Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Who cares “why” conservative or reform or feminist apikorsum did this or that?
Being the Mashgiach, and setting the hashkofic direction of the home, is the role of the husband.
You’re right. She needs to be put in her place.
Never assume anything.
Exactly. Which is why I always strongly recommend she bring mace. I mean, she never met the guy before. Who knows??
Paladino will be on the front-page of ALL the papers tommorow, covering Paladino’s visit to Rabbonim in Williamsburg at the hall of HaRav Yechezkel Roth shlita’s Beis Kenesses.
Paladino denounced the “dysfunctional homosexual” lifestyle in a speech at the shul. The liberals are all up in arms against Paladino. The media is all over this.
mamashtakah, it isn’t a felony. This is a civil matter, not criminal. The corporations basically just fire the guy and leave it at that. This is a common issue, and I’ve never seen it go further than firing.
Forget driving. The larger tznius issue is just getting into/out of a car/van.
Can they be more of a road menace than they are after marriage??
Thanks in advance.
(ok, it was a non-emergency call, but he took it to the max, and I loved every minute of it!)
That’s the problem. The abuse of lights and sirens. Like when in a traffic backup, to use them to pass traffic. Or go through a red light you just missed. All without any emergency.
Or to park illegally when not taking calls.
(I’ll chime in with my preference later)
Has the time yet arrived? 🙂
he was TOTALLY responsible
Really? Why then was woman punished with the pains of childbirth and subjection to her husband?
Where did you pickup such chutzpa? (Not to mention spuriousness.)
pascha – there is no need to speculate. The GRA stated why he strongly supported reinstating plural marriage. It will, he said, bring the G’ulah closer. The only other thing he said would help as well, is reinstating saying Bircas Cohanim everyday. That has already been reinstated by his talmidim, after they moved to Eretz Yisroel.
There are many more than that. What point is it listing random names of those you do not know.
a brilliant extremely qualified woman
The Witch possessed none of those attributes.
Some people are more altruistic than others. No one here suggested this idea is for everyone.
No ones giving up, just sharing. Like so many of our forefathers. Do you limit yourself to one child, so that your second, third or fourth child doesn’t steal his/her parent from the first child? We see if done correctly, this has and can be done. Sarah even suggested to Avrohom to take a second wife.
popa_bar_aba, et al. Continue the discussion on the purposes of marriage in the newly organized thread for that purpose:
And lets keep this thread on topic.
I’ve responded there regarding the purposes of marriage.
popa_bar_abba
Member
BP totty: Do people really get married mainly to have kids? Don’t they get married to help themselves?
mw13: Do people get married in order to be a supportive spouse? Don’t more people get married to gain a supportive spouse? Do older singles “miss” the opportunity to be a supportive spouse
Yes, people really get married to have kids. It’s the fulfillment of the mitzvah d’oraysa of pru u’rvu, the primary function of marriage.
Yes, people get married in order to be a supportive spouse. Another mitzvah. And yes, one who never marries does “miss” that wonderful opportunity.
Carl Paladino, hands down.
Why? Cause I’m a Torah Jew, and that rules out baby killer toeiva-supporting Andy.
haifagirl indicated she would, on an older thread.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 99a) explains Bamidbar 15:31 “Ki Davar Hashem Bazah” – “because the word of Hashem he mocked … he deserves Kares” as “this is one who could learn Torah and does not learn”.
The Rambam (Hilchos Talmud Torah 3:13) brings this: “And also he who could learn Torah and does not because of laziness is included in mocking the word of Hashem.
In Shulchan Aruch 246:25: Anyone who could learn Torah and does not, or learned and left to Havlei Olam is included in he who mocks the word of Hashem. The Rema adds that it is forbidden to speak idle talk (Yoma 19b v’Debarta Bam – speak in Torah and not idle talk). The Mishnah Berurah 155:4 writes that Talmud Torah has no limit and its obligation is all day whenever there is open time, as it says “the Torah should not be forsaken from your mouth” (Yehoshua 1:8).
The Yerushalmi adds: He who sets time for Torah and only learns at set times is breaking the Bris.
In Shulchan Aruch 2:4 we find the Halachah that one who forgets one thing from the Torah … because of not properly reviewing transgresses the Torah commandment of Devarim 4:9 which refers to forgetting Ma’amad Har Sinai and includes forgetting any part of Torah.
