Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I think the proper term is subservient.
Shulchan Aruch(Y.D. 240:17): Both men and women are equal in being required to honor and fear their parents. However, the woman does not have the ability to fulfill this Mitzvah because she is subservient to her husband. Therefore, she is exempt from the Mitzvah of honoring her father and mother while she is married. If she gets divorced or widowed she is obligated.
They are Halacha.
Their website is hosted on servers in Buffalo, NY. And the domain name is registered with a US registrar and its owner lists a NYC address.
Their California phone number is staffed until 6 pm Friday, so I’d hope they’re not answering the phone in Israel at that hour.
US buyers are billed from a US merchant on their credit card, not a foreign transaction.
And the merchandise is being shipped from a US address.
Again, it doesn’t bother me if they’re violating US anti-discrimination laws, since they’re not violating halacha. (Not even dina d’malchusa, as I previously explained.) So they can knock themselves out trampling on all the goyish civil rights laws they want. I’m just making an observation.
They do business in the US and are subject to US laws. They aren’t shipping the clothing from Israel direct to the customers. And their credit card processors are US based.
This isn’t a consumer protection/refund policy law matter. It is a civil rights matter. So it would be a matter for the Civil Rights Commission and civil rights laws, not consumer protection laws.
ca: Since you clarified you aren’t African-American in your comment on the main site, I think you’ll be okay.
Sam: Are you referring to the net results of Church censors forcing us to take out some parts of the Gemorah and other seforim, on pain of burning the seforim otherwise?
What if my e-commerce store has a “no returns” policy for people from Detroit, Jackson, Miami Gardens, Birmingham, Baltimore, Memphis, New Orleans, Flint, Montgomery and Savannah?
From anywhere else in the U.S. we have a 90-day return policy. That the 10 exceptional cities are the 10 most African-American cities in the U.S. is merely coincidental. I’m taking returns from blacks in Los Angeles and other U.S. cities so I’m okay.
“The specific return policy in question has been found to fully comply with all laws in the sates of NY and NJ.”
It just came to light and never was tested in court, so how’d you come to the conclusion that the “question has been found to fully comply with all laws”?
Person1: “If you open your eyes and look around you you’ll see many frum families where the wife has a lot to say on everything that happens in the house. They are not all sinners or feminists.”
Who said otherwise? I specifically quoted Rav Miller zt’l as saying: “He is the Captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected.”
“and his wife is the one managing the house”
It’s quite common for the husband to delegate managing the house to his wife. Probably even prevalent.
Regarding the wife having to do what her husband tells her, it is b’feirush halacha in Shulchan Aruch and throughout the poskim. See, for example, Shulchan Aruch YD 240:17 and S”A EH 69.
Halachicly a seller can have a zero return policy, with no refunds and no exchanges, period. Once you buy it, you keep it. In fact, that is the default halacha if there is no agreed terms otherwise. (Obviously if it is a damaged item then the buyer has the halachic right to return it. But not if it is a change of mind, wrong size or too many ordered.)
Person1: Many people claim that they see with their own own eyes and/or experience that toeiva “marriages” are “successful couples” where the so-called “marriage” works.
They probably even believe that.
The Torah Temimah and Rav Emden and some of the others lived fairly recently. In fact, the Torah Temimah passed away in the 1940s and even lived in America for a time. So it was the way of the world from Matan Torah through the modern era and only changed when Susan B. Anthony or Betty Friedan came along?
Any judge looking at the list of towns will immediately notice it is specifically targeting Orthodox Jews.
I addressed your point, gavra. They specifically chose the most densely Orthodox populated areas, specifically with the intent because those areas are densely Orthodox without them overly affecting non-Orthodox customers. The other towns you cited are less densely Orthodox and have a larger percentage of a non-Orthodox/non-Jewish population.
lilmod: I’m being rhetorical here. I don’t think they’re violating dina d’malchusa, even though I do think they’re violating U.S. anti-discrimination laws. I don’t think dina d’malchusa applies to financial/dinei mamonus between two Jews. So I’m just pointing out that they’re in violation of secular law as an interesting observation. I don’t necessarily hold it against them. (I haven’t yet thought it out from a halachic perspective, but offhand don’t think it is halachicly problematic.)
LC: You’re a big dina d’malchusa kanai. You should be the first one upset that the company is violating dina d’malchusa by discriminating against Orthodox Jews.
Wolf: The Torah ideal isn’t for the man to be dominant and the woman submissive.
Torah: ????? ???????? ????????????? ?????? ???????? ?????
Neighborhood or city makes no difference. It is the intent that makes a legal difference. If the intent is to exclude a certain religious demographic, it is clearly illegal. Even if it is couched in geographic terms where said religious demographic is prevalent.
The real issue is that the site is engaging in religious discrimination, if you’re looking at it from a secular legal viewpoint. Sure they’re trying to mask it by referring to it by geographical restrictions but it is obvious who they’re targeting. It would be no different than having a more restrictive return policy for blacks by limiting it to Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant and other highly densely black populated neighborhoods rather than saying blacks specifically. The law doesn’t permit discrimination if you target the victims in a non-direct manner.
It makes no difference, legally, if the discrimination against Orthodox Jews is being done by an Orthodox Jew or if the discrimination against blacks is being done by a black owner.
It’s a civic duty for every citizen to vote.
And, yes, the gedolim do strongly encourage voting, even when they don’t advocate for any particular candidate, because politicians see how strong voting is within each community and reward them accordingly (based on their own self-preservation interests.)
CTLAWYER: Any pro bono advice?
The husband is in charge, but he is mechuyav to defer to his wife.
That doesn’t conform to Rav Miller’s “There cannot be two kings… The wife is submissive… There can be no harmony when there are two commanders…”
You wrote: “I am often left wondering, “What is his point?””
