Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
What age are you talking about? There really shouldn’t be anything private between parents and their kids. Granted if the child is getting dressed in their room vs in a bathroom there is what to discuss. But as a parent I’d be very concerned if my child was locking their door too much
For a crime he did NOT commit, remember…
Oomis, I went through the Seder Hadoros trying to learn about Yosef. Apparently he went to jail because he didnt commit the crime. Had he committed the crime he’d have been killed.
Look, I’m not a lawyer; but are you a lawyer or a law student?
I’m not going to repeat my comment to you I made before, but you definitely are showing bias towards the Gov.’s side. What makes you think I just read the articles in the media that you so hauntingly claim? Maybe you should read all the legal documents in his defense before you boldy claim that the Gov. is right and his punishment was just? Ya’know many Goyim have come out publically that this is an injustice and they don’t even have a Chiyuv to be Dan s/o L’caf Zecus.
So you can call me an anti-semite but I am not allowed to defend myself. You must be treated l’kaf zechus, but you don’t treat that way. Nice
Let me get this straight, If I support your view then I am intelligent and all, but If I disagree with you then I am biased?
Maybe you should read all the legal documents in his defense before you boldy claim that the Gov. is right and his punishment was just?…
From a former lawyer of Pollard’s:
Lawyers are paid to see things their clients way. Yes, I saw this, and I read this, but if you read the end of my link you will notice something, should you care (which I dont think you do, you want to believe Pollard is innocent, and you dont want to be convinced otherwise.)
Pollard admitted guilt. He did so in open court. He had a lawyer present. When he pled he was told that the court need not accept the plea, even if the prosecution recommended a softer sentence. He accepted, he angered them, they backed out of their oral agreement to recommend a softer sentence (which the court was not obligated to give him).
That is my point. To deny this would be to deny the facts of this case. The case I mentioned earlier was from his 1992 appeal. It starts with the background, his appeal, and the reason for its denial. You don’t need to be a law student to understand it, just someone with basic understanding of English
NJCRAC’s characterization of the facts is revealing. It says that Pollard’s claim of a government breach of the plea bargain is “not entirely a myth”.
I never said it was a myth. You claim the breach should have triggered a trial. I am telling you that you are wrong, and I showed you from his initial guilty plea that he very well knew that the court could accept his plea and ignore any recommendations from the gov’t
For the record, I don’t want him in jail. I believe he is and has been treated unfairly and his lawyers did him no favors. As to why he has never filed a parole request, which he can do, I have no idea. But it bothers me when people who try to defend him/help him don’t know the facts in the case.
But since you just see that there is a yid who disagrees with you, he must be a self hating antisemite who wants yidden to suffer, oh, and he is never dan l’kaf zechus.
You might not be sure that is how it was done 2200 years ago, but the Ponovicher Rov, as well as the Sifsei Chaim were, and therefore said the pshat and quoted the pshat.
Nice backhanded way of arguing on it, btw.
As for how I know that midrashim predate the gemarra, Midrashim are from tanaiim, The gem area was closed at the end of the amoraim period, generations later. The gemarra even discusses Midrashim and who authored them
????? ???? ???? ??????? ?? ??/?:
“??? ??? ????? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???? ?????”.
Try reading the official court documents, not the articles in the media. You might learn something
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. – 959 F.2d 1011
Argued Sept. 10, 1991.Decided March 20, 1992.Order Amending Opinion May 28, 1992
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/959/1011/220032/
Here is a soundbite:
9
Pollard had, in the meantime, begun plea discussions with the government. He sought to plead guilty both to minimize his chances of receiving a life sentence and to enable Anne Pollard to plead as well, which the government was otherwise unwilling to let her do. The government, however, was prepared to offer Pollard a plea agreement only after Pollard consented to assist the government in its damage assessment and submitted to polygraph examinations and interviews with FBI agents and Department of Justice attorneys. Accordingly, over a period of several months, Pollard cooperated with the government investigation, and in late May of 1986, the government offered him a plea agreement, which he accepted.
