Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Love comes after marriage. But that is besides the point. This secular idea from the goyim of “falling in love” as popularly used, is far far from something a Yid does.
The one I quoted was Hagoan HaRav Miller ztvk”l. But at the Torah Tapes library, you can get quotes from any number of Gedolim.
This is a verbatim quote from one of the Gedolei Yisroel. Audio available at a Torah Tapes library near you:
“No question, anybody who has a TV in his house should know beforehand that his life is wasted. He has no chelek L’Olam Haboa. No question at all about it.”
I see that the current western attitude was already adopted by us.
RuffRuff, Is the western attitude to blame the men instead of women for wanton behavior?
I always give the drive a bottle of shnaps.
Rav Moshe Feinstein in a letter to the governor of New York wrote explaining that the strict requirements of Torah law limiting executions only applied historically in the limited case of a well ordered society. But there is a legitimate use of capital punishment to defend society – even where the Torah law is not fulfilled. A secular society has the right to protect itself.
Effectively, Reb Moshe is telling the governor that it is appropriate to use capital punishment in the United States even in cases that don’t meet the strict legal halachic requirements:
As a consequence of these two factors there were almost no Jewish murderers because of the awareness of the severity of the prohibition of murder and because they were educated by means of the Torah and the punishments of the Torah to understand the seriousness of the crime. They were not simply afraid of punishment in the sense of getting caught but were afraid of the crime itself.
People who don’t refer to people over 25 as older singles.
Men can have more than one bashert, since they can al pi Torah (and according to non-Ashkenazic minhugim) have more than one wife.
The Yeshiva k’tana and Mesivta is excellent. The Bais Medrash and Kollel is very shtark.
mw13: Good points.
You don’t buy a spouse like you buy a house.
Your future wife is a human being. Your house you can sell.
HaLeiVi:
Do you volunteer to program all that functionality into the forum software? It will be quite a feat to complete.
Also, it is easily abusable, as anyone can create a 2nd and 3rd username and knock off comments that way.
WIY: popa was making a greater point, just using you and Sac as guinea pigs in his verbal non-literal experiment.
Put aside for a moment the issue of whether Ms. Milian even had a right to seek the personal and private information from the retailer. Why would Georgi actually give such personal purchase information to a caller — right in middle of the “court” proceedings while in recess — who claims over the phone to be a “judge” needing their customers private information.
Georgi is a private heimisha shaitel company in Boro Park, Brooklyn. Do you think they would give out customer purchase history to a phone call (coming in out of the blue in middle of a few minutes recessed TV “trial”) because the caller claims she is a judge????
If Milian had claimed she contacted Georgi on a date prior to the “court” session — rather than smack in middle of it during a 10 minute court break — and provided Georgi’s signed statements from the customer authorizing the retailer to provide personal purchase history of the customer, it might have been slightly more plausible. (But even then, why should Georgi waste their time with a TV show? Warner Brother Television producers don’t have subpoena powers forcing Georgi to supply any information. Additionally, the frum couple [Mendi and Hindi] expressed disbelief that the retailer was contacted, as they were interviewed after the show, making it likely they never agreed to that.)
But in fact Milian claimed to have made the call — and gotten that information — right in middle of the court session, not beforehand. And if there was communication between Ms. Milian and Georgi before the date of the “court” case, Ms. Milian could have gotten all the information she needed from Georgi’s as well before the date of the court case — and have had all the information prior to the start of the case. Instead she played dumb for the first 15 minutes of the case, and then all of a sudden went to make a phone call, and then supposedly came back with this “new bombshell information” that she never had before.
She actually said on the program “let me adjourn this case so the plaintiff can bring in more info at a later date…” and then she suddenly changed her mind and said “never mind, I have a better idea, I’m going into chambers for a few minutes”, and then she came back from “chambers” after the little intermission claiming her sudden, bright, unplanned idea that suddenly occurred to her was to call Georgi’s.
anon for this: As I pointed out, it is not likely, as the couple at the end indicated they did not expect her to have actually called, and were quite surprised (and disbelieving) at her claim to have called. Furthermore, Georgi would have no reason to answer Milian’s questions when she claimed to have made a quick phone call during the “court recess”. How would Georgi’s have known any authorization existed — even IF it did exist — based on a phone call? (And even if it existed, why would Georgi’s care to participate – they have no interest to antagonize a customer — who again was surprised at the alleged call.)
Why doesn’t someone call Georgi’s and ask them directly? They’re a local heimishe shaitel company. I doubt they would have done anything to jeopardize their customer relationship — especially with assisting in a breach of privacy.
It airs, because it gets ratings. Ratings are the only reason this show exists. No good ratings, and the show disappears faster than you can say goodbye.
She is indeed a former judge. But her paycheck today is to get ratings. No more ratings, no more paycheck from the syndicated television production company she is employed by. Even if she would have actually “judged” 100% fairly and accurately.
Mrs. Milian (the fake judge) said Georgi’s told her they don’t know who the manufacturer of that wig is, based on the tags she read them on the phone, so obviously it wasn’t clear who the manufacturer was from the labels. So she then speculated saying “I don’t know if you got this wig from Revlon for a couple of bucks or you got this somewhere else.” So based on that, Mrs. Milian then reached her 2-bit conclusion that a) you didn’t buy it from Georgi’s, b) you didn’t buy it in May, and c) it didn’t cost you the $3000 this receipt from May is for.
