Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Sam: I was only responding to the narrow abstract point about when Kibud IS applicable whether it can be put aside for Limud Torah purposes.
oyyoyyoy: A girl cannot forgo even a little bit of Kibud Av V’Eim if she feels her ruchniyus will be better if she goes to seminary in Israel. I’m not even sure a boy could do so to go to a better yeshiva, but a boy has a chiyuv in Torah whereas a girl does not, so a case might be able to be made for a boy.
I just watched the clip. The boy looks like he’s 12 years old. I’m not sure why some are darshening his words like a pasuk in Chumash. He easily could have confused Hitler with Goebbels or the quote of ‘kill the Jews like deer of the field’ with ‘until Jewry has been annihilated’.
As far as the boycott, I don’t think anyone doubts that it riled up the Germans. Of course the Nazis were a bunch of filthy murderers who hated the Jews from long before they came into power. But the boycott was a stick in their eye and gave them an impetus and a pathetic excuse to stir the pot against the German Jews now that they were in power and have the levers of government in their hands whereas they may not have been able to be so swift and brutal as they hoped without a pretext. It is never a good idea to poke your enemy in the eye. The boycott (which was publicly announced in front of 55,000 people in MSG and widely reported) and counter-boycott were much longer than a few days. And the German reaction to the boycott was the first overt official anti-semitic action passed in Germany.
After techiyas hameisim will society be like the 21st century or like the earlier times that all those who returned to life came from?
Sam: I specifically said it is irrelevant if my “argument” is winnable in a debate. A neutral observer who is neither Jewish nor Muslim may indeed judge our arguments to be the same and that neither is objectively more valid than the other. But that is completely irrelevant because we have the Emes on our side whether anyone else knows it or not and whether we can prove it or not. We know it is the 100% truth and that’s all that matters on this point.
PAA: If someone is granted smicha they by definition are entitled to call themselves and/or act as a rabbi. So women with smicha are women rabbis. And are entitled to do what men rabbis can do by virtue of their being a rabbi.
Sam: Shouldn’t those changes you speak of allow women today to be judges and witnesses? I would tend to think most women would sooner rather be able to be a witness than to be a rabbi.
They understand wrong. They are following a false religion. They are falsely claiming to be doing G-d’s will. We are correctly claiming to be following G-d’s will. Whether or not we can or can’t prove that is irrelevant. It is the truth.
We did what Hashem told us to and wanted us to do. They, of course, do not. They do the precise opposite, in fact. And if that is the only difference (though there are very many differences in what and how isis does and practices and behaves than what we did unlike your suggesting otherwise) then that reason alone would more than suffice. Even if they claim they are doing G-d’s work they are not, only we are, and we can disregard their claims of doing what G-d wants. Even if we cannot prove all this when arguing with non Orthodox Jews, we know it’s true. And the truth is all that matter whether or not we can defend the position we know is true.
Once you give smicha what’s to stop them from calling themselves and being rabbis any less than a male with smicha is entitled to call himself and be a rabbi? I don’t know what backlash R’ Riskin got on this issue but he certainly got a lot of backlash, to put it nicely, when he called the xtian deity a model rabbi and said we need to resurrect g-d.
I’m speaking in abstract terms since I cannot judge any particular case, obviously. A case where objectively there is bona fide abuse that remains uncorrected would seem to me to constitute halachicly just cause to be able to demand in beis din and be granted a mandatory divorce. Regarding your asking about no objective determination, if abuse is claimed by his spouse and he denies it, I seem to recall that SA specifically says that B”D places a witness in their residence to determine the truth. Perhaps that can be a guide in answering your question.
A husband who is ready and willing to support and treat and live with her as husband and wife and provide her with all his marital duties as he always had, and she walks out without cause, as I’ve stressed we’re discussing, is no igun but rather a moredes. I don’t think I’ve referenced precedent as a reason for anything. Nor have I discussed a case of an emotionally abusive spouse.
DaasYochid: On your point 2 to me, as you told Sam in your following comment, there’s no easy answer.
downandin: Shouldn’t you be able to get a refund from the seller for having purchased a lemon?
benignuman: The verbiage you suggest seemingly leaves the door open to women receiving smicha and becoming rabbis.
PAA: I’m not sure why you’d cite Rav Moshe to try to make your case. Rav Moshe said women cannot don a talis, even though m’ikur hadin they are not prohibited, because the motivation is feminism. If that weren’t the case here with becoming a rabbi/getting smicha, why would they be seeking such a position after thousands of years where it didn’t exist?
