mentsch1

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 512 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: The process of asking for money for a wedding #2111812
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    I’ve got relatives in EY marrying off daughters.
    I can tell you that they turn down shidduchim all the time because of the question “will you buy the couple an apartment “
    The answer is no and that is that. It’s not “more or less the same” as here. I’ve never heard of anyone having the chutzpah to demand that here

    And OP
    Where do you live that it is only once every two weeks?
    Here in Flatbush it’s a daily occurrence

    in reply to: The process of asking for money for a wedding #2111726
    mentsch1
    Participant

    I would like to think it is only tremendous pressure that would drive someone to do something so humiliating.
    And therefore I would like to think that all these cases are one of great rachmanus and we should give accordingly.
    That said, since I know of the “minhag” of some people in EY demanding that the Kallahs side by an apartment for the couple, it is difficult for me. Bc I didn’t buy my kids houses, so why would I buy some other kid real estate?

    in reply to: Talmeidei Chachamim with kids not like them #2109744
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Yungerman
    Though what you say is true, it doesn’t explain how so many families have a kid off the derech.
    Why would the same parent/role model have several “regular “ kids and one off the derech when they all had the same role model ?
    A few years ago I went to daven in an EY kollel with my brother. I saw the Rosh Kollel learning with a heavily tattooed young man. I commented to my brother how nice it is that this talmid chachum does kiruv. He said “that’s his son”
    It’s a plague and I don’t think I’m ready to blame the parents.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2106642
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Menachem
    That’s exactly what the Maccabees did.
    Gave up their weapons and davened.
    Certainly our history is not replete with examples of our small armed ragtag army fighting (and winning) against superior governmental forces.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105166
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    I recognize there is a greater question of hishtadlus here. I just take issue with the idea that there is something not hashkafic about ownership
    And Jackk
    If you want you can subscribe to the NRA and get their magazines. They have a section on all the newspaper clippings of people who saved themselves with guns. I know two frum people whose lives were saved. Now we can argue that their lives were meant to be saved anyway, even without a gun. But as someone else has already said. Areas with people carrying guns tend to be safer.
    We need to focus on getting the guns away from criminals. Stop and frisk etc. if we aren’t doing that , if we are allowing BLM protests etc. please don’t strip me of my right to protect my family.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105160
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    Your comparison to roe is limited at best. Roe was bad law with no constitutional backing.
    The second amendment does exist and logic is on the side of private ownership.
    But feel free to pack the courts with liberals who overturn the second amendment sometime in the next 50 years. By then we will have another 200 million guns in the hands of Americans. Then what?
    I think we can all agree on some measures. Especially mental health and background checks. And I fault the NRA and states for not implementing these measures.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105159
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Jackk
    As I have said earlier in other threads it makes sense to make it harder to get weapons. Especially since goyim can’t be trusted.
    But your understanding of guns is limited if you think banning ar15 will solve the problem. As has been said before the assault rifle term is one that is cosmetic. You would have to ban all semi automatic rifles of 9mm caliber or larger to really remove military grade rifles from the population.
    In todays climate that is not going to happen.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105158
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq
    The tanach argument is fallacious. Bottom line they were armed. I’m not arguing that they also had to daven., of course they did. But they all had weapons. ALL OF THEM.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105079
    mentsch1
    Participant

    I grew up MO
    Many in the local YI had kippahs with “never again” written on them. I believe that statement is koach v’otzam yudi
    But to all those arguing gun ownership isn’t Jewish or we should point to other countries. How does that help us as Jews in the post holocaust era?
    I’m sure the Jews in prewar Germany also thought there was no issue. I’m sure they pointed to the safety of western countries
    How do you ignore the increase in attacks on Jewish institutions? We have had ponway, Philly, Jersey and just this past shabbos.
    Just 2 years ago the discussion in all the shuls in Brooklyn is if you should have armed misspallilm.
    Rav Bender trained his staff to carry arms.
    Are you living in reality or just hoping for the best?

    in reply to: Gun Control #2105074
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Truth
    True it is boring.
    We have all the usual arguments.
    Jackk thinking it’s not Jewish to own weapons-ignoring every chapter of tanach
    All the others ignoring the reality of the Supreme Court decisions .
    The reality is
    Gun ownership has become enshrined.
    The term “assault weapon” ignores the lethality of similar weapons
    Real believers will not give up their weapons without a fight
    Access has gone down while shootings up – pointing to societal issues as the root cause
    So pointing to other countries is a pointless exercise that ignores the realities . Stick in the realm of what is possible.