And for Georgi’s to inform a third party that “Yes, Mendi and Heidi are our customers and purchased a long wig costing $3,000 in May” would be an extremely serious breach of a customers confidentiality. Don’t try to whitewash that. This play-judge smells to high-heavens in her tv-justice ratings games. My strong guess is she never called Georgi’s, not that Georgi’s would cooperate with some dooface calling them and the merchant giving a tv show personal shopping information on their customer.
mosheemes2: You are very mistaken.
A) The so-called judge admitted she had no clue what brand it was or how much it was worth. She just threw out some _possible_ examples of how little it _might_ be worth, *for all she knew*.
B) Her business is to make ratings, not truth or justice. That is what the TV producers pay her for. That she was once upon a time a real judge (now retired), is not what she is now being paid for by her television employer.
C) Every “contestant” on the show must first sign a “I will never sue the producers or play judge” in order to get on the show. Additionally, no one (“plaintiff” or “defendant”) actually lost any money, since the TV producers are paying them more than what they actually are seeking or being sued for.
The lady acting on the TV show as a so-called “judge” claimed she called Georgie’s and they confirmed to her that
1) the plaintiff did in fact purchase a wig in May from them and
2) that Georgie’s told her the wig the customer purchased had long hair and
3) she read the Georgie’s employee the ruined wig’s tags and was told that wasn’t a wig Georgie’s sells.
Clearly from the plaintiff’s comments at the end of the show that Georgie’s was in France and thus it wasn’t possible for the judge to call her, we see the plaintiff didn’t expect that Georgie’s would be contacted. Therefore there is no reason to even assume that they provided authorization to Georgie’s to provide their personal customer or purchase information to the TV show. (And the TV show is NOT a real court of law, that they are playing, with subpoena powers.)
So 1) & 2) above would be a violation of the customers privacy rights for a merchant to provide personal and private shopping habits or purchase history of a private customer’s information to a TV show.
2) long hair, is irrelevant, since the washing machine that destroyed it could have shrunk the leghnth of the hair. (It was a laundromat not a dry cleaners.)
3) Georgie was out of the country. So the Georgie’s employee that answers the telephone will know every tag on every wig they’ve sold? Extremely unlikely. Nor is it likely she would go looking them up for some fool who calls them saying, hi I’m “Judge Judy” (or whatever her name was) playing cops and robbers, eh judge and jury, for my TV show that needs good ratings. Can you please waste your time looking up labels and then waste some more time giving me private customer information from your heimisha store’s customers? Pretty please? With a cherry on the top?
And even if just any one of the above points is a correct analysis, the entire basis of the so-called “judge’s” decision falls.
Bottom line? Likely the actress playing judge never even spoke to anyone at Georgie’s. But, hey, it made for good ratings, and ratings is what this “show” is all about, not truth and not justice.
The whole “judge” show and play acting was a farce.
They pay both parties a fee to appear. In addition to that, they pay the cost of the judgement to the defendant, if he loses, or to the plaintiff what he sought, if he loses.
And both parties have to agree to not be disrespectful to the judge, even if she acts like an idiot.
As far as divorcing one’s wife because she burned the food goes, we pasken that it does not apply to zivug rishon.
Which further demonstrates, there are specific halachas when a person (husband or wife – each their own set of laws) MAY or MAY NOT divorce (or demand one).
Because being in yeshiva full time is nowhere near as hard as working full time and / or going to college.
Yeshiva and learning Torah is harder than working. If there is anyone who shouldn’t be complaining, it is those who are in college or working. The Yeshiva guys should be handed a silver platter for the Avodas HaKodesh they sweat for.
The chillul hashem was going the show. Whatever occurred or whatever was decided did not make the situation better.
I firmly believe anyone who agrees to adjudicate an issue in such a matter is mechallel shem shomayim. And it would be even worse if it were between two yiddin.
I not sure if I can say it is brabim, because that would assume on TV is considered a rabim of shomrei Torah.
Well said Jose. I agree 100%.
Wolf: Or a Merry Chanukah.
And what about some (repeat: some) evil ex-wives who indoctrinate father-hatred in their children, keep their children as much away from their loving caring father as possible, use goyish courts in violation of halachic rules on monetary ownership to squeeze and steal every possible penny from her ex-husband in the form of alimony and child support?
cantoresq: You can say “ostensibly” again.
Sacrilege: Torah is stronger than your perception of “reality”. (It might make good entertainment, though, on a “reality show”!)
What a joke. TV justice indeed. Good for entertainment value, nothing else.
hss: Both Shulchan Aruch and Rambam say women shouldn’t be out of the house too much. Is Shulchan Aruch too radical, like those other “rabbonim” you are complaining of?
backinaction: More like a quarter century. You don’t like saying Tehilim? Hmm. You must be about a tenth of a century old…
SJS: Perhaps he trouble staying moral while single, and he was lashing out.
Sacrilege: Its called “Torah”.
What Kool-Aid are you drinking?
Thank G-d for the Shidduch System, which works beautifully 95% of the time, otherwise there would be pritzus galore.
does anyone have any ideas of what my friends and I can do on these long motzei shabbasim that is tznius and fun? we are always so bored.
Make a Tehilim group and say Tehilim.
mdd: Depending on the circumstances of an individual case, of course.
I could write a program using AI that matches up singles in the database.
At least it isn’t loshon hora, if its only the wall listening to you.
There are different madreiga’s obviously. But according to Chazal, 19 is the first step in that door.
The Mishna says Shemone Esre L’Chuppa. Once you start moving away from that, you start entering Older Single territory.
HeLeivi: How do you know he is going up first?