Sam:
No, I’m saying he has the right to defend himself (and his children) from being hurt. He doesn’t have to let himself be hurt by her wrongful action. With a divorce he will (likely) no longer be able to live with his children. He will no longer be able to see his children most of the time. That is very harmful to both him and the children. Divorce is traumatic for children. And then, of course, he is also losing all the time and investments he put into building his marriage. By electing not to divorce he isn’t seeking to harm or punish her – indeed he is hoping she’ll agree to return to the marriage – but rather he is making that decision to remain married to protect himself and the children from the harm of her wrongful and frivolous desire to divorce without cause. And he genuinely wants to continue his marriage to her and is ready to so, including fulfilling all his marital obligations to her. [Beis Din even has the right to demand, if they remain married because she demonstrated no valid cause justifying divorce, that she must return and remain with her husband and stop being a moredes.] Why are you giving greater credence to her pain (caused by her own decision) over the pain she is causing him and the children?
All because she thinks she “can do better” in a future marriage since he isn’t the rock star she thought he was when getting married? Or that she prefers the freedom of being single over remaining married? The Torah very clearly says he must WANT to divorce. If he doesn’t want to he doesn’t have to divorce says the Torah (if he didn’t harm her in the marriage). Why does the Torah say the husband has to want to divorce in order to do so? How can you possibly insist on pushing a divorce if he doesn’t want to whereas the Torah states it is only possible if he does want to? I don’t understand why you cite Rabi Akiva. Yes, we pasken like him. But he is very clearly only referring to his rights to divorce; not any obligation he has to divorce (or any rights of hers to be given a divorce).
BTW, how do you account for shema nasna eineha b’acher? Do you agree that is applicable today to deny her desire for a divorce as Chazal and the SA say? Halacha doesn’t give her the prerogative to wait it out for some timeframe to pass and then she can get out – and potentially get together with the one she had her eyes on.
What if someone wanted to “divorce” and end their relationship with their children? Or their parents. The day is not too far off where some judge will find some kind of “Constitutional right” to do so! And, unfortunately like much else, once society gets used to that and accepts it as a right, some of our own chevra will have drunk that kool-aid that such a right exists. And will insist anyone trying to deny a person the right to end his undesirable relationship with his children or parents is violating Veohavta lereiacha komocha and Bein Adam Lchaveiro. And that it is disturbing that anyone could believe one should be denied their desire to divorce themselves from their children. Even for silly reasons.
I see frum people online advocating that their is a right to same gender marriage! Civil rights, minority rights and all the stuff that the media bombards society with. Some frum people have drunk that kool-aid. Would you even dream that a mere 20 years ago you would be hearing frum people supporting same gender “marriage”?!? Not even in a nightmare. Secular society, too, was dead set against such a travesty then. Now that society has accepted those new lack of values have too crept into our own values. 25 years ago if a frum person advocated such a horrible thing they would be sent to a doctor.
edited
haifagirl, so you concede that even when you had the financial resources you typically could not have guests. Now you don’t even have the room for it. And you state, like most people, you enjoy dining in the company of others. The combination of those two points should indicate you would be amenable to the idea of being invited out despite preferring eating at home – in the company of others.
The more fundamental point, though, is your objection to getting unsolicited invitations is unreasonable. How is the potential host to know in advance that you are from the minority that don’t even want an invitation?
Yekke: I would posit, as I believe Yankel does above, that if there is no justifiable cause for divorce (i.e. “being silly” as Sam put it), then it would be Bein Odom Lechaveiro for the spouse seeking a divorce without good reason to agree to remain married rather than the reverse.
Like Yankel pointed out, the spouse invested in his marriage the time, love, energy, a portion of his life and the joint bringing of children to the world. And a divorce is usually traumatic for both the spouses and their children and is a major life change for everyone. It is not only his legal right to insist but it is entirely fair that a spouse desires and seeks for shalom bayis and the continuation of their marriage especially if a divorce is being sought for silly or rectifiable reasons.
Sam: Yankel is correct in that in an existing marriage an individual spouse does not have the unilateral right to terminate the marriage even if he/she no longer wants to be married to his/her spouse for reasons not considered justifiable under Jewish Law. Jewish Law is very clear that a marriage can only be unilaterally terminated for cause.
Why did RG reinforce the prohibition to divorce ba’al korchah? According to your position it should have been okay for either spouse who wanted to divorce to have the right to do so even “if she’s being silly in throwing away the marriage” as you put it.
