Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
The K symbol (and KD symbol) means the food producer claims the product is kosher. But this symbol can be used by anyone and no (kashrus or other) organization owns, controls or has a trademark or copyright to it. It can be used by anyone and there are no kashrus standards associated with the K and KD symbols.
The Dutch bought Manhattan fair and square for $24 (or to be more precise, for 60 Dutch guilders – which with inflation would today be the equivalent of about $16,000.)
#CrookedIndians
I agree that the States cannot punish (i.e. fine or jail) an elector for voting for a candidate other than he pledged to. And existing state laws enacting a penalty are unconstitutional and unenforceable. But the Constitution gives the states the right to determine WHO is or isn’t an elector. And the Constitution doesn’t prohibit the states from unappointing an elector they’ve previously appointed and assigning someone else as elector in his stead.
Manhattan was bought from the Indians fair and square. For all of $24 worth of beads it was the bargain of the century, I tell you.
Lenny, keep bugging Rav Cohen till you get a conversation with him. It’s well worth it. And that’s often what it takes to get hold of an important Rov like Rav Cohen. And my advice to you is to take his advice to heart and follow through with it. He is a highly recommended and strongly held of Rov.
lilmod, I strongly disagree with your statement declaring it generally a good idea to divorce when one spouse wants to and the other doesn’t. The Torah also disagrees with that being a general rule, as the Torah explicitly states a wife generally cannot get a divorce if she’s the only one wanting it. And Rabbeinu Gershom made that even stronger by enacting that even a husband cannot divorce his wife if she doesn’t want to divorce, whereas by Torah law he could have previously. So he felt so strong about it he completely banned unilateral divorce even where the Torah previously permitted it.
Also, I think there’s no basis for your assumption that a divorce will lead to four happy people instead of two unhappy ones. You’re assuming without reason that a) both spouses will be able to remarry and b) their second marriages will both be happier than their first. I can tell you that countless times divorcees, for whatever reason, could not find someone to remarry to. And countless more time where when they did remarry they were not happier on the second round than on the first. Sometimes they were even more miserable. And more times than can be counted, some explicitly admitted they regretted getting divorced in the first place. Even when they can remarry typically it is to another divorcee who has their own set of issues.
ubiq: Precisely. And as Scalia would tell you, if the Constitution doesn’t address an issue, what happens? It’s left up to the States to decide!! The Constitution itself states as such.
Additionally, there is no current federal law purporting to preclude the states from deselecting an elector they’ve previously appointed.
The average US lifespan is brought down notably by inner-city/minority drug use and crime that Jewish life isn’t affected much by, much as the Arab lifespan in Israel reduces the statistical figures there.
Dash-: I believe you’re mistaken. The Constitution leaves the entire selection process (including deselecting due to death, resignation or other reasons) of electors entirely in the hands of, and at the discretion of, the states. The state selects their own electors via whatever process they choose, each state conducts their electoral college vote separately in each of their state capitals and each state’s Secretary of State (or equivalent position) certifies the results of their electoral vote directly to Congress.
Remember that Chazal’s statements about the safety of Eretz Yisroel applies equally to all parts of EY, whether Tel Aviv, Southern Lebanon or Jordan. And it does not apply to parts of the State of Israel that is outside of Eretz Yisroel, such as Eilat.
ubiq, In North Carolina, for example, it is codified in state law that a faithless elector is automatically considered to have resigned and is immediately replaced with another elector who agrees to vote as the state popular vote dictated.
Yes, I explicitly said that earlier.
Yes.
It is life. ????
There are numerous cases brought in the Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch where when a spouse requests a divorce the Halacha is that the Beis Din denies the request and informs the petitioner to go back to living with their spouse despite their desire to divorce. And there are numerous Teshuvos throughout the centuries, from ancient to modern, ruling that the spouse cannot circumvent a denial of a divorce petition by unilaterally absconding from the marital home. Wrongfully doing so does not create a new backdoor method to obtaining what rightfully is not granted.
So the idea that if one spouse unilaterally wishes to terminate the marriage then it is automatically only mentchlich for the other spouse to acquiese to the demand and has some moral obligation to grant it, despite their being no legal obligation to do so, because “I do not want to stay married to someone who does not want to married to me” is clearly wrong as stated by Chazal and paskened l’halacha that oftentimes a divorce petition is denied and the party told to resume marital life with the spouse they wanted to divorce.
When asking gittin/shalom bayis shailos, one should address the shaila to the same caliber Rov as one would submit a shaila whether to pull the plug on grandpa’s respirator. Both are pekuach nefesh shailos that aren’t asked to the corner shtiebele rabbi. And surely vet any potential shalom bayis therapist with Daas Torah prior to going to a therapist who could potentially make a bad situation worse c’v.
Then one or both houses of Congress should refuse to pass *any* legislation that Hillary supports and should only pass legislation she is diabolically opposed to. If she vetoes, the Federal government closes down for two or four years and the public attributes it to her vetoes – and the government saves two or four years of costs for unnecessary government. (Critical functions remain open by existing law.)