In Menachos 99b Ben Dama asks R’Yishmael: I, who learned the entire Torah, can I learn Greek wisdom? He answered that the Pasuk says, “The Torah should not depart from your mouth and learn it day and night” – if you find time which is not day or night only then can you learn Greek wisdom.
In Binyan Olam chapters 6 and 13 Bitul Torah is discussed at length. There is also qualitative Bitul Torah. Learning without full effort, concentration and comprehension is Bitul Torah (Shulchan Aruch ha’Rav, Talmud Torah 2:4).
Talking about the GRA, it was he who strongly wanted plural marriage reinstated.
What Kapitel Tehilim are we up to?
Yasher Koach
mdd, the Divrei Chaim didn’t rule on the Rebi specifically. He simply said that to deny that the Ohr HaChaim was written with Ruach Hakodesh, would be apikorsus. (Ruach HaKodesh does not by definition mean that everything someone says is right. It means that they get a certain level of siyata d’shmaya.)
kapusta, in your example, since the metzius is that he did not eat non-kosher, he simply avoided getting an aveira of eating treif. (Same with oomis’ example of the eiruv. He avoided getting the aveira of being mechalel Shabbos.) If he had gone to a treif restaurant, he would have then gotten an aveira of eating treif.
oomis – you’re rejection of the Gemorah (stating excessive cosmetics caused the destruction of the Bais Hamikdash) has crossed the line into apikorsus.
pascha, you’re pasul l’eidus even if not an apikores… 😉
Doctor Pepper: Are you a coin collector by any chance?
“But to say the Beis Hamikdash was DESTROYED and we went into exile for that – well, I cannot accept that.”
oomis, you are treading on very thin ice going against the Gemorah.
BTW, dresing with proper tznius IS a matter of mentchlichkeit and bein adom l’chaveiro. Think about that.
The only prenup necessary is the Kesuba.
The Torah allows it. Indeed, our Avos (amongst others in Klal Yisroel) practiced it.
Halacha (i.e. Shulchan Aruch) supports it. For Ashkenazim there is a cherem that the author himself chose to put an expiration date on. And even the chrem didn’t apply to all of Klal Yisroel.
Other than Ashkenazim, Klal Yisroel practiced it even in recent times.
And for the second time, some Gedolim do support reinstating it, as indicated.
Okay, I dug up some old posts that I was referring to where she indicated she supports it (there might be others too):
Read haifagirl’s other posts before and after in those two threads for context.
As far as the Gedolim’s support for this, see the comments above regarding the Vilna Gaon and Rav Ovadia Yosef.
Are you referring to Avrohom Avinu? Yaakov Avinu?
Leah Imeinu, and the other Imahos, had no qualms. In fact, Sarah Imeinu is the one who suggested to Avrohom Avinu to take a second wife!
BTW, I recall reading a post by “haifagirl” in the Coffee Room here, that she wouldn’t mind marrying someone who already had a wife.
If there’s a will, there’s a way…
For the dependent section, since there is no civil marriage involved, they would be required to file individual returns, so each wife would list her children as dependents. If she’s working, as SJSinNYC suggested, it would work out. Plus they would avoid the “marriage penalty” of Married Filing Joint.
The problem is even seeing the mixed dancing or improperly clad women.
Ofcourse, they could more easily marry an already married 20-something or 30-something year old. Surely better than becoming an old maid unable to marry anyone due to the age gap.
It would certainly resolve the shidduch/age gap crisis in a spiffy.
So are you maintaining it is inherently wrong to consider the fact that someone is a BT or Ger when considering a shidduch?
If so, is it more wrong to consider that, than to consider the potential shidduch’s ethnic background, hair color, weight, city of residence, or beauty?
Why is it more wrong for a FFB to not consider a shidduch with a BT, than for an Ashkenaz to not consider a shidduch with a Bukharian Jew?
And what about a Black Ger. Would you go out on a date, and consider for marriage (for yourself or your child), a Black Ger (who is full of midos tovos, Torah, etc.)?
Blaming “askanim” as an underhanded attack upon Daas Torah, even in generic form, is no less ignoble.
Broker – and how exactly was the women’s dancing made non-viewable to the men?
Is there any rationalization for the many non-married men who don’t sleep in the Succa?
