Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
huju has been misled by the left-wing media that he gets his misinformation from. The history of the creation of the filibuster has absolutely zero to do with racism. That false narrative is part of the left’s typical false accusations of racism. Like the boy who cried wolf, cries of racism ring hollow today.
The filibuster was created in the US Senate rules in 1806. It began to actually get used in 1837. Neither its creation nor its first use has anything whatsoever to do with racism.
Any liquid on matzah is gebrochts.
Child alienation is when one parent belittles the other parent in the view of the child. Or when one parent denies access to the child by the other parent or minimizes access.
Giving a Get is supposed to be done, when a couple agreed to separate and have resolved all outstanding issues required to divorce and setup post-divorce arrangements. The Get is given as the last step following the resolution of all issues between the couple.
Osina didn’t prevail. There is no additional round. The election used Ranked Choice voting, which all occurs on one election day. They completed counting the Ranked Choice.
Accusations of racism is an old time tool in the left’s and Democrats’ political arsenal. It is their best catch-all on-demand tactic when all else fails.
It is best ignored.
besalel: The mother and any other relatives have nothing to do with it and aren’t responsible for any part of, or party to, the dispute.
ubiquitin: Fantastic then we are in full agreement.
Though this part throws me off and seems to contradict the first point…
Permit me, please, to explain the difference between the two cases. In the former case he acknowledges the marriage is over. That effectively means he has no intentions of fulfilling his halachic obligations as her husband. That creates a halachic obligation upon him to divorce. Since if he’s unwilling to carry out his martial obligations to his wife he’s halachicly obligated to accede to her request for a divorce.
OTOH, in the latter case, where he wishes to reestablish shalom bayis, he has no halachic obligation to grant her request for a Get. Barring extenuating rare circumstances that Halacha declares gives her a right to a Get, he has the right to choose to continue the marriage, despite her desire to end it, and furthermore can even take his wife to Beis Din to demand she continue fulfilling her wifely obligations to him.
You said we’re in full agreement. I think I’m just highlighting that Veasisa Hayashr Vehatov can mean a spouse should continue in marriage and fulfill their martial obligations even if they want out. Rather than assuming it means the spouse who wants to continue the marriage should throw in the towel against their will. So, perhaps, though we agree with each other on this discussion, we are each highlighting different aspects of Halacha.
Thank you for having this discussion.
ubiquitin: I think a point that gets blurred in these conversations , is although he doesn’t have a halachic obligation, he may have a moral one.
Your morals or the other fellow’s morals? Who is deciding what is moral? And to further expand on your comment, see my additional points below, in this reply.
If the marriage is over, certainly if he has moved on and remarried a get should be given in (nearly?) all circumstances.
Who decided that the marriage is “over”? If they mutually agree that the marriage is over, then normally your point is correct. A Get must be granted (by him) and accepted (by her.) That would, indeed, be the case in the majority of cases where they both agree the marriage is over.
But there are even exceptions to that. To take an example, if one of the parties halachicly wronged the other party, and that wrong still hasn’t been corrected by the party who committed the wrong, it might be halachicly correct to not yet proceed with the Get. Rav Moshe Shternbuch shlit”a (and possibly Rav Elyashiv zt’l, as well) have teshuvos, for example, where if the wife went to non-Jewish court (arkaos) for marital assets distribution or for custody, in contravention with halacha prohibiting arkaos, and received things that are halachicly unentitled to, not only can he withhold a Get until she undoes what she received and wholly rectifies him for his loss, but he can even remarry while she’s still in breach of halacha. (He even debates whether he can remarry without a heter meah rabbonim; he concludes m’ikur hadin he could but it is proper for him to first receive the heter.)
But suppose another example where one spouse thinks it’s over whereas the other spouse still insists on restoring shalom bayis, we can’t tell the one asking for shalom bayis that it is “over”.
Now granted, he may not be strictly speaking obligated to do so, and pressuring him to do so unwillingly may create a real problem of Get meusah. But that doesn’t change the fact that he is a bad person, who deserves shame.
