Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 3, 2011 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764317WolfishMusingsParticipant
and I encourage those who don’t have one to give it away
Now THAT’S a feat I’d like to see. 🙂
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantYou’re 100% correct. I cant say that that’s called keeping shabbos. But the meforshim can and do. Thats how they explain the piyut.
So, you’re saying then that they kept Shabbos in Mitzrayim, with all the Halachos? If so, then what was given at Marah?
And that remains true no matter how many times you put your name at the end of your post 🙂 lol
That’s only because I’m a poor editor. I go back and edit my post and mistakenly sign my name again.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantLately? I just sit and stew. Eventually it subsides. If it doesn’t, it becomes a rant here.
The Wolf
May 3, 2011 4:08 pm at 4:08 pm in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763895WolfishMusingsParticipantReading,
The mods apparently won’t let me post my email address, but if you Google me, you can very easily find my email address.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantIn the beginning of ?????? ???? ????? it says ????? ???? ??? ??? that Hashem retrospectively brought forward the gift of ???. The ?????? explain this to mean that Moshe arranged with Paraoh to davka be given shabbos off, even before ???, in spite of the fact that a lot of ????? had yet to be given.
I wasn’t disagreeing with that point. But simply taking a day off from work is not keeping Shabbos. Keeping Shabbos means refraining from the 39 melachos. There is no reason to say that that’s what they did in Egypt before the Halachos of Shabbos were given. So yes, they may have taken the day off from work, but they might have still written things, engaged in borer, carried in and out of their homes and so on. They may have had the day of Shabbos off from their toils, but I don’t think you can say that “kept Shabbos.”
The Wolf
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantI was on Park Row in Manhattan, a block away, when the towers fell.
I was at home when I found about Osama bin Laden’s death.
The Wolf
May 3, 2011 5:08 am at 5:08 am in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764293WolfishMusingsParticipantThere is no one that says that you have to get a TV upon marriage if you’re going to have one at all. You can certainly decide to start the marriage without one and then get one later if you so decide.
Who knows, you might even find married life without the TV more interesting.
The Wolf (who, for the record, does own a TV).
WolfishMusingsParticipantWho is Peter Philips? If he was really a prince hed be Prince Peter. Dont make up stuff.
Peter Phillips is the Queen’s oldest grandson. He’s not a prince because he’s the son of the Queens daughter and, according to the Letters Patent issued by George V, only children of the Sovereign’s sons are styled as Princes and Princesses.
It should be noted that an exception was made for Elizabeth II’s children. When her father became King George VI following the abdication of Edward VIII, it was pretty obvious that King George was not going to have sons and that Elizabeth, as the eldest daughter, would inherit the throne. However, since any children she would have would be the King’s Daughter’s children, they would not be able to use HRH (or be styled as Princes and Princesses) until after George’s death. George therefore issued a special Letters Patent stating that any children of the Princess Elizabeth and the Duke of Edinburgh were entitled to use HRH at birth. Hence, Prince Charles and Princess Anne were HRH from birth, even though they were born while George VI was still alive.
The Wolf
May 3, 2011 4:17 am at 4:17 am in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763892WolfishMusingsParticipantIf you’d rather not say in public where in Flatbush, feel free to email me.
The Wolf
May 3, 2011 4:15 am at 4:15 am in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763891WolfishMusingsParticipantWhere in Flatbush?
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantThe first time they kept ??? en masse (as brought down in the ??????) was in ????? , when ??? asked ???? for a day off each week for the Yidden so that they would be more productive and be able to work better, and when ???? agreed they got ??? off.
That may have been the first time they stopped working for a day en masse, but they certainly didn’t keep the halachos of Shabbos en masse. Shabbos, as you are well aware, is not merely the ceasing of labor. There’s no reason to expect that absent a specific command to do so (which did not exist) that no one wrote a single word, or engaged in borer or even cooked a meal.
The Wolf
May 2, 2011 5:39 pm at 5:39 pm in reply to: Doing Something L'Ilyui Nishmas A [Purposeful] Suicide #764761WolfishMusingsParticipantAre all his good deeds null and void?
