Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
mentsch1
There is a saying attributed to R” Yisroel Salanter “”Yenem’s gashmius iz dein ruchnius “
Damoshew
It is vague enough to mean whatever you want, which effectivly takes away any “bite” the takanos may have had.
Which of course begs the question as to what the point is/was?
This is where Simcha 613 correctly points out:” the wedding takanos were for the purposes of the people who couldn’t afford as much and felt inferior. It wasn’t to force people to higher level than they were ready for, it was to help those who couldn’t afford much.” Or as I put it: “They werent really Takanos. They were an “out” for those who couldnt keep up with the “Jonses” OR “Shwartzes” to say “We arent making a fancy wedding because of the takanos””
mencth1
Of course we are affected by peer pressure. Our avoda is to overcome that. Not to tell the others to stop doing it (teenagers are an exception since they are immature)
But for grownups look at his nice house and work on yourself (ourselves) not to let it affect you. Or better yet to be genuinely happy for him
Mencth1
I found the exact nusach:
“We the rabbinical signatories- barring familial obligations – and unusual and extraordinary circumstances – will not participate in or attend a wedding celebration that disregards these guidelines”
mentch1
There was an exclusion clause for the very wealthy! (which is part of what lead me to my #2 above, exactly like simcha613)
I dont remeber the exact lashon but it was somehting along the lines of:
We the undersigned will not attend a simcha that does not adhere to the above takonos barring a family memebr or pressing circumstances
“The pressure to conform comes from those setting the high standards. “
absolutely false! The pressure to conform comes from WITHIN! granted there are external factors but that isnt the ikkar.
mentsch1
There is no comparison to smoking. This is something we all agree isnt assur, but is a level to strive for.
Anti-semitsm is pure foolishness. Surprise: when we were dirt poor in a shtetl there was antisemitism too. probably more so!
“I mentioned affecting teenagers not me”
No you said “affects us all”
mentsch1
“In addition, a public forum is the right place for this. The rampant gashmius in Brooklyn affects us all.”
Work on yoursef! Dont let it affect you.
Fargin, be happy for them! while working on yourself to a) not be affected by their gashmiyus and b) not to want it in keeping with the mussar sforim you quoted
Mentsch1
“According to your rationale how do you explain the wedding takonos from 15 years ago?”
Easy!!!
1) The takanos where for the community that the Rabbanim presided over. They were printed in Jewish observer and Yated not Jewish Action.
This is my main point. So dont get too caught up on number 2 please
2) They werent really Takanos. They were an “out” for those who couldnt keep up with the “Jonses” OR “Shwartzes” to say “We arent making a fancy wedding because of the takanos” I was at more than one wedding in which it seemed that the takonos had been used as lehachis a guide to make the Wedding as fancy as possible by violating EVERY takanah with several of the signatories in attendance.
3) The takonos weren’t really about mussar it was about not putting pressure on others to comform
4) You need to make sure that something wrong is actually taking place. Either if it is assur or even if muttar the perosn addressed should be on a “higher level” and the mussar is applicable
Actually this should probably be before #1. sinc if this isnt met then it doesnt meet the “when necessary” clause
mench1
That comment wasnt directed to you, I think we are pretty much in agreement.
The only thing we may disagree on is whether it is appropriate to give “tochacha” regarding mussar type things in a generalized way without knowing the individuals involved.
My comments were directed at Newbee’s anti-Torah approach. There is a mitzva of Enjoyment on Shabbos. there is a mitzvah of Simcha on Yom Tov. This clearly refers to physical enjoyment “ein Simcha elah basar veyayin” Yes some hold it is lav davka but it clearly means physical enjoyment. This is brought lehalacha by all commentators. Granted it cant be taken to extreme. But in response to this “”Just by eating cheesecake and baked ziti, and enjoying it you get schar!” Newbee replied “oy vey” I never said the ikkar is cheescake or that it comes close to other mitzvahs. But there is a very real schar for enjoying yom tov. I find it worrisome that some have trouble with this point
Newbee
I never said there is only one valid approach in fact I said the opposite. There are several approaches. If abstaining from “halachik dinner” brings you closer to Hashem then abstain. If it doesnt then enjoy. Inever said every one here should go in keeping with the yerushalmi. There are other valid approaches.
