ujm

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 2,551 through 2,600 (of 5,264 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Supreme Court Rules – States Can Ban Abortion #2107111
    ujm
    Participant

    Jack, let’s cut to the chase. Do you or do you not support me in advocating and hoping for Congress to pass a law that firmly and completely bans abortion nationally in all cases other than when the mother’s life is at risk — with when the mother’s life is at risk the law shall strongly and completely protect the right to abortion, but in all other cases it will just as strongly ban it?

    Let’s put the double talk aside of beating around the bush trying to pretend the reason you want to support abortion is only because of when the mother’s life is at risk, when in reality you’re only using that excuse to try to have abortion legal in other cases.

    in reply to: Libraries, What are they good for? #2107080
    ujm
    Participant

    Digital Libraries.

    in reply to: Yeshivos for Adult Beginning Learners #2107013
    ujm
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, those programs teach Aramaic?

    in reply to: Ywn is it really “yeshiva” world news #2106971
    ujm
    Participant

    CA: By us Yidden, every aspect of life and daily activity must be viewed through the prism of Torah Judaism. Even a discussion of tying our shoelaces or taking a shower or what/when we speak must be viewed through how we are obligated to do so according to the Torah.

    in reply to: leaving yeshivah and going to work #2106969
    ujm
    Participant

    Kuvult: What do you mean by “leaving Yeshiva without a degree so you can be a professional”?

    in reply to: Irony #2106921
    ujm
    Participant

    Maryles is an open mevaze talmidei chachomim who promotes every left wing looney cause that’s in the news that day, concerning religion.

    No, the Reform apikorsum are not correct in this case. The only protection needed in anti-abortion laws are to protect the life of the mother. And all the laws provide that protection.

    correction

    in reply to: Yeshivos for Adult Beginning Learners #2106922
    ujm
    Participant

    Derech Chaim is a regular mainstream Yeshiva.

    in reply to: Supreme Court Rules – States Can Ban Abortion #2106911
    ujm
    Participant

    Jack,

    1. Laurence Tribe is a left wing hack. When he offers his two cents, as he does here, it is only because his legal cause is on shaky footing. If it weren’t, he would not have to chime in.

    2. No states, repeat — no states at all, have banned abortion when the mother’s life is risk. This talking point is simply used by abortionists to attempt to legitimize killing babies.

    in reply to: I got a tesla (model Y) #2106794
    ujm
    Participant

    There’s been a recall. Please do the safe thing and turn it back in.

    in reply to: Ywn is it really “yeshiva” world news #2106801
    ujm
    Participant

    OP/Moish26: You are absolutely correct.

    CA: Judaism isn’t a democracy.

    Of course, there’s worse out there. Another major “frum” competitor to this site is far far worse.

    Even Mishpacha and AMI would not be found in a Torah true home, given the horrible hashkafos they transmit. Even the “old” weeklies of Yated and Hamodia are problematic.

    in reply to: Supreme Court Rules – States Can Ban Abortion #2106788
    ujm
    Participant

    The definition of life is set by Hashem, not by “evidence” (whatever that then means.)

    in reply to: anybody heard of new heimish/chasidish community in Ramat Shlomo #2106746
    ujm
    Participant

    Can you explain to us what the practical difference between a Chasidish chutznik oilem is from a Chasidish Eretz Yisroel’dika oilem? They both speak Yiddish. What else are you concerned with?

    in reply to: leaving yeshivah and going to work #2106680
    ujm
    Participant

    Who is frowning (other than one’s own imagination)?

    in reply to: Republicans vs. democrats #2106665
    ujm
    Participant

    It was the feminists, who are clearly Democrats, that pushed women out of the home and into the workforce.

    in reply to: Republicans vs. democrats #2106638
    ujm
    Participant

    er:

    1. It was Republicans who fought against discrimination.

    2. Ideally, women shouldn’t have to work and freely be able to choose to be housewives. It is Democrats who forced two incomes as a necessity for so many families by pushing women out of the home and into the workforce. The biggest losers are the children. A woman’s place is in the home.

    in reply to: Supreme Court Rules – States Can Ban Abortion #2106439
    ujm
    Participant

    Dear Jack,

    Presidential Executive Orders cannot and do not override state laws. America isn’t yet a dictatorship.

    Even if Mr. Biden, in his old age and infirmity, thinks otherwise.

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2105983
    ujm
    Participant

    Jack: By time I get through the posts between Syag and AAQ, all my popcorn is long gone.

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2105791
    ujm
    Participant

    Jack, thanks for sharing the update from President Trump. We always count on you for sharing with us the most updated news from The Donald. 🙂

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105614
    ujm
    Participant

    You also must account for that the church censored the seforim of the Rishonim/Achronim in Europe. What most of them held about Christianity is unwritten, as a result.

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105610
    ujm
    Participant

    Menachem, doesn’t the Rambam pasken than Christianity is Avoda Zora for goyim?

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2105398
    ujm
    Participant

    You missed the boat. How long has Tesla been in the auto business? And how long have Volkswagen, Toyota, Ford and Daimler been in the auto business? The fact that the baby outwitted the century old firms is the point.

