Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
gavra: Agudah constituents in America, Chasidim in America and Yeshivish in America as well as Agudah constituents in Israel, Chasidim in Israel and Yeshivish in Israel would all self-identify as a Chareidi/UO on a survey, if asked. And the aforementioned Americans (the guy on the street, not just the Agudah leadership) would associate themselves with the aforementioned Israelis. Similarly the American MO would associate with the Israeli DL/RZ. Even if in both cases there are some differences, that’s who they would identify with in both cases.
The Chareidi American bochorim go to learn in Brisk (and other Israeli Chareidi yeshivos), not in hesder yeshivos.
When Pew Research did their survey in 2014 of American Jewry, 66% of American Orthodox Jews self-identified on the survey as Ultra Orthodox.
IITFT: The moniker may be somewhat of recent vintage, but the self-identification I’m referring to isn’t anything new. When the Chazon Ish was around, the people in America who are called Chareidim today, their parents back then self-identified with whatever the Chazon Ish’s sociological group was called.
“Yeshivish” and “Chasidish” are both grouped under the “Chareidi” moniker, in the popular usage. The Agudah, both in America (i.e. Rabbi Avi Shafran) and in Israel (Degel HaTorah), have often subscribed to self-identification under the term. The Chareidim/Yeshivish/Litvish/Chasidish of America identify with the Chareidim/Yeshivish/Litvish/Chasidish in Israel sentimentally and in beliefs and values. The philosphical gap within Orthodoxy is primarily between the Chareidim and MO outside Israel and between the Chareidim and RZ in Israel. The MO of America sympathize and subscribe to a large part of RZ/DL philosophy whereas the Chareidim in both Eretz Yisroel and Chutz L’aaretz consider themselves part of the same general worldview.
The term has evolved, and has come to mean basically anyone who is not Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist. So its original connotation notwithstanding, it means something more comprehensive in its current popular usage.
The terms current usage was initially born from the name of the Eidah HaChareidus.
Sam, the undergraduate in Princeton’s Physics 101 isn’t the one to find any error by Einstein 100 years later. The gedolei haphysics found it long ago. Similarly we’re not going to find an “error” by a Rishon from 600 years ago that none of subsequent gedolei Rishonim and Achronim never pointed out in the subsequent centuries.
There’s no Hareidi “movement”. There was no beginning to “Chareidism” except on Har Sinai; no particular person whose teachings they follow except Moshe Rabbeinu, and no particular Minhagim they perform. Chareidim do not follow any specific teachings of any specific Rebbi, nor do they believe in any specific values not already in the Torah. So there really is no such thing as a “Chareidi.” Those who people refer to as “Chareidim” have mostly never referred to themselves as such – in America you can go to Yeshiva from Kindergarten through Kollel and you will most probably never hear “we are Chareidi,” and you may even never hear the term used at all.
The term originated in Eretz Yisroel as a way to describe those who followed the Eidah HaChareidis as opposed to the Rabanut. But it has evolved, and has come to mean basically anyone who is not Modern Orthodox/Religious Zionist.
Remember that the Rishonim and Achronim are smarter than you and far bigger Talmidei Chachomim than you, who have gone through Kol HaTorah Kulah more times than you finished Chamisha Chumshei Torah. Then you will better be able to realize even if you think they are wrong on an issue, that they knew more, thought it through more and knew the Torah far far better than you so that it is you who is mistaken – you just can’t find the point of where you went off the rails and see how they are right. But you intuitively know they must be right even if you can’t understand how.
Just as if you, on your couch, think Albert Einstein made an elementary error in the Theory of Relativity you’re not going to come to your next course in undergraduate Physics 101 and relate to the professor how you found a mistake in Einstein’s theory.
When did the era of Achronim end?
No such thing as Chareidism. What you are referring to is the default, traditional manner of being frum. By giving generic, default Judaism a label it conceals the fact that this Judaism is in fact the generic and default.
It would be chukas hagoy to say Allahu Akbar before doing shechita.
http://hebrewbooks.org/pagefeed/hebrewbooks_org_35269_81.pdf
I think the full spectrum of discussion has been exhausted on this topic and there’s nothing else to say.
Neither Mormons nor the Witnesses are mainstream Christians. And they are cumulatively a tiny minority of Christians.
cherry, are you alluding to the fact that suicide rates are higher in wealthier countries and that people who earn 10 percent less than their neighbors are 4.5 percent more likely to commit suicide, including among high-earning individuals?
