risk now! I need to call Dr. Twersky and Rabbi Bender ASAP.
How about “shatnez experts” deciding whether items needs to be checked for shatnez?
No stira. The map is to inform you which merchants have a physical location. A merchant may have a physical location, be on the map, and be ineligible for other reasons (eg nonprofit etc.)
Nowhere in the terms does it say that all those on the map are eligible.
It is also likely that AMEX will end up paying out to many that are ineligible.
One can ponder whether it’s:
1. they don’t care; or
2. they care, but enforcing it would be too time-consuming/expensive.
Within “2.” one can question whether they have an expectation of self-reporting. I could imagine that each of these could have halachic implications.
To reiterate in other words:
Beating a spouse vs. child abuse. Everyone always blames the spouse-beaters, but no one realizes that the beaten spouse is a bad child abuser. Obviously, this means that spouse-beating is okay in this circumstance. Especially when it’s done for selfish vindictive reasons.