I would imagine that just like any other rasha, God repays his good deeds while still alive.
What’s if his hardships stemmed from lending people money and then going bankrupt because the borrowers were unable to repay?
If he is so mentally anguished over this to the point where he’s ready to take his life, then perhaps he’s not truly a purposeful suicide (as the OP mentions) and does not, in fact, lose his chelek in Olam HaBah.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantDid you at least have a valid reason?
I was tired.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantClairvoyant just because someone works with girls does not mean he is hanging out with them. on the contrary that is inappropriate. however there is NOTHING wrong with learning how to be comfortable talking to the opposite gender if its in line with business or work.
Indeed.
The fact of the matter is that the vast majority of jobs that are out there are in mixed-gender environments. That’s just the nature of the job market today. I can’t think of any occupation that one works in where there is no reasonable chance of meeting someone of the opposite gender — either as a co-worker or customer.
I work in an office that is about 50% female. I don’t “hang around” with the women in the office. I don’t socialize with them either. We simply do our jobs and that’s it.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantMy guess is that such behavior is not proper.
You guess?????? Can you find me ONE rav who will say that it’s okay for a married man to have an unmarried mistress on the side?
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantSo a woman today should not necessarily expect a husband’s fidelity and this behavior would be kasher v’yashar; am I understanding this properly?
No, you are not. A wife has every right to expect her husband’s fidelity.
In the age of monogamy, a wife has every right to expect that her husband will not take another wife (mistress, concubine, etc.).
Even in the age of polygyny, she could stipulate upon marriage that he cannot take any additional wives without her consent.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantSee, ?????, ????, ????, etc.
Actually, Yitzchok only had one wife (and no concubines).
What is the halacha if a husband strays with a married woman?
With proper warning and witnesses, halacha prescribes the death penalty. Of course, that didn’t happen very often.
Clairvoyant, where does Treason Act 1351 prescribe the death penalty to Diana for her infidelity? Please quote the exact wording, since I’m not seeing it.
It’s possible that the act only defines the relationship as treasonous and that the penalty for treason is in another act.
Nonetheless, as I pointed out above, it was a moot point as there was no way she would have been prosecuted for it (and certainly no way she would have been executed for it), even if it were discovered in time.
It should also be noted that the death penalty for treason was abolished in the UK in 1998 (which was already after Diana’s death).
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantIt is the Treason Act 1351 that makes it a capital crime; and that was on the books and the prescribed penalty at the time of Diana’s indiscretion. The Treason Act 1695 limits prosecution of 1351 to within 3 years of committal.
Interesting… you may, indeed, be correct on that.
Nonetheless, she would not have been tried or executed for the other reasons I mentioned (see points C, D and E above).
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantbut why do you assume she would not have been prosecuted had Diana’s crime been discovered within the statue of limitations?
A. I have not been able to (yet) find an original copy of the Treason Act of 1695 to verify that this actually is a capital crime.
B. Even if it was a capital crime, it is no longer so and has not been so since at least 1948, the year the Treason Act of 1948 was passed which gutted most of the Treason Act of 1695.
C. Even if the law was still on the books, not every law is prosecuted every time. People are generally not tried (and certainly not executed) for adultery anymore. Whether that’s right or wrong is not the issue, the reality is the issue and the reality is that it just isn’t done anymore in Western countries.
D. The choice to bring her to trial would not have been the Queen’s, Charles’ or anyone else in the Royal Family. It would have been up to the legal authorities (or perhaps Parliament). They would not have done so.
E. Even if they might have prosecuted some people, they would not have prosecuted Diana. As it was the Royal Family was going through a horrible time in the 1990s. To execute Diana could well have spelled the end of the monarchy. Imagine the grief that was displayed at her death and change that to rage at her being executed. The people would have revolted and it would have been a revolution.
In short, there is NO WAY Diana would have been tried an executed… and you know it.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantI mean, it would be weird for the King’s brother in law to be a commoner.