10
11
In return for Pollard’s plea, the government promised not to charge him with additional crimes, entered into a plea agreement with Anne Pollard, and made several specific representations that are very much at issue in this case. The critical provisions are paragraphs 4(a) and 4(b) of the agreement, in which the government “agree[d] as follows”:
12
(a) When [Pollard] appears before the Court for sentencing for the offense to which he has agreed to plead guilty, the Government will bring to the Court’s attention [295 U.S.App.D.C. 13] the nature, extent and value of his cooperation and testimony. Because of the classified nature of the information Mr. Pollard has provided to the Government, it is understood that particular representations concerning his cooperation may have to be made to the Court in camera. In general, however, the Government has agreed to represent that the information Mr. Pollard has provided is of considerable value to the Government’s damage assessment analysis, its investigation of this criminal case, and the enforcement of the espionage laws.
13
(b) Notwithstanding Mr. Pollard’s cooperation, at the time of sentencing the Government will recommend that the Court impose a sentence of a substantial period of incarceration and a monetary fine. The Government retains full right of allocution at all times concerning the facts and circumstances of the offenses committed by Mr. Pollard, and will be free to correct any misstatements of fact at the time of sentencing, including representations of the defendant and his counsel in regard to the nature and extent of Mr. Pollard’s cooperation. Moreover, Mr. Pollard understands that, while the Court may take his cooperation into account in determining whether or not to impose a sentence of life imprisonment, this agreement cannot and does not limit the court’s discretion to impose the maximum sentence.
14
The district court accepted Pollard’s plea at a hearing held on June 4, 1986. Chief Judge Robinson addressed Pollard in open court and questioned him about his understanding of the rights he was surrendering, including the potential sentences he faced and the terms of the plea agreement. After being assured by both Pollard and his attorney that there was no reason to be chary of the plea, the district court accepted it.
15
Sentencing took place nine months later. Both the government and Pollard submitted extensive pre-sentencing memoranda to the district judge. In general, the government argued that Pollard had done grievous damage to U.S. national security interests in the pursuit of financial reward and that Pollard was unremorseful and a continuing danger to national security. The government mentioned that Pollard had violated his plea agreement while in prison awaiting sentencing by giving several interviews to a journalist for the Jerusalem Post, Wolf Blitzer, without first submitting his comments to the Director of Naval Intelligence. This again, according to the government, demonstrated that Pollard could not be trusted to refrain from disclosing the various national secrets in his possession and that he still considered himself the best judge of when to follow rules that had been imposed upon him. In addition to its principal sentencing memoranda urging the district court to impose a substantial sentence, the government also submitted a highly classified declaration by Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger cataloguing the damage Pollard had done and opining that the damage had been “substantial and irrevocable.” The day before sentencing took place, Secretary Weinberger submitted an unclassified supplemental declaration in response to Pollard’s submissions that stated, in a rather polemical tone, the Secretary’s contentions.
16
In response to the government’s submissions, Pollard argued that he had done little damage to national security because the information he had misappropriated had been delivered to one of the United States’ closest allies. He denied that he had been motivated by greed, instead claiming that he had sought to aid Israel because he believed that his aid to Israel would also benefit United States’ security interests. He stressed the extent and value of his cooperation and the sincerity of his contrition. And he emphasized the special hardships prison life would impose on him and the psychological and emotional deterioration he had experienced during confinement.
17
After hearing oral allocution, the district judge sentenced Pollard to life in prison [295 U.S.App.D.C. 14] and Mrs. Pollard to five years.2 Pollard did not appeal but made a timely Rule 35 motion seeking to have his sentence reduced on the ground that it was disproportionate to the sentences received by other spies whose espionage was arguably more damaging to United States’ interests. He repeated the arguments he had made at sentencing and maintained in particular that the district court had failed to take proper account of his cooperation. The district court denied the motion, and Pollard did not appeal.
Health,
By the way, please show me a case, any case, where the defendant violates his plea agreement after pleading guilty, after having the plea accepted by the court, prior to sentencing and the guilty plea gets erased as a result of this? I cant imagine this ever happening, but if there is such a case I’d love to learn about it.
I am sorry but you are wrong. Robert Hanssen, who was also arrested for espionage, also took a deal. He was to be spared the death penalty and he would have some freedoms in jail. Part of his plea was that he had to pass a lie detector test. When he failed the test, they reneged on their part of the deal. He now spends 23 hours a day locked up in a supermax prison.