A correction to above: if a states electoral vote is disputed, both the House and Senate needs to vote on the dispute.
Another possibility: if Republicans control the state where the unfaithful elector failed to vote for Trump as he should, the state itself could find a mechanism to nevertheless certify their full electoral vote for Trump, despite the unfaithful vote, before sending the certified results to Congress. At least some states have a law that they can replace an unfaithful elector immediately if he doesn’t vote as he pledged, with another elector who will. Other states might be able to do the same even without such a specific State law.
Trump supporters should then dispute the electoral college vote in the United States House of Representatives, who has the constitutional duty to count they vote and the constitutional right to adjudicate disputes of the electoral vote. Being a majority of states have a Republican majority in the House, Trump will almost certainly prevail.
The Senate will do the same regarding resolving a disputed electoral vote for the office of Vice President.
Lenny, I think you should be in touch with Rav Simcha Bunim Cohen and follow his sage advice to a tee. You can’t go wrong doing so and he is far wiser than anyone here. Also contact Rav Dovid Eidensohn in Monsey who is also an expert in these type of shalom bayis shailos. No one can give you conclusive answers over the limited information shared on a public forum.
Lilmod, if the three dayanim who formally tried the case tell him he’s obligated to, then that’s correct. But not stam any rabbonim who didn’t try the case saying so, makes it obligatory. Until the case is formally ruled upon by beis din there’s no such obligation. Once the beis din rules on a spouse’s petition for a divorce, they might issue a verdict stating any number of possibilities, (examples) such as a) no obligation to divorce, go back to living together, b) divorce recommended even though not mandated, c) divorce halachicly mandated.
A man who divorced his wife or is a widower is obligated to continue wearing a talis. And a divircee and widow is required to continue covering her hair.
Trump asked Kushner to serve in his administration. They’re exploring the legalities of him accepting a position without compensation and placing Kushner’s business assets in a blind trust.
Yes, it’s happened.
I was referring to the Noda B’Yehuda who cited a Kula, mentioned by shebb.
DY: If the DD isn’t certified kosher, you’d have no way to trust whether the water is below yad soledes bo or not.
shebb: Coffee is not critically required in an airport or air flight that you could rely on a b’dieved.
Yet he disapproves getting one’s midday coffee break at Starbucks. Or drinking coffee there to shmooze with someone.
Same principle should apply to Dunkin Donuts and other similar places.
The only two countries Breitbart has a foreign bureau in are England and Israel.
Given that almost all Starbucks now prepare meat, that would indicate Star-K doesn’t approve buying even regular coffee from a Starbucks store.
The Czar insisted on long hair. In the case cited in the above report she had short hair, and thus violated the law, and was pulled as described.
Meno, so Star-K recommends that it is okay, from their perspective, for kosher consumers to consume coffee prepared in a Starbucks that also prepares non-kosher meat and potentially washes their meat and coffee utensils together?
There’s no reason to assume that even his original disciples wrote the truth, in their writings. And the original disciples, anyways, only contributed a tiny portion of the gospels. Additionally, there’s no reason to take the most charitable view of these reshaim.
Did Star-K stop recommending Jews drink at all in any Starbucks restaurant now that Starbucks has begun preparing non-kosher meat products in virtually all Starbucks restaurants and washes the meat utensils together with the coffee utensils?
lightbrite: The Czar passed an edict prohibiting women from shaving their hair, as was the Ashkenazic Jewish custom for married women. He wanted to “modernize” the Jews. This is when many Jewish women stopped shaving. The Russian police enforced this edict prohibiting shaving.
Hashem protects when on the way to, and when engaged in, a mitzvah (such as tefila).
Breitbart has a beautiful article posted yesterday by their Jerusalem bureau talking about the results of the Shabbos Project this year as well as its history.
lilmod, the Russian police conducted actual spot checks. Here is a translation of a report from Zhitomir, 1851 – it is the Jewish community complaining that the enforcement is too zealous:
“On the streets, district inspectors tear the wigs off Jewish women’s heads, bonnets, and other head attire; they pull them by their hair to the police station and pour a few buckets of cold water on them; they keep them under arrest for 48 hours; and then finally make them sweep the streets in public.”
1. How did the Shabbos Project work out for everyone this past Shabbos? How did it work out in general?
2. It seems to have changed a bit this year. It was combined was J-Inspire. What was that all about?
The Minhag of married women shaving their head was throughout all of the Ashkenazic lands, including in Germany, Amsterdam and England. What stopped it among various communities was Czar Alexander’s decree in the 1850s prohibiting Jews in Russia, Poland and Lithuania from doing so. It was part of his same decree prohibiting Jews from wearing long jackets (kapotas). This is when most Litvish men stopped wearing kapotas and Litvish women stopped shaving. The Chasidim, for the most part, resisted the new law.
Rubashkin was railroaded.