ujm

Coffee Addict: A Queen is not equal to the King. Similarly, the Halacha is that a wife must do her husband’s will, whereas the reverse is not the case.

N0m: Halacha is cancelling them. Avira is merely explaining the Halacha.

Because any threads outside of Decaffeinated doesn’t display on the main Coffee Room page.

It took its course after having its day in the sun.

Mother’s Day was enshrined into law by a Klu Klux Klan congressman.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held an intangible item, like information, can be a “thing of value” under 18 U.S.C. §1030, and since the Supreme Court is located within the District of Columbia Circuit­, this would be a chargeable offense.

Additionally, 18 U.S.C. §1001 makes it a federal offense to knowingly and willfully make a materially false statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of the Government of the United States … ” The chief justice could ask all the law clerks, and anyone else who had access to Alito’s draft opinion (less than 50 people in total), to sign a statement saying that they were not the source of the leak. Assuming that they all sign the statement denying being the source of the leak, the chief justice could then ask law enforcement agents to interview each of those individuals. If the interview exposes the leaker, that individual could be prosecuted for having made a false statement in the declaration.

In 1919, the Department of Justice indicted Ashton Embry, Justice Joseph McKenna’s law clerk, for sharing the court’s decisions with Wall Street traders before the decisions were officially released.

Another possibility is prosecution for so-called honest services fraud. As the Congressional Research Service has said, Congress amended 18 U.S.C. §1346, “which defines the crimes of mail and wire fraud,” to make clear that this statute extends “to conduct that deprives a person or group of the right to have another act in accordance with some externally imposed duty or obligation, regardless of whether the victim so deprived has suffered or would suffer a pecuniary harm.”

Another remote possibility is prosecution under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986, which is codified at 18 U.S.C. §1030. The act makes it a crime “to access a computer with authorization and to use such access to obtain or alter information in the computer that the accesser is not entitled so to obtain or alter.”

American communists honor Biden, Harris and AOC.

The business with the picture and the mice effect sounds very fishy. I gravely doubt any veracity to it.

The leak is a criminal matter.

Avira, I believe mdd said you can read the Chazon Ish to say that anyone who became a full time baal aveira, including those that come from Frum families and were brought up Frum, to be tinokos shenishbu. And the CI was moida that his position is a shvere kula that goes against the accepted widespread Psak and interpretation of what Tinok Shenishba means. He didn’t indicate that’s an excuse for doing aveiras.

Your view is colored by the PR from the Kiruv professionals, who have every incentive, and do loudly, proclaim such views. But the Gedolei Rabbonim and the large majority of mainstream Roshei Yeshivos have not espoused that. As evidenced by Reb Moshe and Reb Shlomo Zalman.

If you finish your Seder at Zman Krias Shma Shel Shachris, you can daven Shachris Vasikin, right after the Seder.

Reb Shayala’s brother moved to New York and his Kever is in Staten Island.

Marxist, he knows about Torah Judaism. That makes him absolutely not a tinok shenishba.

“Could you share the name of her Rav??”

Avi Weiss.

Marxist, no he’s not a tinok shenishba. He’s a rasha Mechallel Shabbos treif fressor.

Hadora: It is a halacha that the wife is to adopt her husband’s minhagim and halachic customs.

AAQ: The wife automatically becomes and adopts whatever her husband is. So if the husband is Ashkenaz, whoever he marries, regardless of what she was previously, the wife assumes all Ashkenazic minhagim and halachos.

Yseribius: Someone else told me he got a heter to taste treif meat, as he was a professional restaurant reviewer, so long he spits out the meat.

PAA didn’t address any of the many points in your quotation marks, Marxist.

That’s a bunch of malarkey. Abortion bans will not apply if the mother’s life is at risk. There will certainly be exceptions permitting abortions if the mother will otherwise die.

If you write a megilla, the mods often leave it for last, to make sure you didn’t slip in something inappropriate. If they approve it after a later post, the earlier post will appear after the later one that was approved first. That’s simply a function of how the software was programmed, and the mods have no control over (other than deciding which posts to approve first.)

Infrequently, a post may mistakenly get stuck in the spam queue until (and if) someone notices it and approves it.