    in reply to: Gun Control #2103975
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Reb eliezer
    Notice how the media keeps referring to the weapon used as “ar 15 style”
    I don’t like commenting without facts and the truth will eventually come out but this “style” word combined with Illinois strict laws leads me to believe it wasn’t an “assault weapon” but a standard semi auto rifle (possibly a mini 14)
    And if I am right then this only proves what the anti ban people have been saying for years; there is no functional difference between an ar15 “assault rifle” and a standard semi auto

    in reply to: Gun Control #2103969
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Menachem shmei
    So your point is that America would be better off transitioning from a democracy to a Sanhedrin based theocracy
    I agree
    But sounds a little unrealistic to me.
    In light of the fact that we are a constitutional democracy with an enshrined second amendment, let’s propose realistic solutions instead of pipe dreams

    in reply to: Gun Control #2103784
    mentsch1
    Participant

    OP
    In the 1970’s 50% of homes had guns now it’s around 32% (google it . Source NYT so hardly right wing)
    So if access to guns is dropping while shootings are increasing, is the problem guns?
    These types of shooting were unheard of in the 1970’s.
    I have drawn the conclusion that our society is rotten.
    How can we only discuss gun control without acknowledging the need to govern speech and hate?

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103459
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    How it’s supposed to go and how it will go is not necessarily the same way. As you know I am divorced and remarried. So I probably have a little bit more clarification on some of this than others.
    First of all a get is usually written by a Rav who is an expert, not necessarily by an official bais din. Said Rav acting responsibly will not immediately write the get but require assurances from rabbanim involved in the case, that the marriage is beyond salvage, prior to writing the get.
    Now this is a case involving both parties wanting out. Your specific case I can only guess at. But logically Rabbanim will get involved. They can’t force either party to stay married and at some point in time will pronounce the marriage unsalvageable and push for a get.
    It makes sense to do it get. Bc a couple that is married but not living together is a couple in danger of committing other averos.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103235
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Gefilte
    I personally know of 3 cases of heter meah (besides for the one I mentioned involving Rav Moshe)
    Two of them the wife refused the get
    One the wife was permanently incapacitated
    Silent-Majority is completely uninformed

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103234
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Silent majority
    Please read drpeppers post
    You need to actually give the get to a bais din prior to seeking the heter
    My source (the same relative) called it being “mishalish” the get with a bais din
    As for the other details in drpepeppers post I can’t vouch for it
    Apparently there is a rashba that already considered the cherem batul in those days and most authorities agree with that
    Rav Asher Weiss has a well explained tshuva on the subject (I think chelek 1:75)

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103232
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ayingle
    The case was in regards to a mentally incapacitated/institutionalized woman

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103112
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    So now the question is even though it lapsed how strong is the ongoing commitment to it based on minhag?
    Even though there may be no cherem is it “against our minhag” to marry more than one spouse? Etc.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103111
    mentsch1
    Participant

    The relative did receive smicha from Rav Moshe but that happened after
    According to him everyone in the Bais Medrash at the time signed
    Quoting this person (but not in Rav Moshe’s name) “probably close to 99% of the tshuvos I have seen on the subject of The cherim treat it leniently Bc of the lapse in time”

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103065
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    Just got off the phone with a close relative who learned under Rav Moshe in MTJ
    He once signed on a heter as a bachur
    Rav Moshe asked everyone in the bais medrash to sign
    Apparently the kulah (ie allowing bachrum and not necessitating from multiple communities/countries) is due to the fact that the cherem ran out already

    in reply to: Supreme Court Ruling Over Gun Conrol #2100726
    mentsch1
    Participant

    akuperma
    “every bullet has a lawyer attached”
    but you may have stumbled on one of many roadblocks to carry in NYC
    They may have to grant these licenses but they can theoretically mandate everything from special training (which i believe in) to mandating expensive hard to find insurance
    they can create gun free zones. everything from bars (i certainly hope so) to schools. All of these things will then send it back to the courts

    in reply to: Supreme Court Ruling Over Gun Conrol #2100282
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubiq nice
    Ujm never know whether to take you seriously
    If you are actually serious the state you live in makes all the difference
    Bc whether or not you want to be mikayim the mitzvah to the best of your ability, if you live in NY/NJ that Glock 19 (or any other gun) is limited to 10 mitzvos
    I’ve trained dozens to shoot and my advise is to try numerous guns bf buying
    Everyone I’ve taught has a different favorite

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2095430
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    Never said it can’t be done
    I asked why would any sane man In a stable relationship do it
    The OP wants to advance finances as a reason and I don’t believe that works in the vast majority of cases
    As for the mitzvah of raising more children?
    Here’s an idea
    Don’t marry that optional second wife and instead use your extra time and energy to learn. It’s a bigger mitzvah.