“”I want this $100 per pound steak to make my ruchnius better” “
That isnt quite what was said. a better example would be “”I want this $100 per pound steak and learn the halachos involved in this fancy steak”
(This isnt a perfect analogy either, but better than yours”
As for refrences.
Sorry I cant provide exact at the moment but start with Devarim 16:15 and bavli, Shulchan aruch and Rambam on Hilchos yom tov both mention simcha on yom tov specifically with regard to eating. Also see Beitzah 15b regarding Shavuos everybody holds need “Lachem” ie time dedicated to physical yes physical! enjoyment in of itself is a mitzvah on yom tov!!
Is this really news to you?
mensch1
“Clearly it’s not meant to contradict all the mussar seforim and to allow indulgence.”
Clear to whom?
“It certainly can not be used to allow the building of mansions and driving fancy cars.”
IT probably can. Though lets limit it to food.
“but it still needs moderation and should never stray to gluttony.”
I made that clear, “not invloving achila gasa”
“So how do you explain that Gemorrah?”
Do you mean “How do they explain the Gemorrah?” You have to ask them. I have ideas though, some alluded in my post
“Moderation and minimalization is the key.”
Maskim. So can we limit the criticism to those who attend these dinners annually, and allow for a one time trial?
“A person needs to be continuously working on himself…”
maskim again. But here is the key word: “HIMSELF” there is no need to work on minimizing other peoples gashmiyus. In fact there is a well known lne from R” Yisroel Salanter saying the opposite.
“For every fancy house and car out there (and there are a lot) There is a person rationalizing”
Yes, and there is kinnah too
“Learn the mesillas yeshorim. Learn the yarot devash.”
Do any of these seforim endorse criticisng others lack of your lofty spiritual level?
“Hatzlocho and gut yom tov.”
Thank you, You too!
newbee
“”Just by eating cheesecake and baked ziti, and enjoying it you get schar!”
oy vey”
(as an aside DY, Note I did not complelty misunderstand newbee)
what level source do you prefer?
Passuk? Gemara? Rambam? Shulchan aruch? Mishna Berurua?
I’d be happy to provide all.
But it you have preference I’d like to save some time.
Thank you for the penei moshe, of course it doesnt change anything I said by one iota
mentsch1
“I have never encountered a statement in all my learning that says what you said “that some said you should live well””
Well in the spirit of matan Torah here is one i provided earlier in the thread:
“asid liten din vecheshbon al kol sheraasa eino velo achal”
Roughly translated: In the future [you will have to] answer for any [mutar] item [that you] saw and did not eat”
It is a yerushalmi at the end of Kidushin:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&st=&pgnum=475
We have a broad agadata, and there are quotes that can be brought up to justify many approaches. Just because this approach is not yours doesnt automaticly make it wrong.
Tochacha should be reserved for halacha, “vos shteit in shulchan aruch” not to lofty mussar levels. IF you want to avoid it beautiful! I hope it brings you closer to Hashem .
If they want to enjoy it, that is perfectly fine! And that it is enhanced with limud Hatorah is a wonderful thing.
DY
Thanks, maybe you are right though he said “”if the main reason you look forward to shabbos is that you get to stuff your face with stuffed chicken and meat” not the only reason, and Your explanation adds a lot to his words.
You ask “Is that a perversion of the Torah?”
No, I’m sorrry Newbee if I misunderstood what you said.
That being said while not a perversion it still isnt a level that you cna demand of other people. Mussar by definition is level-dependednt.
Bottom line is if a person eats cheescake on Shavuos and enjoys it there is a literal mitzvah deoraysa that he is beign mekayem (in addition to a minhag yisroel). As should be well known, shelo lishma is ok too and one day it will lead to lishma
Newbee
“if the main reason you look forward to shabbos is that you get to stuff your face with stuffed chicken and meat, you should not be stuffing your face with stuffed chicken and meat”
you could not be more wrong!
Shabbos is meant to be enjoyed. If you enjoy it via hoieche inyanim MAzel tov!
If you enjoy it with chicken and meat, then absolutely you should, and one day you too will enjoy it with hoiche inyanim.
