Forum Replies Created
First Amendment (ostensibly).
yguy1: That a bunch of baloney. In the real Yeshivos the boys are taght — and they practice — that looks are NOT a priority. In the shvacher yeshivos and shvacher bochorim they may fail on this. As long as you wont throw up looking at her, it depends on her middos etc. And C”V the boys do NOT “check out” (sic) the girls. That is an entirely goyisha term.December 9, 2010 5:23 am at 5:23 am in reply to: Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim #717976
Homeowner: Its on the video. The actor playing “Bailiff” administers the oath at the beginning of the show.
Anyways, I’d prefer a real Judge, like Brooklyn Judge Francois A. Rivera, defining the non-existent authorities of this People’s TV Court (as Judge Rivera says “The statements made on the show have no more probative force than the words of an actor reading from a script in a play”) than an anonymous BP homeowner esq.
As far as Milian lying, based on the evidence from the store (that sold the wig) described earlier in this thread, I think the evidence doesn’t look good for the show.
“NYC is the only place I’ve ever heard of where people get run over while they’re standing on the sidewalk.”
Statistically, there is no greater incidents of such accidents in nyc than in other large US cities.
Pashute: The proposed domain suffice you reference would be entirely voluntary. All the sites will keep their .com’s as well. There is no proposal otherwise. Thus the opposition to that suffix.December 9, 2010 2:27 am at 2:27 am in reply to: Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim #717969
Those suggesting that if Milian could have been sued if she lied, are sadly wrong. Idris Kabia sued his son, Ahmed Kabia, for $2,000 for alleged failure to return property. The television program “The People’s Court” offered the parties the chance to resolve the dispute before “judge” Ed Koch, former Mayor of New York, who presided over the program. Parties sign an arbitration agreement when they appear on the program. During the program, Koch referred to Idris Kabia as a kidnapper. Kabia then sued Koch for defamation. Koch moved for summary judgment. Summary judgment was granted to Koch. Submission of the case to the television court qualified as arbitration. The parties had agreed to appear on national television. As an arbitrator, under the doctrine of arbitral immunity, Koch was entitled to absolute arbitral immunity for all acts performed; this includes immunity from a defamation action for statements he made about Kabia; even if the claim is slander per se. Further, the arbitration association is similarly immune from liability for the actions of arbitrators who enjoy judicial immunity from civil liability. So Milian could act as idiotic and unfair as she wished to the frum people, without fair of being sued.
If you read the fine print that comes up after the show, they basically agree not to sue each other and in return they both get paid the same. The people get paid for being on the show the same amount. The Judge’s monetary “judgement” is settled by the producers. Details about who pays judgments on “The People’s Court” were made public in the real-life court case of Kabia v. Koch. In Kabia, the court noted that “The People’s Court” requires litigants to sign arbitration papers before appearing on an episode. The documents require “The People’s Court,” not the defendant, to pay any judgment rendered.
I am amused by the comments making out Milian as being some beacon of truth. I am even more amused by the comments judging the frum couple based on their facial reactions on the show. It is also amusing how some comments are judging the frum couple for not making comments on the show strongly reacting to Milian’s decision. They signed an agreement with the show beforehand that they will not react in any negative way or make any negative comments against Milian’s decision. This show is scripted to a very large extent. While all that is amusing, what is not amusing is how some are judging their fellow Jew negatively based on scarce information that television produces found fit to air. Who even knows what the editor chose to “cut” out of the final edit, that presented additional facts supporting the plaintiff’s.December 9, 2010 12:48 am at 12:48 am in reply to: Shaitle Fraud Chillul Hashem Video: Sha'ar haTumah haChamishim #717966
I looked at you case video and its quite interesting. Nevertheless, you lucked out with an opponent that acted like the biggest imbecile, literally begging her to let you win.
In this case of the shaitel there are so many loose ends the judge didn’t cover. She may be even worse than Judge Linda Reade who railroaded Shalom Rubashkin. We now even have the store confirming it was their wig. What more proof do we need the judge railroaded the frum couple for a couple of extra rating points? That’s what its all about. It was a good show, but bad justice. I’m sure Hollywood liked it. But not Lady Justice.
I won’t go so far as to say Milian is a raging anti-semite. (But I wouldn’t rule it out either.) Nevertheless, her pursuit of theater in a mock courtroom is no substitute for true justice.
It’s hair pulling to see someone seemingly try to dismiss a point by attribution things to it that were not implied.
A husband and wife willingly working on matters through discussion and compromise rather than pulling rank is highly praiseworthy, and nowhere have I said otherwise.
Wolf, please be honest and do not ascribe false imputations to my comments.
