Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I was rejected for inclusion on the jury panel after mentioning jury nullification when being questioned.
Laziness and procrastination need to be actively worked against to overcome.
Isn’t the purported reason regarding the female emotional reaction of being rejected?
Another question is why do many Ashkenazim pronounce the name as Batsheva rather than Bassheva.
jf02: Them working is at best a b’dieved to be avoided if at all possible. That it’s done is out of unfortunate necessity. About mothers who are the only income in the family, I’m not keen about that setup. But if done for the benefit of her husband’s Limud Torah then it is an accepted trade-off. And it is far from being newly fangled arrangement. It surely wasn’t as prevalent in previous generations, due to the economic inaccessibility of being able for most families, but it’s greater popularity in our generation is a positive attribute.
That something is not the mesorah or traditional thing to do is neither silly nor weak as a reasoning for it to remain that way. It is in fact a strong argument. You should train yourself, even if it is difficult, to enjoy and treasure the day watching the menfolk dancing joyously with the Torah.
Bais Yaakov was a result of a shas hadchak.
IMHO, “exoticism” isn’t a valid reason to go overseas seminary. Regarding experiencing an “austere lifestyle”, was that a gag? Whatever they may witness others living as, themselves they seem to be having a blast, vacationing, sightseeing and partying unlike anything they’d do at home. As far as independence, I don’t see why they need such an experience. The hashkofos point is the only one that holds any resonance.
“This is not the question that I asked. If the rabbis stated that it is G-d’s will, then there would be a ???? or ???? and we’ve already covered that.”
Actually you did openly imply that their “recommendation” was based on “G-d’s will” when you asked me if “he knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis” following your hypothetical question on such a recommendation. Nevertheless I will be happy to respond to your newly clarified question.
” I asked about a case where the rabbis recommend a get be given based on their “personal experience” informed by their Torah knowledge and experience as dayanim. So assume that there isn’t a provable ???? ????? or ???? ?????, but the rabbis tell the man, “even so, we recommend that you give a get.” What should the man do?”
I think he should give it. I would recommend he give it. But if he chose not to accept the rabbis’ recommendation, depending on the sincerity of his motivation (even if sincerely unrealistic), I don’t think he committed a sin by not accepting the recommendation. If his motivation was out of stubborness or to punish her and he wasn’t truly interested in continuing a functioning marriage, then I think he is acting sinfully.
“The problem with hypothetical situations is that some of them may never occur in real life.”
Agreed, though I think the hypothetical beis din case I presented is pretty close to some real life situations. OTOH, due to the very limited situations that halacha empowers a beis din to force a husband to issue a Get (i.e. proven abuse uncorrected after b’d warnings), it is very infrequent that a beis din these days issues a formal ruling following a trial that a husband is halachicly obligated to give one. (If a beis din did order that in error, IOW when halacha didn’t allow the b’d to order it, the result is a get me’usa.) The unfortunate situations that sometimes hit the news are not true aguna cases (despite the PR) as in virtually all of them there was never a b’d order for a Get; and in many of them for good reason. In fact, according to halacha if the husband G-d forbid fails to respond to a hazmana to appear for trial on the issue of a demand for a Get, the beis din is limited to issuing a siruv against him and/or putting him in cherem for failing to accept a beis din’s jurisdiction over an issue he is being sued in beis din for. (Every Jew is obligated to accept a beis din [though not necessarily the one the plaintiff chose] to adjudicate a dispute with another Jew.) But even in that aforementioned situation beis din is precluded for ordering him to give a divorce or pressuring him in any way to do so, prior to conducting an actual trial with both parties present to determine if ordering him to give it is halachicly warranted (which requires circumstances that is rarely halachicly met). It can only pressure and potentially force him to appear for trial.
“In this hypothetical scenario you made, not only would I wholeheartedly advocate that they wife return to the marriage work towards reconciliation, I believe there is a mitzvah for her to return, and if she did not do so there would be grounds for excommunication from the community.”
Throughout this long discussion on this thread, I don’t see any points of disagreement between us regarding the pertinent halachas.
“Direct enough answer? :)”
Yes. 🙂
frumnotyeshivish: Why is it so difficult to believe that both parents are fully capable parents and that in many cases it could be an even or close to even choice? Such a scenario is very far from outlandish. There can be many cases where the child will do equally well with either parent. Why do you persist in insisting that in almost all cases there is one parent who will be more detrimental with having custody of the child compared to the other parent?