I have never heard anybody say that if you enjoy eating or even “stuffing your face” on shabbos (assuming we arent dealing with achila gasa) then you should avoid it. This is a perversion of Yidishkeit and deserves protest
“Same goes for cheese cake and baked ziti on shavuos.”
Wrong again! Believe it or not (and you arent the only one who has trouble with this point) There is a mitzvah of lachem especially Shavuos! Just by eating cheesecake and baked ziti, and enjoying it you get schar!
Obviously there are other ways to get schar too, a lot more schar. But dont pervert our religion into something it is not
yaakov
No worries I’ll help you understand. We all pasken “sheilos” all the time. The difference between the most people and a rav is where there knowledge ends. For that matter your Rav presumably has Rav that he asks when a question posed is out of his comfort zone.
For example If I ask you “what bracha do I make on an apple?” I assume you feel comfortable answering and won’t say “ask a Rav”
Say I keep asking:
“baked apple?”
“baked apple with ice cream?”
“Apple cake”
“what if eaten during meal”
etc etc
At some point the question is above your “paygrade” and youll say ask a Rav. And that is appropriate but not every question needs a Rav per se.
Taken a step further, there are questions well above youre Rav’s paygrade such as complicated End-of -life issues, that are above HIS “paygrade” and he will ask his Rav.
The only question that remains is where the chalv-stam question posed falls in the scale. I feel comfortable answering. OF course the poster is free to ask his Rav, and I am not insulted if he doesnt want to listen to anonymous poster in an online forum.
Hope you understand (even if you disagree)
Depends why you dont eat chalav stam.
If it is becasue of concern for tarfus (either becasue of litteral concern for treifah or chalv akum) then you shouldnt.
IF you hold it is mutar but follow a personal chumra along the lines of “baal nefesh” then you can decide where to draw the line. Be makpid on keilim completly, only when ben yomo, or never.
If you arent sure why you avoid it, you can eat.
newbee You said””instead of just eating expensive and exotic food, they tried to rationalize it with talmud torah.”
This is siliness. Why does it need rationalization? becasue they, are not on the level of following mesulas yesharim? That doesn tneed rationalization. That is perfectly ok
How about this:
even when eating exotic foods they engage in talmud Torah
newbee
Why is it yetzer hara?
I dont know about kedusha and tahara but there is talmud torah. In fact seeral posters here would have learned a thing or two regarding topics they clearly know little about like mesora of birds, the controversy regarding swordfish etc
(at least at the mesora dinner, I dont know the content of lectures at this dinner)
nishtdaynagesheft
I’m sorry what is the case in point regarding swordfish?
I have never heard of a shita requiring a mesora for fish. Have you?
At any rate here is a interesting source
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12060&st=&pgnum=19
list in hapardes 1933 of kosher fish according to the Agudas Harabanim it includes Swordfish and sturgeon
nishtdaynagesheft
I’m sorry what is the case in point regarding swordfish?
I have never heard of a shita requiring a mesora for fish. Have you?
At any rate here is a interesting source
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12060&st=&pgnum=19
list in hapardes 1933 of kosher fish according to the Agudas Harabanim it includes Swordfish and sturgeon
Newbee
Not quite, usually during the course of the dinner various shiurim are given on the topic related to the foods at hand.
At least this is the case for the mesora dinners
I’m sorry where on earth did you get the notion from that Shabbos isnt supposed to convenient?
The problems with Kosher switch are very real, R’ Moshe assered Timers, not because they are easy!
shabbos is described with words like oneg, menucha. Where does this idea that making it convenient is wrong in of itself?
sounds delicous
hope they all feel better!
Its been on my to do list for a while
in keeping with “asid liten din vecheshbon al kol sheraasa eino velo achal”
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=14142&st=&pgnum=475
Hi all
a couple of points:
1) Round and sphere are not synonyms, the ancients (virtually?) all believed the earth was round, they did not believe it was a sphere. They viewed it as a flat disk some cultures had elaborate systems in place such as a disk on the back of an elephent or turtle.
