Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
ED- no one here said that there is a problem with wanting to try to work on your marriage. You have to distinguish between trying to work on your marriage and the point that is being made here. Read the posts carefully.
Enough Divorces: “Some of the posters here are talking really nasty”
No one was being nasty, and no one passed judgment. Everything that anyone said was based on the facts as presented by Lenny.
All that JM613 said was that Lenny’s wife is CLAIMING there is abuse, and t/f they need to go to a therapist who is experienced in these matters. Whether his wife’s claims are true or not, she is making those claims, and THAT is why they are going to a therapist. T/f, they need to go to a therapist who is experienced in that.
There was nothing wrong with JM’s saying that, and it makes perfect sense to me.
But in any event, if he is going to Rav Simcha Bunim, I’m sure that Rav Simcha Bunim will guide him well and send him to the right therapist.
Joseph: “Lenny, I think you should be in touch with Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen and follow his sage advice to a tee. You can’t go wrong doing so and he is far wiser than anyone here.”
This is by far the best advice anyone has given so far!
Lenny: “And Lilmod, thanks for the clarification.” Which clarification?
“The fool needs to take high school biology, he didn’t understand that our daughter is Chinese (adopted) and carries none of Mrs. CTL’s genes.”
lol. The truth is though, don’t you think it’s likely that it could be more of a nurture issue than a nature issue? I just don’t think it should be an issue altogether.
Joseph: “Lenny, I think you should be in touch with Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen and follow his sage advice to a tee. You can’t go wrong doing so and he is far wiser than anyone here.”
+1!
lol. DY is a man – I’m not sure he will appreciate being called a lady, even though he has a sense of humor and is not a chauvinist. But I’m sure he will come up with some funny one-liner about it.
I didn’t go to Columbia Law School, but someone in my immediate family did. Does that qualify? (even if I have no idea what a 3L is)
What is a 3L?
I’m overweight and haven’t found it to be a problem with shidduchim, so I really don’t get what this is about. Maybe I go out with more intellectual, less superficial types of boys.
Avi K.: “5. Once someone in Posen became a Reformer so Rabbi Akiva Eiger, upon the wife’s request, ordered him to give a get. He refused so RAE read him the first mishna in Kiddushin regarding how a married woman becomes single. The guy laughed, walked out of the office and fell down the stairs.”
The last two words should be “and died” (thereby making his wife single).
(I’m not sure if that would be clear to s.o. who doesn’t already know the story).
Lenny, glad you found it. He’s a good person to speak to. Very warm, personable and wise. And experienced.
When you call, you will probably get his wife. If he’s not available, ask her what time to call back. He’s not home so much, but when he’s home, he’s usually available. I think there are specific times when he’s more likely to be home, so ask his wife.
Coffee fills me up and helps me to lose weight actually. But I guess everyone is different. I also have always found that exercise makes me less hungry, but someone I know says the opposite.
LB – after you speak to the publishers, if you are still confused about the halachos of honesty and how they fit in, you should speak to a Rav about it. It occurred to me that you may be confused about what those halachos are and why this was okay according to halacha. A Rav is really the best address for understanding halachic issues, and not the internet.
Ruby can be short for Reuven, and I think that Reuven’s stone in the Choshen Mishkan may have been a ruby (Odem in Lashon Hakodesh).
My friend told me that her niece was named after a Ruby/Reuven, so they named her Odem.
“Otherwise she may be teaching her children that her subjectivity overrides. Chas v’shalom she may be adding to the Torah. That’s also a transgression.”
That would only be true if the Rav told her that she HAS to stop covering her hair, or if he told her that according to halacha, there is no reason to cover her hair.
My impression is that if and when divorced or widowed women are told they don’t have to cover their hair, it is based on a leniency, and they are only being given that answer because they ASKED the question and they were asking for a leniency. If they had phrased the question differently, “Is there any reason for a married woman to cover her hair?” or “SHOULD I cover my hair?”, they may have received a different answer.
In point of fact, I’m not 100% sure, but I believe that all or most poskim say that you should cover your hair in such a case. Although it’s possible that in specific cases, when it’s really hard for the lady,etc. they may find leniencies.
“Sure but it’ll also teach you that other people have better snacks.”