DY on the other hand is coming here and insisting it is the mother over the father that gets the benefit of an “assumption” that she is better and more fit as custodian. Despite asking him specifics as to why he believes it, other than giving a vague that’s how it’s in our generation and he knows this based on his “observation”, he hasn’t provided coherent specific reasons that a child is generally best in the custody of the mother. (DY: Sorry for not addressing this point directly to you; I assume that you have a valid reason that you chose not to respond to my last question to you.)
PAA: I want to thank you for answering your question to me.
writersoul: You didn’t address the question; specifically the question of Israel seminary vs. Domestic seminary. Your comment is regarding (Israeli) seminary vs. no seminary.
You can attend domestic seminary and get the virtually the same primary benefits you’ve cited.
Back to the mishegas of it being the default option that high school grads go to Israel seminary.
Can anyone explain what benefit (other than partying/vacationing) there is to go to Israel seminary over domestic seminary? I never understood.
Particularly *what facts and points* from your observation and discussion have led you to believe in this as a default “assumption” as opposed to waiting for a case by case evaluation rather than making an “assumption”?
I’d also be interested in hearing your guess as to what changed from previous generations.
When you have a leak do you call the plumber?
On what basis do you make your admittedly assumption?
I surely never assumed you to be a ruffian which would be two steps away from a gentleman.
“A cad is a man who is aware of the codes of conduct which separate a gentleman from a ruffian, but finds himself unable to quite live up to them. Cads are quite capable of disguising themselves as good chaps for some time, only revealing their true nature in circumstances of particular stress or temptation. Others embrace their caddishness wholeheartedly and delight in behaving in a manner which is, to be quite frank, not cricket.”
DY: fny said it is difficult to envision both parents equally capable; is that an opinion you share? Regarding your comment about “our generation”, who are the “we” in that – secular society or Torah society? Why would you say this ‘fact’ has changed from previous generations? And do you share the assumption that a child is better off in the mother’s care?
I never took you to be a cad, PAA.
frumnotyeshivish (and DY if I correctly understand your stated agreement with fny): Why (per earlier comment) do you have a “hard time envisioning a hypothetical scenario” where both the father or the mother would be equally able to care for the child as primary custodian? Are you working on the assumption that the mother should by default be granted custody and/or do you have a “hard time envisioning a hypothetical scenario” where the father may be equally or better capable?
With normal parents where both the father and the mother are capable parents is there any reason you’re assuming, by default, that one is better than the other? Especially if both parents are working and it isn’t a matter where one is home more than the other.
Define intelligent.
Avram: “What about a case where the beis din recommends it? Would you support the husband in declaring, essentially, that he knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis?”
Your question is if beis din rules there is certainly no ???? ????? and there is not even a ???? ????? but it “recommends” it. In this hypothetical case, without case-specific information, does the ambiguous term “recommends” mean that their personal opinion is that it would be a good idea but they are not asserting that it is G-d’s will? (In which case they themselves are not asserting he must do it.) If they recommend it because they assert that it is “G-d’s will” then of course I would fully encourage him to give it.
“I think that the people you are referencing are not having a problem with the halacha, but rather with the husband not wanting to give it.”
In my opinion they do have a problem that the halacha is that a husband doesn’t have to give it if he doesn’t want to (unless there’s special circumstances that require he do so) simply because one is asked of him.
Now please respond to the question of the beis din case I presented above on Erev Shabbos. (DY too.)
What did this (new?) kol korah say and who are its signatories?
from Long Island: Are any of those benefits unavailable in domestic seminaries?
DY: How are you answering my question before I asked it?
How much maturity is needed to go to EY?
I’m not sure which Rama you’re referring to, but if the Rama prohibits it even if other Achronim argue against it why do you assume we don’t pasken in accordance with the Rama? We don’t simply follow m’ikur hadin when poskim bring other considerations to be stringent.
fny/DY: Why do you have a hard time conceiving of a scenario where both the father or the mother would be equally able to care for the child as primary custodian? Are you working on the assumption that the mother should by default be granted custody and/or do you not see it possible the father may be equally or better capable?
With normal parents where both the father and the mother are capable parents is there any reason you’re assuming, by default in a hypothetical scenario, that one is better than the other?