His failing the lie detector test did not automatically withdraw his plea and his deal. Nor did it do the same when Pollard gave the interviews.
I was looking at the Sifsei Chaim on Moadim (Chelek Beis) today, and I saw a vort which I’d like to share.
The following was quoted in the name of the Ponovicher Rov.
Why do we give “Chanukah Gelt”? Where does this Minhag come from?
After the Greeks were defeated, we were now able to resume Torah study. But how do you get children to study torah, especially after not have learned Torah for such time? How do you instill within them a desire to learn and show them the sweetness of Torah?
How did they do it? The bribed them with small amounts of money.
The Gra, quoting pirkei avos ???? ??? ???? ?? ????. Money was given to the children who learned, helping them develop a sweetness for Torah. Afterall, they were getting money for it!
Therefore the Chanukah Gelt is a remembrance of the money given to the children in an effort to get them to view learning Torah in a positive light.
Thanks for calling me a lying antisemite. Much appreciated.
Yes or no did he stand up in front of a judge and admit to committing a crime?
Yes or no was he forced into this admission?
Your only claim is that he got a harsher sentence, not that he is innocent.
So in your own post you insult me whilst agreeing with me.
Nicely done
@iced, aka Joseph
The boys in japan weren’t falsely imprisoned. No one, outside of yourself and your own dilusions, ever claimed that.
The claim was that they were naive trusting boys who were taken advantage of.
Pollard also isn’t falsely imprisoned, he committed espionage and admitted to it, the claim with Pollard is that he was given too harsh of a sentence.
As former Senator Moynahan once said “you can have your own set of views, but not your own set of facts”
And please don’t ever put the Maharam M’Rottenburg and Weberman in the same sentence ever again.
Just out of curiosity, does the gemara quote the midrash I quoted? The midrashim predate the gemara, so I’d imagine that the gemara makes its statement prefacing that it is a Tanaic statement
Dear Popa bar Abby
I find my neighbor to be a major league jerk. He is a self-serving, self centered idiot. I know one shouldn’t judge another person until they walk a mile in their shoes. So now I am a mile away from my house, I’m still wearing his loafers, and I still think he is the same self serving idiot I thought he was before I went on this walk.
-Blisters on feet
The following is from a sefer I have called “Midrashei HaMoadim” a collection of Midrashim on numerous Yomim Tovim
Why do we recite Hallel on Chanukah?
Since it says in Tehlllim (and we recite in Hallel) ?? ?’ ???? ???
For Hashem, He has illuminated for us, in reference to our being saved.
So why then don’t we say Hallel on Purim? After all, the salvation of Purim was both a spiritual and physical salvation.
So why Hallel on Chanukah and not Purim?
We only say Hallel when there is the downfall of the nation who is subjugating us. We say it on Pesach due to the downfall of Paroh and Mitzraim, We say it on Chanukah due to the downfall of the Greeks. After Pesach and Chanukah, we are finally able to be avodim to HKBH, and not to some enemy king.
Purim, however, despite the amazing salvation which we were granted, we were still in galus under the rule of King Achashverosh
(?????? ???? ?)
Saying someone is lenient is like saying they are less observant?
That couldn’t be further from the truth, more chumras don’t make one more Frum, in fact, the gemarra states that “koach hetera adifa” meaning that it takes one who is truly wise to find the leniency.
which halacha states the boys over 6 go with the father?
So if the father gets them then it is ok, but it is better for them to be in a home with destructive shalom bayis than be alone with mom?
Check out this old topic
Should the OP get divorced or should she stay since divorce is something which should be avoided?
theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/very-disturbing-please-only-kind-people-read
Very simple.
Beis shammai and beis Hillel
Other than the 1st mishna in beitza, beis hilel is the leinient opinion and beis shammai is the machmir
It is statements like that which aren’t helpful. Correct, in an ideal world you are correct, but this world is far from ideal. We live in the era before moshiach where Chutzpa is rampant. An era where many only care about themselves.if only one party is interested in making the marriage work, and the other party couldn’t care less whether or not the spouse stays, do we tell the party that care to stay in an unhappy marriage with an apathetic partner? To we show the children that divorce is such a taboo that we suffer to avoid it?
