Author Topic: Fourth Anniversary Of Divine Double Death Day (Read 4522 times)

Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks · « **Reply #25 on:** June 30, 2013, 03:45:38 PM »

Quote from: muman613 on June 30, 2013, 03:16:37 PM

I have got to express my feeling on this matter. What happened between Farah Fawcet and Lee Majors was a personal issue. I do not take peoples 'hearsay evidence' very seriously. In divorces people have said things which are not true. I know about divorce and it is a messy business. There often are not very clear 'good guys' and 'bad guys'. Indeed the children of divorce are hurt, as I was hurt when my parents divorced when I was 8 years old. But sometimes it is for the best, and this is why the Torah has permitted divorce since the invention of marriage.

I do not know what caused the divorce of Farrah but I will not rush to judgement and curse her without some pretty clear evidence of her wrongdoing. It is easy to always blame the woman in these cases, but I do know that in many cases the man is at fault even if he doesn't acknowledge it at the time.

This is why I object to lumping Farah and MJ in gehinnom and I will suggest that others think carefully whether they are cursing someone for ulterior motives. The Torah and Talmud are replete with advice to hold ones tongue in from uttering harsh judgement against another person. If this topic is of interest to anyone I could start a thread in the Torah section going over the reasons we do not judge others harshly, but I will not go into it at this time.

My opinion of MJ is that he got what he was seeking... His pedophilia and his antisemitism are signs he was troubled. The whole Jackson family is messed up very badly, and I hope that they will have peace some day.

It's not speculation, but fact, to state that Fawcett dumped her husband for another man (that she never even married).

muman613 · « **Reply #26 on:** June 30, 2013, 04:55:19 PM »

Should I research the issue or can you provide a source which will explain this, because I have no idea..

muman613 · « **Reply #27 on:** June 30, 2013, 04:59:59 PM »

Not that I want to get into 'celebrity gossip' or anything... I found this People Magazine article which discussed the topic...

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20074383,00.html

Quote

August 20, 1979 Vol. 12 No. 8
Why Farrah Split
By Sue Reilly
The Rumors of Romeos Are Wrong, Snaps Farrah Fawcett: It Is Liberation That Made Her Drop Her Majors

"I just can't go from city to city trying to pretend that Lee and I are carrying on business as usual. I remember trying to tell one reporter what I make for Lee's dinner and bursting into tears. I can't lie to people. I'm not pretending that I'm someone I'm not, or that I'm someone I used to be."

It was at the beginning of the national tour for her new movie, Sunburn, that the new just plain Farrah Fawcett went bravely and painfully public with the announcement of her separation. At 32, Farrah—sometimes giddily and confidently, but often tearfully—was going it alone. After months of denials, she suddenly declared the breakup of Hollywood's bionic couple. After 11 years she had shorn Lee Majors, 39, from her life as well as her name.

Farrah will move out of their French provincial mansion in Bel Air. "I want to give both of us a little time to try to adjust to what has happened," she explains. "I don't know if we will ever get back together again, and that scares me," she adds, biting her lip. "I feel so confused."

The timing of the official declaration (by her manager-mentor, Jay Bernstein) stunned the swarming press as well as Paramount Pictures, which is distributing Sunburn. Dismayed studio flacks feared a ploy by the Machiavellian Bernstein to hype Farrah rather than her intermittently entertaining comedy-mystery (which he co-produced).

Farrah has a more heartfelt explanation. "When Lee married me, he married a very compliant person who just wanted to cook his meals, clean his house and be dependent," she says sadly. "I still like to cook his meals and clean his house, but I'm not dependent anymore. I feel so bad for Lee. I care about him so much, and he is trying to be understanding and protecting."

Indeed, shortly after her separation statement, a stoic Majors flew to Atlanta for a one-day reunion mid-tour. As he touched down, Farrah grew yet more anxious. Lee, clutching a bottle of champagne and a single yellow rose (reminiscent of the 13 he sent her after their first date), whisked her off to dinner at the home of Rankin Smith. He is owner of the Atlanta Falcons football team and their investment partner in a local sports complex. The Fawcett-Majors had been together only four weeks in the past 18 months. Despite their estrangement, Lee escorted Farrah—via her private passkey elevator—to her Hyatt Regency tower suite and stayed the night.

The next morning Farrah's hairdresser and makeup woman inevitably—but affectionately—joshed her. "Guess why I'm so relaxed and happy?" Farrah teased back. The mood lasted through much of a long, hot day, as Farrah and Lee dutifully toured the Falcons' training camp. The three-limo entourage of Farrah's 11 ladies-and-gentlemen-in-waiting followed, but discreetly turned their backs as the couple kissed farewell. "I love Farrah and I always will," Lee declared later. "There is nothing I would like better than for us to work out our problems." Farrah, off on another leg of her publicity trip, to New York, said only, "I'm so uncertain, but I feel good and honest about myself."