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2095336
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Zaphod
    In my scenario she was working, as I said she needs to make more than the husband
    The only way to make the scenario work financially is population control
    And perhaps to an unmarried person this sounds like a dream come true but to anyone older we know the reality

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2095338
    mentsch1
    Participant

    LAmother
    I don’t know
    The super rich part certainly sounds appealing

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2095049
    mentsch1
    Participant

    ujm
    “Why are you assuming that the divorced women’s children will need to be supported by the step-father (her new husband) rather than by their natural father (her ex)?”
    Remember
    I am in this parsha and know the reality of exes

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2095048
    mentsch1
    Participant

    GadolHadrofi
    Is ujm, Joseph?
    I was wondering what happened to him

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2094753
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Zaphod
    “money won’t be an issue because now there will be more people bringing in a salary”
    I am guessing you aren’t married.
    Lets do some Math (and I will grant you the following makes a lot of presumptions, but it is fairly illustrative)
    Women are rarely the primary income earners. After all, they are needed at home.
    In a 6 person household (2 parents 4 kids) with the husband earning 100k and the wife 50k. The per person income is 25k.
    Now the husband marries a divorced woman with 4 kids (adding 5 people to the house). The new wife would need to earn 125k to keep the family per person income at 25k (it doesn’t matter what numbers you input, the second wife needs to earn more than the husband). And this doesn’t take into account the need for a larger house (or second home).
    In other words, unless there is significant wealth here, these scenarios are a money drain.

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2094654
    mentsch1
    Participant

    ujm
    I was actually being tongue in cheek
    but lets take it seriously
    I am divorced/remarried
    most divorced women come with kids ie extra mouths to feed
    If I was in a stable/healthy marriage with my own children of what benefit is it to me to take in another person with kids? This translates into hundreds of thousands of dollars I need to spend on each one to see them through school and marriage etc
    Why would any sane man do such a thing?

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2094655
    mentsch1
    Participant

    LAmother
    I asked my wife for her opinion on the subject (as you suggested we need some female input here)
    She told me she is perfectly fine with helping solve the shidduch crises this way, as long as she gets to choose the woman. She would make sure that she is “super rich and super ugly”

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2094609
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Haleivi
    How can I say they were armed?
    Simple deduction from the fact that they fought a 70 year war against the Romans
    Was everyone armed? I am willing to concede that those sitting in bais medrash and especially those calling themselves perushim, probably did not participate in the battles
    But even the taanaim took sides as we see with Rabbi Akiva and Bar cochvah.

    in reply to: The solution to the shidduch crisis in one easy step! #2094606
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Even if this helps the shidduch crisis, I am reasonably sure it will magnify the divorce crisis

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093859
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Avira
    You don’t seem to be consistent
    First , Purim yes they didn’t immediately form an army. Bc they had 11 months to deal with the situation. And tefilla did work. But if it was the Adar 12 with no resolution in sight do you really think they wouldn’t have formed an army?
    You say “if you are directly attacked “you can defend yourself . How else would you define the holocaust? Do you think that any gadol who knew what lay in wait at the end of those train tracks would have just said “sure , just take the train and hope for the best”? Would you have willingly taken your family on that train?
    Killing nazis is a mitzvah. Mechias amalek.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093766
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubi
    Whether or not it was a “fraud” the Supreme Court disagreed and ratified the individual right
    Now, as we are seeing with abortion, Supreme Court winds can blow in different directions so who knows maybe the winds of change will happen to the second amendment also. But as I said before in different words. We would be poking the bear. Second amendment believers are no less willing to fight for the right of ownership than we are willing to fight for our religion.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093747
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Smerel
    You aren’t alone
    Right after the Rodney King riots in the 90s i read an article by an assimilated Hollywood Jew. He said essentially the same thing that you did. That after coming out of his Hollywood studio completely surrounded by rioters he came to the conclusion that in times of unrest the police will never be there for you. And he went from being anti-gun to applying for a license.
    Personally I would Tighten gun control laws. Years ago I stopped being a member of the NRA because of their stance on so-called cop killer bullets. I did not see a need for those and was perfectly fine with them being out of civilian hands. And I came to the conclusion that the NRA stance of fighting everything is too radical. That said, as I’ve said several times, this is not a problem that’s going to go away by waving a magical wand , and if that’s the case I’d rather have my option of owning a gun rather than the alternative.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093712
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Avira
    I’m still finding it hard to see your point of view. Using your example of Purim. Had they not gotten permission should they all have just lain down and died? Should they have just said this is obviously a gezarah of hashem and we can’t fight ? Obviously they would’ve fought. And from the fact that they did ultimately end up fighting you see that they had weapons.
    We defended ourselves during various pogroms , the crusades etc. we didn’t always do very well. But we had weapons whether they were swords or pitchforks or axes.
    There is no mikor for an attitude of pacifism or disarmament in Judaism (but there is such an attitude in xtrianity)
    And your statement from Israel simply proves my point. In times of danger you need to arm yourself. Pray first, but be prepared to fight. In dangerous situations Rav Moshe allowed women to carry firearms. He didn’t say “just daven”