Just dropping a hello to squeak.
Mainstream Christian belief in the trinity isn’t monotheism. Very very few Christians truly have monotheistic beliefs.
Avi, they have diversity of opinion internally that provides a great deal of correction.
ZD, after longtime RCA member Avi Weiss did one of his shticklech several years ago, the Moetzes issued a public call for the RCA to call him out. A few days later the RCA issued a resolution doing just that.
Avi, not really. At least not in the sense where they’ll take a position in consideration of the RCA’s opinion.
The Moetzes sometimes sends a message to the RCA to keep them in line.
Sam: Rambam and the consensus of most others hold it is not. Including Rav Ovadia Yosef, Yabia Omer 7, YD 12.
Avi: Chava Leah Kook’s father was Rav Yehuda Leib Hutner. Her brother was Rabbi Yehoshua Hutner, director of the Talmudic Encyclopedia started by Rabbi Meir Bar-Ilan. Her father had a brother named Rav Yitzchok Hutner who passed away in 1880, but the family was only distantly related to the famous Rav Yitzchok Hutner, Rosh Yeshiva of Chaim Berlin.
I’ll double check but my recollection was the Halacha is not only is it permissable to go into a mosque (unlike a church which is forbidden to enter) but that it is permitted pray there. Are you saying the Halacha is you can enter but not pray in a mosque?
Can a good person create bad art?
A Jew is permitted to enter a mosque and pray in it.
Though a prayer in a mosque is okay.
That was a different Rabbi Hutner, not the famous Rosh Yeshiva.
My talmidim claim I’m the greatest Rebbi bzman hazeh.
How about a prayer in a mosque to Allah or in a church to the Trinity or to Buddah?
Names of the involved parties are almost never included, other than the name of the Rov forwarding the shaila to the posek.
Never called the Tzitz Eliezer MO. Neither is the Seridei Eish, who learnt in Mir and Slobodka and was more TIDE himself (which is very different than MO, being closer to Yeshivish as seen with RSRH’s Kehila KAJ is yeshivish affiliated and rabbinically led.) R’ Ezriel Hidesheimer, too, couldn’t be categorized as MO.
Have any MO rabbis published sh”ut seforim?
$2,419.73
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20027&st=&pgnum=377&hilite=
Rav Sternbuch (4:301): Question: I received a question from America where – due to our many sins – it is common that women rebel against their husbands and afterwards go to secular courts – Gd forbid! The secular court makes a judgment in her favor – through coercion and not in accord with the law of the Torah. The judgment obligates the husband to pay very high support payments and carries a penalty of prison for failure to comply. In addition she is typically awarded custody of the children. The husband is asking for a heter of meah rabbonim to be able to remarry without giver her a get since she is a moredes and has transgressed the religious laws. On the other hand she claims that the heter of meah rabbonim is not relevant since she in fact is willing to accept the get. She also claims that there are rabbis who support her position. So she wants to benefit twice by obtaining a get according to the Torah and also a judgment from civil court which steals money from from her husband even after the get.
Answer: In my humble opinion there is no validity to her claims and therefore the husband should be given a heter so he can marry another woman. The only limitation is that he needs to deposit the get with beis din as is the established practice. The reason for this is complex. 1) first of all since they are coercing him financially not in accord with the halacha regarding the support payments which are much higher than the halacha – that constitutes theft. Thus the get itself is a forced get. The gedolei poskim are worried about get me’usa. Thus the get is not actually valid and we have the problem that she is still a married woman who thinks she can remarry. Therefore it is necessary to exempt him from all financial obligations that were done against his will in order that the get itself be valid. Furthermore if the wife refuses to go to beis din, then that itself gives her the halachic status of moredes as is clear from Divrei Chaim (E.H. 51) and he cites the Chavas Daas who ruled that a woman who refused to go to beis din was a moredes and the gedolim agreed with him. … According to this if she goes with him only to beis din then he is obligated to give her a get. However when she goes to secular court in addition to make monetary claims – she is not able hold on to both sides. In other words she can’t go to the secular court with monetary claims and at the same demand that he give her a get in beis din. If she forces him to accept the rulings of the secular court in marriage matters he has no obligation to give her a get. We need to state in addition that the essence of the Decree of Rabbeinu Gershom was for the benefit of the wife. However this benefit is only available when she doesn’t abrogate her halachic obligations. But in the present case she has created serious devastation in the marriage in that she has rebelled against him and went to secular court where she received excessive judgements concerning maintenance and also the custody of the children. Her husband must give her a get in beis din so that she can remarry. So in the case of moredes the decree of Rabbeinu Gershom which was meant to benefit women was not intended and the husband can remarry with the heter of 100 Rabbis and he deposits the get with beis din until the judgment of the secular court is nullified. When that happens- if he has not yet remarried – then it is prohibited for him to do so until he gives his first wife a get.