The marriage may be a casualty of success—Farrah's. The University of Texas beauty queen met Lee in 1968, two weeks after her parents drove her to Hollywood. She ordered a Scotch and Coke, then nervously excused herself to get sick in the ladies' room. Majors was already an established ABC star on The Big Valley, and when the ex-football player later scored as The Six Million Dollar Man (reviewers rapped him as a bionic robot), Farrah was his cheerleader. A housewife as much as a model (Ultra Brite, Noxzema and Wella Balsam), Farrah's contracts stipulated that she be home in time to cook dinner for the man she fondly called "a big grump-head." Soon, though, she went on to Charlie's Angels, that famous poster (the biggest-selling in history)—and super-celebrity. At the peak of their fame, each deserted TV.

Then, as she waxed, Lee waned. The Norseman, his anticipated springboard to movie stardom, belly-flopped last year, and none of his three films since has even been released in the U.S. As Fawcett contemplated their split, Majors was in Manila waiting to start a new movie, only to hear that the financing hadn't come through. Farrah, meanwhile, has kept her tenuous hold on the public. Her debut as a lead in Somebody Killed Her Husband last year earned her decent notices and, she says, "I learned a lot." Its box office failure didn't reduce her price—$750,000 per film—and in Saturn 3, since wrapped, she has gained further star clout: approval of director, script, cinematographer and co-stars (she chose Kirk Douglas).

Farrah has still not recovered fully from the backlash of her clamorous, possibly disloyal walkout from Charlie's Angels after one year. (Co-producer Aaron Spelling sued her for $7 million for breach of contract and the settlement calls for her to play three more episodes this season.) "The whole lawsuit almost sank me," she sighs. "The industry was furious with me and hostile because I was a TV sex symbol who wanted to be an actress. People thought I was really pretentious, and for months no one would touch me." She lost Foul Play to Goldie Hawn and Coma to Genevieve Bujold, Farrah claims. "I was poison," she recalls. "But I just wasn't going to give up."

A new Fawcett emerged from the ordeal. "I was brought up to be a nice, quiet, polite person," she notes, "and I have always had a hard time being forceful. My natural inclination is to defer to others, particularly men. So I was not concentrating on women's liberation, and people have tried to make me feel very guilty about it, especially the sex symbol thing. What's funny," she continues, "is that I have become a different person. You can't survive that kind of crushing attack and still be an innocent. I had to grow up and I did." The first halting steps toward self-reliance, however, may also have been the first ones out of her marriage. "I started to rely less and less on Lee and my other advisers," she reports. "I began to think about what I wanted, and needed, for myself. That meant saying an occasional discouraging word and giving up the continual smile," Farrah smiles. "Sometimes it surprises even me."

But it also causes trauma, and the prospect of divorce produces guilt for a lapsed Catholic. "Lee thinks that because I don't need him as much anymore I don't want him, and that isn't true," she says. "Our relationship has got to be different because I am different. But it's so hard for him to understand." Tears well in her emerald eyes, and she starts to weep softly before adding: "I'm not sure I do myself. In some ways I'm much happier than I used to be when all I ever thought about was pleasing everyone else. I came dead last."

Her marriage faltered because of that sloughing off of Total Womanhood, Farrah insists, not taking on a different man. She pooh-poohs persistent rumors of "my supposed affair" with the youngest son of TV's Dick Van Patten, tennis ace / actor Vince Van Patten. "I can tell you that if I were fooling around, no one would find me," she replies to one reported tryst in a Palm Springs motel. "Those rumors used to embarrass me terribly, and I just didn't know how to cope," she shrugs. "Vince and his parents are some of my best, kindest, most wonderful friends and I'm sorry for the embarrassment these stories have caused them."

Fawcett's budding sense of authority extends to her $10 million contract with Fabergé to promote their not ragingly successful line of "Farrah" beauty products. "There are about 7,000 shampoos on the market, and they all basically have the same ingredients," she admits. "Our gimmicks are minerals, the protein keratin and some vitamins. I think they'll help, although we haven't come up with scientific proof yet." Fabergé carped that she didn't give her all, but, explains Farrah: "I couldn't say, straight-faced, 'Don't ya just love me, and you'll love my shampoo.' " With new packaging and a new yet unfinalized product name, she is recommitted, and next month will launch the line in Egypt and Israel, of all places.

