Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Too exotic.
And if they’re on your floor or both floors?
You keep away when any women are there?
If you were married they’d have given you hagbah.
Career of Happiness, True Joy in the Home
Rejoice O Youth!
both by Rabbi Avigdor Miller
Yeah, blame it all on Joseph. It’s always Joseph’s fault!
As far as the Halacha paskened in the Shulchan Aruch is concerned, the Gedolim in the days of the Shulchan Aruch and shortly thereafter have agreed to accept the psakim of the mechaber and the Rema as authoritative. The Shach writes that one cannot even claim “kim li” against a psak of the Shulchan Aruch. This is akin to accepting someone as your “Rebbi”, where you follow his psakim. This is the same thing that happened when, let’s say, Klal Yisroel decided that the period of Chazal has ended after the 7th generation of Amorayim (Mar Zutra, Mar bar Rav Ashi, etc), and nobody from here on in can add to the Gemora. There was no “halachah l’moshe misinai” that told us that the Gemora was sealed; it was the accepted reality told to us by our Gedolim. The same thing applies to accepting the Shulchan Aruch and Rema.
In any event, the halachas I’ve cited from the Shulchan Aruch above aren’t disputed by later poskim.
lilmod, you’re wrong. You simply don’t like what the Halacha is so you’re blaming it on everything under the sun to avoid what the Halacha clearly states.
And a beis din cannot order a divorce be given, when it is unwilling, unless halacha specifically specifies those circumstances qualify for a mandatory divorce. And beatings can only be done in circumstances that halacha specifically specifies beis din may.
As far as “encouraging” a divorce be given, of course there is more latitude if the circumstances justify it. But at the end of the day if he decides he doesn’t want to get divorced despite being encouraged to do so, and halacha is that he cannot be forced (as you admit), then he is under no obligation to do so.
All my last number of comments have been speaking generally and not to the OPs specific circumstances, since no one (you included) has enough information about them to render an opinion, let alone a judgment. Keep that in mind when reading my above comments. Nevertheless, a claim of a spouse being controlling, even with proof, isn’t a halachic ground for a mandatory divorce, let alone a situation such as the OP where after making that claim couldn’t cite a single example of that alleged behavior over a twenty year period.
Have an arranged marriage.
To give a sense how far halacha discourages divorce, the Halacha as paskened by the Mechaber in Shulchan Aruch regarding a case where a wife comes to beis din demanding a divorce on the grounds that her husband is physically violent with her, if the dayanim receive witness testimony corroborating her claim or he admits to her charge, the Halacha states that beis din must place the husband on official beis din ordered notice that it he continues being violent against her the beis din will then order he divorce his wife. But the beis din cannot order that until after he was given official warning and continued his behavior despite being warned. In the event he denies having been violent (and says she’s making up the claim in order to obtain an unjustified divorce) and there are no witnesses corroborating her claim, the beis din cannot accept it simply on her word. The Shulchan Aruch rules that beis din is then authorized to place an agent of beis din physically in their marital home to witness whether he’s being violent and can only order a divorce if he so witnesses.
And violence is one of the grounds the gemorah lists, and Shulchan Aruch paskens, is a valid cause to force a husband to give a divorce even if he doesn’t want to give it. There aren’t too many reasons halacha deems are grounds for divorce, and the S”A rules that only for one of the very specific reasons specifically listed in the gemorah as grounds for divorce, if corroborated, can be used for a beis din to rule a divorce is mandatory.
Lilmod, we have halachas and a Shulchan Aruch that governs such disputes. And none of your presumptions are justified by what Shulchan Aruch paskens on this; and it certainly is not “clear”, as you claim. Furthermore, at the end of the day, if necessary or insisted, a beis din makes this judgment, not a rabbi.
Regarding your disagreeing with HaGaon HaRav Miller zt’l, while I’m not going to tell you that you haven’t a right to disagree with him, if your disagreement isn’t based on someone of his equal, i.e. a godol with over seven decades dealing with family issues including gittin and being a community Rov, I think we can all judge for ourselves whether to give greater credence to him or someone who bases her opinions on a few divorced acquaintances she knows.
Gmar Chasima Tova!