Yup! too true!
btw, where have you been all week, and why did you decide to davka come back for this?
Hey, at least it’s not 10 years :). And at least almost all of these posters actually still post, including both the OP and the one that LB was responding to.
Joseph, from the way his post his phrased, it seems to me that he’s talking about after he goes before Beis Din, if they tell him that halachically they don’t have the power to force him to give a Get, but they think he should (your case b).
It sounds like he is trying to figure out if he can get away with not giving a get in such a case, since the Beis Din can’t demand that he give one.
It sounds like you agree with all the rest of the posters that in such a case, he has a moral (hashkafic) obligation to do so. Could you please make that very clear to him (since I think he is taking your advice seriously and there can be very serious ramifications involving other people’s lives)? Thank you.
Charlie Hall: “Only those of us engaged in Bitul Torah.”
Well, I guess that means that all the womenfolk here are abnormal and all the men are normal.
It is time for truth: “why is it that all those who speak in the name of tolerance always have the least amount of it”
So true.
RY – why you don’t do that already? I guess you didn’t babysit when you were younger.
LB- you’re right, but not everyone sees it that way. It’s an unusual trait.
The only thing that helps is Torah and Mitzvos. When bad things happen, the Torah says that we are supposed to see what we need to work on in terms of Ruchnius.
(yes, we also need hishtadlus, but it’s not the ikar. And in this case, it’s only for the firefighters & army).
Additionally, according to the Alshich, in E”Y, hishtadlus IS Torah & Mitzvos.
“edited”
I can’t even remember what else I wrote. I thought that was all I wrote. (or does “edited” refer to my own editing?)
Lightbrite – you definitely get the #1 prize in the CR for being able to retract things!
Regarding divorced women, I don’t know what the halacha is, but divorced mothers generally feel that they want to continue covering their hair regardless because it’s bad chinuch for the kids. Also, it could be maris ayin if people know they have kids and don’t realize they are divorced. Plus, it would be very awkward and uncomfortable for the kids.
I knew one widow who only became Frum around the time she lost her husband. At the beginning, she was more modern and didn’t cover her hair, but at some point, she became more Frum and started covering her hair.
A few years later, she was told by a Rav (I do not know how reliable he was or wasn’t) that she doesn’t have to cover her hair.
I told her that even if that were technically true, it would be very bad chinuch for the kids especialy since she only started covering her hair after she became widowed. So to start and then stop is very bad chinuch. She agreed with me and continued to cover her hair.
This actually may be a good way to rule out superficial guys and get a quality one.
Personally, even if I were thin, I wouldn’t want to marry a guy who only wanted a thin girl. It’s a horrible life, and I’ve heard too many horror stories of guys who were upset with their wives because they gained a few pounds after having 10 kids, and they made them crazy about it. Would you really want to be married to someone like that?
LF- +1
As long as you are not looking to marry Health, you don’t have to worry about his opinion.
btw, the overweight girls I was talking about are married to skinny guys.
edited
“I don’t know how you could know that”
“Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.”
“You claimed you didn’t think of it so they probably didn’t either. Now you say that didn’t think of it. I think it’s fair to assume there are many in the world their own thoughts independent of whether or not you share them.”
As I already pointed out, according to halacha,if there is more than one possibility, we have a chiyuv to assume the best, and we are not allowed to think that the other (negative) possibility can possibly be true.
Some will and some won’t. I wouldn’t worry about it. I know girls who are very overweight who married great guys.
If you are very overweight and you can lose some weight without making yourself crazy about it, it may be a good idea to do so.
If you make sure that you are attractive in other ways, it is much less of an issue. Buying the right clothes (to hide your weight) makes a tremendous difference. There have been times when I gained a lot of weight but people actually thought that I lost weight because of my clothes. It is hard to find clothes that are slimming, but it is worthwhile, since it makes a tremendous difference.
Make sure your hair and face look great, and wear clothes that don’t emphasize your stomach.
I once heard about a beauty contest for overweight people. The contestants had to weigh a certain amount in order to qualify. The winnere of the contest said, “If you think you are beautiful, then others will also think you are beautiful”.
I wholeheartedly agree with that statement.
“nor any moral obligation to give it if you desire to continue living with your wife in marital union (despite her not wishing so.)”
