WolfishMusings

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 50 posts - 3,901 through 3,950 (of 7,792 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764317
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    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

    in reply to: Torah Riddles #960085
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    You’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

    in reply to: What Do You Do When You're Angry? #764460
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Lately? I just sit and stew. Eventually it subsides. If it doesn’t, it becomes a rant here.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763895
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Reading,

    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

    in reply to: Torah Riddles #960083
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    In 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

    in reply to: Where were You….. #763989
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Getting Married & Trying To Decide To Have TV Or Not #764293
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    There 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).

    in reply to: Wedding of Price William (U.K)… #765913
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Who 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

    in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763892
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    If you’d rather not say in public where in Flatbush, feel free to email me.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Baal Koreh for Parsha Pinchas NEEDED ( This summer ) #763891
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Where in Flatbush?

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Torah Riddles #960080
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    The 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

    in reply to: Doing Something L'Ilyui Nishmas A [Purposeful] Suicide #764761
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Are 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

    in reply to: Date Yawners #762958
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Did you at least have a valid reason?

    I was tired.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Suggesting Shidduch for………yourself?! #913786
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Clairvoyant 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763407
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    My 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763406
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    So 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763403
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    See, ?????, ????, ????, 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763378
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    It 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763375
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    but 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763372
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763371
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    She 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763367
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Furthermore, 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

    in reply to: Kosher Marriage & Kesuba #762815
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    If 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

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763364
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    The 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

    in reply to: Wedding of Price William (U.K)… #765908
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    As 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

    in reply to: (speaking of chinese auctions….Did you EVER win ANYTHING?? #763239
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Yes. I won a megillah will a large silver case that I never use and a sheitel for my wife.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Kosher Marriage & Kesuba #762810
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    If 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.

    in reply to: Sampling Bias (in Royal Marriage Statistics) #763357
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    You 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.

    in reply to: Date Yawners #762956
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Heck, forget yawning. I once fell asleep on a date. Fortunately, my wife chose to remain married to me anyway.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762717
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Edward 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762712
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    What 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762711
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762703
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Mnemonic for the six wives of Henry VIII:

    Divorced, beheaded, died,

    Divorced, beheaded, survived.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Job Interview/Shave/Omer/Beard #762735
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762697
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    To 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

    in reply to: Magazines in host's house #763296
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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.

    in reply to: Job Interview/Shave/Omer/Beard #762731
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    What 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762693
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    has a certain chain…

    Oooooh…. MUST. RESIST. PUN. OPPORTUNITY.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Doing Something L'Ilyui Nishmas A [Purposeful] Suicide #764752
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    do you know someone like this?

    No. Just an academic question.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Computer Programmer #763816
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Avram,

    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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762690
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Correction: Her parents were married in 1980, not 21 years ago.

    The Wolf

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762688
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    but 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762686
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Anyone here into details of tomorrow's Royal Wedding? #762685
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    I 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

    in reply to: Job Interview/Shave/Omer/Beard #762728
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    FWIW, 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

    in reply to: # of jews #762058
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Never 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

    in reply to: # of jews #762057
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Just out of curiosity, what’s the source of these numbers?

    The Wolf

    in reply to: support #1041725
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    wishful 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

    in reply to: Allergic To The Sun? #762495
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    Wolf – 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

    in reply to: Allergic To The Sun? #762487
    WolfishMusings
    Participant

    So what area of medicine are you an expert in?

    I used to be an EMT.

    The Wolf

Viewing 50 posts - 3,901 through 3,950 (of 7,792 total)