Farrah is putting equal energy into acting. "I did not attend the Royal Academy for 12 years, but I am a professional trying to be the best actress I can be and to do the best scripts I get," she asserts. "No one sends me the scripts that Faye Dunaway or Jane Fonda are considered for, but you have to remember that Jane started out doing lightweight stuff like Barbarella."

The analogy, fair enough in itself, suggests Fawcett's new sense of strength and direction. "The last four years have been filled with so much pain, so much hurt," she muses. "There were days when only my discipline got me through. I don't drink, use drugs or depend on any kind of crutch. I've just got me. And sometimes, with all the negative energy coming toward me, I want to rent a billboard and say, 'Hey, listen, folks, I'm not such a bad person.' " Then the insecure Farrah is replaced by the new assured Farrah, and she says proudly, "I'm getting where I want to go. I'm determined to survive."

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #28 on:** June 30, 2013, 05:05:03 PM »

Quote from: Lisa on June 30, 2013, 11:04:26 AM

Farah Fawcett wasn't Jewish. And we don't have the death penalty for female adulterers in America, so this kind of talk is irrelevant.

Bullcat3 is a good long time member here, who is Catholic. So B.Y., you can get your point across without taking a dig at her religion.

I wasn't even addressing her. I was talking to Ephraim Ben Noah. I just made a random comment. I do remember hearing that divorce was illegal in Ireland because of Catholicism and only recently did they legalize it. She decided to reply on her own. I didn't have a point to make until she asked about "annulment" in Judaism.

Nedarim are vows. Jews don't even have wedding vows. At real Jewish weddings, we don't say "I do" the way goyim do. We say brachot. The man acquires his wife by saying "Harei At..." and giving her a ring and she accepts the ring. She does not give him a ring.

cjd · « **Reply #29 on:** June 30, 2013, 05:32:15 PM »

Quote from: Binyamin Yisrael on June 30, 2013, 05:05:03 PM

I wasn't even addressing her. I was talking to Ephraim Ben Noah. I just made a random comment. I do remember hearing that divorce was illegal in Ireland because of Catholicism and only recently did they legalize it. She decided to reply on her own. I didn't have a point to make until she asked about "annulment" in Judaism.

Nedarim are vows. Jews don't even have wedding vows. At real Jewish weddings, we don't say "I do" the way goyim do. We say brachot. The man acquires his wife by saying "Harei At..." and giving her a ring and she accepts the ring. She does not give him a ring.

The anulment process for Roman Catholics is a long and ardgious process that usually ends in the people requesting one being rejected by the church... It's mostly used in cases of incompatibility where people are married for a very short time and find they have no interest in eachother sexually or otherwise... It's an expensive and and embarasing process that most devorced people will just not put themselves through... There is nothing " Gay" about it unless the man ran off with another man

The problem with your post is that you phrased it like a 10 year old and if you are who I think you are your better educated than that post would lead people to believe.

Quote

Quote from: Binyamin Yisrael on June 25, 2013, 11:36:40 PM
Catholicism is against divorce. So they have "annulments" to pretend the marriage never took place. It's pretty gay if you ask me.

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #30 on:** June 30, 2013, 05:37:27 PM »

I say gay like if people say "That's so gay.". I didn't mean it literally.

Gay doesn't even mean homosexual. It means happy. So either way people use gay, it's not the real meaning of the word.

cjd · « **Reply #31 on:** June 30, 2013, 05:53:09 PM »

Quote from: Binyamin Yisrael on June 30, 2013, 05:37:27 PM

I say gay like if people say "That's so gay.". I didn't mean it literally.

Gay doesn't even mean homosexual. It means happy. So either way people use gay, it's not the real meaning of the word.

Yes I know all that... The bottom line is the fact that you don't seem to have any real understanding on how the anulment process works for Roman Catholics... Not that you need to but it would be as if I tried to comment on some of the higher points of Jewish Religion when I did not have a full understanding of the issue.

Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks · « **Reply #32 on:** June 30, 2013, 07:42:40 PM »

And this somehow makes her righteous, Muman? I'd like to see you valiantly defend the honor of someone who leaves you because their career takes off and they no longer have a place for you in their life.

muman613 · « **Reply #33 on:** June 30, 2013, 10:57:05 PM »

Quote from: Waiting for the Mother Plane to Come on June 30, 2013, 07:42:40 PM

And this somehow makes her righteous, Muman? I'd like to see you valiantly defend the honor of someone who leaves you because their career takes off and they no longer have a place for you in their life.

