Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Isnt there a concept of playing “hard to get” or “high maintenence” that really works on some guys?
That kind of boorishness works of fellow boors.
If your husband doesn’t want you to wear makeup, you shouldn’t.
How can this even be a question?? In “B” she is being boorish and self-centered. Any guy with even half a brain would dump her before she got home.
Friends don’t let friends sneeze while driving.
and her husband was the cosmopolitan gentleman Sir Howard Kichelmacher.
oomis, you are very mistaken. A child who is properly taught that TV is poison, will generally not go to friends to watch. There may be exceptions. A child who has a TV is his house, will have no compunctions watching when at a friend.
Additionally, please reread both “m in Israel” and “kapusta”‘s very good points on this issue above.
a
AWOB: Reread my comment.
I don’t think a child without a TV in his home is more likely to watch TV at a friend, than a child who does have a TV in his home. In fact, I believe the opposite.
Are you still friends with him adorable?
Isn’t there a printed guide in English for these halachas?
Charlie: Are you saying that the Chasidisha Rebbes will eat in the homes of the women who learn Talmud?
tobg: Unheard of? It is quite common in the frum community!
We always do things differently than the goyim. In fact, throughout history sometimes when the goyim adopt something we have been doing the rabbonim have us stop doing what we used to do so as not to do the same as the goyim.
I noticed how he kept saying *I*, taking credit for everything and stressing himself umpteen times.
aries: I completely agree with you. (Though I do not think it is widespread at all in frum circles.)
It is a shame that it is considered taboo for girls and guys to talk directly to each other without an appointed intermediary these days in the frum community. This is a reform cultural invention that did not exist hundreds of years ago.
This is incorrect. Hundreds of years ago our zeidas and bubbes did not stam shmooze with opposite genders. This is a complete falsity.
most yeshiva bochurim show up on a date and just stutter and stammer their way through making for a lot of uncomfortable moments.
Even if that is true, there is nothing wrong with that. These bochorim get married and get along just fine with their spouse, certainly no less (and actually better) than people who hang around girls before marriage.
This is mentioned in the Treason Act 1351 Wikipedia article, as well as in a 1994 New York Times story, amongst other places.
Anne Boelyn and Kathryn Howard were convicted, and executed, under the Treason Act 1351.
anon for this: If it is consensual, the Treason Act holds the Prince’s wife equally liable.
Actually Charles and Camilla would also be liable for misa under Torah Law, as they sinned while Camilla was married at the time to someone else. The point again being the status of the woman (i.e. eishes ish) determines the sin for both parties.
Although Charles infidelity was not a capital offense under English Law (for either parties.) Diana’s was.
And to add to popa_bar_abba, the fact is in the discussed case here under both Torah Law, and in English Law, both she (Diana) and he (James Hewitt) receive the same capital punishment.
Now I understand better “shelo asani isha”
James Hewitt, Diana’s “friend”, was equally liable for the death penalty.
Here is the official language of the legislation:
It is the Treason Act 1351 that makes it a capital crime; and that was on the books and the prescribed penalty at the time of Diana’s indiscretion. The Treason Act 1695 limits prosecution of 1351 to within 3 years of committal.
I’m not sure if the penalty is automatically death, or if the judge could have sentenced Diana to a lesser penalty (i.e. life imprisonment), but why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations? Suggestions were made that the one she sinned with, James Hewitt, ought to be so prosecuted. But it was pointed out that it was already past the 3 years SoL. (Diana was dead by then.)
I ate it.
aries: There is simply no excusing Diana’s unfaithfulness. Such activity is never justifiable. She should have been executed for her crimes, as per the law. She lucked out that the 3 year statue of limitations, per the Treason Act 1695, expired before her infidelity was discovered. In any event, G-d gave her was justice failed to.
Rav Moshe’s tefach was a b’dieved, i.e. if it happened inadvertently. Not c”v for an eishes ish to b’davka display a tefach.
The British Royals have quite a sordid marital history. Heck, the entire reason the Church of England was created, and Britain abandoned Catholicism, was so that one man (King Henry) could divorce his wife for the girl-of-the-moment (who didn’t last herself too long before he beheaded her and went on to another 4 wives.)
BTW Kate originally caught William’s attention in college by prancing down a runway in a very promiscuous outfit.
Diana was not a commoner prior to her marriage. And she was philandering subsequent to her marriage. Nothing he did can excuse her unfaithfulness. Her actions, under the law, were a capital offense under the Treason Act 1351 and she was legally subject to be executed for treason.
You need to wash hamotzi for Melave Malke.
BTW, what search syntax did you use in your attempts to google this information?
Even if you find it exists, can we pasken from a random outlying Rishon?
And what if the Rishon spoken of is non-existent. How is that point determined?
As do I.
MDG: Specifically, how does one “dress too yeshivish”?
The British Monarchy is of German descent.
mexipal: How is that related to the discussion at hand?
ZD: Where does your information that his abdication was anything other than voluntary come from?
how do you know that they always dressed differently?
Lo shinu es malbusham.
Perhaps you can live with your father.
Yeshivish is outwardly appearing as someone who does Tzaddik stuff.
Yeshivish is outwardly appearing as Jewish, as Jews have always dressed differently than others.
Henry VIII? Wasn’t he the guy who had 2 of his Queens’ beheaded for adultery?
HaLeiVi: Recollection. Do you believe otherwise?
A Woman: That is neither an excuse nor mitigates her crime. Under the laws of England at the time, she committed a capital offense (as she was the consort of the Crown Prince of England) and was liable to be hung. (Incidentally, what she did would be chayiv misa under our laws too.)
Additionally, Charles was no worse a spouse when he got married than William is today. If I recall some stories of William of the last number of years, he may have an even more iniquitous reputation than his father had at the time of his marriage.