Especially if both parents are working and it isn’t a matter where one is home more than the other.
DY: Do you agree that custody determinations and arrangements should strictly be determined by beis din in accordance with halacha (which obviously includes consideration of the children’s well-being) rather than by a non-Jewish court (which using it for this purpose is itself a violation of halacha) which uses non-Jewish law (which inevitably differs from Jewish law.) Once the beis din reaches a determination it should be given to the secular court as the parental agreed upon arrangement.
I’d also be interested in your response to the question I asked Avram above in my most recent comment to him.
There’s also an overlap between Yeshivish and Chasidish. Is there no in between?
Modern Yeshivish.
frumnotyeshivish: Suppose it was determined that the children would do equally well with either parent as residential custodian and both parents were equally capable and able to take residential custody. Would you then not agree that the initiator of a no-fault divorce with no objectively good justification should be disfavored for residential/primary custody?
“What about a case where the beis din recommends it? Would you support the husband in declaring, essentially, that he knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis?”
Avram: Time is a bit short and I hope to iy”H get to your other questions. But, directly, please respond this:
What about a case where a wife petitions beis din for a Get. The beis din initiates a trial, hears the wife’s demand for a divorce along with her reason for so requesting, followed by the husband’s response requesting the marriage be maintained and continued. The trial concludes, the dayanim deliberate the facts and relevant halachas and reach a verdict advising the couple that the request for a Get is denied as being unnecessary and the facts of the case not in line for a halachic requirement that a divorce be ordered.
Therefore, say the dayanim, the wife al pi Torah must forthwith move back into her husband’s home, as her having left it had been unjustified and constituted being a moredes, and she should be a good wife.
Would you support the wife in declaring, essentially, that she knows G-d’s will better than those rabbis? Or would you wholeheartedly advocate to the wife to return to her marriage?
As frum Jews, should we commemorate the Hebrew or the Gregorian date of December 7, Pearl Harbor Day?
Google Glasses until they come out with Google Contacts.
But yehudayona’s point may explain it: Women tend to outlive men so they’re single when they’re older after there spouse and other older men passed away, thus skewing figures showing more unmarried women than men.
Though with this large a disparity I don’t think that fact could nearly explain it all. In which case the frum communities own disparity on this point may simply be part of the larger natural similar general statistic in the world population, rather than being explained primarily due to an age gap. (In the sense that an age gap is any different than general society or otherwise a natural occurrence of marriage.)
If the mods permit a very neutral census.gov link:
http://www.census.gov/population/www/cen2000/briefs/phc-t27/tables/tab04.pdf
popa: Google
86 single men to 100 single women
and the first result will be to the US Census Bureau with exactly that figure.
DY: That was just to throw everyone into a loop to throw at me their biggest bombshell all at once so I could get past that stage. Seems to have worked with Sam. 😉
Avram: “However, what it seems to me (and please correct me if I’m wrong) is that you are arguing that if a beis din rules ???? ????? and the husband disagrees because he really wants to stay married, he doesn’t have to listen to the beis din, because who is the beis din to tell him to divorce when the halacha doesn’t explicitly…”
I’m pleased to correct your mistaken impression. If beis din halachicly determines and rules ???? ?????, I 100% advocate the husband give a Get even in the absence of a ???? ?????. No qualifications. Regardless of why it is ???? ?????, such as the previously quoted Rambam ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????. I, too, hope you just as strongly advocate a husband give a Get in a ???? ????? situation such as that aforementioned Rambam where the husband and the wife are not seeking a Get as you do in other ???? ????? situations where the wife is seeking a Get. My advocacy for a Get in both such types of situations are equal. (But we still must ackowledge that there is a difference between a ???? ????? and a ???? ?????. And I think you and DY may be overestimating the times there is a ???? ?????.)
“If we were talking about any issue other than divorce (e.g., kashrus, tznius), I think you’d agree with me.”
Hmm, Rav Moshe in his heter for drinking cholov stam says that someone who cares about his neshama would refrain from using it. That may be analogous to a ???? ????? vs. a ???? ?????. Would we agree that someone who would follow a ???? ????? where it isn’t a ???? ????? is someone who should refrain from cholov stam? (I’m just hashing this point of yours out; I’m not yet taking a firm position on this comparison.)