The problem is so many of us have been brainwashed by American egalitarianism, that we view life through that false non-Jewish prism, that has no basis in Judaism. This causes to think that such-and-such halacha is “unfair” and we must rethink it in light of contemporary standards.
“True, but it does not say that beyond those specific obligations either spouse’s decision carries any more weight.”
yitayningwut, The obligations halacha specifies for each spouse are rather general and comprehensive. And in situations where halacha gives one spouse more authority, that spouse’s wishes carry more weight.
“I’m asking him if he would actually do so. I didn’t ask about someone else.”
The actions of a godol are more informative than that of an anonymous poster.
yitayningwut, True, yet halacha is specific what obligations a wife has to her husband, and what obligations a husband to his wife. Each are enforceable. And they are different from each other.
Why his point aside? His story demonstrated a godol insisted on just that.
“My point is there’s a big difference between that and forcing her to do something she doesn’t want to do.”
True, yet on the first page of this thread someone cited a S”A and Rambam specifying cases when a wife is forced to do something she doesn’t want to do. So the concept is in halacha.
Doesn’t the Gemorah say that a husband “acquires” a wife?
“No, it’s the Mishnah.
But even so, it’s not a true ownership… and you know that.”
What’s a “true ownership”? What kind of ownership do you believe the Mishna/Gemara is referring to?
The Torah calls a husband a “???” (ba’al). Anyone know the teitch/reason why?
?’ ????? ?? ???? ??? ????? ????? ??? ??? ?’ ?? ?????
Isn’t “????? ???” brimstone and fire? The term is a Jewish one.
I agree with chesedname. There is good reason ownership splits will often be 51-49 (or even 50.1-49.9). So there is one final arbiter where disagreements arise, despite a near equal ownership stake. And I agree that 50-50 ownership stakes disproportionately result in disputes, whether they land up in court or not.
But all these explanations are really secondary. Like several other posters have pointed out (and quoted meforshim and gedolim) throughout this thread, it is the Torah that defines the roles in marriage. Halacha defines who is in charge. I won’t repeat what others have already pointed out earlier in this thread regarding specifics of who’s in charge.June 3, 2010 3:58 pm at 3:58 pm in reply to: Breach in Tznius: Recent affliction attacking Klal Yisroel #1025246
Minhag Yisroel K’Halacha.
Please note: Not everything a community does creates a Minhag. Minhag is Halachicly binding and there are Halachic guidelines for what constitutes a Minhag. Saying davening in a certain nusach is a minhag; not eating kitnoyos on Pesach is a Minhag; certain tznius requirements are binding by Minhag. If a community in general doesn’t consider denim skirts tzniusdik, that does not become a Minhag. Also, not every cluster of people who decide to do something in tandem constitue a “community” such that they can create a Minhag even if they wanted to. If your clique of 6 girls decides not to wear green because its not tzniusdik (lets say), it does not mean that suddnely there is a binding Minhag on you and your children not to wear green the way you and your children are not allowed to eat Kitniyos on Pesach. It doesnt even mean youre not allowed to wear green because a group of girls dont like it.
There is no Minhag anywhere not to wear denim. You can call it a community “hanhaga” if you want, which means nothing more then “they do this,” youre just saying it in Hebrew.
That having been said, not everything that is not tzniusdik can be included in a metrics that involve inches or collarbones or denim, and the Halacha itself demands more than something that can be measured like a KaZayis. Anything that will attract attention of males is not tzniusdik.
There are a great many standards of Tznius, and many levels, and just as you cannot quanitfy in a formula what makes a person an “ehrliche yid”, since there are so mnay relative levels of ehrlichkeit, so too there are many different levels of Tznius.
And so, although I would be wrong if I told you that wearing denim is assur al pi din, it is certain that those communities where it is unacceptable to do so are not merely following their Minhag like davening nusach sefard, but rather they are simply holding to a higher standard of Tznius. Is this standard obligatory? Will you go to gehennom if yuo don’t maintain such a standard? No, I am not saying that. But if you do live in a community that maintains such a standard you get credit for that higher standard.
If you live in a community that does not maintain that standard but you do, you get even more credit.
And if you live in a community that maintains that standard, then if you don’t, you are in fact standing out in the crowd, and that itself makes your actions less tzniusdik. However, its still not violating a Minhag.
There are some things, such as wearing transparent stockings, that the majority of Poskim prohibit halachicly but is widely done in many communities. Regarding such things, as a general rule, you should follow the majority of Poskim regardless of what your community does. There are times, however, that it becomes more halachicly complex than this.
Unless you are a talmid chacham, or heard the specifics from one, you should not assume that any given tzniusdik behavior, whether practiced by all or some or many or few communities, is a Minhag, a Halachah, a plain good thing to do, or whatever.