Now this point I must take strong exception to. If strictly speaking he’s not halachicly obligated to divorce, as you give in your example, then generally speaking he has no moral, ethical or other imperative to do so even if she wants to divorce. Halacha is replete with examples (check the Gemora as well as Shulchan Aruch) of when one spouse asks for a divorce, when the other spouse desires to continue the marriage, where we deny the request for a divorce. The more frequent examples are when the wife wants to divorce but there’s at least one circumstance that comes to mind where if the husband wants to divorce, but the wife doesn’t want to divorce, where we don’t let him divorce her. (This example I’m thinking of is m’ikur hadin m’doraysa, applicable to all Jews not just to Ashkenazim who have Rabbeinu Gershom.)
Ashkenazim have the Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom which prohibits a husband from divorcing his wife even if he wants to, if she does not want to. But all Jews m’doraysa have the reverse example of when the husband doesn’t want to divorce then he does not have to divorce and has the right to choose to continue the marriage. And he may even summon his wife to beis din to enforce her obligations to him as his wife, if she isn’t performing them. The fact that Rabbeinu Gershom extended further where we can deny a request for divorce, in more cases than what are covered m’doraysa, demonstrates clearly that denying a divorce request is often proper.
My underlying point is that this newfangled idea that if one spouse wants to divorce when the other does not, then the one wanting it generally has the right to it over the objections of the other spouse, is wrongheaded and has no basis in halacha. (L’havdil, even among the non-Jews, until fairly recently, courts would routinely deny petitions for divorce if the court believed divorcing was unwarranted despite one spouse requesting it.) Of course, when there’s “cause”, i.e. a spouse is actively committing physical abuse, etc., where halacha states is a valid reason to grant a divorce against the will of the declining spouse, such exceptions are recognized as valid basis’ to grant it even against his will. But those are exceptions, not the rule.
CY: Is this the NY-Miami route that you’re flying?
Anfrew Yang also promised to support the Yeshivas in their fight for independence from governmental intervention.
In Olam Habah.
ujm: what if the husband refuses to go to beis din?
besalel: Then he is in contempt of beis din. Or in technical terms, the beis din will issue a siruv declaring him to be mesarev ldin. Which has certain negative consequences for him, such as he cannot be honored, people cannot engage in business with him or socialize with him, etc.
But he doesn’t have an obligation to give a Get at this point since no beis din trial was held after which the dayanim considered whether or not he’s obligated to give a Get. Until and unless that occurs he doesn’t have a halachic obligation to give it.
He does have a halachic obligation to show up in beis din and permit a trial to determine whether or not he’s obligated to give a Get.
or he plays the system by agreeing to one beis din and then setting a trial date and then not showing up and arguing that he wants a different beis din (which is not even permitted by halacha). what then?
Once the parties mutually agreed to a specific beis din, neither party can unilaterally withdraw from that beis din. But until they mutually selected a beis din to hear their dispute, the defendant (which will generally be the husband if it is a case of the wife opening a beis din case as a plaintiff demanding a Get) has the upper hand in selecting a beis din.
Reb Mendel was niftar six years ago. I gave him a ride a few times when he hitched.
CS: I, too, was thinking of asking his whereabouts and how’s he doing, when I saw this thread. Haven’t heard or seen him in quite a while. I should ask his chavrusa, whom I know well.
Only after a bona fide Beis Din held a trial with both the husband and wife present in the courtroom (as halachicly no Beis Din trial can be held without the presence of both parties to the dispute). And after having completed said trial, a majority of the three Dayanim ruled l’halacha that the husband is obligated to give a Get even if he wishes not to.
Note that normatively, by default, the halacha is that he does not have to give a Get if he doesn’t want to give it. There are only rare halachic circumstances which is deemed under halacha as valid “cause” obligating him to give it against his will.
If all the above conditions have been met and proven in Beis Din, and the Dayanim so rule, and he yet refuses to give it after being ordered to do so by the Beis Din, then and only then is he a halachic get refuser.
Also note that if one of the parties to the dispute refuses to show up in Beis Din, that party is in contempt of Beis Din (with the requisite negative consequences of being in contempt.) Nevertheless, at that stage the party isn’t obligated to give a Get since the Beis Din trial to judge whether a halachic obligation to give it exists — or not — hasn’t yet occurred.
President Donald Trump has been both the most pro-Jewish president in American history as well as (independently from the former) by far the most pro-Israel president ever.
AAQ: It isn’t Chasidish Nusach as the Arizal, who formulated the Nusach, wasn’t Chasidish.
It is interesting that you refer to the Arizal as an unsupported innovater, nevertheless the Arizal is universally accepted across the Jewish spectrum as valid.