    That the old boys network is climbing their way out of their self-dug hole is to be expected. They’re only trying to get back where they should have been long ago — before Elon Musk ate their lunch.

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2105387
    ujm
    Participant

    I made no reference to any stock prices. Look at Tesla’s sales and market share. If you think it is because they lack competition, why haven’t you started a competitive business to them?

    And note that my previous comment was in response to someone claiming that he’s going to run the business into the ground and lose tens of billions of dollars. I didn’t hear you challenge that ill informed comment by pointing out that, if so, why is Musk one of the richest men on the planet today.

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2105371
    ujm
    Participant

    “And since he is going to run twitter into the ground , he is probably going to lose most of the 44 billion.”

    The same was he ran Tesla into the ground?

    The man is a business genius.

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105263
    ujm
    Participant

    I must wonder why the evangelicals beliefs of the second coming is of concern to “Gadolhadorah”. Is he concerned it will come to fruition?

    For those of us who have no concerns about a second coming, any one else’s beliefs of such nonsense poses no concerns.

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105262
    ujm
    Participant

    I must wonder why the evangelicals beliefs of the second coming is of concern to “Gadolhadorah”. Is he concerned it will come to fruition?

    For those of us who have no concerns about a second coming, any one else’s beliefs of such nonsense poses no concerns.

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105264
    ujm
    Participant

    Have you discarded your beliefs about what we will do to the Amalekim in order so that the Goyim needn’t worry about us during zman Moshiach?

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105265
    ujm
    Participant

    Jack, the evangelicals are not seeking to establish religion as national law. You’re reading too much DailyKos and watching too much MSNBC

    in reply to: Panama (country) #2105266
    ujm
    Participant

    Which part of the country are you considering?

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105202
    ujm
    Participant

    Whatever faults the evangelicals have, and they certainly have significant faults, the American left and the Democrats are far far worse by comparison. In all areas.

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2105112
    ujm
    Participant

    Reb Eliezer, and in converse, when Jews aren’t religious enough, it is also dangerous for the Jews.

    in reply to: Food Boxes-Brooklyn and New Jersey #2104878
    ujm
    Participant

    No, anyone in the neighborhood qualifies, regardless of school affiliation.

    in reply to: Musk pulling out of Twitter deal #2104823
    ujm
    Participant

    This is very sweet how Musk messed up Twitter. It was a well deserved smack down of the far left wing run Twitter. Beautiful. Now Twitter is begging/trying to force Musk to buy them since their value has tanked.

    May all of Big Tech meet the same fate.

    in reply to: Food Boxes-Brooklyn and New Jersey #2104683
    ujm
    Participant

    The schools each service only certain neighborhoods. If you live outside of their service area they may refer you to another place.

    in reply to: Renting in Postvile IA? #2104684
    ujm
    Participant

    If not, consider renting a barn (and convert it for personal use.)

    in reply to: שנאת חינם #2104681
    ujm
    Participant

    Kuvult: What about shalom and achdus with the Open Orthodox?

    in reply to: Have the Evangelicals Gone too Far? #2104680
    ujm
    Participant

    The OP has it completely backwards on multiple topics:

    1. Striking down Roe was an excellent outcome. Morally, for sure, but politically too.

    2. As a result of Roe being overturned, a majority of states will restrict abortions. As a result, there will be less abortions than had Roe been upheld.

    3. The right will come out stronger in voting blocs as a result of Roe being overturned.

    4. Most Americans and most independents favor placing restrictions against abortions.

    5. The gerrymandering that took place in 2021, after the recent 2020 census, has strongly favored Republicans, and not Democrats, overall nationally.

    in reply to: A Generational Change in Jewish Naming Conventions #2104671
    ujm
    Participant

    Kuvult: I’m sure you’re familiar what the Torah tells us regarding Yidden using names in Eretz Mitzrayim.

    in reply to: Renting in Postvile IA? #2104544
    ujm
    Participant

    Any luck finding a cabin in Iowa?

    in reply to: Food Boxes-Brooklyn and New Jersey #2104542
    ujm
    Participant

    Me. Mod, was the sarcasm lost upon you? (That it was addressed to a poster and not a mod, might have been a clue.)

    in reply to: Food Boxes-Brooklyn and New Jersey #2104425
    ujm
    Participant

    CA: So we can post any link to anywhere as long as we break the link by leaving an obvious space in it?

    sure, but that doesn’t mean we will approve it

    in reply to: Food Boxes-Brooklyn and New Jersey #2104377
    ujm
    Participant

    You’re wrong. It is available to anyone, regardless of school affiliation.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2104226
    ujm
    Participant

    There’s no contradiction about the idea of two Ehrliche Yidden having a dispute and agreeing to settle it in Beis Din. In fact, that is the norm. Intentionally defying Halacha (as opposed to not knowing or misinterpreting Halacha) by obstructing justice and being in contempt of court by disregarding a hazmana should not be considered the default behavior of Torah observant Jews. A typical case is where both parties are seeking a ruling from Beis Din so that they can both accept the Halachic requirements and fulfill their duty in carrying out what the Torah says Hashem wants them to do, as determined in Beis Din.

    in reply to: Trendy Fads #2103813
    ujm
    Participant

    To huju: It’s like déjà vu all over again.