2) The above is true for the “hamon Am” the intelligentsia knew for thousands of years that the earth is spherical. There is much observational evidence for the spherical shape of earth including ships going over the horizon, lunar eclipses, and careful mapping of the sun/stars in different positions. In fact not only did Ancient Greek philosphers accept a spherical earth, but in 240 B.C.E Eratosthenes calculated the circumference with decent precision
3) The yerushalmi does not necessarily mean the Earth is shaped like a ball. Clearly, “es hayam Kekarah” does not fit with the Earth as we observe it. Some rishonim understood it to mean that the deity was in control of the earth “like a ball” i.e. like one controls a ball,not that that was the shape. Similar to makal which clearly isnt referring to shape. Rabbeinu chanalel says this clearly, Pnei Moshe is also mashma like this.
DY
Youre right about that last point,
CA
You seem to have youre own theory of economics that isnt based on supply and demand.
My last point didnt prove anything, but thats becasue of DY’s reason not yours
CA
Consider the reverse. Say instead of increasing the minumum wage. We approached Mcdonalds with a fresh batch of laborers who are willing to work at half the current minumum wage (PRetend that for whatever reason this is all legal) therby dropping th cost
Do you think Mcdonalds would say “no thank you, if we drop the cost that will just drop the price so we dont gain anything” Or would they jump at the oppurtunity to produce the same burger charge the same amount and make more profit?
CA
I was asking “Do you thi9nk…” Mcdonalds decided to make 50 cents a burger becasue they (Mcdonalds) feels thats all they deserve even though they can just as easily charge more money per burger and sell the same number of burgers.
I was asking that rhetoricly, since it obviously isnt true. Rather since price is detemrined by supply and demand. If Mcdonalds charged more per burger (artificaly increasing the price) demand would drop and they would not make more.
The reason they charge 1.00 a burger is NOT because that Is the cost + profit, like you said in the OP (and if they felt they deserved more profit they can just charge more). It is becuase based on current supply and demand models that is all they can charge (to make the money they make). If they could make the more money by charging 1.50 of course they would!
Granted this is an oversimplification. But your question in the OP is built on an incorrect premise
DY
Not neccesarily good heartedness, I’ts not like Mcdonalds is reevaluating their profit margins daily and checking all branches to make sure all minimum wage empoies are working as hard as they can. If the minumum wage goes up and their profits go down then they might be pushed to reevalute and come up with a solution.
I’m confused though. ARe you really saying the price of an item is not (primarly) determined by supply and demand?
DY
Lol
No.
but if you dont like that option I gave 2 others
CA
There is a third possibility: that Mcdonalds will still sell burgers at more than cost though make less profit than they do now.
alternativly they will recoup their losses in other ways by cutting down the size of the burger (slightly) less pickles lettuce etc… OR hire fewer workers
ca
The consumer doesnt care about cost. He cares about price.
and besides in your OP you said
“I don’t understand the rationale behind raising the minimum wage, doesn’t that make things more EXPENSIVE?…it’s basic economics…the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”
Expensive for whom? In context it seems clear you meant the consumer, which is not necessarily correct.
CA
“however everyone agrees the price cannot be less than the cost of the product”
This isnt remotely true. You can develop something with little demand say a bad-tasting lollipop. You spend a lot of money developing a particular bad taste. Say it cost you $5 a pop to develop.
Trust me with little demand you arent selling it for more than $5.
You might be able to create some demand and sell it as a novelty item or a trick lollipop or something but you will have to sell it at less than cost. There is absolutely no doubt if you want to sell it your price will have to be less than cost (obviously you wont be profitable, but its better than not selling them at all)
As I said in the last comment. The main determinants of price (i.e what the consumer is willing to pay) are supply and demand.
CA
“however everyone agrees the price cannot be less than the cost of the product”
This isnt remotely true. You can develop something with little demand say a mud-flavored lollipop. You spend a lot of money developing the exact taste of mud. Say it cost you $5 a pop to develop.
Trust me with little demand you arent selling it for more than $5.
You might be able to create some demand and sell it as a novelty item or a trick lollipop or something but you will have to sell it at less than cost. There is absolutely no doubt if you want to sell it your price will have to be less than cost (obviously you wont be profitable, but its better than not selling them at all)
As I said in the last comment. The main determinants of price (i.e what the consumer is willing to pay) are supply and demand.
DY
I’m not sure about your bottom line. there are leading economists and many studies on both sides of the issue. Thus I dont claim to know either way.
