☕ DaasYochid ☕

DY -“Also, according to you, it’s perfectly acceptable to marry someone quite a bit younger, so why would age be a criterion for elimination?”

They aren’t eliminated; just recommended against only when you have more than one to choose.

That was the context I was referring to. I see at the end of your post that you agree that a large age difference can cause marital strife, so it seems that you agree to this basic point.

“One more thing – why does the beraisa say the issue is kettotah if the issue is finances?”

Kettoh means strife. In this case the strife is financial.

If you mean that finacial strain can lead to marital strife, I accept your point. Even if this was not your intention, I thought of this point over Shabbos (and I saw a Meiri who uses the term ketotah referring to the gemara on mem daled), and I retract this kasha.

“The pshat I mentioned is the simple pshat, and it does not pose any of these difficulties.

Ok, let’s say you could learn your P’shat that they use the Posuk to tell you that you aren’t allowed to do Yibum with older or younger women. My P’shat fits in so you don’t have to learn your way, but let’s say you want to. Where do you ever see you don’t have to be Mikayim Pru OORevu because of age difference? You want to say the Posuk throws it out of Yibum altogether, fine; but now take it and learn it by regular marriage -impossible. And you can’t say I’ll find someone else -this minute you are being Mevatel Pru OORevu. The same is true by the woman -this minute they aren’t being Mekayim L’sheves Yeetzoroh.

First, I will reiterate that your pshat does not fit in. The Meiri I mentioned, as well as the Ritva, both learn that the gemara on mem daled is asking from the beraisa as an analogy, not directly.

Of course he is not patur from p’ru ur’vu, but there’s no chiyuv to marry the first woman you meet even if it’s a horrible shidduch!

Now you know why Boaz said what Rus did was such a big chessed- marrying an older guy can cause marital strife and even so she wanted him. And in her case, not like nowadays it was Only chessed because e/o wanted to marry her.

I’m glad that we can agree, at least, that a large age gap can cause marital strife.

But in our generation they will sit aroung waiting in their twenties and thirties, not necessarily having s/o who definitely will marry them but as long as they won’t marry s/o older. Maybe the older guys aren’t Tzadikim like Boaz, but the girls aren’t like Rus either were e/o wants them or they would be married by 22!

I don’t think it’s fair to compare our generation to Rus and Boaz at all.

It’s also not realistic to expect a girl in her 20’s or 30’s to give up on a normal marriage and agree to marry someone who might be decades older than her.

Safek mamzer is muttar.

The reason I think there is no such thing as a kohen mamzer is because the woman becomes a zonah since she is assur to the kohen (as per S”A E”H 6-8) so the child is a chalal.

OK, I have a couple of unexpected “free” minutes, so I’ll address the way you learned the gemara.

The problem is, you’re reading something into the beraisa which simply isn’t there; the beraisa is referring to regular yibum, and to learn that it’s talking about multiple yevamos, with the objective to eliminate all but one, is pure speculation.

The Tur would also be completely out of context, as I already mentioned, and there’s no reason for him to expect us to understand his case to be that of multiple yevamos when the beraisa makes no hint of that.

Also, according to you, it’s perfectly acceptable to marry someone quite a bit younger, so why would age be a criterion for elimination?

One more thing – why does the beraisa say the issue is kettotah if the issue is finances?

The pshat I mentioned is the simple pshat, and it does not pose any of these difficulties.

Apparently, you cannot connect a cd drive to an ipad. This from ehow:

Do you need to install media that is on a CD? If you need to install media that is on a CD, on a netbook you can simply connect a CD drive using a USB cable. The only way to get media from the Ipad is to purchase it from Itunes or applications store.

gaw,

I see that my post (as well as the post I was responding to) was removed. My point was that if a company wants a female employee because of a legitimate tznius concern, it’s acceptable. I was also disturbed by the advocacy of mesirah.

Mod: I had a few more minutes now to completely answer his post. Can you please remove the earlier one? Thanks.

Daas Yochid – IDK; Did you read my post on the previous page? Why in the world would you think this applies to a regular marriage or even regular Yibum? The Gemorrah says quite clearly that it’s going on that case of more than one that needs Yibum.

It’s a beraisa. The gemara quoted it to ask a kasha. The beraisa was talking about regular yibum.

I completely fail to follow your train of thought.

Likewise.

the Gemorrah says if he is wealthy, he can marry more than one and we don’t tell him anything like -stick with your own age buddy.

Because it’s an unrelated case; the yevamos are of similar age to him.

The gemorrah says we only tell him this when there will be conflict (Kettoh). So why do you keep on pretending that this is just like a Chok in Torah Sheb’ksav. You keep insisting that this Eitza has no reason and applies all the time, in every type of marriage.

And of course it’s brought down in Tur because this is the Halacha with more than one women to be Meyabim.

The Tur does not say one word about more than one yevama, because the beraisa was not only talking in such a case.