Regarding your point about love. Loving someone does not equate with always granting her desire. And in situations where a request isn’t granted, that does not detract from such love; indeed it may enhance it. This point is obvious in parent/child situations but is not an attribute limited to that kind of relationship.
I agree with your point about stressing points that enhance and preserve marriages by being a good spouse and fostering proper marriage skills.
“I think the problem I have with this statement is that you are casting a much larger net with “valid reasons” than I think is valid.”
I have repeatedly stated that what is or isn’t “valid reasons” is strictly a halachic/legal matter. I haven’t even specified what is or isn’t valid reasons; I simply left it to be determined by beis din per relevant halacha. How can that possibly be disagreeable?
Now if I may be excused for letting off some irritation here. I’ve constantly said we need to follow halacha. We need to use Shulchan Aruch as our guide. I’ve justified my positions based on halacha. And in their own words quite a few posters here seemed to have expressed general or in large part agreement with the sourced positions I’ve expressed. A quick glance back and some of those expressing similar positions as myself on various points have been Lebidik Yankel, Ben Levi, aymdock, catch yourself, MyTurnAtBat, 2scents, 147, Gamanit, etc. But yet a smaller in number, but perhaps more vocal, have been yelling back ‘terrifying’, ‘evil’, on points that halacha makes. They can’t halachicly sources these boich svaras because halacha says that a Get is only given if the husband “wants” to give it. So then they say, yeah halacha says that but really halacha didn’t mean that – but rather that people shouldn’t strictly rely on said halacha but rather do what the other party is demanding of them even if it is without halachic basis because really that’s what the Chachomim want them to do. So where do we find these supposed Chazals they speak of? Only silence. Halacha does not say he has to give it if he doesn’t want to give it because halacha says he only has to give it if he wants to. (Again speaking in the absence of abuse.) Yet the disagreers here are yelling he has to want to give it if his wife wants him to give it. That is an open contradiction to what Halacha 101 of Hilchos Gittin says. Yes, it’s true that the Torah gives a husband more leeway to give a divorce almost whenever he wants to (and R”G took away many of those rights from Ashkenazic husbands and gave wives the ability to refuse to accept a Get) while the Torah grants few such rights to a wife to be able to demand a Get. Otherwise why is the Shulchan Aruch replete with definitions when a divorce is required and when it is not required (despite it being requested) and when a Jewish court should grant or when it should refuse a request for a divorce. For centuries before the 1960s revolution I don’t think too many folks questioned or argued against these halachas. But that revolution poisoned society’s outlook on traditional family relationships and in general the different roles, rights and responsibilities of the two genders. And that change in societal values to some extent rubbed off in our own communities even when such views conflicted with halacha. The Torah truth is that there are different and unequal roles, rights and responsibilities between husbands and wives. We should not only accept and respect that but embrace it. It has successfully governed our nation throughout our long exile long before contemporary gentile values seeped into our conscience.
Aside from the other points, from what I’ve seen a significant part of the seminary year for many if not most includes a healthy dose of partying and vacationing. Domestic seminary is generally a better option than going overseas.
I’m with popa_bar_abba 100% on this discussion.
DY: TY for your last comment. Avram: TY for that retraction. I take this discussion exclusively in the realm of Torah, halachic, ethical, moral, fairness, justice and the absolutely proper way to conduct life in a heavenly manner. As I’ve stressed multiple times.
“1) You are equating her being wrong with him being right. It doesn’t work that way.”
I am not making that equation. But you’re correct that it doesn’t work that way.
“2) Not being cruel and vindictive is very much a Torah value, not merely a modern fabrication.”
Correct. And neither myself nor anyone else said otherwise. The hypothetical situation I described did not include any cruelty or vindictiveness. It was governed by love, as I stressed.
“3) ???? ????? are the precise words I heard from a dayan regarding a case where al pi din he is not obligated to divorce her, but he should for Gan Eden purposes. I am not knowledgeable enough to go through all of the relevant halachos with you; as I said, it’s a guess.”
Attributing it to an unidentified dayan isn’t helpful without halachic reasoning. The halachic qualifications of ???? ????? includes what I quoted from Rambam but not the scenario you described, according to the sources.
“5) There is no question that there are cases where the marriage is unsalvagable.”