That will be the exact situation when Charles becomes King. Princess Anne’s first husband refused a title upon marriage. Her current husband, Vice Admiral Timothy Laurence, also holds no title and is a commoner.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantShe lucked out that the 3 year statue of limitations, per the Treason Act 1695, expired before her infidelity was discovered.
Oh, come on. She wasn’t going to be tried (and certainly not executed) even if she openly admitted it. She didn’t “luck out” because of the statute of limitations.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantFurthermore, any indiscretions she had was only in retaliations to the public humiliations her own husband caused her, having his own mistress come to events that would place her in close proximity to his wife.
True, but still not a valid excuse.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantIf it is a mekach ta’us the marriage itself is invalid, so how can you say there is a possibility the kesuba would be valid?
Because, if when he finds out, he has no complaints, he may agree to accept the higher kesuba payment anyway. On those grounds, I would think that it’s possible that the kesuba is valid. OTOH, I recognize that it’s entirely possible that they may need a new kesuba anyway.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantThe British Royals have quite a sordid marital history. Heck, the entire reason the Church of England was created, and Britain abandoned Catholicism, was so that one man (King Henry) could divorce his wife for the girl-of-the-moment (who didn’t last herself too long before he beheaded her and went on to another 4 wives.)
That’s not the sole reason for the creation of the Church of England. Things had been boiling to a head for quite a while beforehand, and the break would have happened anyway even if Henry never decided to divorce his first wife. To say that the entire reason for the CoE was so that Henry could divorce his wife is a *gross* oversimplification.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantAs of Friday 1.
2. You forgot Peter Philips’ marriage to Autumn Kelly.
Two out of five who married. Nonetheless, I did a study of royal marriages in the other thread and showed that the majority of the Royal family are, indeed, still married to their first spouses.
The Wolf
May 1, 2011 9:27 am at 9:27 am in reply to: (speaking of chinese auctions….Did you EVER win ANYTHING?? #763239WolfishMusingsParticipantYes. I won a megillah will a large silver case that I never use and a sheitel for my wife.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantIf a Kalla who is not receives a kesuba written for a besula, is her marriage kosher?
Yes, provided her husband knew about it beforehand.
And if so, is her kesuba kosher?
Again, yes, provided that the husband knew the true situation beforehand.
What if she never informed him of her status, and he only found out after?
Then you may have a case of a mekach ta’us and a rav should be consulted. If the husband has no post facto complaints there is no reason the marriage cannot continue* and there is a high degree of probability that the kesubah would still be valid anyway.
The Wolf
* Barring kohen – zonah/g’rusha issues.
WolfishMusingsParticipantYou pointed out that three of the Queen’s four children divorced their first spouses in the 1990s. That is enough to give the impression of ‘a lot of recent divorces’
I agree that it’s enough to give the impression. But impressions are not always reality. You tend to remember the divorces (since they get a lot of publicity) but ignore the people who quietly stay married.
In addition, people tend to focus on the recent and ignore the old. But the problem is that by ignoring the old marriages, you are ignoring the very success stories that are necessary to make the comparison.
In any case, of the last, say, 5 royal (first) marriages, how many ended in divorce?
I have compiled the last twenty marriages in the Royal Family* — going back to 1947. Of the twenty, fifteen are still married to their first spouses (and one more was widowed after a forty year marriage). Of the last five marriages (excluding the last week’s), all five are still married to their first spouses.
The marriages (and their current statuses) are:
HRH Princess (later Queen) Elizabeth to Philip Mountabatten, Duke of Edinburgh (1947) — still married
HRH Prince Edward, The Duke of Kent to Katherine Worsely (1961) — still married
HRH Princess Alexandra of Kent to Sir Angus Ogilvy (1963) — widowed 2004.