I did not say she was 'righteous', just that I do not base my opinions based on gossip columnists... You are entitled to judge people to whatever standard you expect. I try to avoid making such judgments lightly. I am willing to judge MJ harshly because he was responsible for his downfall, at least his drug habit should have been a sign he was not in good mental shape. But on personal issues such as divorce and intimate issues of marriage, I do not believe everything I read.

muman613 · « **Reply #34 on:** July 01, 2013, 02:10:12 AM »

http://www.newsmax.com/US/michael-jackson-abuse-files/2013/06/30/id/512693

Report: Secret FBI Files Detail Michael Jackson Abuse
Sunday, 30 Jun 2013 10:00 PM
By Greg Richter

The King of Pop was in danger of losing his throne in the early 1990s as allegations began to swirl that he had abused underage boys at his Neverland Ranch.

Now, a former aid to a private investigator to the stars says his boss was hired by Michael Jackson to find victims and pay them to keep quiet, reports London's Sunday People.

According to the tabloid, "secret FBI files" show abuse of up to 24 young boys, including one well-known actor. Jackson was caught with another boy watching pornographic movies, and one was fondled in Jackson's private theater while his mother sat a few rows ahead oblivious to what was happening.

Though the files include the alleged victims' names, Sunday People did not reveal any of them except for Wade Robson, now a 30-year-old choreographer who has sued the Jackson estate. Robson alleges he was sexually abused by Jackson between the ages of 7 and 14.

The publication also did not identify the former aid who supplied the documents.

Jackson hired famed private eye Anthony Pellicano and paid out $35 million to keep the boys and their parents from going to police or the media, the former aid told Sunday People.

Pellicano is currently serving a 15-year sentence on an unrelated racketeering and wiretapping case, but the aid said the FBI seized Pellicano's records, including the Jackson ones involving Jackson's payoff. It was copies of those records that the British tabloid saw.

“Our reports painted the picture that Jackson was a serial child predator,” the aid said.

The FBI declined to comment.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/US/michael-jackson-abuse-files/2013/06/30/id/512693#ixzz2XltbGLPI
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!

nessuno · « **Reply #35 on:** July 01, 2013, 08:50:02 AM »

Quote from: Binyamin Yisrael on June 30, 2013, 05:05:03 PM

I wasn't even addressing her. I was talking to Ephraim Ben Noah. I just made a random comment. I do remember hearing that divorce was illegal in Ireland because of Catholicism and only recently did they legalize it. She decided to reply on her own. I didn't have a point to make until she asked about "annulment" in Judaism.

Nedarim are vows. Jews don't even have wedding vows. At real Jewish weddings, we don't say "I do" the way goyim do. We say brachot. The man acquires his wife by saying "Harei At..." and giving her a ring and she accepts the ring. She does not give him a ring.

It was not taken personally. Just let your hatred for Catholics be founded in reality.

nessuno · « **Reply #36 on:** July 01, 2013, 09:04:19 AM »

As many of our resident experts on Catholicism do, I tried to inform myself by 'reading'. I know wiki is often a great source referenced here.

So, here is what I read...

How Does Annulment Fit In?

While the Torah does not mention the concept of annulment, the rabbis in the Talmud interpreted the laws of marriage as allowing a beit din to intervene and annul a marriage if the husband has acted in a way that causes harm (physical or mental) to his wife. This could be done without the husband's participation or approval and over his protestations. In the Talmud the cases cited are specific: where a woman is coerced into the marriage upon threat of violence to her person or where a woman is kidnapped and forced to marry a man against her will.

In the early Middle Ages we find rabbinic rulings that an annulment can be decreed by a beit din if “defects” in the husband were found after the marriage took place. If the husband suffered from a condition (mental illness, abusive behavior, impotence, or a physical defect) at the time of the marriage and the wife was unaware of the condition when they were married, she can seek an annulment from the beit din.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Contemporary_Issues/Agunot/Annulment.shtml?p=2

Sounds very similar to a Catholic annulment to me.

Just saying! I'm no expert on either.

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #37 on:** July 01, 2013, 08:40:15 PM »

Quote from: bullcat3 on July 01, 2013, 08:50:02 AM

It was not taken personally. Just let your hatred for Catholics be founded in reality.

I don't hate Catholics. I have nothing personal against Catholics. American Catholics are some of the better people in this country and have faced the same situations as Jews in the same neighborhoods. I just don't agree with Catholicism since it is not my religion and besides for the fact that it's not my religion, Jews will never forget how the Catholic Church historically acted towards Jews such as during the Crusades and Inquisitions. I don't hold American Catholics responsible for that.