In reality your question is a local issue of America and it is the job of American rabbis to decide. However my view is in agreement with the rabbis there who permit the husband to remarry without any difficulty and he needs to deposit a get with beis din. But when the judgment of the secular courts has been nullified then it is prohibited for the husband to remarry until he has properly divorced the first wife.
You should be aware that we are obligated to fight against her going to secular courts and we prevent her from remarrying if she does and if the get is given under these circumstances there is a suspicion that it was coerced (me’usa)…
So, really, had the fundraising total been $1.2 Million in the 24 hours, rather than the goal of $1.6 Million, does anyone seriously believe they’d have returned all the donations in their “All Or None” 24 hours campaign?
That be true, but the question at hand is whether economic wealth generally provides a greater level of happiness than being economically middle class.
Scotland will not have another referendum as the British government will correctly argue they just had a referendum were continued union won a landslide victory. And that the loser can’t cry do-over and demand a new election after losing. So the government will simply not permit another referendum to take place in Scotland for at least ten years have passed since the recent election on the question of secession.
The Canadian Supreme Court, too, ruled that the Quebecois couldn’t have another secession referendum too soon after the last one.
Northern Ireland surely will not secede as the Unionists have much greater popular support in Northern Ireland than the Republicans, and secession from the UK would effectively mean union with Catholic Ireland, something the Protestant majority of the province strongly opposes.
CTLAWYER?
Where is it stated that the cRc list is the be-all-end-all in determining reliability of other agencies? (I’m not referring to bvk, which is unfamiliar, but rather in general.)
Avi: I mentioned violence and abondonment are valid halachic causes for mandatory divorce. Note, though, that S”A rules that the halacha is that the beis din needs to give him a second chance – under warning – that if he doesn’t correct his behavior they’ll require him to divorce. Also note that the S”A rules that if he denies the allegations of violence, eyewitness testimony to that effect is required for beis din to have the ability to order a divorce. The S”A states that the beis din can put an agent in their home to bear witness if her allegations against him are true. Allegations regarding verbal/emotional abuse, though, are not specified in the Gemora that Chazal give as a valid cause for mandatory divorce. And the S”A rules that a beis din can only tell him he is obligated to divorce in circumstances that Chazal specifically list as a valid halachic cause for an obligatory divorce.
As far as the New York (or anywhere in the U.S. for that matter), no court can jail someone for not giving a Get. As noted, only the plaintiff filing the case is required to submit that form. That form needs to be submitted together with the initial divorce petition. And even if the husband is the plaintiff filing the case and he fails to submit that form, the court will not accept the case until it is filed, and deem his submission defective (no differently than if he failed to file any other required paperwork when filing a case) and the court won’t act on his filing.
And Rav Elyashev and many other poskim have issued a psak that if a wife invokes New York’s (second) Get Law in order to financially penalize her husband in marital asset distribution by the secular court when he didn’t issue a Get, then the resulting Get is invalid (Get Me’usa).
They’re not married before the chasuna and all the regular halachas regulating interactions between men and women are applicable.
Rav Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 174):
Shulchan Aruch EH 77:2,3. Rashbo teshuva 7:414 and accepted by the Radvaz, Beis Yosef EH 154. GRA 5.
The Chazon Ish Gittin 99:2 says that if the husband does not have a Torah obligation to divorce and the beis din instructs him to divorce, without applying any coercion other than their decree, their ruling itself creates its own oness/coercion and the Get is invalid as the beis din caused the husband to think he had a Torah obligation to divorce, whereas he did not, and thus he gave the Get mistakenly.
Another beis din never has the right to assert jurisdiction in which an earlier beis din (BBD) already had been accepted by both sides and heard the case. Furthermore, the later beis din when asked to hear the case was responded to by the husband that he doesn’t accept their jurisdiction as the case was already in the BBD’s jurisdiction. The later beis din accepted this response from him and dropped out without taking any action. So you’re not correct when you state that they paskened he was mesarev, as they halachicly couldn’t do so and in fact did not.
Here’s a piece for Reb Wolf:
http://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/lakewood-off-the-derech/page/2#post-613753