I was not implying that I had no answer
Mod in bold, I disagree with you. Is it okay to disagree with a mod? 😉
I would submit that, in fact, you’re being short-sighted in finding it problematic to approve the earlier posts. Even if you failed to understand the point, it wasn’t necessary to censor the sources.
[Now buckling my seat-belt for impact.]
I did not fail to understand the point
Boro Park streets are quite devoid of driving on Shabbos. You could walk on the road for at least over half an hour in many parts of the neighborhood without encountering a moving vehicle.
lilmod: “maybe she should open the door for him, but it has to come from her, and that will only happen if he is focused on his obligations to her and not his to her.”
Rambam: “????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???”
Rav Avigdor Miller (Awake My Glory): There cannot be two kings. The marriage relationship is two-fold. 1) The wife is submissive. This is not only Jewish but natural. There can be no harmony when there are two commanders. Without this indispensable condition, the home is disordered. “Arrogance is unbecoming a woman” – Megillah 14B. For a man it is not an ornament, but for a woman it is as if she wore a mustache. 2) The second, but equally essential foundation: a man must always demonstrate respect for his wife. This is “the way of Jewish men that… honor and support their wives in truth” as stated in the Jewish marriage contract. “He honors her more than his own body” – Yevamos 62B, Bava Metzia 59A. He is the Captain, but she is the First Mate whose counsel is respected. She cannot be made a doormat, she need not beg for money, she deserves some assistance in the house chores, and the husband sides with her against his kin. He must express frequent appreciation and give words of encouragement, and he should remember his wife from time to time with gifts, big or little. Husband and wife should always say “Please” and “Thank You” and never forget to be always polite to each other.
I brought a ton of sources that proved my position in a very strong way. So strong, in fact, that the mods in their infinite wisdom decided it was too strong for print. (Probably for the same reason you [lilmod]
The problem today is that many people feel we need to water down and hush-hush Torah sources on gender relations due to the Western world changes in recent decades on this topic. I disagree with this kind of hush-hushing of Torah sources (as well as disagree with replacing Torah described relationships with modern Western type relationships).
Your assumption that anyone here feels a need to water down and hush-hush Torah sources is wrong and offensive. Your inability to see the whole picture should not be mistaken for the conclusions you contrive through your own short sightedness. When I read your posts as they come in I am often left wondering, “What is his point?” and the answer to that question often drives the decision to approve or not approve.
BTW, what city in Canada are you coming from? In what way is the Yiddishkite lacking?
Have you checked with Mr. Google, Esq.? He is very helpful. And free, too.
Rav Shlomo Zalman began his letter writing it for a “bshas hadchak”.
Nowhere does your proof show we adopt goyish customs. Including the pizza example. It is based on Jewish behavior not gentile behavior.
And walking behind women is a violation of halacha.
??? ??? ?? ???? ????? ????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ????? ?? ????? ?? ???. ????? ?????? ??? ?? ?? ??? ????? ????? ??? ?????? ?? ?? ?????. ??? ??? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???????? ???????. ??????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ??????:
How do you interpret treating him as a king and ruler?
None of your proofs to support the position of men specifically opening the door for women or for women to go before men are as strong as the proofs I brought above from Chazal, Rashi and Rambam (citing Chazal) l’halacha to support the opposite notion.
The goyim also have a custom of men shaking women’s hands when offered. And the goyish custom is for women to dress not tznius when making a party. We don’t follow their customs as a rule, even if it doesn’t violate a specific halacha. And when it does violate halacha, such as walking behind women, we surely don’t pick up gentile customs.
or pour their drinks for that matter?
In most families I know the wife serves the food and drinks as well as makes the beds.
the problem is that the man is always supposed to be in front since he is not allowed to walk behind his wife, so he ends up being the one to hold the door open for her.
Not if the door is pulled out to open. If he goes in first then she will be holding the door open for him.
You’re again conflating gentile customs with Jews. You are relating non-Jewish customs (if it is even a custom by them, as you claim), not Jewish ones.
The Rambam says, in general, that a wife “serves him” and that Chazal command that she “honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king.” Also see the Rashi I quoted above.
WB 000646!
I think what Hatzaddik Reb Wolf is getting at, is that there is no issue of mazal or other spiritual issues associated with wearing a divorced woman’s engagement ring.
Which site is this?
Several times I asked for a logical explanation why anyone might think that it is more appropriate that the guy specifically open the door for the girl rather than the girl specifically open the door for the guy. After much kvetching and handwringing, being unable to give a logical explanation, we were offered a tongue-twister of trying to squeeze out of Keddushin 2B that since the norm is men try to woo women in marriage rather than vice versa, therefore it bridges that men should open the door for her. That’s quite a stretch but that was the best that anyone came up with.
But I have much better evidence that the woman should open the door for the man than what was offered for the other way. We learn in halacha (Rambam Hilchos Ishus 15:20) that “Our Sages have commanded that the woman honor her husband to an extreme degree and the fear of him should be on her and she should do all her deeds according to what he says and he should be in her eyes as a ruler or king. She should orient her activities according to that which he desires and stay away from that which he hates.” Rambam also lists the various obligations wives have for their husband (pours his drinks, washes his hands, makes the bed and serves him). Rashi in Menachos 43b (during the discussion of shelo asani isha) goes so far in comparison to say that “the wife is also a slave to her husband as a slave is to his master.”
Clearly as a wife must treat and fear her husband as her King and ruler and do everything he desires and serve him, should be doing the very minimal serving of opening the door for him.
lilmod: How does it make a difference when a female is writing to a male in the CR whether he is or isn’t married?
lilmod: Does it matter whether it is dark chocolate or milk chocolate?
Neville: You are talking about a completely different coin thing than anyone else here has been discussing.
Avoda Zora.