If the Rabbanim tell him to, he certainly does have a moral obligation to do so. They may not be able to force him to do so, but he will certainly be punished for it later on.
“I don’t know how you could know that”
Because there is no reason to assume otherwise.
You claimed you didn’t think of it so they probably didn’t either. Now you say that didn’t think of it. I think it’s fair to assume there are many in the world their own thoughts independent of whether or not you share them.
“How can it be a chilul hashem to ease the plight of agunos???”
“How does the valid goal remove chillul Hashem?”
According to the halachic definition of chillul Hashem, if something is a Mitzvah, it can’t be a chillul Hashem. Actually, it is a Kiddush Hashem, even if (maybe especially if) others look down on you for it.
This is a sheilah for a Rav. That is what I was referring to on the other thread when I said that you should be listening to the Rav and not anonymous posters.
I was referring to the Rav of the Beis Din who seemed to be telling you that you should give your wife a Get if she insists on one and you quoted anonymous posters instead of listening to him (as I understood things. perhaps, I misunderstood what you meant. in that case, I apologize).
Then I thought it was irrelevant since I thought that you were going to Rav Simcha Bunim. I hope for the sake of your wife’s olam hazeh (this world) and your olam haba (world-to-come) that you do go to speak to Rav Simcha Bunim and that you do listen to what he says to do (whether it’s marriage therapy or granting a Get).
Btw, he’s a grandson of Rav Avigdor Miller (and I think a follower of his), whom Joseph kept quoting as being against divorce. So if that’s true and there is no good reason for a divorce, he won’t tell you to divorce your wife.
In any case, he is a wise Talmid Chacham, and if you do to him (or someone else), you should go in with an open-mind, prepared to accept what he tells you.
“Now what if someone says the same about deceiving photographs? Is this a white lie for the greater good? Who is to judge because that’s potential and it could also be the opposite.”
There were no deceiving photographs here. A deceiving photograph is only if you are using the photograph to make an incorrect point. The photographs were not being used to show how the girls dressed in those days – they were being used to show the girls learning.
If you photoshop a picture to make it clearer or brighter, is that a problem? of course not. You are just trying to make the picture look better. Here that is not even the point.
Regarding, “who is to judge about what you are allowed to do for the greater good?”
The halacha decides when you are allowed to. It is not something you can decide for yourself. According to halacha, you are not allowed to speak Loshon Hora just because it is for the greater good.On the other hand, according to halacha, you are allowed to lie in order to avoid speaking Loshon hora.
At the place where I just spent Shabbos, the host was teaching hilchos LH, and he “happened” to mention that according to halacha, pictures that show something bad about a person can be LH. So that may be another reason why they photoshopped the pictures (as someone already mentioned). Some of these people may still be alive so it may be embarrassing to them, and that is certainly a reason why it be a CHIYUV to photoshop the pictures. You are OBLIGATED to lie in order to not embarrass others. (although I personally don’t think there was any deception going on here, but even if s.o. does, acc. to halacha, they probably had no choice).
Regarding Hilchos L”H, even if you think it’s okay because it’s for the greater good, one of the first conditions is that you have to discuss it with the person first. Before throwing out this issue to the whole world online, you should be writing to the editors of the book, and ASKING them why they did it.
Second of all, you have to be sure of your information; you have to know for a fact that it is true. You have to consider if it is possible that there can be another explanation. You are assuming that they did this in order to be deceptive and that in fact, according to halacha it is considered deception and is assur. Do you know 100% for sure that that is their intention? Do you know for sure that it is assur according to halacha? If not, it is assur to say so.
Third of all, what is the greater good here? Is it always for the greater good to talk about what others did wrong? If so, then there would be no concept of LH, since everything would always be okay.
If the whole thing really bothers you so much, why don’t you write to them and ask them why they did it?
And if you think it’s a problem, discuss it with them and not with the rest of the world.
Regarding “taking off glasses being normal and accepted”. I don’t know if that is so or not, but personally, I am the only person I know who does it. I think most people do not do this, since most people who would care enough about it wear lenses.
According to the logic being used here with photoshopping, it definitely would be considered deceptive for me to take off my glasses – more so than with the photoshopping, since I never wear lenses and never take off my glasses.
