Avi K

All these programs only help bureaucrats. They come with some very serious strings.

Nisht, the AG’s website does list HIR’s address as ULT’s but apparently they are now at 25 B’way. If you check their website you will se that Rabbi Ari Weiss is listed as former Executive Director and Rabbi Avi Weiss is only listed as a supporter (in addition to others whom you would no doubt deem charlatans but then they might think that of you).

Andrew Weiss is apparently their accountant as his address is listed as 25 Broadway on tax papers. There is also a Rabbi Ari Weiss who from his picture is obviously not him. Weiss is not an uncommon name.

Divrei, that is not how we pasken regarding women. Here is the language of Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Biah 14,10):

?????????? – ???? ?????? ???????? ???????? ??????? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?????????? ???????? ???????? ????? ???????? ?????????, ?????? ?????????????? ??????????? ???????? ???????????? (?,?), ????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ?????.

Even for Jews there is a machloket as to the nature of the prohibiition. We pasken that it is a lav but there is no obligatory punishment by a bet din (as it is not explicit in the Tora). Here is the language of the Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 20:2).

???? ???????? (????? ??????? ?????????) ?? ??? ????, ?????? ??? ????? ???????? ????, ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ??, ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ????

Apparently according to Rambam (Hilchot Issurei Biah 20:8) the lashes are rabbinic:

???? ???????? ?? ??? ???? ?????? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ????? ????? ??? ????? ?? ????. ???? ????? ?? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??? ???? ????[?] ???. ???? ???? ???? ?????. ??”? ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????. ???? ?? ??? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ???. ????? ??? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??? ?? ???? ??? ???? ??? ????. ????? ?????? ??? ????? ????? ???? ?????. ??? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ?? ????? ????? ??????? ??? ?????? ?? ?????? ??? ?????:

Akuperma., you are wrong on both counts.

1. One of the earliest instances of a divorce law was in the Colony of Massachusetts Bay, which created a judicial tribunal that dealt with divorce matters in 1629. Northern and Middle states followed suit very quickly. Southern states at least provided for divorce in the case of adultery. All were secular proceedings. As for Canon law, that does not exist in the Congregational or Unitarian denominations, which were dominant in New England.Some other denominations have Canon law but only for regulation of churches and ministers. Among the Protestant churches only the Episcopal church applies it to lay members.

2. Common law marriage means that there was never a ceremony. The couple lived together as man and wife and registered themselves as married. Sometimes even registration was not required. It was sufficient for them to tell people that they were married.

Joseph, Rabbenu Tam (Bechorot 2b d”h shema itchayev) and the Meiri (Avodah Zarah 2b and 6b), say that gentiles are not prohibited in avoda zara b’shituf as does the Rema (Orach Chayim 156:1).

Nishtdayngesheft,

1. Please cite the source that says that two gentile women are over. Rambam (hilchot Melachim 9:5) only says mishkav zachor.

2-4. I agree 100%.

According to the Gemara people get them at birth. However, it would seem that personality types as abstractions already exist.

Akuperma, the reason why he lived in Brooklyn is well known. In fact, he himself stated it. He worried that if he even went to visit Israel it might not have been permitted for him to leave and he thought that his presence in Brooklyn was needed. His views on EY were also well known. He ruled that it is completely prohibited to give land to a non-Jewish political entity.

Newbee, there is not enough talking?

MDG, YW. Your proof is not a proof. The mitzva of conquest is on Am Yisrael not on any individual. However, every individual has a mitzva to live in EY. There is also Rav Chaim Vital’s opinion that the oats were only for 1,000 years. If we say that they began with the churban Bayit Sheini that brings us to just before the Crusades.

Akuperma, I think that my post answers your problem. However, to clarify further, their is a basic law (the basic laws form a quasi-constitutional framework) that states that when a judge cannot find a solution in positive law or deduction therefrom he should look to the principles of justice in Jewish law. Obviously, a judge who is knowledgeable in Jewish law would use it to bring more Halacha into Israeli law (in fact, the champion at that is Judge Neil Hendel of the Supreme Court, who was in Rav Soloveichik’s shiur even though he was not officially enrolled in YU). Moreover, the only real problem, as I posted, is civil suits so if one does not want a judgeship then he can simply specialize in criminal or administrative law.

Wolfish, he compared the structure of the chants with Tehillim taamim. You can google “Gregorian chants Jewish” and find several articles.

Many tunes for zemirot come form non-Jewish tunes. It is well known that Rav Ovadia enjoyed the music of Um Kathoum until someone showed him her picture – then it became an isuue of kol isha.The Mishna Berura (53:82) says that only their religious tunes are prohibited. Of course, it goes without saying that if the lyrics contain nibbul peh or praise of idolatry they are prohibited.

The dishes are not a problem even if you hold that chalav stam is assur. See Rema Yoreh Deah 64:9.

