akuperma

The payroll tax is not officially a tax since it is officially considered a premium towards social security, which is officially not a government program but is a type of insurance annuity (okay, if it was a real insurance program, it would be closed down immediately as a ponzi scheme, but that’s a different matter). Even though the tax is highly regressive, the Congress didn’t object since after all, it isn’t a “tax”.

Remember, being a politician is to learn how to put your hands in someones pocket without calling it theft. They’re really quite clever at it.

Depending on definition, one can argue that real Hareidim don’t accept money from the government, and are learning in yeshivos that depend on private donations (often from abroad, as has been the case for centuries). Those who don’t accept zionist money will object the most forcefully to conscription, and their protests will seriously hurt Israel’s international standing, and undermine those hareidim, who for ideological or economic reasons, which to serve in the IDF. One solution might be for the government to stop funding yeshivos directly, allow anyone with any sort of “religious” objection to be exempt from military service (no questions asked), and rely on economic incentives to serve in the army (which for hareidim may be offering to pay for veterans, opening hesder-style programs, etc.). Raiding the yeshivos to drag away talmidim will be a disasterous policy. One should remember that as it is, many benefits of the Israeli welfare state are tied to military service, and this could be expanded. Such a policy suggests the army’s willingness to increase accomodation of hareidim, and in effect to “recruit” rather than conscript.

For a large party, and he usually travels with a large party, a private or charter would probably be cost efficient.

1. The survival of the Jewish people is at stake. Learning Torah is more important. Even if Israel were “driven into the sea”, we would survive because there are Jews throughout the world learning Torah. We’ve been through a lot a tight situations, and the single theme in Jewish history is that Torah and Mitsvos is the key to survival.

2. The IDF is very hostile to Orthodox Jews. In fact, a large percentage of Shomer Shabbos Jews who serve do so only in segregated units where their frumkeit is tolerated, but where they are discriminated against in terms of job assignments and promotions. In general, it is very hard for Orthodox Jews to function in a secular environment in which Shabbos and Kashruth are at best tolerated, and where pritzus is a social norm (which is why some rabbanim poskened the army has a din of a Beis Busha – a view supported by widespread complaints among hiloniiot of sexual harassment). There is also the fact that the IDF has historically seen its job as “modernizing” (a polite way of saying “secularizing”) people in creating a modern secular state – which has great significance by halacha since if you are in a situation where non-observance is being coerced for reasons of undermining yiddishkeit, one is required to have mesiras nefesh even over trivial things (the traditional example is over how one ties one shoes). That means a frum soldier will end up being in a situation of having to give up on mitsvos, or openly oppose orders in an institution where there is seriously “frowned upon”.

3. Some frum Jews question the legitimacy of the State of Israel. If one bases the Jews’ claim to Eretz Yisrael on Torah, you have the problem that it was clearly given for the purpose of doing mitsvos. If there is no halachic basic for the state founded by Hertzl and Ben Gurioun, how it is mutar to kill (or be killed) in defense of that state, noting that in “modern” warfare a soldier often has no control over who he kills. In most western countries, someone with such views would be a conscientious objector and would be exempt from military service – but for Israel to accept such a view as legitimate would be admit that it is a question whether the State of Israel has a valid claim to the Jewish legacy pertaining to Eretz Yisrael (and perhaps it is, as the Arabs claim, an Euro-American ultra-secular colonial regime, and no more).

Perhaps. Everyone’s historical traditions (their’s and our’s) say they are not, but the similarities in religious doctrines suggest some connection or influence. Absent a “time machine” no one can know for sure (not that it matters all that much, unless you are into arguing fine points of history).

Note that for recessive traits (such as Tay Sachs and Cystic fibrosis), genetic testing which is widely down in the frum community can prevent a shidduch in which both parents have the trait (which is what is required for a possibility of having a child with the condition), and that even if both parents are carriers, there is only a 25% chance that any given child will have the trace. Due to genetic testing (and arranged marriages), these diseases are increasingly rare in our community. While it is possible, the odds of having 7 out of 10 children display a recessive genetic trait are quite small (it can happen, but is extremely unlikely).

It should also be noted that Cystic fibrosis is treatable, and most people with the disease live until middle age, and in the US, most graduate from university. I’ld question whether killing a kid for having the disease is worth discussing even if allowed. Downs syndrome results in a variety of developmental disabilities, but kids with the disease (which is not a genetic disease) often live to adult hood. The boys get bar mitzvas. They often can be self-supporting with adult but do need family support. Tay Sachs is currently incurable, but that is liable to change. Any psak halacha from more than a few years ago should be considered meaningless since conditions are changing, and the psak should come from a rav who is keeping up on current medical developments.

