Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Reb Eliezer, did you see my question to you?
“That may be true, but the prosecution has argued that the police have a responsibility to do all they can to keep a person in their custody healthy, especially if he’s restrained, i.e. in handcuffs.”
Even if an officer failed to keep a prisoner healthy, that failure isn’t legally murder.
Agree with what?
Georgia did the right thing.
CA: Can you summarize Rabbi Feiner’s thoughts on this?
George Floyd was not choked to death. He was not asphyxiated. He was not killed by Chauvin’s knee on the side of his neck. An autopsy showed Floyd’s neck muscles were not even bruised.
Floyd died when his heart stopped. Yet, he was already suffering from an enlarged heart with constricted arteries, one of five of which was 90% blocked and two others were 75% blocked.
An autopsy found heavy concentrations of fentanyl in Floyd’s system and traces of methamphetamines. If Floyd had collapsed and died in the street while being wrested into the squad car, his death would have been attributed to a drug overdose and a bad heart.
Also, a videotape of the minutes prior to Floyd’s being put on the pavement, his neck under Chauvin’s knee, shows Floyd crying, repeatedly, “I can’t breathe,” while resisting the two rookie cops trying to put him in the patrol car.
Moreover, there is testimony from those with Floyd when he was stopped for passing an allegedly phony $20 bill, that he had passed out in the car before the cops arrived. And the arresting cops claim he was foaming at the mouth before being restrained.
In short, Chauvin’s defense attorneys will likely make a credible case, backed by evidence, that Floyd’s death was not caused by the knee on his neck but by the battered condition of his heart, the near-lethal dose of fentanyl in his system, and his anxiety and panic at being arrested and fearing, as he wailed, that he was going to be shot.
In preparing for the trial of Chauvin, Minneapolis has fortified, with concrete barriers, fences and razor wire, the courthouse where it is held in. Understandably, for any acquittal of Chauvin, or conviction on a lesser charge than murder, could trigger a riot like those that plagued the city through the summer of 2020.
And if a mob does take to the streets in Minneapolis, as it did all last summer, the national reaction will be telling. How does one accurately describe a crowd that gathers outside a courthouse to demand, on the threat of a riot, a verdict of guilty?
And should a riot occur — and violent protests in Louisville, Seattle and Portland recently seem to point to another such long hot summer — may we expect our new national leaders (Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer) to denounce the mob and stand up unequivocally for the rule of law?
besalel: Are you suggesting that a “Beaver Hit” is the right choice?
lot11210: It is commonly known and long recognized that the Teimani pronunciation is closest to the original.
Between the Ashkenazic and Sefardic pronunciations there are claims one is better than the other. But even though Ashkenazim came from Eretz Yisroel while Sefardim came from Bovel, it is unknown between those two which is slightly closer to the original.
What did those hundreds of families who went to Orlando and found out at the last minute that they had no place to stay end up doing?
There are millions of aliens in the US. Including, approximately, eleven million illegal aliens.
Reb Eliezer, how have some tzadikim (in recent times) davened Shachris after Chatzos (or Mincha after tzeis), sometimes even with a minyan (Ribnitz Rebbe ZT”L, etc.)
For the same reason there’s a difference in pronunciation between Yidden from Lita vs Galicia vs Hungary vs Germany vs Italy vs Syria vs Yemen vs Morocco.
Or the differences in the (so-called) “Chasidish havara” vs the Litvish havara vs the Sefardic havara vs the Teimani havara (which is actually closest to what we used at Har Sinai.)
It is a Minhag Yisroel to eat at home during Pesach.
If you didn’t know what label is under the hat, virtually no one in the street could tell the difference between one black fedora and another.
Jews were a majority of the residents in jerusalem since the 1700s or 1800s as a result of the Chasidim and Litvish who moved there from Europe.
meirs: How long after zman tefila is it still okay to daven?
Oftentimes some of the official stories published on the site are chock full of l”h, r and ms”r. That’s even before any comments.
“If you owe me money can I harass your family until you pay me back?”
Pashut08701: Excellent point. And not only harass the family, but outright publicly mevayish (embarrass) the innocent family members. Can you publicly humiliate family members of someone who r’l beat someone, burnt down someone’s house or even killed someone? Of course not. No Beis Din anywhere ever gave permission to disgrace any family member of someone who has wronged someone else.
Yechi Hamelech: Your republishing those comments here makes it worse, by spreading it to even more people who otherwise wouldn’t have seen it.
Nechama: What price is the breaking point?
Down for renovations.
She’s not mechuyiv.
Are you feeling better?
dass1: He nevertheless bears responsibility for the travesty because he opened the can of worms by allowing anything in the first place without specifying any limits.
hml: Doing that runs a serious risk of causing them to hit age 37 being single.
How do they taste differently?
You are absolutely correct in that embarrassing family members is completely prohibited. There is no heter in Halacha to do so. And if asked, these unschooled thoughtless organizers and protesters never halachicly justify what they’re doing to third-party family members because they have no explanation or even understanding.
If you look at any of these cases there’s virtually never any siruv against the family members.
And that’s all putting aside whether they’re even correct about the husband himself, altogether.
Wolf, do you speak to your daughters and wife with “Thank you, ma’am”, in similar circumstances?
Germans are notorious for insisting on use of their titles (including non-medical doctorates.)
AAQ: You’re assuming that if the sister of the Kallah comes to the wedding next week, it is a serious health risk.
What’s so terrible about not going to your future son in law’s aufruf?
I believe it is incumbent for posters to henceforth always refer to the OP as “Der Tzadik Reb Volf”. (Wolf doesn’t do him justice.)
“Last Tishrei, I began saying one perek of tehillim a day.”
