January 21, 2013 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #922163
Could someone please explain to me the halachic justification (preferably with sources, not just a dismissive “he’s innocent because he would never”) for his locking her in the same room for three hours at a time?January 21, 2013 5:11 pm at 5:11 pm #922164
It is not true that he ever did that.January 21, 2013 5:20 pm at 5:20 pm #922165
OK, let me rephrase for you.
Could someone please explain to me the halachic justification (preferably with sources, not just a dismissive “he’s innocent because a Yid would never”) for a Yid locking a girl in the same room for three hours at a time?January 21, 2013 5:21 pm at 5:21 pm #922166gavra_at_workParticipant
A secular court and 12 jurors of one’s peers has no neemanus or believability or acceptability in halacha or Judaism. NW status to us remains the same as it was before the DA or court acted.
This is 100% true. His status of Safek Rodef has not changed to Vadai just because of a “Jury”.
No, WIY, they truly believe in his innocence.
I believe you (sadly). Nebuch.January 21, 2013 5:50 pm at 5:50 pm #922167slave-to-g-dParticipant
Bringing in Dan L’kaf Zechus might be irrelevant, because it is only required when the person is not “muchzak”(established) to be a rasha. Some of the things he addmitted to doing might make him “muchzak” as a rasha. However, one could argue that “ein adom meisim atzmoh rasha”(a person is not believed to make himself a rasha) and we therefore must consider him a beinonei(non-rasha and non-tzadik). Anyone know what the halacha is?January 21, 2013 6:19 pm at 6:19 pm #922168susheeMember
He never admitted to the things the blogs falsely claim he admitted.January 21, 2013 6:44 pm at 6:44 pm #922169
Can anyone explain the halachic justification (preferably with sources, not just a dismissive “he’s innocent because a Yid would never”) for a Yid locking a girl in the same room for three hours at a time?January 21, 2013 6:48 pm at 6:48 pm #922170susheeMember
chana: Wrong thread, as he did no such thing.January 21, 2013 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #922171gavra_at_workParticipant
chana: Wrong thread, as he did no such thing.
You are Over the Issur of being able to be Mayid for a fellow Yid to keep him out of jail, and refusing to do so. Even now, if you would testify in court he would go free! I’m shocked how little you care about your fellow Yid, and am at a loss for words regarding an Avaryan like you. Go testify in court!January 21, 2013 7:53 pm at 7:53 pm #922172The little I knowParticipant
You cannot know, so your statement is unreliable.
I can state, as per NW’s admission to me, that he saw single, female clients alone at wee hours of the night. That’s yichud, and he admitted it openly. I have no clue about the case that was made in court, but he has no chezkas kashrus here.January 21, 2013 8:06 pm at 8:06 pm #922173
An anonymous claim that someone supposedly made an admission has no more neemanos or believability than failed blogger. If you took your statement to beis din, beis din would give *you* malkus.January 21, 2013 8:50 pm at 8:50 pm #922174
I see people believe anything some random (or even less) person says. So I am announcing you could invest money by me and I promise a secure return of 35% annually, and if you need proof, I will say it emotionally, That should be enough to convince youJanuary 21, 2013 9:56 pm at 9:56 pm #922175WIYMember
Is the 7 a representation of your age? Because your logic is that of a 7 year old. Come back in 10 years.January 22, 2013 1:24 am at 1:24 am #922176Ben LeviParticipant
Even shoul NW have admitted to being oiver on Yichud (which seems to be a matter of some debate).
The very Gemora’s at the end of Kiddushin that make about the issur of Yichud make clear that being oiver on Yichud does not mean that someone was oiver on anything else.
In fact the there are those Shittos in the Gemorah that state one does not give malkus to a married woman who was oiver on Yichud since it may cause people to think that ch”v she was actually mezaneh.
So we have a clear cut Gemorah that states that proof of Yichud is no proof of znus.January 22, 2013 1:39 am at 1:39 am #922177January 22, 2013 2:40 am at 2:40 am #922178
“You cannot know, so your statement is unreliable.”
So, it was a question, and I’m not sure how a question can be unreliable, unless you meant something else.January 22, 2013 3:42 am at 3:42 am #922179☕ DaasYochid ☕Participant
I would expect a better argument from you than that.January 22, 2013 5:02 am at 5:02 am #922180The TherapistMember
Truth is, Ami is a sub-par magazine. The layout is cluttered. I have no idea why anyone would purchase it versus Mishpacha. They have no rabbinical board (and it shows) Within the last couple of weeks, they printed something unbelievably irresponsible in regards to mental health and got crushed by the entire mental health community. They will seemingly print anything to try to sell magazines. In my opinion, they will have to upgrade their standards if they hope to continue to try to compete. One last point: if they are going to print questionable content in regards to hashkafa and obviously hope to attract that crowd, at least make the magazine more exciting and different, more bold. Currently, its just a hodge-podge cookie cutter magazine. (with the exception of a few quality writers, such as Rav Mordechai K, libby Laz, Vicky Dweck. And no, I usually do not read it nor buy it.January 22, 2013 9:36 pm at 9:36 pm #922181ShiraTobalaMember
I read the shidduch crisis in this weeks ami magazine. As, a teenager i took it to mean that I should either ignore this or that if I listen to it find my own shidduch by going out with boys.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.