Even when the Torah says something which is a Chok, Chazal tried to find some sort of reason and here where the Gemorrah says clearly what the reason is, you pretend there isn’t any.

I never pretended any such thing. The reason given is ketotah.

And btw, how did you come across this Gemorrah -did you learn it now or recently, or did you do some Talmudic search on the net looking for something to prove me wrong?!?

I would unequivocally, absolutely, NEVER vote for a woman to hold public office (unless she was the better candidate).

Gales:

I’d never heard of a pot,

that was (or was not) not bar not.

According to R’ Shlomo,

it’s called “eino ben yomo”,

when the absorbed ta’am begins to rot.

Enough with Talmud 101!

Good line.

Regardless, the beraisa, quoted on kuf aleph (sorry) and mem daled says that it is not a good idea to marry someone much older or younger, and the halacha is brought like this in the Tur (the S.A. doesn’t specify what kind of an eitzah, but doesn’t argue on the beraisa, obviously).

80,

I think it’s being used in contradistinction to a man who is able to have children, as in:

A man who is able to have children can only marry a woman who is able to have children, but a man who is unable to have children can “even” marry a woman who is unable to have children.

is a man who is physically unable to have children obligated to get married?

Yes (Rema, E”H 1-6)

is he allowed to marry a woman who is capable of having children? (or at least there is no indication that she is not capable)

Yes (diyuk in Nimukei Yosef, the Rem”a’s source, who writes that he may even marry a woman who cannot bear children).

I’ll have the mushrooms on the side, then.

The pumpernickel might taste great, but I’m afraid the burger might fall off.

Maybe if I melt some (parve) cheese on it, it’ll stick. I’ll keep the wrapper on so it won’t be maris ayin.

Health,

I don’t know why you think the gemara on 44 is the “main” gemara, which somehow renders the one on 101 obsolete. On 101, the gemara quotes the beraisa (posted above) which gives marrying someone (much) older or younger as an example of an ill-advised marriage. The gemara on 44 asks a question on the mishna which allows multiple yibums (from different brothers) because this would also be ill-advised. The two are in no way contradictory, and, in fact, the Tur (166) gives the former as an example.

There was never any question that it is certainly actually permitted to do so.

I didn’t think you did question it, which is why that post did not quote or address you, or any specific poster.

Mod 80,

What should I have for lunch?

The highway rest areas are certainly not maris ayin because it’s known that it’s the most convenient rest stop.

shlishi,

Once we’ve agreed that Chaza”l’s position is not universal, we can discuss who is or isn’t excluded. I happen to agree that some people misapply it, but some people really will only make another person suffer if they marry.

ilovetheholyland,

Who says that Chaza”l (Sotah 2a, BTW) applies to everyone? Maybe it only applies to those who do have a “bashert”?

It is also apparent in some of the meforshim that one can, through his choices, follow a path different than the bas kol.

The good news — I graduated with my Master’s Degree a three weeks ago.

I suppose it wasn’t in Language and Grammar Studies.

Yes

Marriage is not for everyone.

Shlishi – “Chazal say otherwise.”

Wrong.

I agree, but it should be backed up.

The Mishna in Avos about L’Chupa isn’t exclusionary.

How do you know?

I would say that Chaza”l could not possibly have held that marriage is for everyone, since it’s not possible for everyone to get married.

I figured most thirteen year old boys would have an easier time proving such a thing to a doctor rather than a rav.

Actually, they would probably have two men checking stealthily in the mikveh.

Marriage is not for everyone.

Many of those can work on themselves (for many, it’s hopeless).

a parve cheeseburger

That actually wouldn’t be a problem since both the meat and cheese are fake.

My answer to all the older guy shidduchim posts -You can marry an older guy even if you’re young and even if it isn’t PC.

And even if the gemara strongly advises against it? (Yevamos 101b)

DY: But normally, you don’t have to check, so as far as we are concerned, he is “Bar Mitzva”, due to the Chazaka, and we have no chiyuv to check.

Here, as with other dinei D’Oraysah (such as Laining Zachor), the individual must be checked.

Yes, I was just nitpicking on the distinction between a “bar mitzvah” and a “bona fide godol”. I would have distinguished between a “13 year old” and a “bona fide godol”.

I fail to see the need to wait beyond the thirteenth birthday (assuming the hairs are present). It can easily be determined via medical exam if the hairs are present (if the boy himself is not believed).

AS per Shulchan Aruch (167 – 3) we do indeed check (but he is not believed because we would first need to determine if he’s a gadol before we give him credibility).

When I see the same guys inflicting pain over and over again on so many girls, with girls getting turned off from dating, and the feeling of Yay-ush setting in, I feel someone should tactfully, but effectively Hocheach Tochiach es Amitecha, otherwise we’re all enablers.

That’s all good and well (not really, but you know what I mean), but calling them OTD, no matter the semantic gymnastics, is, shall we say, a bit over the top.