Yankel: +1
Sam2: The example lebidik yankel gave that you’re taking issue with is a situation where he is not telling her to live a lonely life. He is ready and willing, lebidik yankel said, to return to the marriage with her. It is her choice of not accepting that that is resulting in what you describe. She can always accept him if she were in the wrong and return to her existing marriage.
benignuman: That latter din you are describing would only be applicable if it was the husband’s choice of not living and supporting his wife. If he was ready and willing to live and support her but she chose not to accept that, we are not koifeh.
oomis, when a father refuses to pay for his child’s wedding it is wrong. But it must also be noted that unfortunate situation usually is a result of when a mother actively worked to disenfranchise the children from their father.
Good point, Gamanit. A Cohen should be most reluctant to divorce as not only can he not remarry his wife but he may have a very difficult time remarrying altogether as he will be a divorcee seeking to marry a never married girl. And there are not too many never married girls who will agree to marry a divorced man. So a Cohen needs to be doubly reluctant to give a Get.
Bais Din is limited in its ability to order a Get be given if the husband advises the Bais Din he wishes to remain married to his wife. In order for the b’d to demand a Get against his wishes, it needs to determine and verify a specific situation occurred that halacha expressly gives her the right to a Get against his desire. As a practical matter it is infrequent that beis din will order it be given against wishes.
What about a TV?
Why would a divorcee need help paying for a child’s wedding anymore than a married couple? Whether a chossen/kallah’s parents are married or divorced, in either case there are B”H still two parents to make the wedding.
About taking the boys to shul, cannot the child’s divorced father do that?
When did this change you speak of occur? After the establishment of the bais yaakov system? If not the kasha on you still remains as to why this change was not implemented earlier in history or certainly at the latest when the BY was established.
Are you referring to R’ Yoel the Divrei Yoel? He strongly writes girls today shouldn’t even learn Rashi as it is ???? ???? ??.
1. Is there absolute evidence that there are materially more unmarried women (excluding widows) in the frum community than unmarried men?
2. Is the thought that the age gap is the primary cause of a shidduch crisis incontrovertible?
Those three points don’t address the question you quoted. Was something different until now?
PAA: You’re basically saying that the concept of nishtaneh hateva proves that any metzius Chazal used to codify a halacha can have changed since their time, thus nullifying the halacha by simply engaging in a debate whether the metzius used changed? Where do you draw the line?
And how do you even determine what metzius Chazal used to codify a halacha and whether they in fact based it on a metzius or rather only used a metzius to explain a halacha that is in reality binding irregardless of the metzius which was only given as an explanation for a set halacha [i.e. isn’t given as a basis (causatively) but as a ta’am]? We don’t pasken based on ta’amei hamitzvos.
“That way, at least in 20 years from now the endless bleating about the age gap will stop and you all will be forced to actually think about the real problems with the shidduch system”
What, in your opinion, are “the real problems with the shidduch system”?
Why not pioneer one? If their missing an area it is likely due to not having a willing candidate as they strive to cover as many geographic locations as possible. If you volunteer to be the shliach I’m sure they’ll give you serious consideration.
TBONTB: Do you remember seeing the Google Car with the big camera on top passing your home?
please do not ask for specific identifying information
“It’s not as if all boys get married as soon as they want to.”
It’s a crisis if the boys get married a bit later? Many girls aren’t getting married altogether; I get that. But the boys are getting married either a bit earlier or a bit later.
Obviously both parties to the b’d case accepted the b’d’s jurisdiction prior to its hearing the case and rendering a decision. Now that one side lost and is acting like a sore loser and challenging the b’d’s decision in non-Jewish court (which is a violation of halacha), is simply sour grapes. If there were any objections to the impartiality of the b’d they should have raised it prior to the b’d case – not after they lost it.
My point is to question the value of your idea. What is to stop anyone from issuing the type of certificate you suggest to anyone else they fancy, qualified or not, based on whatever criteria or lack thereof they self-establish?
Would you object if I gave a certificate which says “(insert name) has demonstrated a proficient understanding of the laws of (insert category e.g. shabbos, niddah etc.)” to a bunch of my friends and family?
If the age gap is the true cause of the shidduch “catastrophe” as Rechnitz and others say, it means that the boys have no crisis at all and are generally all getting married while the catastrophe is essentially on the girls side.
Which also means more shadchanim including professionals as well as personal initiatives by private non-professionals such as by most of us here, will essentially not help the catastrophe as the boys are getting married while the girls who aren’t is because there aren’t boys left for them to marry.
And it means that any other suggestion, more singles get-togethers, more realistic mothers and/or boys, less narishkeit, etc. will not do much good either.
That’s no joke!
Look for a heart of gold rather than hard gold.
CA: The Yazidis are not Muslims. They’re an offshoot of Zoroastrians, the religion the gemora talks about.