First, The Oaths are quoted L’Halachah in numerous sources, including but not limited to: Piskei Riaz (Kesuvos 111), Responsa Rivash #110, Responsa Rashbash #2, Megilas Esther on Sefer HaMitzvos of Rambam Ramban (Maamar HaGeulah #1 regarding why all Jews outside of Bavel – the majority of Jews at the time – did not go to Eretz Yisroel at Coresh’s call), Rambam (Igeres Taimon – warning peple not to violate the Oaths or else face grave danger), Maharal (Netzach Yisroel 24) writes that even if the Goyim try to force us to take Eretz Yisroel for ourselves during Golus, we must allow ourselves to be killed rather than take violate the Oaths, as well as other places.

Second, Rabbeinu Tam writes that you DO pasken from Agadita unless it is against Halachah.

Third, the Oaths are NOT Agada. By definition, Halachah means when the Gemora tells you it is forbidden to do something, which this does. In fact, it says you may not do this, and if you do, you will die. That makes it Halachah. Thats the definition of Halachah. (Similarly, the Oath of Naaseh V’Nishmah is also used by Chazal as Halachah, as in Shevuah chal al Sehvuah etc.)

Fourth, even if it is not Halachah, it still represents the Ratzon Hashem, meaning, negation of Halachah would merely relinquish us of any obligations in regard to makign a State. But the Gemora clearly says that doing so will cause the deaths of Jews, like animals in the field. Even if that does not create any Halachic obligations, it surely tells us that the State is against the will of Hashem and that its existence causes deaths of Jews.

The Oath that G-d gave us not to rebel against the Goyim was NOT for the sake of the Goyim, but for our OWN sake, that we dont end Golus early. It says this in every single interpretation in the commentaries about the Oath. It was not for the sake of the Goyim but for us. So just because the Goyim violated their Oath and hurt us does nto mean we can violate another one and hurt ourselves more! Shevet Efraim left Egypt in violation of the Oaths. Egypt surely violated their Oath when they tortured Jews for centuries. Yet Efraim, Chazal say, were all hunted down and killed in the desert for violating their Oath by leaving Egypt early.

The Oaths are brought down l’halachah in Rishonim and Achronim as viable and very real. This, despite the fact that the Goyim have been violating their Oath for thousands of years.

The Rambam in Igeres Taimon warns the Jews not to violate the Oaths, or else. He writes there that the Jews are suffering an evil, persecuting government that commits atrocities and wars against the Jews, and therefore the Jews should watch out not to violate the Oath by rebelling against them. It’s clear that even though the Goyim violate their Oath we cannot violate ours.

The Medrash Aichah says clearly that the Romans violated their Oath, yet the generation of Bar Kochba was punished Chazal say because they violated the Oaths.

The Maharal writes that even if the Goyim force us with torturous death to violate the Oath, we should rather submit to torturous death than violate them.

And the Gemora itself disproves the idea, since the Gemora says that the reason Chazal commanded us not to go from Bavel to Eretz Yisroel is due to the Oaths, even though Bavel violated their Oath for sure with the atrocities they committed during the Churban (The Shulchan Aruch writes that the Brachah of Vlamalshinim was enacted to praise Hashem for destroying the evil kingdom of Bavel).

The Gemora then asks on R. Zaira who says that the Oaths only include not taking Eretz Yisroel forcefully, but the Oath not to rebel against the nations is not included. The Gemora could easily have answered that Bavel violated their Oath and therefore our Oath of rebelling against them is null. But the Gemora says no such thing.

R. Avrohom Galanti (Zechus Avos) brings a story of the people of Portugal who wanted to defend themselves against the government by making a rebellion. The government then was making forced Shmad and all sorts of persecutions. They asked the “shem hameforash” and were told not to do it because it would violate the Oaths.

And besides all this, the second Oath, nshelo yaalu b’chomah has nothing to do with the Goyim, and woud not be dependent on the Goyim’s Oath anyway. The Maharal and R. Yonason Eyebushitz write that even if the Goyim give us permission to take Eretz Yisroel we are not allowed to do it. Better we should die than take Eretz Yisroel, the Maharal says.

Anyone who learns about the Oaths is immediately confronted with the reality that they Goyim violated theirs but we still cannot violate ours.

“Women of means will continue to have their abortions.”

If we can only stop abortions by women without means, at least we should stop that much. Every one stopped is another one saved.

The Democrats lack the votes in the Senate to implement court packing.