Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
First Amendment (ostensibly).
A Rolex.
yguy1: That a bunch of baloney. In the real Yeshivos the boys are taght — and they practice — that looks are NOT a priority. In the shvacher yeshivos and shvacher bochorim they may fail on this. As long as you wont throw up looking at her, it depends on her middos etc. And C”V the boys do NOT “check out” (sic) the girls. That is an entirely goyisha term.
Homeowner: Its on the video. The actor playing “Bailiff” administers the oath at the beginning of the show.
Anyways, I’d prefer a real Judge, like Brooklyn Judge Francois A. Rivera, defining the non-existent authorities of this People’s TV Court (as Judge Rivera says “The statements made on the show have no more probative force than the words of an actor reading from a script in a play”) than an anonymous BP homeowner esq.
As far as Milian lying, based on the evidence from the store (that sold the wig) described earlier in this thread, I think the evidence doesn’t look good for the show.
“NYC is the only place I’ve ever heard of where people get run over while they’re standing on the sidewalk.”
Statistically, there is no greater incidents of such accidents in nyc than in other large US cities.
Pashute: The proposed domain suffice you reference would be entirely voluntary. All the sites will keep their .com’s as well. There is no proposal otherwise. Thus the opposition to that suffix.
Those suggesting that if Milian could have been sued if she lied, are sadly wrong. Idris Kabia sued his son, Ahmed Kabia, for $2,000 for alleged failure to return property. The television program “The People’s Court” offered the parties the chance to resolve the dispute before “judge” Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York, who presided over the program. Parties sign an arbitration agreement when they appear on the program. During the program, Koch referred to Idris Kabia as a kidnapper. Kabia then sued Koch for defamation. Koch moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted to Koch. Submission of the case to the television court qualified as arbitration. The parties had agreed to appear on national television. As an arbitrator, under the doctrine of arbitral immunity, Koch was entitled to absolute arbitral immunity for all acts performed; this includes immunity from a defamation action for statements he made about Kabia; even if the claim is slander per se. Further, the arbitration association is similarly immune from liability for the actions of arbitrators who enjoy judicial immunity from civil liability. So Milian could act as idiotic and unfair as she wished to the frum people, without fair of being sued.
If you read the fine print that comes up after the show, they basically agree not to sue each other and in return they both get paid the same. The people get paid for being on the show the same amount. The Judge’s monetary “judgement” is settled by the producers. Details about who pays judgments on “The People’s Court” were made public in the real-life court case of Kabia v. Koch. In Kabia, the court noted that “The People’s Court” requires litigants to sign arbitration papers before appearing on an episode. The documents require “The People’s Court,” not the defendant, to pay any judgment rendered.
I am amused by the comments making out Milian as being some beacon of truth. I am even more amused by the comments judging the frum couple based on their facial reactions on the show. It is also amusing how some comments are judging the frum couple for not making comments on the show strongly reacting to Milian’s decision. They signed an agreement with the show beforehand that they will not react in any negative way or make any negative comments against Milian’s decision. This show is scripted to a very large extent. While all that is amusing, what is not amusing is how some are judging their fellow Jew negatively based on scarce information that television produces found fit to air. Who even knows what the editor chose to “cut” out of the final edit, that presented additional facts supporting the plaintiff’s.
rabbi v,
I looked at you case video and its quite interesting. Nevertheless, you lucked out with an opponent that acted like the biggest imbecile, literally begging her to let you win.
In this case of the shaitel there are so many loose ends the judge didn’t cover. She may be even worse than Judge Linda Reade who railroaded Shalom Rubashkin. We now even have the store confirming it was their wig. What more proof do we need the judge railroaded the frum couple for a couple of extra rating points? That’s what its all about. It was a good show, but bad justice. I’m sure Hollywood liked it. But not Lady Justice.
I won’t go so far as to say Milian is a raging anti-semite. (But I wouldn’t rule it out either.) Nevertheless, her pursuit of theater in a mock courtroom is no substitute for true justice.
It’s hair pulling to see someone seemingly try to dismiss a point by attribution things to it that were not implied.
A husband and wife willingly working on matters through discussion and compromise rather than pulling rank is highly praiseworthy, and nowhere have I said otherwise.
Wolf, please be honest and do not ascribe false imputations to my comments.
The problem is so many of us have been brainwashed by American egalitarianism, that we view life through that false non-Jewish prism, that has no basis in Judaism. This causes to think that such-and-such halacha is “unfair” and we must rethink it in light of contemporary standards.
“True, but it does not say that beyond those specific obligations either spouse’s decision carries any more weight.”
yitayningwut, The obligations halacha specifies for each spouse are rather general and comprehensive. And in situations where halacha gives one spouse more authority, that spouse’s wishes carry more weight.
“I’m asking him if he would actually do so. I didn’t ask about someone else.”