What makes it okay is the fact that there IS NO deception taking place, since I would not hide the fact that I wear glasses from anyone. If anyone were to ask, I would tell them. I would tell someone before I married them if it were necessary (which it’s not because they will know the first time I meet them anyhow).
Here too, there IS NO deception taking place. If anyone wanted to know, they would tell right away that the pictures were photoshopped and explain the reason.
No one is denying the fact that in certain ways they dressed untzniusly in those days (although, they were much more tznius than we are today!).That is not why the pictures were photoshopped and it didn’t occur to them that anyone would look at it that way.
I don’t know how you could know that
“Lashon hara, if I am not mistaken, does not apply if the discussion is intended to understand meaning or for the greater good.”
That is unfortunately a very widespread mistaken belief about LH. In order for LH to be okay there are many conditions and just saying that it is for the greater good does not make it okay.
By the way, my comments about LH were not meant for you. I didn’t think there was necessarily anything wrong with your asking the question since my understanding was that you were just trying to understand why they did this.
However, I did feel that the way that some posters posted was inappropriate and problematic. (If there was any problem with your asking the question, it is only because there will always be people who answer inappropriately. That is why this is probably not the best place to ask such questions given a choice, and asking a live Rabbi or Rebbetzin is always better. However, it’s possible that you have no one else to ask these questions to)
“Thanks for your input. You’re like CR’s Queen of Lashon Hara Rulings :)”
We have to always be very careful about LH. But online, we have to be SUPER-careful. Any word of LH online is immediately accessible to thousands of people AND it stays there forever for everyone in the world to read. It’s pretty scary!
There are few things for which one can chas v’shalom lose his cheilik in Olam Haba permanently. One of them is being a “baal loshon Hora”. I heard that someone who posts L”H is in this category.
“Also, TIDE mentioned some individuals who are sometimes considered Tzaddikim.”
Being a tzaddik is not enough to make someone a gadol. Someone can be a tzaddik and be a very simple person.
But someone does have to be a tzaddik in order to be a Gadol. But they also have to have other qualities as well.
Who is a Gadol? That is a very good question. There may be some people about whom it’s unclear if they are considered Gedolim or not, but with most people, I think it is pretty clear.
What makes it confusing is the way people throw terms around. I am using the term Gadol here to refer to the Gedolei Hador – the true Gedolim – those people for whom our respect must be absolute and we can’t possibly disagree with. And yes, we do have people like that today – people such as Rav Chaim Kanievsky, Shlita, and Rav Shteinman, Shlita.
However, some people use the term Gadol more loosely, according to its literal meaning which is “Great”. They use it to refer to any “adam gadol”/great person.
Rav Avigdor Miller, zatsal, for example, was an “adam gadol”, a Talmid Chacham and a Tzadik, but he was not a gadol hador. It seems to me that it would be okay for someone to disagree with him, albeit respectfully. However, they should take into account that he was much greater than them and they may not know enough to really disagree with him, and t/f they should exercise caution when doing so.
Rabbi Arush and Rabbi Keleman are very knowledgeable people and tremendous educators and writers. I think they are considered to be Talmidei Chachamim, but I do not think they are considered to be in the same league as Rav Avigdor Miller, zatsal, and I don’t think they would be considered as authoritative a source as him.
AY – +1 Just curious about your comment about the Satmar Rebbe, Zatzal. It sounds like you were saying that he would have approved of a deal with the Arabs at his time? Is that what you were saying?
Avi K. +1 What you are saying is very true and probably the main reason that some Americans think that the US is safer than EY. Another part of it is that everying that happens in EY is blown up in the news, whereas they do not report every mugging, etc. that happens in the US.
Another part is that people in the US take it for granted that they have to take certain safety precautions and that their lives are restricted as a result. ZD – you say that you were never mugged. Well, that is because you do not walk around at 2:00 am like I do all the time in EY. You think about where you are going and what time it is – things that I do not have to do here.
Also, you may have never been mugged, but tons of people in the US have. Many people have told me that they were mugged in the US (several at gunpoint). I know of almost no one who was ever mugged in EY.
Lightbrite – +10 for always finding something positive to say!
Re the first point on your second post – in this case, I think it was only the first post that I wanted people to see in particular.