Correct, we try to fix problems’ not run away from them, but what about those problems which can no longer be fixed?
No, I am not pro divorce, but things aren’t as black and white as you make it seem.
Just me is correct
One of the roles of the shadchan is to make sure that both sides know where the other is holding. Why is he not proposing? Is there something concerning him? Is he afraid of commitment? Does he have cold feet?
The shadchan here should lay things out for you, as well as for him. He needs to be instructed that he is dating a girl who is ready to become his wife, but he is also dating a girl who is close to walking away, do to his inaction.
Best of luck, and please keep us posted, often in the CR we never get to hear the conclusions of the stories
Bring proofs, dont tell us how you think HKBH thinks or how you think he looks at things.
Given your posts in the divorce thread, I’m assuming this isnt a theoretical, rather this is something you are concerned about vis-a-vis your own kids.
There are many signs of abuse however few signs prove 100% that it is abuse, as opposed to someone else. Take your kids to a trained mental health professional, and inform the professional that you are concerned about abuse possibly having taken place.
As for seeing it in adults, yes Joseph is right’ people who abuse were likely to have been abused as a child. But only about 25% of those who were abused turn into abusers. The other 75% all have different symptoms, some get the necessary help and use their abuse as a springboard to improve. Some deny it happened, some turn to addiction. Some turn to prostitution as a way of marginslizing the significants of the traumatic events
Good Luck
@farrocks, aka Joseph
I’m pretty sure that based upon what OP stated, the constant internet usage, the refusal of a filter, R’ Chaim Kanievsky would state to get divorced.
Based upon what you are saying, it sounds like he’ll only consider changing once he realizes you are serious about leaving, and even then who knows
Good Luck, I know this isn’t easy
If your kids are already noticing the path towards possible divorce, then you must immediately start telling your kids that they have a loving mother and father, and divorce or no divorce, that they will continue having parents who love them. Keep reminding them of this.
If he really wants to change, encourage him to seek therapy on his own. Also try to see how the internet usage can be limited? Can you password his device? Unplug the router? Is he so addicted he uses it on shabbos? If he doesn’t use it on shabbos show him how he is able to let go.
Why is he on the internet? Is this a cause or an effect? Does he rum to the internet cause of his addiction , or is it his drug, his escape? If so what is he escaping? If the latter is true, the internet might not be the main issue, it might go away if what is sending him to the net disappears.
Good luck
You gotta back statements like that up with proof
You can’t view this in a vacuum. You can’t purely compare children of divorced homes vs children of married parents.How is the marriage? What messages are they showing the kids? You need to ask is it better for the child to have separated parents vs having the child live in the home with the rocky Shalom Bayis. There are no easy answers and one size does not fit all.
I will agree with you about children of divorced parents being more likely to get divorced themselves. But I’m not sure exactly how to quantify “more likely”
@halevy
Without having seen the midrash inside, yaakov was still married to a tzaddekes, and stayed married to a tzaddekes. That isn’t the case here.
Did it say that they yelled at each other in front of the kids?
Did they belittle each other infornt of the kids?
Did they make each other absolutely miserable?
Obviously the answers to all these questions is no.
So why apply the medrash to cases where the above questions are a yes?
All addictions are different. What addiction are we talking about? How bad is this addiction? How is it affecting his fuctioning? How is it affecting you? The kids?
I wish you the best of luck
Why do people always assume that divorce is bad for the kids?
I always hear people say “I’d leave if not for the children”
Yes divorce is hard, yes it is hard on the kids, but there are times where it is better than the alternative.
pba, you can also add the psak of the Chassam Sofer
??? ???? ?? ?????
i feel that it very much applies to this discussion
Joseph, what decorum does a talis need exactly?
Whilst we don’t, you are allowed to take it into a bathroom
There is a reason why people should have a Rov whom they ask their shaylas to.
I’d advise you to get one and ask.
If u get a baby carrier, spend the extra money on one with lumbar support. It makes a MAJOR difference
Hatzlacha and b’sha’ah tova
Who is this “They”?
There is no central body that governs the Yeshivas and Sems.