The actions of a godol are more informative than that of an anonymous poster.
yitayningwut, True, yet halacha is specific what obligations a wife has to her husband, and what obligations a husband to his wife. Each are enforceable. And they are different from each other.
Why his point aside? His story demonstrated a godol insisted on just that.
“My point is there’s a big difference between that and forcing her to do something she doesn’t want to do.”
True, yet on the first page of this thread someone cited a S”A and Rambam specifying cases when a wife is forced to do something she doesn’t want to do. So the concept is in halacha.
Doesn’t the Gemorah say that a husband “acquires” a wife?
“No, it’s the Mishnah.
But even so, it’s not a true ownership… and you know that.”
What’s a “true ownership”? What kind of ownership do you believe the Mishna/Gemara is referring to?
The Torah calls a husband a “???” (ba’al). Anyone know the teitch/reason why?
?’ ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?’ ?? ?????
Isn’t “????? ???” brimstone and fire? The term is a Jewish one.
I agree with chesedname. There is good reason ownership splits will often be 51-49 (or even 50.1-49.9). So there is one final arbiter where disagreements arise, despite a near equal ownership stake. And I agree that 50-50 ownership stakes disproportionately result in disputes, whether they land up in court or not.
But all these explanations are really secondary. Like several other posters have pointed out (and quoted meforshim and gedolim) throughout this thread, it is the Torah that defines the roles in marriage. Halacha defines who is in charge. I won’t repeat what others have already pointed out earlier in this thread regarding specifics of who’s in charge.
Snowback – For getting physically too close to the women alone this guy crossed all red lines. Getting close and starting personal conversations with customers is not the behavior of an ehrliche yid.
It isn’t just the OP’s wife. The OP observed it himself – the manager physically getting too close to the women, initiating conversation about family(!) without them asking for assistance, etc.
Like artchill said, if the manager in Shop Rite tried to pull that off, he’d be fired in flash.
Feif Un: The fact that Rav Moshe decided to include it in the Igros Moshe, means it WAS for the general public.
squeak: If a gezeira is from Chazal it remains in effect today even if it is “no longer relevant.”
about ten years ago a particular brand of milk marketed in New England lost its hechsher because it added a non-kosher additive.
Can you elaborate?
If it is possible, and obviously legal, to include a non-kosher additive in American milk, how can anyone rely on the original heter for CS which at the time it was issued was based on the assumption that all American milk must be kosher based solely upon USDA regulations and enforcement.
Someone (married) close to our family had almost the exact same issue described in the OP, with the additional point that the worker “mistakenly” brushed against her. She asked a shaila from her Rov (who is one of the gedolei poskim in ny) and he told her:
a) Call the store’s mashgiach AND the store’s owner and tell them what happened.
b) Do NOT shop there anymore until that person is fired.
(A Rov MUST be consulted prior to whatever you do.)
Exactly. And the posek hador, Rav Moshe, said a Baal Nefesh should not eat CS.
Glad we can agree.
cherrybim: When in doubt, check Rashi.
Rashi on that Gemorah (Pesachim 40a) says a Baal Nefesh means a “chasid” or a “Yirei Shmayim hachared al nafsho.”
A more formal definition of Baal Nefesh…
Rashi in Chullin 6a defines a Baal Nefesh as “a kosher person.”
In Pesachim 40a (where the Gemara says in a particular case of chametz, that for a baal nefesh it is assur) there are two versions of Rashi defining a Baal Nefesh. One is as a “chasid” and the other is as a “Yirei Shmayim hachared al nafsho.”
Rabbeinu Chananel defines a Baal Nefesh as “A person who distances himself from sin and is very careful with himself.”
(In Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah the Ramah in 116:7 says “baal nefesh yachmir” and the Mishne Brura also uses the term “Ba’al Nefesh Yachmir” on occasion, some other instances of Baal Nefesh being referred to in psak.)
Someone who cares about his Neshomo. “Baal Nefesh”
Disregard my say-so and disregard your say-so and we are back to what we know Rav Moshe wrote in the IM. A Baal Nefesh, writes Rav Moshe, should not eat CS. So Rav Moshe does differentiate.
Could be she doesn’t eat tuna not because it isn’t kosher, but rather because her “minhug” (for whatever reason you explained) was to not eat tuna.
On your say-so?
I don’t think Rav Moshe personally drank CS even if CY wasn’t on the table. I heard he allowed family members to, but he was always personally machmir. (I heard he once threw up when he heard he may have inadvertently drunk CS.)
There is a risk of a “patient zero” who singularly is unvaccinated, in any community.
charliehall: Thanks for the correction. Indeed I meant the mumps cases. But it is important to note that the Frum community is well vaccinated, above the national average. I think the statistics demonstrate that the naysayers don’t have much influence within our community.
The Frum community is one of the most well vaccinated communities in the United States.
The recent measles cases in the Orthodox community, were carried by people who were vaccinated.
Why then does Rav Moshe tell a Baal Nefesh to not eat CS?