Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Perhaps the one’s not speaking out hold it is an issur d’rabbonon. Not avoda zora. There is another prohibition, called “vhayisem nekiim” where we derive an obligation not to do anything that would make us look guilty in the eyes of others, even if we are really innocent. They hold that the shaitel is not acceptable because it defeats the purpose of the prohibition, being that it looks like hair anyway. That a shaitel, especially a human hair shaitel, defeats the purpose of the Halachah to cover the hair altogether. You are just covering Ervah with something that looks exactly like Ervah, so what’s the point?
I don’t think there is any truth to the idea that there is a different set of government price regulation of milk based on whether the bottle is a gallon or smaller than a gallon.
That said, while I’ve rarely seen CY gallon bottles of milk, it’s been quite rare.
ubiq: Those comments were to APY (whose comments I quoted before making the comments you’re quoting), not you.
iac: You do not know that they “were both well versed in these areas”. In the pre-internet era it was not common knowledge among the general population even in the countries that celebrate this, and even by gentiles – let alone Jews, what the origins of Halloween was. And Halloween wasn’t hardly known altogether in the European shtetl as it is mostly celebrated in English-speaking countries. You think the rabbonim are all bukis in all the Christian and secular holidays, including their origins?
I doubt frum neighborhoods in Lakewood, Monsey, Flatbush, Boro Park or Williamsburg get much trick or treating at frum homes.
How much of an influence on the outcome/verdict of a case in the American legal system depends on the defendant’s wealth and ability to afford a high powered lawyer?
A heck of a lot. Oftentimes that determines the outcome far moreso than the underlying facts of what occurred and the veracity of the criminal charges or civil claims.
The right to divorce? Anyone has the right to divorce. You don’t need a halachic reason
Absolutely, completely and utterly incorrect. In order to unilaterally insist upon a divorce one most certainly does need a reason Halacha deems justifiable to mandate the other spouse give/accept the divorce. If both spouses mutually desire to divorce, no further reason is needed and they can do so. But if one spouse wishes to divorce whereas the other spouse wishes the marriage to continue, if the spouse desiring the divorce does not have a provable “cause” that is one of the few that Halacha deems justification to mandate that the spouse give/accept a Get, then the other spouse has the right to decline and refuse to give/accept a Get and Beis Din is halachicly mandated to accept the declining spouse’s insistence that the marriage not terminate in divorce.
The above is m’doraisa when it is the husband who doesn’t want to divorce. The Shulchan Aruch states that Beis Din can only mandate he give a divorce if one of the specific reasons the Gemorah lists as allowing a wife to force her husband to divorce her is applicable and proven. There are only a handful of reasons. (Certain physical deformities, physical violence, etc.) The Shulchan Aruch even says that if she claims he’s physically violent and he denies it (saying she’s claiming that only to force him to unwillingly divorce her), Beis Din needs to place an agent in their marital home to witness the veracity of the claim before they can accept her word. (And even that can only be done after they warned him to stop and she claims he’s continuing post-warning from B”D.)
If it is the husband who wants to divorce but the wife doesn’t want to divorce, she has the right to veto his ability to divorce her based upon that right given to her (which mimicks his similar m’doraisa right in this regard) based on Cherem D’Rabbeinu Gershom. If he’s Ashkenazic. If he’s not Ashkenazic then she doesn’t necessarily even have this right to stop him from divorcing her.
Importantly, note that Rabbeinu Gershom extended the right of one spouse to veto the other spouse’s request to divorce where that veto right didn’t exist pre-R”G. This point further underlines my point that a spouse has a veto right when their spouse requested a divorce. Rabbeinu Gershom even extended this veto (to the wife.)
although their are halchachic reasons when a divorce is commanded.
Indeed their are. Also worthy of noting is that Halacha has reasons when a requested divorce is automatically denied. For example, the Shulchan Aruch states that if the desire for divorce is because she wants to marry another specific person, her request is denied.
Upon hearing everything the Rav decides divorce is the best road. Don’t tell me that the couple does not have the right to divorce.