The OP said “the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”
This is simply not true. The determinants of cost are (mainly) supply and demand if those don’t change the price of an item wont change.
Now as I and Barry laid out earlier. Increasing minum wage might increase the affordibality for burgers and thus increase the demand and thus increase the price. But not for the reason the OP said
DY the thrust of my comment was correcting the OP’s oversimplification
“the cost of a product is based on raw materials + direct labor (how much the worker works X wage) + manufacturing overhead, which is computed based off of labor costs (like .25 of labor costs)”
This is not all there is, what is probably more important is what the public is welling (or has available) to spend on the item. I can have a cheap item that costs me 0.50 that only I know how to make but that is very popular and charge a lot of money. On the other hand if there is an expensive item that is in little demand I cant charge the cost and might have to sell it a loss.
DY
i’ll pose the same question to you as to CA:
“When gas prices fluctuate obviously the cost of a burger (to the manufacturer) fluctuates as well since they need to truck the cows, meat etc. Do you think their burger prices fluctuate alongside increases/decreases in gas prices?”
Ill also pose a second question
why do you think McDonalds doesnt charge 1.50 a burger instead of $1. Do you think its because they dont think that 1.50 is a fair price since given the cost of meat, labor etc say it comes out to 50 cents a burger and they only deserve 50 cents profit?
As an aside I’m not sure how much labor factors in to the price per burger at all. For example, you may or may not now this but Dunkin donuts spends more on the cup then they do on the coffee. If the price of a coffee bean would double it would barely (if at all) effect the price of coffee at all since the coffee is so cheap to the provider in the first place.
DY
I never said otherwise
“…is not just based on how much a burger cost them. It is far more complicated than that.”
CA
“additionally, if the price of burgers go up (because people have more money to spend on them as you say) then there is inflation where the burger is anyway the same percentage of a persons hourly wage”
That is essentially what I said, Barry said it above too.
When gas prices fluctuate obviously the cost of a burger (to the manufacturer) fluctuates as well since they need to truck the cows, meat etc. Do you think their burger prices fluctuate alongside increases/decreases in gas prices?
Coffee
Economics is not quite as simple as you lay out. Mcdonalds doesn’t just add up the cost of a burger add some profit and charge that amount. There is also an element of them charging what they think they can get for it. If they think they would sell just as many burgers charging $1.50 vs $1.00 of course they would charge the $1.50! So increasing the minimum wage wouldn’t automatically increase the price. It’s not like the reason they dont charge the extra 50 cents is out of the goodness of their hearts to provide cheap burgers.
In other words the reason they charge a dollar for a burger instead of 1.50 is not just based on how much a burger cost them. It is far more complicated than that.
What might happen though is increasing the minum wage would put more money in the hands of the “burger buyers” thus letting them spend more for burgers thus increasing the price of the burger.
bump
Joseph
“If someone is racist, wouldn’t they by definition be unattracted to people of that given race anyways?”
Youve said silly things before, but this takes the cake.
edited
Akuperma
“Almost by definition, a frum family is more concerned about the frumkeit of a prospective son-in-law than any other factor.”
Are you for real?
Perhaps it should be like that but in reality you are way off. Read any shiduch related thread on this forum, any shiduch column in any frum publication over the past decade
I’m curious what people think the response would have been if the Kosher Switch people had been more honest.
In other words if instead of marketing it as a great addition to “Every home” and pretending that they had rabbinic backing for this, if they had said:
look we have this invention Some rabbonim say it is ok for everybody (R’ Ben Chaim, R’ Chaim Zvi Shapira (assuming his haskama wasnt edited)), some say it is ok mitzad melacha but may be a problem of zilzul Shabbos (R’ Oelbaum), some are ok with it in threory but never actually gave a haskama (R’ Steinberg, let’s be honest wishing “hatzlacha” means he doesnt (didnt?) view it as an issur, but it obviously isnt quite a haskama either, I doubt he would wish hatzlacha to my opening a McDonalds), some allow it for Cholim (R’ Neuwirth, R’ Harfanes)and every person shoudl discuss with their Rav of it is right for them
(Of course this is more theoretical than practical, since the above probably wouldnt be financially viable they certainly wouldnt raise over $50,000 in a few days)
Now obviously those who asser would still Asser, but lets be honest there are a decent number of Rabbonim who allow (allowed?) it (In practice or in theory) in at least a limited situation.