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093655
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Avira
    I think you are confusing history with hashkafa. The Maccabees were gedolim and armed
    The taanaim were armed but knew we couldn’t beat the Romans and advised against war. The zealots didn’t listen and we got the second churban. Rabbi akiva at first supported the revolt of bar chochba (certainly a taana) and we were free for a few years but then we had beitar and the total subjugation of the Jews. First by the Romans then the xtrians. That is why arms are not part of our existence. We have not been in a position of power for 2000 years. But with the state of Israel and American laws that has changed.
    Your original statement that we daven and eisav was given the sword is refuted by the fact that Yaakov himself prepared for war against eisav.
    Our power comes from tefilla but we always used tefilla to prepare for war. Now that after 2000 years we are back in our country not subject to dearmament do you really think the approach should be just tefilla? Should Israel just ditch the weapons and rely on a tefilla gathering? There is no proof/support for that approach even in the times of the midbar

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093512
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Avira
    God disagrees
    Shemos 32:27 “Hashem says every man should take his sword and kill his brother and relative “(who sinned at the eigal). The were ALL armed. And the Torah is replete with examples of them using those arms.
    When mashiach comes and we are called on to wipe out amalek, I am prepared. Are you going to argue with mashiach that it isn’t “the Jewish way”?

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093415
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Reb eliezer
    I’m not sure what you are trying to say. Halachically there is no issue with owning a gun nor with defending your life with one. The idea that you can make all the guns in the US disappear and we are suddenly all safe is an obvious pipe dream.
    In addition you will notice I didn’t argue any specific gun control proposal. Mostly bc as has been pointed out they are mostly foolish to those of us who know guns.
    Example :assault rifles. The term is a cosmetic one that doesn’t address the lethality of the weapon. There are numerous weapons of the same caliber that don’t fall under the label and are just as lethal.
    In fact all you have to do to turn an assault rifle into a legal semi auto rifle is to cut off the part of the pistol grip that protrudes past the trigger housing.
    And many similar type bypasses are available at every gun store in restrictive states.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093409
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubi
    “why do you seem open to those restrictions (as long as no jail time) but not guns“
    The obvious answer is one is against halacha and the moral fabric of society and the other isn’t
    But again, taking out the discussion about whether it benefits society etc. you really do not understand the mindset of the average gun owner.
    Buyback programs might remove a small percentage. Threats might remove a larger percentage. But the vast majority will not comply. I said vast majority not small minority like you seem to think. The research is on my side along with the anecdotal evidence of knowing many people not in compliance with the restrictive post sandy hook NYS safe law.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093345
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Reb eliezer
    Yet tanach is full of battles