You’re calling it quits?
benig: Thanks
What is the reason that the demographics at the Kosel usually is many many more chareidim than non-chareidim, if charedim are such a small percentage of the population?
ubiq: Rabbi Gorelick, a rosh yeshiva at YU (and the father of the South Fallsburg rosh yeshiva), when referring to Rabbi Soloveitchik would simply refer to him as “JB”.
ZD, the federal Constitution, in its provisions enacting presidential elections, clearly permits what is described as “faithless electors”, and that permissibility overrides any state regulations against it. And there have been faithless electors from states that it is against their laws without consequence to the elector.
YY, sodomites “marriage” was a fringe movement just a few short years ago with even Obama officially opposed to it when running for president the first time and 31 out of 31 state referendums all voting against it.
It very quickly changed with the Democrat party falling quickly in line to liberal demands.
YY, the point is that Hillary has always, and still does, stand by her man in defending him from his vulgar actions against numerous women over multiple decades and Hillary has attacked Bill’s victims for daring to speak out against her man for the immoral wrongs he’s committed against his victims.
Again, point being Hillary attacked these female victims of her husband, whose actions against them she’s defended.
Nothing revealed over there past few days is any surprise or anything out of character of what has been known about the immoral Trump over the past thirty years.
That said, Bill Clinton, whom Hillary has stood by and enabled his immoral activities for many decades including by her attaching the victims of Bill, is far worse than Trump.
NCB: You didn’t see the two posts preceding your own?
CTL:
Any elector from any state can vote for whoever he wishes (even someone who didn’t run for office) for president and vice president even if his state regulations/laws say otherwise. This point is clearly enumerated in the federal Constitution, which overrides state rules on the matter. And there have been electors who voted against what their state rules permit, and they faced no consequence.
And the electoral college votes for both president and vice president. Any elector can split his vote however he wishes, and vote for the Republican candidate for president and the Green party candidate for vice president.
writersoul, he himself referred to himself primarily by his English, not Hebrew, name and that was how most of his contemporaries, both other rabbis and his students, primarily referred to him as. When an equal (i.e. another Rabbi) would speak to him, he would call him JB. The objection is when one refers to him without his rabbinic title, not when one uses his English initials in liue of his first name – which is exactly how he preferred it and referred to himself. (Like you said, referring to him as RJBS isn’t different than referring to Rav Moshe as RMF in writing.)
Hillary winning this election is inevitable. The rest is your conjecture.
Then they become qualified Democrats.
CTL: Sacco and Venzetti were guilty. There’s been no known case of any innocent bring executed. Even the anarchist leader of theirs admitted their guilt, as the court convicted them. (Published in National Review in 1961.) And even their murderous defenders admitted they were involved in the bombing and only claimed they were “only” accomplices to murder, only denying they pulled the trigger.
And you can oppose abortion with exceptions for certain situations, as most pro-lifers do.
And as stated, the name on the ballot doesn’t need to change for the electors to vote for a new nominee.
Hillary will win an outright electoral and popular vote. This fact was never in doubt ever since Trump wrapped up the Republican nomination.
That is all a fantasy scenario.
Zero chance he’ll win in any scenario. If you won’t vote for either of the two major candidates, you may as well do a write-in vote for Justice John Roberts, for the same money.
Of course she’s an extension of Bill. 1) She’s his wife. 2) Her being in politics is a direct result of his presidency and her relationship with him. 3) She’s always been his most ardent supporter and has viciously attacked her husband’s victims from his immorality.
Hillary is an extension of Bill. And Hillary loudly protected Bill from his sins and she denounced Bill’s victims for speaking up.
CTL & ZD: see my previous comment.
YY: That isn’t such a problem since voters aren’t voting for President anyways, despite popular misconception that they’re voting for the candidate. Voters are only voting for a state slate of delegates for the electoral college. The electoral college electors can vote for any candidate of their choice. And previously a major candidate for US Vice President died in October, and his name remained on the ballot. His electoral college slate voted for his parties replacement candidate for Vice President.
mw13, what brings you to the Holy Land?
Geordie, why is Mr. Glick’s opinion on this any more interesting than any other expat?
Lilmod, what did I provide a limud zchus for?
Trump never had a chance to win. He also will not withdraw. And there’s no legal mechanism to force him out.