It involves numerous problems, and I seriously doubt an Orthodox rabbi of any flavor would say it is mutar. If you are looking for a heter, look for one who is not familiar with American goyish customs so he might not be aware of the halachic objections. It is probable that a “modern Orthodox” rabbi, being better informed, would object more strongly.

1. Many things have never been translated.

2. Most translations are poor.

3. The goyim has a saying that “translators are traitors”. Translations inherently distort.

4. A good analogy would be to someone who studies a subject on a college level (the person who uses the real text), very someone studying the same subject on a middle school level (the person using a translation).

5. Translations between Hebrew and either Arabic or Aramaic are not necessarily so bad, since those languages are close. Translations to English are especially problematic since English is totally unrelated (English having as much in common with Hebrew as it does with Chinese or Zulu, whereas Hebrew’s relationship to Arabic and Aramaic is similar to English’s relationships with French and German).

Unlikely there would be an emergency. Secretaries of Treasury normally work more regular hours, so it won’t be a problem. He primary a budget maven not a banker, and he’ll probably have fewer problems than as the president’s “chief of staff” who might get woken up whenever there is a presidential crisis.

He is the first Shomer Shabbos cabinet secretary (under the Republicans Dov Zackheim was an under-secretary, albeit with a yarmulke in public). In Israel, Orthodox Jews have held cabinet positions, but they got them as patronage rather than based on merit.

“MO” means “Modern ORTHODOX” – he davens at a frum shul, keeps Shabbos and kashruth – that’s pretty much the basic definition of frum.

Agudath Israel was one of the original parties in 1949, and they got the “gimel” which has passed on to Yahudus HaTorah. Back then the religious parties were much more unified (okay, the fact that the Communists were the second largest party and threatened to win was a factor in encouraging religious unity – when it finally became apparent that Israel wasn’t going to ally with Stalin, that unity started to break down).

If the woman had a valid conversion, followed by a valid halachic marriage to a Jew, and subsequently bore a child to a non-Jewish male without have received a “get”, that child would arugably be a “mamzer”. In practice, if the putative mamzer (or his/her descendant)then became a Baal Tseuvah, a Beis Din would look at the validity of the mother’s initial marriage, and the validity of the conversion – since Beitei Din “bend over backwards” to avoid deciding that someone is a mamzer.

Those who said that the status of the non-Jewish father is irrelevant were addressing a situation where the mother is an unmarried Jews whereas in the “question” here she is said to be a woman married according to halacha.

1. The Rishonim obviously thought they themselves were Achronim. Rashi and Rambam thought they were utterly contemporary, modern authors .

2. There is no strict rule. As with all historical classifications, it is subjective.

3. A border of around 1500 seems logical. Before you had a big kehillah and Spain, and afterwards Sefardim were those who had left Spain. Among the Christians, this was the end of the medieval period and the start of the modern period (rise of nation states, Preotestants, etc.). Among the Muslims this was the period where the Turks (rather than the Arabs) rules the Middle East. It was the period in which printing became widespread – and that was a major technological change that affected us more than most, since most goyim were illiterate.

4. Over time such definitions would likely change. If you wait long enough, we’ll probably be considered Rishonim. Playing with the dates that periods began and ended in history is something historians love to do, especially with sufficently strong beverages to encourage discussion (meaning it is about convenience, not substance). I would argue that the period of the 1940s is a major “watershed” in Jewish history, and everything before 1940 is the “past”, and post 1950 is the “present” – and maybe in a few centuries people will see it that way.

If the conversion was valid, it is always valid. All the children of the woman (subsequent to the conversion) are Jewish. The children of the non-Jewish second husband are Jewish but are also probably mamzerim.

It’s a clever legal strategy. For political reasons, none of the frum schools will let him in (or rather, will let his kids in). So he is making legal mischief for them. It seems that the American style of using litigation as “warfare by other means” is spreading to Europe.

It isn’t clear why he doesn’t want to send his children to the Satmar schools (perhaps he has higher academic standards), or why he doesn’t home school. However this suggests the law suits are a deliberate nuisance against the non-zionist and pro-zionists, and is probably retaliation for their (arguably justifiable, and certainly predictable) harassment of him.

I’m surprised the schools didn’t try to have him summoned by the Satmar Beis Din, which he would have trouble ignoring. Of course, that would also be politically incorrect, especially for the zionist schools he’s been suing.