If they mutually agree with him, sure they have the right. But if one doesn’t agree, and there’s no halachic cause, then that right does not exist.
Rabbi Pruzansky is a highly credentialed Modern Orthodox rabbi with one of the largest congregations in Teaneck, the MO capital of the US.
It’s universal among the Cholov Yisroel brands.
1% milk. Also known as blue milk, based on the color of the containers.
Reform/Conservative did exactly as you suggested, ZD.
I heard that it isn’t in Detroit.
TLIK, the only time division of assets becomes complicated is when Halacha is deviated from. Halachic division of marital assets is not overly complicated. Secular non-Jewish law (which we aren’t permitted to utilize as a replacement from Halacha) is certainly very complicated on this matter.
But please do share the several real life examples that you offered to do.
I don’t agree that child support today goes until 18-21. Why 18-21? Because, coincidentally, those are the ages the goyim set in their law and courts? It has nothing to do with us. You write that there’s no halachic age cap on a father’s obligation to pay his son’s tuition. Does that mean a son can demand his father pay his Yeshiva tuition at age 28? If not, why is age 22 or 19 any different? And the father surely isn’t responsible to pay his tuition for general secular studies (not to mention college.) And what about a daughter’s tuition?
In regards to States that don’t offer legal authority to butei dinim (or arbitration panels) to settle certain areas of divorce, the Beis Din can nevertheless issue a decision on those areas and then demand the couple advise the secular court that that decision is their “agreed” upon settlement. If one party doesn’t adhere to that, the Beis Din can then find him/her in contempt of Beis Din and apply the associated halachic consequences of such (that butei dinim in fact do apply to various situations when a litigant defies Beis Din.)
Another out-of-towner impressed with an only-in-Brooklyn heartwarming story, another day in Brooklyn.
No wonder so many OOTers make their home in Brooklyn!
PM – If you read the teshuvas carefully, you’ll find that YD 2:35 its clear from the shaila/teshuva that it involves a bshas hadchak situation, so the teshuva was specific to that shaila. In IM8/YD5, from the context, it is a more general teshuva stating cholov stam should only be used bshas hadchak.
flatbush27: Good points.
David: You ignored two points. a) The Rema does NOT say women should get drunk. b) there are other shittas. (Particularly, but not exlusively, for Sephardim who do not pasken like the Rema.)
PM: You are mistaken. 1) The teshuva in the Igros Moshe is not limited to Yeshiva’s, despite that the shaila happened to originate from a Yeshiva. You seem to have misinterperted the teshuva. 2) Even if you don’t accept that premise (#1), if you read Reb Moshe’s other teshuva, printed in Hilchos Kashrus, there it is quite clear bshas hadchak refers to all situations. Can you read up that teshuva and report back your interpertation of it? Thanks.
Jothar: The Gedolim have called for the establishment of Vaadei HaTznius.
The Rosh Yeshiva’s Shlita stated we need a Vaad Hatznius. You can listen to the audio on YWN of the Lakewood Tznius Asifa. In the fututre restrain yourself from referring to the holy work of the vaad hatznius, under the guidance of the Gedolim (whom you seem not to trust) as “gangs”. A little Emunas Chachomim would do your neshama a lot of good.
Don’t believe the sheker and loshon hora on the blogs and Israeli media about those that engage in this Avodei HaKodesh. Instead of reading these “sheker reports”, put your trust in the Torah leaders of Klal Yisroel.
feif, Your mistaken. Read what Reb Moshe wrote. He wrote it specifically in two places that its bshas hadchak. Call Reb Belsky if your still unconvinced. OU gives the OUD hechsher for emergency situations and for people not on a level to be fully observant.
220ld: Read the discussion in the thread. Reb Moshe said you can only eat cholov stam in a dire emergency.
The problem is that you have a lot of Bnei Torah that are shteiging away Yomim V’Layla in Torah – or are at least steeped in Torah thinking while working for a living – and vain girls that think life is about looking pretty and where you can shop upscale. Hence the shidduch crisis.
jothar, getting drunk until you don’t know the dif between baruch mordechai and arrur haman is a legitimate halachic shitta.