    RW: Don’t make too many wrong mistakes.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103780
    ujm
    Participant

    Dr. Pepper, my starting assumption is that both parties are ehrliche yidden, even if they have a dispute. I don’t understand why you think it is “more complicated” if she complies with the Beis Din, and appropriately responds to their summons, than if she had inappropriately chosen to ignore any subpoena from B”D.

    My point in the scenario I described is that the husband has no right to divorce his wife and Beis Din will tell him he cannot divorce her. Shopping around for another Beis Din, when one doesn’t like the ruling of the first, isn’t a legitimate approach. The wife can stand her ground and insist on remaining married to him once the first Beis Din ruled she was within her rights, as per CRG, to decline to accept a Gett.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103404
    ujm
    Participant

    Dr. Pepper, thank you for sharing your thoughts on the issue.

    To take your example, suppose the husband summons his wife to Beis Din for the purpose of initiating Gett proceedings against her. But, unlike what you suggested, she accepts the subpoena and appears in Beis Din. Her husband begins proceedings by stating he came to give his wife a divorce. He lists a litany of complaints ranging from the she doesn’t prepare meals in a timely manner, doesn’t take care of the children well, is often unfriendly to him, doesn’t keep up the household properly, etc. She responds that she disagrees with his assessment, and believes the marriage is viable and whatever imperfections correctable. He says he tried working with her for years on all these issues but not much changed.

    They are at a standstill. He demands to divorce. She responds in Beis Din that she wishes the marriage to continue and as per Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom she hereby invokes her right to decline to accept the Gett her husband wishes to present to her.

    My contention in the above scenario is that, given the circumstances as presented, she prevails. It is her right to to remain married to his despite his wish otherwise. And he remains obligated to continue supporting her, living with her and providing her with onah and all her conjugal rights. I maintain that this is the clear and unambiguous Halachic result and that he is not able to receive a Heter Meah Rabbonim in this case. If anyone would like to contend otherwise let them present clear Halachic arguments against this obvious Halachic conclusion.

    As an endnote, the same result would be true in reverse, and Halachicly even more powerfully (since in that situation it is a pure Torah Law rather than a post-Chazal rabbinic decree), with the spouses roles in the above scenario reversed, with the wife seeking a divorce but the husband seeking to continue the marriage.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103250
    ujm
    Participant

    So here’s a Halachic question based on the above conversation:

    One of the major provisions of Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom is that a husband cannot divorce his wife unless his wife wants to get divorced. Rabbeinu Gershom decreed that if a wife wishes to remain married, then the husband has no choice but to remain married to her. (Much as the husband has that equivalent right directly under Torah Law; whereas if he desires to remain married to his wife, then his wife is not entitled to a divorce even if she wants one.)

    Of course in both sets of circumstances there are exceptions to the rule, and a spouse may be entitled to a divorce even if the other spouse doesn’t want to divorce. (Except by Sephardim and other non-Ashkenazim the husband, presumably, can divorce his wife against her will [since only Ashkenazim are subject to CRG.]) But, by default, barring extenuating circumstances where there is a clearly defined and proven Halachic justification for an involuntary divorce, the spouse desiring to maintain and continue the marriage prevails over the spouse desiring to divorce.

    So my question, given the above, is when in fact is a husband entitled to a Heter Meah Rabbonim based on the fact that his wife declined to accept the divorce he wanted to give her? Rabbeinu Gershom specifically gave the wife the right to decide to refuse to accept a divorce from her husband.

    in reply to: Neo Orthodoxy #2103252
    ujm
    Participant

    So-called Neo-Chasidus is the movement started and led by Rabbi Moshe Weinberger of Yeshiva University, in his Woodmere congregation.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2103097
    ujm
    Participant

    mentsch1: Thank you for sharing. Your point is when stronger than motcha11 as your saying the 100 signatories to a Heter Meah Rabbonim don’t even need Smicha.

    in reply to: Renting in Postvile IA? #2102975
    ujm
    Participant

    Check Craigslist.

    in reply to: Cherem Rabbeinu Gershom #2102964
    ujm
    Participant

    motchah11: If 100 Kollel Yungerleit are sufficient to compose a valid Heter Meah Rabbonim, it would seem rather easily obtainable by (hypothetically, to take one of any number of possibilities) getting 98 Kollel Yungerleit in BMG (NJ) to sign alongside a Kollel Yungerman from Torah Vodass (NY) and a Kollel Yungerman from the Baltimore Kollel (MD). Even if only 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 asked to sign agreed to, it could be put together relatively quickly by asking several hundred Yungerleit to sign (all under one Kollel roof) until you reach the requisite one hundred.

Viewing 50 posts - 2,551 through 2,600 (of 5,264 total)