The Chasam Sofer did not innovate Daas Torah. Daas Torah is another expression of Emunas Chachamim. And, presumably, you know the source for Emunas Chachamim.
Reb Eliezer, if I recall you said you’re a Viener or Matersdorfer. I presume as such you daven Nusach Ashkenaz, as they do. Although I understand that Vien may have switched from Ashkenaz to Sefard over the last 15 years or so.
What’s the Arizal and his disciples justification for changing from Nusach Ashkenaz to Nusach Ari/Sefard?
“Frum social media” is an oxymoron.
The Arizal was Ashkenazi. He davened in an Ashkenazic Shul in Tzefas at key times of the Jewish year, such as the ימים נוראים and רגלים, as well as at other times, and darshened there as well.
He is referred to over and over again, by his contemporaries, as the אשכנזי רבי יצחק. The moniker אר”י, by which he is known, stands for אשכנזי רבי יצחק.
How is the Arizal changing Minhagim any different than others who follow the Arizal in doing the same as he?
AJ: The Nusach was changed/modified by the Arizal. The Arizal, as you know, was long before Chasidus started. It seems to me that your taaina/question should be against the Arizal and his students rather than the chasidim.
CTLAWYER: On a somewhere tangential point regarding full financial disclosure being required from all parties part of a court divorce filing, suppose one of the spouses is earning income off the books or has money that was obtained in a manner less than fully kosher, is he or she still required to publicly declare that to the divorce court, possibly self-incriminating him or herself (Fifth Amendment) or trigger an IRS investigation?
AJ: what’s it have to do with chasidim? The Arizal introduced those aspects long before chasidus.
Therapists are best for unloading your… wallet.
Reb Eliezer, what about simchas yom tov regarding eating kitniyos? That’s no less simchas yom tov than eating gebrochts.
CA: NYC’s tap water system was still fairly new 100 years ago.
huju: Restaurant food has the most impurities. Anyone who hasn’t seen a restaurant kitchen will never again patronize restaurants after the first time he sees behind their closed kitchen doors.
Coffee Addict, did we filter coffee Yidden drank 100 or 200 years ago?
If it is an illegal driveway then anyone has the right to park in front of it at anytime and block it.
RT: Cardinal Jean-Marie Lustiger of Paris, who was a serious candidate to become Pope, was also Jewish.
Jews have been drinking coffee as long as coffee has been around.
Buy coffee with a hechsher.
Zoom?
Commie Kamala.
Satmar and other major chasiduses have major and growing developments in Lakewood.
The Sephardim are heavily attending the old time Flatbush Yeshivos (Mir, Chaim Berlin, etc.)
The Sephardic community is growing in Flatbush.
Shmuel Skaist?
Why are you assuming being vaccinated stops propagation by those vaccinated? We’ve been hearing from the busy bodies that you gotta still social distance and mask after being vaccinated since we’re unsure vaccinating stops propagation.
Meir: What you’re relaying regarding the young couples and families from Flatbush moving to Lakewood seems to be correct. Interestingly, over the last few years it is also starting to occur with Boro Park, but to a lesser degree. The Yeshivos there are still growing but at a smaller pace.
Has this situation improved or worsened over the last decade?
AAQ: I think we already have such places. There are Yeshivos today located away from the metropolitas, in areas distant from major Jewish communities.
AAQ: It didn’t fail; it lasted quite a number of decades.
Nor was it realistically expected to last forever.
Lakewhut, in your OP you posited that flatbush is becoming less in-town since so much of the old Flatbush crowd moved to Lakewood. Now in your follow up post you’re positing that Lakewood isn’t in town. That begs the question, if Flatbush and Lakewood aren’t it, what is?
In town generally refers to New York City (all boroughs), Monsey and Lakewood, along with their immediate nearby’s.
Why should we care about a fight between the ICC and the zionists. That said, you make a good point about midda k’neged midda with this comparison.
A fair argument doesn’t require making someone look bad. In the Beis Medrash we also disprove other’s arguments to their face without it being considered bad form or shaming.
He was what in America would be described as left-wing Modern Orthodox. He had to reprint one of his books after taking out a problematic passage that earned him very strong criticism by leading Orthodox rabbis for being incompatible with Torah Judaism.
And Madeleine Albright had two Jewish parents who brought up her up as a Christian.