Reb Moshe, in Igros Moshe EH 4:60, paskened that it is assur to talk to the opposite gender in a social context, and assur to be friends with them, and even seeming platonic relationships between boys and girls are assur min hatorah. In the Sefer HaChinuch, mitzvah number 188, it states there that it is assur for boys and girls to talk to each other.
The chief of staff of the U.S. Air Force decided that he would personally intervene in the recruiting crisis affecting all of our armed services. So, he directed that a nearby Air Force base be opened and that all eligible young men and women be invited. As he and his staff were standing near a brand-new F-15 Fighter, a pair of twin brothers who looked as if they had just stepped off a Marine Corps recruiting poster walked up to them.
The chief of staff walked up to them, stuck out his hand, and introduced himself. He looked at the first young man and asked, “Son, what skills can you bring to the Air Force?”
The young man looked at him and said, “I’m a pilot!”
The general got all excited, turned to his aide, and said, “Get him in today, all the paperwork done, everything, do it!” The aide hustled the young man off.
The general looked at the second young man and asked, “What skills to you bring to the Air Force?”
The young man said, “I chop wood!”
“Son,” the general replied, “we don’t need wood choppers in the Air Force. What do you know how to do?”
“I chop wood!”
“Young man,” huffed the general, “you are not listening to me. We don’t need wood choppers; this is the 21st century!”
“Well,” the young man said, “you hired my brother!”
“Of course we did,” said the general. “He’s a pilot!”
The young man rolled his eyes and said, “But I have to chop it before he can pile it!”
How Times Have Changed
Scenario:
Jack goes quail hunting before school and then pulls into the school parking lot with his shotgun in his gun rack.
1957 – The vice principal comes over, looks at Jack’s shotgun, goes to his car, and gets his own shotgun to show Jack.
2007 – The school goes into lockdown, the FBI is called, and Jack is hauled off to jail and never sees his truck or gun again. Counselors are called in for traumatized students and teachers.
Scenario:
Jeffrey won’t be still in class and disrupts other students.
1957 – Jeffrey is sent to the office and is given a good paddling by the principal. He returns to class, sits still, and does not disrupt the class again.
2007 – Jeffrey is given huge doses of Ritalin. He becomes a zombie and is tested for ADD. The school gets extra money from the state because Jeffrey has a disability.
Scenario:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbor’s car and his dad gives him a spanking with his belt.
1957 – Billy is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.
2007 – Billy’s dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy is removed to foster care and joins a gang. The state psychologist tells Billy’s sister that she remembers being abused herself and their dad goes to prison.
Scenario:
Johnny falls while running during recess and scrapes his knee. He is found crying by his teacher, Mary. Mary hugs him to comfort him.
1957 – In a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing.
2007 – Mary is accused of being an offender and loses her job. She faces three years in state prison. Johnny undergoes five years of therapy.
n 1986, Peter Davies was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from Northwestern University.
On a hike through the bush, he came across a young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air. The elephant seemed distressed, so Peter approached it very carefully.
He got down on one knee and inspected the elephant’s foot and found a large piece of wood deeply embedded in it. As carefully and as gently as he could, Peter worked the wood out with his hunting knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot. The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on its face, stared at him for several tense moments. Peter stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled. Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away. Peter never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.
Over twenty years later, Peter was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his teenaged son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the creatures turned and walked over so it was close to where Peter and his son Cameron were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Peter, lifted its front foot off the ground, and then put it down. The elephant did that several times and then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.
Remembering the encounter in 1986, Peter couldn’t help wondering if this was the same elephant. Peter summoned up his courage, climbed over the railing, and made his way into the enclosure. He walked right up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted again, wrapped its trunk around one of Peter legs, and slammed him against the railing, killing him instantly.
It probably wasn’t the same elephant.
Many people, bochorim, yungerman, and Zeidas, get drunk ad dlo yada until they do not know the chilik between baruch mordechai and arrur haman – per the din – LSHEIM SHMAYIM.