More likely you are hearing the speculation that parents might summon their kids home out of fear.
Well said health
No, we are impartial observers and you are so biased you can’t even see your own bias. We even try to show you your bias by showing you back your own words, and you completely ignore us.
The Torah tells us that shochad, bias, blinds even tzaddikim. But you are choosing to ignore this.
Please don’t tell me about your areivus, all your knowledge is second hand at best, did you mention that to the posek when you asked the question or did you conveniently omit that and only ask something general like “if I know someone is about to marry a bipolar person, should I inform them that the other side is bipolar?”
And there are non-bipolar people who do that stuff as well. And there are bipolar people who take their meds and you have no clue about their condition.
Forgive me for being blunt, but it seems to me that you are insulted that she called off your engagement, and even more so to choose to marry him over you. Get over it. Get some help.
The fact that you were able to find a rabbi and ask the question in a way to get the answer you want is no proof that you are right here. You are meddling in thing you have no business venturing and are quite frankly close to stalking. Get yourself some help.
You are not fooling anyone here when you say “Ii am purely motivated by arevus and concern.” please dont fool yourself into thinking it either. You have a negiah, she hurt you, you are still hurting.
How do I know? The 1st line of your 1st post
>>I found out that my ex-fiance left me for another guy.<<
You didn’t say that she is about to marry someone else, your focus is on the “She Left You”. You very much feel hurt by her. You even said 5 months ago that it was a bad break up and you were looking to move on, seems like you haven’t (http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/chesed-opportunities#post-383641)
Don’t blame me, blame Freud.
Having reread your post numerous times, please allow me to comment on some of your key statements:
>>From what I’ve been told, people with this illness can often impulsively do things that involve no longer taking medications, violence, risky spending, etc.
I am not aware if the ex or her family understands the full implications of this.<<
Not your job, or the job of anyone giving a shidduch reference to educate the other party as to the potential issues with the condition.
e.g. you can say the girl has cancer in remission, but you cant go into detail as to what that means. You can only give the facts, the person doing the inspection, they themselves need to research as to what those facts mean.
Nor is it your place to educate them as to whether or not they truly understand the “full implications of this”.
>>Furthermore, a rav who knows him told me that this guy is “in pain,” “vulnerable and manipulative,” has “bad relationship ethics and an unhealthy attitude towards relationships, sex, and marriage,” and he said that “no one’s mother would want their daughter to be with this guy.”<<
Then this guy should say something. If he has, then nothing you can do. If he hasn’t get him to say something.
What on earth are you going to say exactly? “I don’t know this guy but I hear he has major issues?” really? c’mon you have no proof, you know nothing 1st hand. Sounds like Loshon Hora (forget L’Toeles, you have no proof it is true, all you have is hearsay).
>>Knowing this, what should I do? Especially that I am friends with the girl’s aunt and cousins, who have been very good to me materially and in other ways.<<
This plays no role. You should do the same thing irregardless of whether you know the girl or not, her family or not. There arent 2 sets of Shulchan Aruchs, 1 for friends and 1 for strangers.
>>I feel that I have an achrayus to say something and not saying anything would entail an issur of Lo Saamod.<<
Sorry, the only people who have an achrayus is those who know, not those who have overheard. You can encourage those who know to share what they know with the necessary parties, but other than that, move on.
Ask the rov who knows him if he has been in contact with the girl’s side about his condition. It could be that he has and they aren’t willing to listen.
Dont ask a shayla before you can present all the facts
????? ??? ??-????, ??????? ?? ??-???? ???? ???–?? ???, ????; ??-?? ???-???, ????
The Meforshim ask, why is it only now, after Eisav asks to eat “from the red stuff” is he given the name, or title, Edom? Certainly he could very well have been called this from birth, where we are 1st told that he is a redhead.
The Midrash teaches us that Shmuel HaNavi was afraid when he 1st met Dovid (HaMelech). He did not want him to be king since he was a redhead, since it is a sign of one who is a ???? ????, a murderer.
Hashem tells Shmuel that Dovid is Kosher, and the signs that Shmuels sees about murder refer to actions done correctly and through Beis Din.