And there are plenty of halachic requirements that communities collectively violate. You should also not assume that just because there are communities that act a certian way, that that makes it right.
Godol mimenu b’chochma ubaminyan is an assessment that it legitimately made. And as Rav Shach writes – if you dont know who to follow, follow whoever is greater – and, he adds, you can of course tell who is greater. If you yourself dont know, then thats fine – not everyone can know the answer to all questions they encounter – but why in the world should you say nobody else can know? If you cant comapre levels then how are you to know that someone is a godol? Part of knowing who to follow is to know who is greater.
charliehall: WADR, you offered no citation or substantiation of that claim.
Additionally see my post on the previous page of this thread that begins with the sentence “You need to figure out who the bigger Gedolim are.”
Health: What makes you think you can elaborate better than Rav Moshe what Rav Moshe meant? And if you can include your own additional criteria to supplement what Rav Moshe actually said, what makes you think adding emigrating from Russia is any less applicable than your personal new criteria?
Bottom line is Rav Moshe said what Rav Moshe meant and doesn’t need your nor my criteria to supplement his own.
charliehall: Like I’ve previously said, if you have Gedolei Yisroel supporting a position, you can’t go wrong following it.
Let’s be truthful folks. Some people here obviously don’t like what Rav Moshe said. Rather than outright admit that, or even provide another Godol who disagrees, they engage in all sorts of sophistry to reinterpret, deny, and/or to otherwise conceal that their issue is with what Rav Moshe said very loudly and clearly!
rescue37: There is no stira that DT sometimes might disagree with each other. You should have a Rov who is a Talmid Chochom to follow and pasken for you.
charliehall: As you ably mentioned Daas Torah supported Land for Peace. I’m all for it. Life is far more valuable than land, and if it is even a possibility that giving them land will save a single life it is more than worth it and obligatory. So what’s the question?
And maybe Rav Moshe also meant the Talmid Chochom — like Rav Moshe — needs a white beard, be over the age of 65, and have immigrated from Russia? Well Rav Moshe didn’t add all these additional qualifications that you and I mentioned for a reason.
Rav Moshe said that when a “Talmid Chochom” decides a political matter (i.e. something not specifically a halachic issue), and someone doesn’t follow it, he effectively denies that a Torah scholar’s wisdom is superior. And he therefore cannot be considered within the Torah camp.
You need to figure out who the bigger Gedolim are. Some people think that you are not allowed to “compare levels”, but this thought is untrue and an error in logic. Untrue, for we can compare “levels” – in fact, we need to in order to judge who is an authority in the first place! If you cant comapre levels then how are you to know that someone is a godol? The fact that he is “accepted” as a godol only means that many people have judged his “level” to be that of a godol, but if you cannot compare levels, then these people have no right to accept him as a godol in the first place. And the same common sense that tells you so-and-so stands out among his peers making him an authority, tells you that certain so-and-so’s stand out even more. Or less.
Part of knowing who to follow is to know who is greater. Godol mimenu b’chochma ubaminyan is an assessment that it legitimately made. And as Rav Shach writes – if you dont know who to follow, follow whoever is greater – and, he adds, you can of course tell who is greater. If you yourself dont know, then thats fine – not everyone can know the answer to all questions they encounter – but why in the world should you say nobody else can know? And it’s an error in logic, too, because people who say you cant compare have compared “levels” (i.e. by saying so-and-so is a godol) of other people! And how would they know this if you cannot compare him to other poskim?
And how can one know whether “any of us are on the madreiga of assessing the ‘levels’ of other people” unless you assessed the levels of all those other people who said aren’t on the “madgreigah” to do that? If i were to ask you who is greater – Rav Soloveitchik or Rabi Avika — would you say you cannot compare people? Rav Soloveitchik or the Rambam? Avraham Avinu? So clearly, we can compare “levels”, its just that to some people, certain comparisons are “obvious” and others are not. Well, to other people, perhaps who are more knowledgable and skilled in assessing these kinds of values, other comparisons are also obvious.
Snowback – For getting physically too close to the women alone this guy crossed all red lines. Getting close and starting personal conversations with customers is not the behavior of an ehrliche yid.
It isn’t just the OP’s wife. The OP observed it himself – the manager physically getting too close to the women, initiating conversation about family(!) without them asking for assistance, etc.
Like artchill said, if the manager in Shop Rite tried to pull that off, he’d be fired in flash.May 25, 2010 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm in reply to: Breach in Tznius: Recent affliction attacking Klal Yisroel #1025130
charliehall: There’s no such thing as “charedi calf length skirts” (your terminology.) Chareidim always must wear longer skirts than that, at the very least to keep the knees covered in any position.
Feif Un: The fact that Rav Moshe decided to include it in the Igros Moshe, means it WAS for the general public.
squeak: If a gezeira is from Chazal it remains in effect today even if it is “no longer relevant.”
