Kasha

I’ve asked, and the reply was in the negative – even regarding other authorities/sources. Are you still reluctant to share who permitted this for you?

Still no one has specified any authority that allegedly permits it, even if it is a specific local Rov. (I know that the same Rabbi Henkin from Israel that allows men and women to dance simultaneously in the same room to allow it, so hence one must always judge who is allowing something by his stature, and someone who allows men and women to dance together like that is not a reliable authority in most peoples books.)

No, but many folks will not accept an MO opinion.

Even “my OU rabbi” is vague. No one has offered a specific source.

SJS, that is too vague. I asked which Chareidi authority, not whether someone claims such an authority exists. I see earlier on the thread one or more specific authorities listed forbidding it; I don’t know of anyone specifically permitting, hence asking for specifics.

Undoubtedly one of the benefits.

It was always expensive to have more than one wife. Even in the time of the Gemorah.

Though if expense was a concern to prevent such marriages, that reasoning could logically be extended to prevent marriage even to one wife.

At least in your opinion. 🙂

The Vilna Gaon felt it was time to discontinue the ban on polygamy.

Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom is still in effect today.

Otherwise you’d be hearing about frum men and their many wives.

A. You can appeal to non-Jewish and non-frum customers without resorting to pritzus.

B. Even if you cannot, you still have no license to advertise pritzus. Especially regarding non-frum customers — who ARE obligated in tznius halachas.

mdd, which Chareidi authority allows no stockings?

The Beis Ya’akov in Emmanuel accepts Litvish, Chasidish, Sefard, and Ashkenaz girls. The claims in the zionist media and courts otherwise is a blood libel against the school, the parent body, the teachers, and Gedolei Yisroel shlita.

The Beis Ya’akov in Emmanuel has hashkofic standards, and they do not want their children influenced by people without adhering to those standards. It is standard practice for Yeshivos and Beis Yaakovs in Israel, America, and anywhere to set minimum religious standards. Some schools will not take kids with TV’s in their homes; some won’t take kids unless the family dresses btznuah, etc.

A rusha merusha who wanted to force lower standards upon the Beis Yaakov (and who himself doesn’t even live or have children in Emmanuel!) brought a secular court case against the Beis Yaakov (rather than go to Beis Din as halacha would require in any dispute) and made a blood libel against them that they don’t take Sefardim — an outrageous lie when almost half the student body is Sefardic!

The parents pay taxes to the government including taxes that fund schools across the country, and thus are entitled to have their children’s schools be funded. This fact does not abrogate the schools right to maintain their minimum religious standards – including any “chumros” they maintain. Any parent who doesn’t like such a “chumra”, is free to choose another school that has a different religious standard. (No one can send their child to Satmar, Brisk, Mir, Torah V’Daas, Ateret Torah, or any other Yeshiva or Beis Yaakov in Israel, America or anywhere and then demand such Yeshiva or Beis Yaakov drop any “chumras” or religious standards they insist their student and/or parent body maintain.)

The Gedolei Yisroel shlita, including but not limited to Rav Elyashev, Rav Kanievsky, Rav Shteinman, the Slonimer Rebbe, the Gerrer Rebbe, etc. etc. have not only fully supported the Beis Yaakov and the parents, they insist that the parents must go to jail to be moser nefesh to maintain their Torah standards at the school.

Tommorow expect a massive Kiddush Shem Shmayim as tens of thousands of Torah Jews dressed in their Bigdei Shabbos march along these heroic parents starting from Yerushlayim and Bnei Brak to the zionist prison the reshoyim expect to incarcerate them for two weeks. Throughout our long and painful golus of thousands of years we have been repeatedly willing to go to jail to keep our faith and listen to our Gedolim.

Also, when either husband or wife wants to get a divorce and they are determined to do so, Is a rav able to say halacha recognized your reason as being invalid therefore, you cannot get divorced?

That’s what a lot of the discussion above is about. The answer is, depending on the circumstances (and I cannot stress that enough), possibly yes. If the get is being contested (in the sense one spouse doesn’t want it) and the other spouse does not have a halachicly justifiable reason for divorce, the Rav is obligated to say no. A spouse is NOT automatically entitled to divorce-on-demand.