I think a reasonable reading of theprof1’s comment makes it obvious he means some or many rather than “all” (as in every last one) — which would not only be an unreasonable assertion – it would be unreasonable to read such an unreasonable thought into the comment.
mamashtakah, your quote from oomis1105’s post, reflects her personal experience with her non-frum in-laws. I would venture to say her experience is more typical than yours.
Of course it was. It was for the enumerated reasons, not the author. And, again, note the litany of others who said along the same lines.
mom12: Excellent point.
Question for the BT’s who are upset with FFB’s who don’t consider BT’s for shidduchim:
Would you consider a shidduch with a Ger (convert) just as quickly as you would with a non-convert?
No one said that. See the 4 enumerated reasons from Teshuvos Divrei Yoel for the reasons of that determination.
Also note what the Chofetz Chaim, Rav Yedid ZT”L, Rav Berel Soloveichik ZT”L, the Chazon Ish, and Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld ZT”L (all quoted earlier in the thread) amongst others said. There were those who held that his beliefs made Rav Kook a plain Apikores and it is forbidden to listen to his Torahs altogether; others held that his non-Hashkafic Torahs are OK to use but his Hashkafic opinions are rejected; the Mizrachi held from him completely.
Regarding Rav Kook specifically, I have heard that the Chazon Ish ZT”L used to censor his Seforim by taping or marking over the anti-Torah writings in them. Of course, the Chazon Ish was more able to know what is undesirable and what is not, than the average student.
If someone was the biggest Apikores and enemy of Hashem, as long as he would “work the land” of Israel, Rav Kook considered him holy. The soccer players, mechalelei shabbos b’farhesia, were to Rav Kook, “holy”. He did not mean “Tzelem Elokim” holy, but rather, because they assisted the Zionist cause they were “holy”, regardless of their status according to the Torah.
Rav Berel Soloveichik ZT”L, son of the Brisker Rav ZT”L, used to relate to his students the Chofetz Chaim’s response when he heard of Rav Kook’s position on the Cholni soccer players.
“Kook shmook!”, the Chofetz Chaim said, dismissing both the man and the position.
The story about the Chofetz Chaim – the paragon of Shemiras Halashon himself – is easily confirmed. The person who it happened with was named Rabbi Avrohom Moshe Gorelick, father of Rav Yeruchem Gorelick ZTL, who was a talmid of the Chofetz Chaim and a Rosh Yeshiva at Yeshiva University. Rav Gorelick said the story over numerous times, as did Rav Berel Soloveichik ZTL, Rosh Yeshiva of Brisk.
Rav Yosef Chaim Zonenfeld ZTL said that he was like a person who is drunk – saying irrational, nonsensical things – and in his case, he is drunk on Ahavas Yisroel. Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld’s description of him as a “Purim Rav the whole year”. Rav Kook was considered a lone, sad case of greatness gone irrational.
A more hard-line position is found in the Teshuvos Divrei Yoel by the Satmar Rav ZT”L (CM 131), where he rules outright that it is forbidden according to Halachah to follow any Halachic rulings of Rav Kook, in any area of Torah. His reasoning is based mainly on the following sources:
1) Birkei Yosef 243:3 – It is forbidden to learn Torah or listen to psakim of any Talmid Chacham that causes a Chilul Hashem.
2) Responsa Bais Shlomo YD II:101 – Any rabbi who misleads the public into sinning is forbidden to be a rabbi, and if he is a rabbi must be removed.
3) Chasam Sofer CM 163 – Any Min (i.e. Apikores), it is forbidden to hear any Torah from him.
4) The Gemora (Shabbos 116a) says that a Sefer Torah that is written by a Min must be burnt, even if the Sefer Torah is 100% proper with nothing changed in it. The reason, says the Rambam, is because we do not want and remnants of the acts of Apikorsim.
So since the Satmar Rav held that Rav Kook was an Apikores, and certainly that he mislead the masses with his Zionist teachings, he is in the category of all of the above.
Agreed Sacrilege. The ironic part is those placing an emphasis on external beauty tend to end up with someone lacking internal beauty. “Misery finds company”, as they say.
Those not placing an emphasis on external beauty tend to end up with someone with internal (the ikkur) and external beauty.
The larger problem is with these vain boys seeking external “beauty” above all else.