Gavra, so how come the Land did not eject them? The answer is that he term “rasha” has different meanings in different contexts. In Hilchot Eidut a rasha is someone who deliberately violated any halacha, even a derabban (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 34:2-3 with Rema). As Rambam agrees with this (Hilchot Eidut 10:3) yet says in Hilchot Teshuva (3:1) that a tzaddik is someone whose mitzvot outweigh his aveirot we must say that these terms have different definitions depending on the context.

Gavra, which original points? I was addressing your contention that the Chessed l’Avraham was referring to “people like Achitofel, Doeg, Achav and Menashe”.

Gavra, he did not specify but wrote generally. However, being that you brought them up, today’s secularists do not come up to their heels in evildoing. So ?? ???, ??? ???? ?? ?? ?????

MDG, as I have previously posted, the three oaths are not paskened in any of the codes. No surprise as Rav Chaim Vital says that they were only for 1,000 years. Besides, the other nations ratified our right to a state in the San Remo conference a few years after WW1. Acording to Rav Teichtal (Em HaBanim Semeicha) we were punished for NOT MAKING ALIYA. He says that this was a manifestation of the sin of the spies.

Akuperma,

Who says that they were “heavily” taxed? In fact, individuals have an obligation not to burden the community. Rambam says (Hilchot Mattanot Aniim 10:18)

????? ????? ??? ????, ??????? ????, ??? ????? ???????, ??? ????? ??? ???? ?? ??????; ??? ???? ????? ?????, ??? ???? ????, ??? ????? ???????. ?????? ??? ??? ??????, ?????–????? ???????, ?????? ??????? ??????; ??? ????? ???????: ???? ???? ????? ??????? ????, ??? ???? ???, ??? ??? ????? ??? ????? ???, ???????; ???? ???? ?????.

Even captives should not be redeemed for more than their value so as not to burden the community (Yam shel Sholomo, Gittin 4:66).

Chazal certainly would not have approved of a system that rewards breaking up families and promiscuous behavior.

Akuperma, how are Orthodox Jews left wing on Economics and if so, why? The highest form of tzedaka is to provide a person with a productive job and not just throw a money at him – and the Shach says (Yoreh Deah 249:7) that this is because being that the giver also profits the recipient is not embarrassed at all. The free market does this best. Moreover, Halacha presumes that businesses and property are private, the principle that tanai b’mamon kayam is based on the right of a person to do with his money as he pleases.

Oomis, TY for your lesson in moral relativism. So how far does one go with this nonsense? Suppose parents want their child to marry someone davka from the same neighborhood so that they can talk about “the good old days”? One of the marks of a wise person is his ability to find common ground with everyone. Thus, when the Chafetz Chaim found himself on a long wagon ride with some rural people (who were very much derided by townspeople) he spent the entire time discussing horses (and saved them from speaking lashon hara).

There is no halachic obligation for either of you to respect their wishes. In fact, Rav Moshe Soloveichik objected to Rav Joseph Soloveichik’s choice (non-frum parents) as did her parents (frum parents). I don’t know what she said but Rav Soloveichik wrote his father a respectful halachic analysis proving that he did not have to listen. RMS told his associates that his son was right. Whether either of you is willing to take possible consequences is another matter. I suggest speaking to their rav.

Not letting children look at pictures of non-kosher animals. So much for the flags of the shevatim and bringing them to Ashkenazic shuls (pictures of lions as well as the flags). I knew a talmid of Rav Scheinberg who decided to be makpid so he asked his parents not to bring such pictures as gifts at the bert. When the gifts were opened it was discovered that Rav Scheinberg’s wife gave pictures of bears.

As for walking between two women ,some say it is immodest. Not walking between two dogs or pigs is probably safer. BTW, just because something is mentioned in the Gemara does not necessarily mean that we pasken that way. A case in point is not leaving eggs, garlic or onions unpeeled overnight (see “The Weekly Halachah Discussion”, v.2 p. 460 ff.)

1.I knew a rav (he has since passed on) who was from Galicia. He said that unlike in Lithuania, which was always poor, Galicia was well off as it had oil (also textile factories). However, the economic boycott of the ’30s wiped out many Jews.

2. I can’t understand how Rav Elchanan discounted the possibility of the Holocaust. The Chafetz Chaim said that the troubles and killing that the Jews have suffered till then will be, by comparison, “a kinder shpeel – child’s play.” Of course, there was a geenral tragic attitude on the part of each country’s Jewry that the Nazis ym”s meant another country’s. The French said that they only meant the German Jews, whom they blamed for the defeat in WW1, the German Jews thought they only meant the Ostjuden who had foreign ways and the Polish Jews thought they only meant the Jews of the Soviet Union, whom they considered to be Communists. Rav Soloveichik says that this teaches us forcefully that we are all in the sameboat.