Indeed, and I haven’t said otherwise. That being said, the stress in our generation must be on the salvageable not the unsalvageable. Most contemporary divorces (including r’l in our own communities), as I’ve stated, were avoidable and unnecessary I dare say. And we should strive to avoid in the future.
“6) Although I’m no expert, from the little I’ve read, you misunderstand the purpose of the cherem d’Rabeinu Gershom regarding a forced get. It is not so that she can prolong the marriage indefinitely; it’s to prevent him from easily divorcing her at whim. In no way, shape or form does this indicate that there isn’t a point in time at which it’s clear that she should accept the get.”
You are contradicting the plain meaning of R”G’s stated cherem. If the husband has no valid cause for giving his wife a divorce and on that basis the wife is insistent to continue the marriage, she has that right indefinitely per R”G.
“Your assumption that a woman wanting a divorce is acting capriciously”
I made no such assumption. I described a hypothetical scenario that constitutes that fact.
“unless she can provide you with clear-cut evidence of abuse, is fundamentally misogynistic.”
1) You’re disagreeing with halacha. Shulchan Aruch insist she must present solid evidence of such to beis din. So much in fact that S”A rules that if she can’t provide it then beis din can only accept the claim by placing a witness in their residence to determine the truth. 2) I never even mentioned or discussed a claim of abuse in the scenarios I described. In fact I overtly described a scenario that there was no abuse.
“There may also be other valid reasons not involving abuse, such as an irreparable loss of trust.”
What reason is or is not valid in suing for divorce is a halachic matter that halacha stipulates and isn’t determined by gut feeling. Do you have any halachic source giving an ambiguous irreparable loss of trust as a valid reason for divorce? I didn’t see that in S”A’s list of given valid reasons so perhaps I overlooked it.
“One spouse acting badly does not validate the other spouse acting badly.”
Agreed. Declining to divorce for valid reasons and continuing to be ready and available to live in an ongoing marriage is not acting badly. It is acting goodly. The badly acting is refusing to accept living in an existing marriage if there’s no valid reason to refuse to.
“If a couple is going to beis din for divorce proceedings, the home is R”L already broken”
That’s an incorrect assumption and an assumption that disagrees with clear cut halacha that a beis din is deputized to refuse to grant a requested divorce.
“and it would take both of them to rebuild it.”
Agreed.
“This cannot be forced on one of them.”
According to halacha it can be forced on one of them.
“Your attempts but failures to make statements like this gender-neutral”
No such attempt was intended (I try to follow The Economist’s Style Guide’s use of terms such as “he” in a general non-gender specific sense – old fashioned, I know). Hilchos Gittin is *not* gender-neutral. There are large differences in the rights and responsibilities between the genders. We ought to accept this Torah truth even if it causes indigestion to a contemporary 21st century society mind.
“In a marriage, do you think it is only the husband who puts his life into building it?”
No. Both must.
Please accept my apologies if my tone came across stronger than intended.
TLIK: I don’t agree this discussion should be limited to the Beis Medrash. If you could explain why you feel so I’d be happy to reconsider your point. Otherwise I do agree with you that given an individual situation it is possible that the obstinacy of one spouse may make it impossible for the marriage to continue though I don’t necessarily agree that the absolute insistence of one party means the other party should necessarily agree to divorce. And if you posit that the ????? want something other than the stipulation of halacha you’ll need to point to their statement as such rather than postulate. But I don’t think such obstinacy always must necessarily destroy a marriage. But an individual case may necessitate a divorce depending on the various factors if the net result is it isn’t viable to continue. And if so that has to be a factor in giving a divorce.
Did anyone taste the new gefilte fish yet?
With this I think we’ve covered most of what there’s to be said. As much as I stand my ground in my position, I’ll yield the floor to those who wish to have the last word as to give them the opportunity to give me the last shtuch. Maybe we’ll be zoche to another comment on my dismal dating prospects. 😉
DY: “What is your recommendation in such a case regarding “propriety, good behavior, righteousness and Gan Eden”?”
“the issue here is not what the woman should do, and not what beis din should do. It’s what the husband should do.”
All these issues are intertwined and can be discussed together.
“If I had to guess, probably ???? ?????, not ???? ?????.”
So we agree there is no ???? ?????. Where do you find in halacha this scenario attributed to a ???? ?????? The ???? ????? I see halacha citing are situations as ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ???? ?????