HRH Prince Richard, (later Duke) of Gloucester to Bridgette van Duers (1972) — still married
HRH Princess Anne to Mark Phillips (1972) — divorced 1992
HRH Prince Michael of Kent to Marie-Christine vonReibnetz (1978) — still married
HRH Charles, Prince of Wales to Diana Spencer (1981) — divorced 1996
HRH Andrew, Duke of York to Sarah Ferguson (1986) — divorced 1996
James Ogilvy (son of HRH Princess Alexandra) to Julia Rawlinson (1988) — still married
George Windsor, Earl of St. Andrews (son of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Sylvana Tomasseli (1988) — still married
Marina Ogilvy (daughter of HRH Princess Alexandra) to Paul Mowatt (1990) — divorced 1997
Lady Helen Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Timothy Taylor (1992) — still married
HRH Edward, Earl of Wessex to Sophie Rhys Jones (1999) — still married
Alexander Windsor, Earl of Ulster (son of HRH Prince Richard, Duke of Gloucester) to Claire Booth (2002) — still married
Lady Davina Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Richard) to Gary Lewis (2004) — still married
Lord Nicholas Windsor (son of HRH Prince Edward, Duke of Kent) to Paola Doimi de Lupis Frankopan (2006) — still married
Lady Rose Windsor (daughter of HRH Prince Richard) to Peter Gilman (2008) — still married
Peter Phillips (son of HRH Princess Anne) to Autumn Kelly (2008) — still married
Lord Fredrick Windsor (son of HRH Prince Michael) to Sophie Winkleman (2009) — still married
HRH William, Duke of Cambridge to Kate Middleton (2011) — still married 🙂
The Wolf
* Note that I limited it to currently living members of the royal family (those titled HRH or HM) and their children. I don’t have time to research the marriages of deceased members of the Royal Family. Feel free to do so and report back on them if you really want the data.
WolfishMusingsParticipantHeck, forget yawning. I once fell asleep on a date. Fortunately, my wife chose to remain married to me anyway.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 7:29 pm at 7:29 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762717WolfishMusingsParticipantEdward VIII (the king who abdicated) was a Nazi Sympathizer and had Hitler been able to conquer England, he would have been put back on the thrown.
He was removed from kingship because of this (Not because of Wallis Warfield Simpson – that was just an excuse)
Considering the fact that Edward abdicated in 1936, before the British Government (which, if you remember correctly, still thought as late as 1938 that peace with the Nazis was possible), I doubt that to be the case.
Nonetheless, it is true that Edward *was* unpopular and unliked. It is true that even his own father (George V) thought he was unfit for the throne. That he did have Nazi sympathies certainly didn’t help his case any.
Nonetheless, divorce was still a serious subject back then. Even if he had not been unpopular, he could not have ruled with Wallis Simpson as his wife. Saying that his choice of bride was a pretext to getting rid of him is a gross simplification — especially since of the three options he was given by Stanley Baldwin (give up the marriage, marry and risk the government or abdicate), at least one (and maybe two) would have allowed him to keep the throne.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762712WolfishMusingsParticipantWhat I found funny is that the vows omitted the word “to obey” (each other), yet left in “for richer or for poorer”.
That’s nothing new or unusual. Most women leave out “obey” nowadays.
Should ‘lil Willy’s $$ take a nose dive, Ms Princess will drop him faster than you can say momma (or in their case, Mum).
Source? Seriously, how do you know this? Or do you think that that applies to everyone who marries a rich person?
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 6:56 pm at 6:56 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762711WolfishMusingsParticipantI mean after that whole Revolutionary War & trying to break free from British rule & everything…sorry, just trying to figure out the logic in why it’s such a big deal to care.
Perhaps we find it fascinating precisely because we DON’T have it here in the US.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762703WolfishMusingsParticipantMnemonic for the six wives of Henry VIII:
Divorced, beheaded, died,
Divorced, beheaded, survived.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantI personally think its really silly that many of the frum guys I work with (who all come from a large Jewish town in south Jersey) go by a goyish name at work. Its one thing if people can’t pronounce a “ch” but ppl can all pronounce Shmuly, Shlomo Ari…. The koreans, muslims and japanese dont all choose to go by a diff name at work and those names are impossible to pronounce
True story… as it happened to me.
When I got my first job, it was at a place owned and operated by frum Jews. As such, I used my Jewish name (which is what I use socially as well).
About three months, I got called into the office because the IRS came back to them and said that the first name attached to my social security number is different than the first name I gave them. It took some paperwork to fix the problem.