Hah! I knew you’re not that biggest baddest worstest horriblest terriblest rasha ever!
“After all, if we’re not supposed to say it in davening, then perhaps it’s better to skip it altogether and not say it on that day.”
Some people say the entire Tehilim every day. Including on Yom Tov. So, clearly, it is appropriate to say.
In America every man is a Sir.
BE: What is “dayelet”? There’s absolutely no mention of that in the Sefer. And what’s your point about Rav Henkin and Rav Schorr?
You cannot drop the Minhagim of your father. If the in-laws cannot accommodate non-gebrochts, the simplest solution is for the son-in-law and his family to not eat by the in-laws for the first seven days of Pesach. They can come on Achron Shel Pesach, when gebrochts can be eaten.
AAQ: Even by Shidduchim there are halachos that prohibit sharing certain information under certain circumstances (i.e. if the person you share it with might share that sensitive information unnecessarily with other third-parties who are unentitled to know that information.)
FW: Halachicly it is prohibited to read books of kefira. Halacha also requires that we not share loshon hora (even though it is true information), motzi shem ra or rechilas and moderators are required to refuse to publish such comments.
Halacha requires that we censor what may be read, requires that we censor what books are or aren’t permitted (i.e. books of kefira) to read and requires that we censor what information (even if true) that we may share with others.
“Censorship” is a proper Jewish/Torah value. We all ought to practice it on a personal level. And any publication that adheres to Jewish Law is required to practice censorship.
The idea that censorship is bad is a purely Western/gentile value.
“Even if no beis din has so required?”
I don’t think he has any leg to stand on to say otherwise. Technically he’s within his (legal and moral) right to dispute in Beis Din his having to give it. But since he remarried and abandoned his first marriage I think it’s obvious Beis Din will require he give it. (Although, depending on the circumstances, it’s possible they’ll delay its giving until all other outstanding unresolved marital disputes are first settled.) So he legally is within his rights to first have a trial to determine his obligation to give it. But based on the circumstances described (essentially of him refusing to perform his marital obligations to his wife) I think any Beis Din will rule he must give it.
ubiquitin: If he has remarried that would almost surely indicate that the (first) marriage is over and your conclusion is correct that he must give a Get. (I say almost because non-Ashkenazim may be different in this regard.)
But if he hasn’t remarried then I’m not clear what criteria or yardstick you’re using to classify that “the marriage is over”. It ain’t over until the fat lady sings; he still maintains the halachic right to challenge her request for a Get. And unless a Beis Din, after conducting a trial with the parties in attendance, rules that the specifics of the case fall into a halachic category where he must give a Get even if he doesn’t wish to (which is a rare scenario under Halacha), then the marriage isn’t over.
I don’t see why Jews should want to do discretional activities that pose a conflict with Shabbos, or any Jewish law for that matter. Even if they can farneigel some workaround that might work most times. Why put oneself into such a precarious position in the first place?
huju: Both Judaism and the secular world believe in innocence as proven guilty. Being indicted is equal to being considered innocent until proven otherwise. And enjoying all the rights of innocence.
“There are many cases where A Rav will encourage someone to give a Get where there is no hope of reconciliation, although m’ikar hadin he isnt obligated too and he is hoping things will change.”
If the rabbi thinks there’s no hope but the husband disagrees and believes that there is hope for reconciliation, since we’re discussing a case where mikur hadin he’s within his halachic right to continue the marriage, if he exercises that right then he’s good. Ultimately in such a case Halacha gives him the call on continuing to hold out for shalom bayis.
“All I am saying is causing tzar to another person by forcing her to remain in a marriage that has no hope of reconciliation, is a wrong thing to do.”
Divorce may cause him a greater tzar than not divorcing causes her tzar. I would present it the other way — causing tzar to another person by forcing him to divorce is a wrong thing to do.
“You left out a lot of details. Is Dina crying herself to sleep everynight? miserable?… Are you really saying him forcing (no quotes that is what he is doing) her to stay married is a nice thing to do?”
I specifically said “A trial is held and the Dayanim rule that al pi Halacha no divorce is entitled and that the marriage should continue.” That effectively answers/addresses those questions.
“That may very well be, but that wasnt the discussion. what of HIS Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation THAT is the question”
If you agree that her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation is to tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage then obviously he doesn’t have the contradictory obligation to give her a Get.
ubiquitin: What I posted certainly is correct. Let’s walk though this with examples. Suppose Dina asks Reuven for a Get. And Reuven says no, I love you Dina and wish to remain married to you. So Dina summons Reuven to Beis Din and demands a divorce. A trial is held and the Dayanim rule that al pi Halacha no divorce is entitled and that the marriage should continue. Dina now publicly calls herself an “aguna” and still demands a Get.
Bein Adom Lchaveiro in the above case is the same as Even Haezer. Dina should try her best to put on a smile and tell Reuven that she’s willing to continue the marriage. That would be her Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation.
Example 2: Same as above but it didn’t yet get to the point of a Beis Din trial. Reuven has no Bein Adom Lchaveiro obligation to give a Get.
Yseribus: “A Get refuser without a Siruv” is the same oxymoron as “A business that makes nothing but money is a poor business.” Or an honest thief.
It’s not a problem or a big deal. As long as it is deadlocked, regardless of how many more elections produce the same results, Netanyahu remains in power.
HaRav Pesach Eliyahu Falk ZT”L cites the actual sources in Halacha throughout the Sefer.
It’s every father/husband’s halachic obligation to insure compliance with all the relevant halachos by his family members.
“that’s going to be really hard to do in the heat of the upcoming summer.”
Is that any harder than wearing a hat or shteimal, jacket or bekeshe, wool tzitzis, full length shirt and pants in the summer?