There is no way to know for sure, but do people think the opposition would be as strong?
Another question, I couldnt help but notice the conspicuous absence of this story in the yated, the closest they came to mentioning it was a strangely worded letter from zman switch describing how theyu are different than kosher switch, without actually mentioning kosher switch, any idea why?
PAA
Does “mevatel Daas” mean following him even if you think it is wrong,(eg I dont understand wny my R”Y said no to prepare for divorce before marriage when chazal already did, but that is daas torah) or accepting what he says as right?(eg “One shouldnt prepare for divorce before marriage and kesuba is complelty different”)
Which is harder?
DY
“Of course it wouldn’t fix it. It wouldn’t fool anyone. “
Exactly, you have your reasons for being against prenups they may be halachic, they may be hashkafic or a combination. you may even be right.
My only objection is to the idea that a prenup is wrong “because it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married ” This is silliness becasue part of what kesuba does is exactly the same ie. plan for divorce before they are married. You then added the artifical distinction that well kesuba does other things too, but you agree that if prenup did other things too it still “wouldnt fix it” In other words the oposititon to prenup, valid as it may be, is not becasue “it is wrong hashkafically to plan for divorce before you are married”
Joseph
“Why is “distinction” in quotes? You seriously see little distinction between the two?”
There is alot of distinction between the two but not all distinctions are real. Another distinction is that prenup is an english word as opposed to kesuba which is Hebrew. I assume you would dissmis this distinction as a “distinction” (Although there was a thread here regarding calling Shabbos Lunch “lunch” as opposed to a seudah, but I diress)
Popa
You are not the first person Ive heard this “distinction” between a prenup and kesuba from.
A real distinction would be the nature of the people behind the two obviuosuly ORa or whomever cant be comapred to chazal.
I’m not sure what you mean by “overheard” Here is a factual example I personally heard from a prominent Rav, he mentioned during the brain-detah hulabaloo a few years back that no person who lacked pulse and wasnt breathing ever survives and thus “Cardiac death” is final as aopposed to brain death. I told him this is simply incorrect as CPR revives people from “cardiac Death” Literaly daily (more than that actualy) He refused to beleive me. I asked a friend who was in the shiur what he thought of that he said I cant argue with Daas Torah. I’m sorry but this is nonesense. If you’d like I can provide others but I dont want to hijack this thread more than I have.
DY
so if a few lines were added to the prenup regarding the marital obligations it would bethe same as a kesuba? That is easy to fix
Popa
“Maybe you should sometimes consider that something can be true and that you are just too stupid or ignorant to understand it”
1) that is unlikely
2) just in case it was the case I did I asked for clarification
3) I was not just referring to this example. I run in daas torah circles both of the “strawman” variety and your variety it is not uncommon to hear absolute nonsense or things that are counter-factual asserted as true because “daas torah” said so
DY
“Quite a negative thought to start a marriage with”
granted
Though more negative than the thought of the couple getting divorced and him being so spiteful that he just kicks her out on the street with no food or money? (keep in mind he gets to keep anything she earns during marriage, if not for the kesuba a divorced woman would be penniless. The KEsuba comes along and provides her even if the husband (or his yorshim presumably the children they may have together!) are to cheap to provide for her.
“In other words, it’s not designed to deliniate the … post marital obligations as a kesubah is”
It absolutely is! it is designed to get the wife her get once the marriage is over.
“One can argue that the benefits, preventing the malicious actions, outweigh this negative”
That isnt realy what we are talking about. I am strictly using this example to point out how based on “Daas Torah” people accept all sorts of (non-halachic, barely even hashkafic) nonsense simply because somebody chashuv said so
Popa youv’e been tricked.
As I understand it (and it is quite possible that I am mistaken) the prenup is designed to help an already “divorced” woman (i.e. divorced in the legal sense or practical sense)get her get and allow her to remarry. It doesnt make it easier for her to get divorced, it makes it easier for her to get a get, (no these are not synonyms)when she is already divorced (in a legal/practical sense).
Is this not the case?