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093308
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubi
    As for your comment about being unhinged. No I don’t think that they are unhinged. But that doesn’t mean that they will comply.
    How many of our people complied with government edicts concerning Covid?
    Existing evidence shows that the majority of people will not comply. Which leaves the government either to enforce it with unconstitutional draconian measures that will lead to shoot outs in some cases perhaps even more. But even if they choose not to enforce it they have still turned millions of gun owners who will not comply into felons. You might say so what? I call that greatest abuse of civil rights in our history.
    The government needs to think before it acts.
    And the same applies to abortion. We can outlaw it. We can hold providers responsible. But to start filling our jails with women would be a huge governmental overreach.
    I believe this point is valid regardless of whether or not confiscation makes sense. Because in essence at this moment none of these owners are criminals. You are criminalizing them based upon something that they might do in the future.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093300
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ubi
    First let’s distinguish between criminal acts like abortion and civil like speeding.
    I do not believe we should be putting people who get abortions into jail. I never believed that drug users belonged in jail. I personally believe that jail should be for those who are a danger to society.
    existing precedence shows where these laws are going. Example. After the NYS safe act the government brought a case against a man Who had 8 bullets in his clip/gun rather than the legalized seven. Our government wanted to send him to jail. Existing gun owners are not hardened criminals that we should be seeking to send thousands of them to jail.
    As I said as of right now tens of thousands of New York assault rifle owners are officially felons because they refuse to comply with the law. The government has the balance what it’s trying to accomplish with reality. And if they see that the edicts are not being listened to they need to take that into account
    Our chachumim never made a halacha if they saw the masses refused to comply

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2093093
    mentsch1
    Participant

    haleivi
    The greatest surge in NYC Jewish applications for a license has happened in the last few years. Dec 2019 was the Jersey city shooting the third attack on a Jewish institution in less than 6 months.
    Then came BLM and the riots and curfews. Does anyone really think cameras or even the police force was a deterrent? In times of unrest the police force is not there for the individual. We have all seen that within the last few years. Look at the looting of stores that still happens on a daily basis.
    Just bc the goyish culture has become so messed up that they can do this to each other, do we want to give up our right of defense for the sake of feeling that we are doing something?
    I am not saying everyone should have a gun. I am saying that the Jewish need of defense outweighs what essentially boils down to feel good proposals. Proposals that stand no chance of working without draconian government intervention.
    איזהו החכם הרואה את הנולד
    Perhaps if the founding fathers knew how screwed up we would get they would have ditched the second amendment. Or perhaps they would have just given up on the revolution idea and stayed vassals of a more mature British society.

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2092998
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Ujm
    The one in Lakewood has a posted heter iska allowing to stay open on shabbos
    The one in union has mezuzos on every door.
    So both are shomer shabbos
    A good percentage of the people shooting in Lakewood are Jewish
    Fathers bring their bais Yakov girls all the time
    On pesach one of my relatives in Lakewood told me that the only thing all there kids could agree on as a chol hamoed trip, was a trip to the range

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2092979
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Yserbius
    Again there is a big difference between wishing for a utopian world and the reality that we live in
    You seem to be the wishful kind of person
    I’m more realistic. Seven years ago when New York State banned assault rifles they created a registration for existing ones. Estimates that I’ve seen say that 95% of New Yorkers ignored the ban. Which means that the state turned tens of thousands of legal gun owners into felons.
    That was for registration. Do you really think that American mentality is going to allow confiscation without a Civil War? Without draconian government methods? Without armed resistance and deaths?
    Is it really ethical to turn legal gun owners into felons for the sake of “doing something “?

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2092851
    mentsch1
    Participant

    And OP
    Two out of the three ranges I frequent are Jewish owned so I am not sure that we are “not invested”
    One in Lakewood and one in Union NJ

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2092850
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Another issue with the various posters, you are all city boys
    Every rancher needs to protect against coyotes
    And a .22 just won’t do it
    People living on the border have undesirables walking through their property and need protection
    What about the woman this weekend that stopped an active shooter?
    What about that church shooting a few years ago
    Seriously. What is the plan?

    in reply to: Sensible gun laws #2092849
    mentsch1
    Participant

    Yserbius
    So your plan is to ban all calibers above .22
    But how do we get to that point?
    What are you doing with the 300 million guns already out there?
    Because if you think Americans are just going to hand in all their guns you are living in an alternate reality
    And if you give the govt the ability to confiscate/arrest those who do not comply then you are committing the greatest civil liberties infringement as you take millions of law abiding citizens and turn them into felons

    in reply to: CAN WE TAKE A TIME MACHINE TO THE PAST OR FUTURE? #2090249
    mentsch1
    Participant

    The problem that I’ve always had with time travel on a scientific level, is that time is not a physical force that can be manipulated. Time is simply the measurement of moment moment using some sort of conventional scale.
    For example. The idea of a second didn’t exist 200 years ago simply because we did not have the tools to create a second. If you asked me if we could manipulate gravity one day, I would say yes because it is a physical force. What time isn’t.
    And then of course there is a theological problem of being able to manipulate past events that God already decreed.

Viewing 50 posts - 1 through 50 (of 512 total)