Absolutely.

That being said, one must recognize that their idea of common sense might conflict with halacha.

clearheaded, your question isn’t clear.

One time when speaking to Rav Schach, someone used the common expression, that a posek or rabbi must use the “fifth volume of Shulchan Aruch.” This phrase is supposed to convey the idea that although the S”A only has 4 volumes, one also must apply common sense and logical insight — “the 5th volume” — when issuing a halachic ruling in cases that are not clear cut in the “other” 4 volumes.

Rav Schach objected to the phrase. “Although the idea that underlies the saying is true, one must be extremely careful with his choice of words. We students of the Torah know that this is only a clever idiomatic expression, and that the S”A only has 4 sections. But today, when there are so many people who bend and corrupt the halacha to suit their own individual versions of Judaism, it is not worthwhile to this expression at all, for baalei battim are liable to understand from that there is a license to add or to adopt the rulings of the S”A to one’s own liking. They are likely to form the impression that whenever a dayan or rabbi issues any ruling at all it is all based on his subjective self-devised ‘fifth volume’, and therefore not binding. You see, as a result of the careless use of a witty expression, it is possible to impart a false notion to many people, and it is better to avoid any expression that bears the possibility of having a negative impact.”

Where did I, or anyone, ever say that?

Wolf, I’m not sure what your hockin in chink about.

clearheaded, the point of the R”Y is clear. Nor is it innovative or a bombshell. Even in abuse cases. You ensure the preservation of a Jewish marriage at all costs. Period. Divorce is an absolute last last resort in all cases, to be avoided. Sometimes that may not be possible, but that is always the goal.

In a gittin case, dayanim always need to be involved. “Your common sense” plays second fiddle to the “technicalities” of halacha.

The truth is that I made a mistake in saying that you can’t believe someone when they said they are being abused… I have no doubt that if she insists that she is being abused (if she is)

Look at the previous page. I cited the Noda B’Yehuda who says rather clearly you cannot accept her word alone that she is being abused. This is halacha l’maasa.

and insist on a divorce.

One cannot “insist” on something they are not halachicly entitled to.

happy123, no one disagrees that once divorced, the couple should receive full community support.

Nonetheless, it’s then obvious that the Mechaber’s list of reasons for grounds for divorce are not exhaustive.

The teshuvos cited are based on S”A.

SJS, Lack of a “strong emotional connection like love” is not one of the halachicly acceptable reasons entitling one to a divorce.

Wolf, We don’t rewrite our own S”A. It is often difficult to formally produce incontrovertible evidence that someone has physically abused his spouse (see Rama, E.H. 154:3). In Rav Moshe’s teshuva, official medical records proved the woman’s claim. The Teshuvos Nodah B’Yehudah E.H. 54 (cited in Pischei Teshuvah E.H. 157:9) says you cannot go on her word alone.

Rabbeinu Tam said, “It is preferable for a woman to be an Agunah her whole life than to get a doubtful GET.

Within halacha only under specific and limited conditions is a woman entitled to receive a get. See Shulchan Aruch, Evan HaEzer, Chapter 154.

B”H he had a Rosh Yeshiva for her to go to and seek advice (unfortunately too many of us don’t maintain much of a shaychas with our R”Y and Rov), and B”H the R”Y who knew his talmid well was able to impart counsel based on true Torah hashkofos. Oft times a Rosh Yeshiva will offer advice that we may not understand, yet proves itself correct in the long term. Unfortunately there are too many laymen cynics who feel competent to be dismissive of our Rabbonim’s counsel.

Rav Karp discusses prohibition against worms:

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2010/06/rabbi-karp-defends-prohibition-against.html

squeak I’m not following your logic. Can you explain that in simpler terms?

Hello squeak (or whatever your most recent preferred name is),

My name is Dr. Kasha. Please tell me what brings you here.

d a, you seem like a cute kid. I’m sure the guys in your bunk will have a blast.

Omein!

(Besser gezugt…

Der ikkur iz nuch aza machlokes mir zulen ala huben ah git gebenshed choidesh, in yuhr, in ales gitz biz ah hindred in zvunztzig, gezinterheit!!!)