“This all may be true at a point where the marriage is salvageable.”
Which is what I am discussing. Why your seeming reluctance to acknowledge a marriage may be salvageable much much more often than modern society treats it or accepts? And very well may be salvageable even where one spouse thinks it is not salvageable. Much like ???? ????? taught us in his ??? *extending* the ability for one spouse to unilaterally salvage the marriage against the will of the other spouse! Placing an arbitrary or even objective timeframe after which one spouse who simply walked out could then wait it out for the timeframe to pass would simply undermine and effectively eliminate halacha’s (and ???? ?????’s) insistence that there is no unilateral right to a divorce; and all the halachas describing what does and what does not justify a divorce would go out the window.
Avrom: It isn’t a Torah value to unwarrantedly break up a family. There is no right-to-divorce or divorce-on-demand in Judaism. As far as the realisticness of the timeframe is concerned, don’t forget that halacha specifically says a divorce can only be done if the husband desires it. This point isn’t just theoretical or something that doesn’t simply mean exactly that. Halacha does not at all say that husband must desire it if it is requested of him (barring the occurrence of abuse.) The Torah explicitly says that a divorce only is done if he wants to do it, meaning if he doesn’t want to do it he has no moral, ethical or legal obligation to change his mind. What if someone gives you a gift and later changes his mind? You have no obligation whatsoever to return the gift to him as much as he wants it back. Secondly, what is or isn’t realistic is in the eyes of the beholder. A court cannot rule on the realisticness of a situation where there is no obligation in the first place. As I said earlier; perhaps objectively it is an unrealistic expectation; perhaps he is being delusional in thinking the her mind will change. Do we fault a person for unreasonably holding out for and davening for a refuah for an ill family member’s recovery when it is “unreasonable” to expect that to happen? Also take into consideration that she is sinning [being a moredes] by having unjustifiably walked out of the marriage. The Torah itself gives him the moral right to hold out when it says it can only be given according to his will. Now what I just related doesn’t jibe well in modern 21st century societal values; but it is our eternal Torah values even if secular society has embraced no-fault divorce.
BTW, a slightly tangential point that Ben Levi raised and DY seemed to agree with, is that if one spouse unreasonably seeks a divorce against the other spouses will, then the spouse wishing to continue the marriage, even if he agrees to terminate it per the insistence of his spouse, has the moral right to hold out for an acceptable custody arrangement for himself before giving it. After all he would like to continue the marriage both spouses committed to and raised children under and there is no obligation on his part to agree to a divorce and normally a parent lives with his children in his home. It is both callous and maleficent to unwillingly force a person out of a marriage he put his life into building and put him into a situation of being divorced when it is unreasonable and all other options have not been exhausted. And it is certainly unfair if not cruel (for both the parent and the children) that a parent and his children should lose daily access and daily interactivity with each other in their upbringing because a spouse capriciously demanded a divorce and the breakup of the family.
fny: I beg to differ. I strongly posit that most divorces were avoidable and in the long term the children suffer from the divorce having occurred rather than the marriage being preserved. The examples to the contrary are the exception not the rule.
Takah: If someone got stuck in the doctors office longer than anticipated and overstayed at the meter, must he feed the meter before driving off for the time he missed paying? Does it matter if he was already ticketed or not? If ticketed, can he plead not guilty (on a technicality or whatever) or must he plead guilty and pay the fine?
So I’m required to rent to a Christian missionary?
If the spouse (either the husband or the wife) is sincerely wanting and offering to continue the existing marriage, he/she is not preventing anyone from being married. And “unhappiness” isn’t a basis for divorce. (Hashem knows how many people regret having gotten divorced and are more unhappy as a result.) Rabbeinu Gershom specifically gave wives the right to decline to divorce if the unhappy husband wants to divorce her. (The husband had the equivalent ability beforehand.) Clearly R”G (and the Torah) say one spouse can insist on making the existing marriage work against the desire of the other and the motive for doing so is not “revenge” and can work.
Ben Levi has my vote.
And, gavra, how will the Gedolim fund the non-paying students, per your insistence? Will it be by raising the tuition on the paying students to cover the non-paying students?
One needn’t have gone through a divorce to know what red flags to look for and one who went through a divorce may not be the best expert in finding red flags.
Indeed more often than not there are no red flags visible in the short period of dating that will point to one’s personal flaws.