ujm

Yseribus: Are you trying to claim that in the pre-Holocaust era it was common for Mesivtas in Europe to offer a secular studies curriculum that most bochorim attended?

“That’s what I paid total.”

How long ago?

Yseribus: Why are you limiting your view to the post-Holocaust era? The pre-Holocaust era is much longer and more important to authentic Yiddishkeit. In the pre-Holocaust era in Europe secular studies was by far the exception by Chareidim, both Litvish and Chasidish. In fact, secular studies was especially rare pre-WWI and still by far the exception pre-WWII.

Avira, I agree with what you’re saying. I’ll just add that sometimes on this forum there’s a suspicion a poster is making an imaginary tumult rather than anyone not taking a real situation seriously.

The 2008 bailout was smart and vital, even though it was politically toxic, since the bailout prevented a much worse economic disaster.

Rav Ahron Kotler encouraged high schools, already in his time, to have no secular studies.

It’s seems clear to me that the OP is referring to someone who passed away in the current news cycle.

You should also speak to Christopher Wray: (202) 324-3000

Rabbi Cohen is an excellent choice to speak to about this.

Square: Whatever Mr. Weissman suggests, do the opposite.

N0m: Do you also believe no parent can keep their teens off drugs? Away from girls? Not to shoplift?

You only need to pay a Shadchan for a successfully made shidduch.

AJ: My first hand community work on the issue in multiple municipalities.

DaMoshe: How “small” was the amount of wine you drank and what leads you to believe that it is small enough that you can drive after consummating it?

A much greater proportion of students in Yeshivos that offer secular studies are teens-at-risk than students in Yeshivos that offer little to no secular studies.

If the argument is based on reducing the number of teens at risk, the better argument is that those Yeshivos still offering secular studies should drop their secular curriculum.

ConcernedMember: A standing panel of judges who are educated in the law and of known high moral character would certainly be far better than 12 random people off the street.

mentsch1: Beis Din executing outside the normal rules, that you refer to, can do so for any widespread societal issue. If there’s a lack of tznius problem they can execute every woman in public with uncovered knees or wearing pants.

Have you ever seen a Walmart selling live crickets as food? I have. You can advocate executing half or more of the gentiles in the country for violating the Sheva Mitzvos against eating a living creature, and thereby being chayiv misa.

And as the Rambam defines Christianity as Avoda Zora, you can advocate it for all Christians, even the ones with a phobia of eating crickets.

And how many Goyim aren’t guilty at some point of stealing a pen in school or in the office, anyways, even if they aren’t Christian and don’t eat crickets.

When there’s doubt, it’s far better to risk letting a guilty man go free than to risk an innocent man spending his life in prison.

Two additional points:

1. Using 12 random people off the street, in a system that proudly insists on including lowlives, drunks and the homeless in the jury pool, who are experts in nothing, can be uneducated in basic life and are of no particular moral standing, to decide the fate of an accused’s life, is the height of rishus.

2. There’s a necessary tension regarding either giving the benefit of the doubt to the accused and acquitting him if his guilt is uncertain, even if his guilt is likely yet unproven — versus not giving him the benefit of the doubt if guilt is likely but unproven, and thereby convicting him in such circumstances, essentially using a system of guilty unless proven innocent. In a moral system we use the rule of innocent unless proven guilty; America claims to follow this principle but actually that claim is a lie as they frequently convict innocent men, and certainly often convict accuseds whose guilt was clearly not proven.

3. Correction to typo in previous post above: It should read “AFTER a month long trial” (not ‘street’).

They jury came to a guilty verdict after three hours of deliberations in a single afternoon, street a month long trial chock full of contradictory complicated testimony and detailed evidence from both sides.

The American justice system is a farce.

Jack, Rav Miller was a proponent of getting drunk on Purim.

You can get it for much less.

So start a thread that you find interesting and worthy of discussion.

Much better than complaining.

Dear YWN Username:

The very term “significant other” is a disgusting goyish terminology. We Yidden only have a Choson/Kallah or a Husband/Wife. Nothing else and nothing in-between. Until a couple is engaged they are strangers to each other, no different than when they first met on their first date. It is pure pritzus for any outsider to refer or discuss them as a thing or for either of them to discuss their dating, whomever he/she is, with someone other than their parents/rebbeim.

The Palace or Tiferes Mordechai.