Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Just me: After the beis din adjudicates all the divorce issues, including asset separation and custody al pi halacha, it can be legally filed uncontested by both parties accepted based upon the Beis Din’s decision, based on Jewish law. There is no excuse to have it decided based on secular law in contravention with halacha (an extremely severe violation of halacha).
Also, in most cases in fact where this occurs (which is actually a very small number of get cases), there is in fact a legitimate reason for its withholding.
What I found ironic was that at the Chareidi protest against discrimination (where they had folks dressed in concentration camp uniform), they had thousands of protesters. And it was all male. Yet at the Daati protest in RBS a few days earlier against the kanoyim, they only had a few hundred protesters even thought they allowed a mixed crowd. What do you attribute the Chareidim’s ability to bring out far greater numbers?
Rav Elyashev publicly said at his shiur a few years ago that the Israeli Kenesset is considered a house of apikorsus.
Yichusdik: If a woman demands a get in a situation where halacha does not entitle her to demand one, then there is no yashrus or glachness or moral imperative for her husband to give her one.
In which case? Most frum people will stop doing an aveira if told they are sinning.
It’s elementary that a father is responsible for the halachic adherence of his family. Among other things he has a an obligation for chinuch and tochacha.
Truthfully, the obligation of tochacha applies towards any Jew. Many moreso ones own family.
If a guy sees his wife or daughter wearing a skirt above her knee or too tight, for example, he has a halachic obligation to tell them so they stop.
I’m just stating that if hes sees his wife or daughter violate a tznius halacha (or any halacha for that matter), he is obligated to correct them.
There was an uncorraborated media report that he allegedly told an anonymous unidentified individual that it was okay for him to join. But that person was never identified nor was there anything in writing or signed other than a random claim.
Tznius is a halachic issue, and a father knows halacha the foremost in the family, including moreso than the mother. He also bears responsibility that his family complies with halacha.
Imanonov: No, he did not start it.
According to yesterday’s story on the front page of Yeshiva World, Rav Elyashev personally signed a public letter calling for the ban.
You can trust Rav Elyashev. He doesn’t issue a proclamation lightly. When he does he knows what he is dealing with a lot better than any of us.
A man is halachicly obligated to insure his wife and daughters are always tznius.
WM: In public (or even at home if their are guests around.)
Sam: I don’t have the mekoros, but from distant memory I believe if it is a boy it depends if he is nursing or not. While he is nursing age halacha grants custody to the mother. Above nursing age halacha grants custody to the father. Girls may or may not be different.
Non-kosher food is also cheaper than kosher food.
oomis: Sure it is assur to go to the secular courts even if it “involves secular laws”. Besides, halacha tells us who should have custody, halacha tells us how to split the assets, and it is prohibited according to halacha to use non-Jewish laws on these matters instead of basing the decision on how Jewish law/halacha rules on these matters.
Like apushatayid said, a man is halachicly obligated to insure that his wife and daughters never wear non-tznius clothing.
The Israeli Mishpacha newspaper and magazine and the American magazine all share the same ownership and much editorial content.
What he is saying (based on your above summation) is pretty obvious. There isn’t much to comment.
I don’t think the example of her cheating is a good one, since under Jewish law in such a situation he is required to divorce her even if they both would have liked to stay married after that.
Another factor in this discussion is that a woman is not entitled to a get/divorce under Jewish law simply because she demands one. Jewish law stipulates the circumstances when she is or is not entitled to a divorce.
I agree with popa_bar_abba.
A more realistic and common example is the wife uses a non-Jewish court in violation of halacha (halacha generally strictly prohibits the usage of non-Jewish courts) to adjudicate
asset separation
child custody/visitation
child support
alimony
all in accordance with secular law as opposed to Jewish law on the above matters, as is required according to halacha. So, in effect, she insists on utilizing non-Jewish law for almost all the divorce issues (since secular law is far more beneficial to the wife than Jewish law/halacha is) and then immediately turns around and demands Jewish law/halacha be invoked in issuing the get/divorce — right after eschewing Jewish law/halacha when it wasn’t to her favor.
So after stealing his money (halacha asserts he generally owns all post-marital assets while secular law is generally 50/50) and denying him custody/visitation of his children — all in contravention of Jewish law — she then suddenly invokes Jewish law regarding demanding a get? What’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
Translation?
At the very least, the ban serves notice to the target (Mishpacha in this case) that they are off the Jewish beaten track, according to the leaders of Torah Judaism, and they will face consequences as such. It usually will result in the target shaping up somewhat to avoid facing more such denounciations.
You really think the Jordanians would speak to them?
Its obvious the JPost made up that quote.