“It is interesting that TIDE feels comfortable saying that not every influential rabbi necessarily speaks to him/her.”
It has happened to me that I read a particular book at one stage of life and felt very turned off by it, but when I read it years later after I had acquired a different perspective on life, I found I really liked it.
So something may not speak to you now, but at a different stage of life, you may find that it does.
Regarding books on Emunah, I read parts of “Living Emunah” by Rabbi Ashear, on Shabbos, and I really like it! I was feeling very down about something, and it really helped.
Highly recommended! I think it may be up your alley, Lightbrite. And most people’s, for that matter.
Lightbrite – I would definitely say the same thing. Although not necessarily in exactly the same way that he did.
It is important to distinguish between different types of “influential Rabbis”. Some of the people he mentioned are not Gedolim.They are simply knowledgeable people who wrote good books that many people like. You don’t have to agree with everything they say.
When it comes to Gedolim, you can’t disagree with them, but you can certainly say that what they are saying doesn’t “speak to you” especially when it comes to the type of topic being discussed here.
However, in all cases, one must be careful of Loshon Hora. It is assur to criticize a book or a speaker.
Personally, I have certainly found that many speakers do not “speak to me”.
Lenny – I tried posting the number for you, but the moderators don’t allow phone numbers to be posted (which I totally understand).
It is in the Frum Lakewood phonebooks, so if you know anyone in Lakewood, you can ask them to look it up for you.
Hatzlacha!
Why would I do that? I had nothing to add or say on the topic. I just came across it and thought it was something people might like to see, since people seemed to be inspired by it.
Actually, if I had something new to say on an old topic, I would probably create a new thread. I never understand why people post things on threads from five years ago.
Utah, first of all, even if you think it’s wrong, it is loshon hora to say so. According to halacha, it is loshon hora to say something negative about a book, since you are criticizing the author.
Second of all, my point of being “dan l’kaf zchus” was regarding the reason they did this. Two possible reasons have been given for their doing this. One is that they didn’t want people to see untznius pictures, and the other is that they were trying to rewrite history. We are not allowed to assume the second reason when we can be assuming the first. (Aside from the fact that I think it’s the more likely possibility.)
Now you are bringing in another point – that even if we assume they were doing it for the right reasons, in the end it is misrepresenting things and sheker and therefore wrong and they shouldn’t have included the pictures.
In terms of that, I understand your point, but: 1. We still have the LH issue & 2) we still have the “dan l’kaf zchus” issue &
3. I think there is an obvious answer here. It clearly never occurred to them that anyone would look at it that way, or they just would have left the pictures out.
After all, there is no reason the pictures have to be included, so if they had a “hava amina” that there was anything wrong with it, they would have left it out.
I am sure it never occurred to them that anyone thought they were trying to misrepresent history. I would never have thought of such a thing, so why should they?
I still don’t see why anyone would even come up with such an idea. It is a very farfetched idea. The only reason why anyone would think of such a thing is if they are starting off with the assumption that someone might be trying to rewrite history.
I always take off my glasses for pictures. Is that sheker? According to your theory, it would be. I only take off my glasses for pictures because I look better that way and I want to look my best for a picture.
You could argue that taking off my glasses is not sheker because my glasses are not attached to me and I really can take them off. The same is true here – I am sure that everyone in the picture did sometimes have their knees and elbows covered.
If anyone from today could go back in time and take their picture now, they would ask them to make sure their knees and elbows are covered for the photo. Is that sheker? I can’t imagine anyone would think so.They didn’t have that option so instead they covered up their knees and elbows. There is nothing wrong with that.
Every school does the same thing when they take class pictures – they make sure the girls are tznius even if they normally aren’t. And if they realize after the picture that the neckline was too low for example, I think they fix it by coloring it in. Not because they are trying to lie and to say the girls are always tznius, but simply because they don’t want people to see untznius pictures. And there is nothing sheker about it – the girl’s neckline is not an inherent part of her – she could have been wearing a higher neckline.
According to your logic, it would be assur for someone to wear coverup because it is sheker. They are making it look like they don’t have pimples when they really do. And it would also be assur for me to take off my glasses for pictures, since I never walk around without glasses because I wouldn’t be able to see.