Since then, I’ve found that it’s much simpler to just use my secular name at work.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 4:11 pm at 4:11 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762697WolfishMusingsParticipantTo be honest, being married to that dolt who’s next in line to the throne is a good excuse.
No it’s not. And the fact that he cheated as well is not an excuse either.
Diana also did a lot of chesed
Absolutely true, but I don’t know that one excuses the other.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantI do not believe the request is unreasonable. Had it been me (I do have secular magazines around the house) and I had guests over, I would have understood the request to put such magazines out of sight*, even if I don’t mind having them around the house.
The Wolf
* Note that this goes for magazines. Asking someone to remove pictures of their kids from their walls (for example) because you think pictures of women are untznius is not reasonable.
WolfishMusingsParticipantWhat about wearing a yarmulke to an interview? What about having a Goyish name?
I can’t speak about accounting, but in my experience (in tech) I have always worn a kippah to interviews. I do use my secular name, but simply because that’s the one that’s on my birth certificate, social security card and all other important paperwork.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 4:02 pm at 4:02 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762693WolfishMusingsParticipanthas a certain chain…
Oooooh…. MUST. RESIST. PUN. OPPORTUNITY.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 3:49 pm at 3:49 pm in reply to: Doing Something L'Ilyui Nishmas A [Purposeful] Suicide #764752WolfishMusingsParticipantdo you know someone like this?
No. Just an academic question.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantAvram,
I don’t think your approach is correct. She didn’t ask for six MORE cartons, she asked for six (in total).
totalCartonsofMilk = 1
If(eggs) {
totalCartonsofMilk = 6
}
return totalCartonsofMilk
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 3:24 pm at 3:24 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762690WolfishMusingsParticipantCorrection: Her parents were married in 1980, not 21 years ago.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 3:15 pm at 3:15 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762688WolfishMusingsParticipantbut the fact that she was chrissened doesnt prove anything.
Granted, it doesn’t definitively *prove* anything. But I would say that the fact that her parents had her christened is far greater evidence of her being Christian than the rumor the questioner had of her being Jewish.
Her parents were also married in a church 21 years ago. Her ancestors include the Rev. Thomas Davis, a hymn writer for the CoE. Again, not definite proof, but I’d say it’s a pretty strong indicator that she’s not Jewish.
If the person who brought it up has any proof, I would suggest s/he bring it. The burden of proof is on them to prove that she is Jewish, not on me to prove that she’s not.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 2:55 pm at 2:55 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762686WolfishMusingsParticipantI hear that the princess-to-be is Jewish. True or false?
False. She was christened at the age of six months on June 20, 1982 at St Andrew’s Bradfield.
The Wolf
April 29, 2011 2:53 pm at 2:53 pm in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762685WolfishMusingsParticipantI would think that Lord Rabbi Sacks is more than qualified to pasken such a shaila — or would likely have asked the question in 1999 when the Earl of Wessex got married.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantFWIW, I was job hunting a number of years ago and had a job interview during either Sefirah or the three weeks (I don’t recall which now). I asked and was told that I should shave — and that was in tech, where being clean-shaven is not nearly as standard as in accounting.
Of course, keep in mind that my rav then (who is not my rav now) is (probably) not your rav, my situation is not yours and my p’sak is not yours.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantNever mind: I found it. It’s from the North American Jewish Data Bank. The data was for 2008. You think the Jewish population in New York went from 1.6m to 2m in three years?
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantJust out of curiosity, what’s the source of these numbers?
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantwishful thinking, if they dont give it, they dont get the guy!!!!!
I hope to God that I’ve raised my daughter with enough sense to realize that if she’s seeing a guy whose going to decide whether or not to marry her based on any amount of money that I “must” give, then she’s obviously seeing the wrong guy.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantWolf – Where did you ride/belong?
I’m going to decline to answer that question. I will say, however, that (a) I was never a member of any Hatzalah organization and (b) I am no longer an EMT.
The Wolf
WolfishMusingsParticipantSo what area of medicine are you an expert in?
I used to be an EMT.
The Wolf
-
AuthorPosts