In most western countries, middle-class men typically do not marry until they are able to support a family, whereas women married when they were able to start raising a family, leading to a substantial age gap, since men traditionally had to complete things such as apprenticeships, college, building a career, fighting wars – before they go married.

Of course, disreputable teenagers always were, well, you know (we can’t discuss it here) -and they were disreputable with people their own age.

Increasing, women have been delaying marriage in order to enter careers, leading to many women being upset once they hear their “biological clock ticking.”

In all fairness, women seem to be emotionally ready for parenting a lot soon than men.

I suspect the norm in the frum community will gradually be for men to marry in their late 20s or early 30s, and women to marry in their mid 20s. Remember that unless they are “1%” types, women as well as men need time to finish college and have a career so they can support a family in a middle class manner (including paying tuition).

If you have the grades and scores to go to NYU or Columbia, they are better schools than Touro. If you can get into a public university (e.g.CUNY or SUNY for a New Yorkers), the in-state tuition is much cheaper. Some people lack the grades to get into a public university, and they’ll find Touro is an option. Some people find a co-ed non-Jewish environment to be too intimidating if not hostile, and Touro is an answer.

Perhaps they should throw rocks – big ones, ones that can cause real damage. The Arabs tend to prefer things that go “boom” – which is what the zionists used when they wanted to protest (note – they didn’t throw diapers at the King David Hotel).

Perhaps it might be better to have totally orderly, peaceful civil disobedience. Such were used by African Americans in the United States and worked out well (albeit the vast majority of states had already banned racial discrimination and regarded the southerns as jerks for their racial policies). Also the American legal system

was open to civil rights suits, whereas the Israeli legal system is controlled by a self-perpetuating system that reflects the viciously anti-religious elites who dominated Israel in the 1950s.

Given that in that part of the world, protests tend to involve a lot more than tossing diapers, we shouldn’t complain. The real issue is that the rulers of Eretz Yisrael want to surpress Torah Judaism no less than the “Hellenists” did, but that the Hareidim don’t want to rely on a miracle and take up armed resistance (you can find a full halachic discussion of why not in the original Satmarer’s seferim).

You probably should seek assistance from a lawyer (or at least a social worker) who does this for a living.

anon1m0us: Actually, they cancelled the raise for Congress, and will probably cancel raises for the civil service (which is a leading employer of Orthodox Jews). The spending parts of the “fiscal cliff” were postponed for a few weeks, so they are still “up in the air”.

All they decided was on a broad tax increase including and probably most burdensome on anyone who is working for wages (or self-employed), earning less than $105K (per person, double that if both spouses have similar incomes – no discount for families under payroll tax). The “rich” will pay more money, but the middle class have the worst percentage changes to disposable income.

Arguably not Avodah Zarah since it was created recently without any claim of religious significance (making it a secular holiday similar to the classic “king’s birthday” or “Independence Day” or “Columbus Day” or “Veterans’ Day/Armistice Day/Remembrance Day”).

Weird question. Unless you were in occupied Europe during World War II, there haven’t been “tough times” in modern times. Even in 1648 or the Crusades, the “tough times” only lasted a few weeks. Today the world is universally more peaceful, prosperous and healthy than anytime in human history – especially for Yidden, but also for goyim.

If you run into frum Jews born between 1940 and 1945, you have your answer. Even in Mitsrayim people still had children – there’s an agada saying that we were saved in the zechus of the wives who didn’t let tought times bother them.

If your scanner is operating illegally, shut up and stop scanning before you get arrested.

If her phone is operating on the wrong frequency (which is the only way you could be legally getting her conversations), tell her since her phone is broken (and she could get in trouble for it).

Ashkenazim name only for dead people. The “logic” is that the Angel of Death might get confused and get the baby instead of the namesake.

Sefardim has a different custom.

Of course, since we typically give multiple personal names, it would be easy to get around the prohibition – which is just a local minhag.

The early bibliographies of sefarim in the 17th century clearly showed that many people had double forenames (personal names, as opposed to surnames or nicknames). Albeit this was limited to authors of sefarim, who by definition are more “hashuv” than the average yid. Interesting, at that time the custom of Ashkenazim was to use the second of the two names as what one usually called the person (“Shmuel David” know to his friends as David). The discussions of writing a “get” (the only time it is really important to get the names right) also so that double personal names are not a new invention.

oomis: Miami will get Havana’s weather – no problemo.