On the same token, if someone were to “disagree” (G-d forbid) that we were slaves in Egypt, I suppose you could frame that as being a disagreement with me. But in fact it would be proper to note that he is in fact disagreeing with the Torah.
Who am I to agree? That is like asking if I agree with Rashi. Agree? Me? I don’t even understand such language.
But even for arguments sake let’s say I quote “agree” with Rav Moshe, that is completely secondary. The main point is that it is Rav Moshe’s position. Not peanuts who fancy themselves “agreeing” with Gedolei Yisroel. You can’t frame your argument as disagreeing with someone who is merely accepting the Rashkbhag’s clearly enumerated statement.
P.S. Is the lowercase “w” in the signature of your last post a reflection of newly found humility? 😉
WolfishMusings: Based on your various comments throughout this thread, you seem to be assuming the quote from Rav Moshe is addressing the point of when to ask a Talmid Chochom a question. Although that is a fair question, my reading of Rav Moshe is that he is addressing the binding nature of non-halachic advice of a Talmid Chachom once the TC already issued advice on an issue (whether on his own initiative or by request.)
Another issue about your comments that perturbs me is how you seem to constantly attempt to frame your disagreeing with what was said by Rav Moshe, by trying to turn it into my position when in reality it isn’t my position but rather the position of Gedolei Yisroel (that I merely directly quoted verbatim.) Obviously you don’t want to be seen as disagreeing with Gedolei Yisroel, but in reality that is just what you are doing here. (I noticed this same strategy being employed by you on other threads too.) I’ve asked earlier on this thread if anyone can quote and cite another Godol who disagrees with the quote in the OP, but this request has thus far been ignored (other than another posters vague unsubstantiated claim that someone “disagrees.”)
about ten years ago a particular brand of milk marketed in New England lost its hechsher because it added a non-kosher additive.
Can you elaborate?
If it is possible, and obviously legal, to include a non-kosher additive in American milk, how can anyone rely on the original heter for CS which at the time it was issued was based on the assumption that all American milk must be kosher based solely upon USDA regulations and enforcement.
Someone (married) close to our family had almost the exact same issue described in the OP, with the additional point that the worker “mistakenly” brushed against her. She asked a shaila from her Rov (who is one of the gedolei poskim in ny) and he told her:
a) Call the store’s mashgiach AND the store’s owner and tell them what happened.
b) Do NOT shop there anymore until that person is fired.
(A Rov MUST be consulted prior to whatever you do.)
Exactly. And the posek hador, Rav Moshe, said a Baal Nefesh should not eat CS.
Glad we can agree.
cherrybim: When in doubt, check Rashi.
Rashi on that Gemorah (Pesachim 40a) says a Baal Nefesh means a “chasid” or a “Yirei Shmayim hachared al nafsho.”
A more formal definition of Baal Nefesh…
Rashi in Chullin 6a defines a Baal Nefesh as “a kosher person.”
In Pesachim 40a (where the Gemara says in a particular case of chametz, that for a baal nefesh it is assur) there are two versions of Rashi defining a Baal Nefesh. One is as a “chasid” and the other is as a “Yirei Shmayim hachared al nafsho.”
Rabbeinu Chananel defines a Baal Nefesh as “A person who distances himself from sin and is very careful with himself.”
(In Shulchan Aruch Yorah Deah the Ramah in 116:7 says “baal nefesh yachmir” and the Mishne Brura also uses the term “Ba’al Nefesh Yachmir” on occasion, some other instances of Baal Nefesh being referred to in psak.)
Someone who cares about his Neshomo. “Baal Nefesh”
Disregard my say-so and disregard your say-so and we are back to what we know Rav Moshe wrote in the IM. A Baal Nefesh, writes Rav Moshe, should not eat CS. So Rav Moshe does differentiate.
Could be she doesn’t eat tuna not because it isn’t kosher, but rather because her “minhug” (for whatever reason you explained) was to not eat tuna.
On your say-so?
I don’t think Rav Moshe personally drank CS even if CY wasn’t on the table. I heard he allowed family members to, but he was always personally machmir. (I heard he once threw up when he heard he may have inadvertently drunk CS.)
There is a risk of a “patient zero” who singularly is unvaccinated, in any community.
charliehall: Thanks for the correction. Indeed I meant the mumps cases. But it is important to note that the Frum community is well vaccinated, above the national average. I think the statistics demonstrate that the naysayers don’t have much influence within our community.
The Frum community is one of the most well vaccinated communities in the United States.
The recent measles cases in the Orthodox community, were carried by people who were vaccinated.
Why then does Rav Moshe tell a Baal Nefesh to not eat CS?