So lets apply that here. Once Eisav is born, we see that he has a pull towards being a rasha and a murderer, on the other hand, he can easily use his kochos for good and be a Tzaddik Gamor, like Dovid Hamelech. For this reason, he wasnt called Edom initially, rather Eisav, from the loshon ????, which apparently has nice implications.
However, once Eisav comes back from the field and acts the way he does for some food. Now we see which way he is going, now we see that he isn’t interested in using his kochos for the good like Dovid Hamelech. Now that we know that his kochos will be used for evil he will be referred to him as Edom, the name indicating blood and murder.
(R’ Shaul Katzenelbogen, from Vilna)
Because this is ikvisa d’mishicha. Have a look at the final daf in Sotah.
Oh, and don’t tell me morals were so great 50 years ago. When were the Jim Crow laws abolished? What were the “laws” 70 years ago in Germany?
Those without Torah have skewed morals, just a different skewing every time.
Like I said, Torah vs. Hollywood and you are expecting random people without a Torah background to side with Torah vs Hollywood? No chance.
We are the minority, don’t forget it.
Because this is ikva d’mishicha. Have a look at the final daf in Sotah.
Oh, and don’t tell me morals were so great 50 years ago. When were the Jim Crow laws abolished? What were the “laws” 70 years ago in Germany.
The goyish morals are always skewed, just a different skewing every time.
Like I said, Torah vs. Hollywood and you are expecting Tom, Dick and Harry to choose Torah? No chance.
We are the minority, don’t forget it.
Regardless of whether I agree with you or disagree with you:
Considering frum yidden believe in something called yeridas hadoros, what exactly do you expect?
That goyim in masse would chose Torah morals over Hollywood morals?
Seriously?
BaalHabooze has requested that I give a dvar torah, so here it is.
This is in the zchus of BaalHabooze, may he be a marbitz torah
????, ?????, ???? ????, ??????
R’ Moshe Shternbuch writes, in his sefer Ta’am V’daas, That the passuk does not tell us what exactly Avraham said during his eulogy.
Rashi here says “the years of Sarah’s life were all equally good”.
What exactly is Rashi trying to convey here to us?
R’ Shturnbuch explains that often people change their behavior and/or their views in order to conform with their surroundings, and in order to be respected by people. Sometimes people even work on themselves and climb up to a high madreiga, only to return to their previous level after a short time.
Sarah Imeinu, however, was different. All her years were equally good. This is the ultimate praise once can receive. That at every opportunity, in every place, with every person, she remained a tzaddeikes.
This is the true tzaddik, one who never sways from their tziddkus and who always acts with true righteousness.
Ya, it is me. Came back for a cup of coffee 🙂
I’ve never heard this before. Is there a perek and possuk, or even a gemorra which you can reference, so that I can see this for myself?
Thanks
As I once heard directly from R’ Brevda (who should be zoche to a refua sheleyma) after the World Trade Center attack.
“Davening is a vadai mitzva,
Krias Shema is a mitzvas d’oraisa,
Talmud Torah – Kinegged Kulam
Understanding why Hakadosh Boruch Hu decided to do what he did in the USA, Sofek.
Ein Sofek Motzei Middei Vadai”
Yawn, Joseph, bubka or whatever he is going by now is once again cherry picking from pieces of chazal which support his already ingrained views of male dominance.
Joseph, what the modern orthodox do for heterim, you do the same thing to show male superiority in religion.
Please stop misrepresenting the Torah HaKedosh. You don’t see what the Torah has to say, you have your krum opinions and then find things in the Torah to match them.
The Rebbe decides who his talmidim are.
Someone who “claims” to be a talmid doesn’t automatically make him one, nor should that be indicative of the Rebbe.
Some clown a few years back who called himself a talmid of R’ Moshe Feinstein, decided to allow women to remarry without ever receiving a get from their original husband. If this makes you view R’ Moshe as any less of a person due to this clown, then you Popa are an idiot
1. It is Ben and Jerry’s which has some flavors with the belz hechsher
2. Are you SURE the Haagen Daas sold in Israel is imported from the US and not from some other local, say Holland? It isnt uncommon for companies to have different factories in different parts of the world. The Dr. Pepper imported to Israel often comes form Europe, not the US