I once heard a Catholic on Arutz 7 say that he sees the Pope as his religious leader but he doesn't see him as his leader when it comes to how the Pope is Anti-Israel (This was about 8-10 years ago. I think it was a caller to the Tovia Singer Show who said it.). He said this is because in addition to the Pope heading the Church, he's also head of state of the Vatican and the Pope, like almost every head of state in the World is Anti-Israel and Pro-Arab.

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #38 on:** July 01, 2013, 08:47:01 PM »

Quote from: bullcat3 on July 01, 2013, 09:04:19 AM

As many of our resident experts on Catholicism do, I tried to inform myself by 'reading'. I know wiki is often a great source referenced here.
So, here is what I read...

How Does Annulment Fit In?

While the Torah does not mention the concept of annulment, the rabbis in the Talmud interpreted the laws of marriage as allowing a beit din to intervene and annul a marriage if the husband has acted in a way that causes harm (physical or mental) to his wife. This could be done without the husband's participation or approval and over his protestations. In the Talmud the cases cited are specific: where a woman is coerced into the marriage upon threat of violence to her person or where a woman is kidnapped and forced to marry a man against her will.

In the early Middle Ages we find rabbinic rulings that an annulment can be decreed by a beit din if “defects” in the husband were found after the marriage took place. If the husband suffered from a condition (mental illness, abusive behavior, impotence, or a physical defect) at the time of the marriage and the wife was unaware of the condition when they were married, she can seek an annulment from the beit din.

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Contemporary_Issues/Agunot/Annulment.shtml?p=2

Sounds very similar to a Catholic annulment to me.

Just saying! I'm no expert on either.

I never heard of that. I just heard about vows as stated in this week's Torah portion (Numbers 30). You can look it up and see what I'm talking about. Ask Muman for the way Jews follow it. It doesn't say in the Written Torah about annulling such vows. That part is only in the Oral Torah. Heretical Jews don't believe that these vows can be annulled so the rabbis would have heretical Kohanim in the Temple vow to do the proper Temple service according to Halacha (According to The Oral Torah) since they knew that those Jews that rejected the Oral Torah believe it's a sin not to follow the vow made and that they reject the annulment process for vows described in the Oral Torah.

muman613 · « **Reply #39 on:** July 01, 2013, 09:58:23 PM »

According to my understanding the Catholic idea of Annulment has nothing to do with the concept of Divorce as the Torah explains it. The Torah concept of 'Get' or the document written for ending a Jewish marriage doesn't seem to have anything in common with the process of 'Annulment' or 'Declaration of Nullity' as defined by the Catholic church.

The Torah allows a marriage to be dissolved if either of the partners has a complaint against the other spouse. Through the process of 'giving the get' the Jewish couple can end the marriage for what-ever reason. It appears to me that according to sources I have read that 'Annulment' is the act of the Church asserting that the entire 'marriage' never existed, the whole thing is treated as if they were never married in the first place.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment_(Catholic_Church)

Quote

In the Catholic Church, a declaration of nullity, commonly called an annulment, is a judgement on the part of an ecclesiastical tribunal determining that the sacrament of marriage was invalidly contracted. Annulment is the procedure, governed by the Church's canon law, which determines the marriage to be void at its inception (ab initio). A "Declaration of Nullity" is not the dissolution of an existing marriage, but rather a determination that the sacrament was never in fact conferred due to a failure to meet the requirements to enter validly into matrimony and thus a marriage never existed.

As always I am not an expert when it comes to the traditions and sacraments of other religions. But it seems that these two things, Annulment and Divorce are two entirely unrelated concepts. Judaism doesn't suggest that the marriage never existed, as it seems Annulment does. This is why it seems 'Gay' or 'Odd' from a Jewish standpoint.

I cannot see how the RCC could have any concept of 'Alimony' because if the marriage never existed, how could there be any responsibility to support the other spouse?

Quote

http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/211,163858/GET-Jewish-bill-of-divorce-vs-Annulment.html

Rabbi Shlomo Chein: Welcome. I'll be with you in a moment...what's on your mind?

Reba: my mother asked me to ask you a question

Rabbi Shlomo Chein: ok

Reba: here it goes:

Reba: why in orthodox circles is it more acceptable to get a "get" [religious bill of divorce] as apposed to getting an annulment?

Reba: (My mother is a social worker in a shelter for battered jewish women)

Rabbi Shlomo Chein: you can't annul a Jewish marriage - The same G-d who gave us laws how to get into it, gave us laws how to get out of it

Reba: can you go into it more? I would like to print this session out for my mother later

Reba: I am trying to show my mother how cool the rabbis are on this site.. in general u guys r cool ppl

Rabbi Shlomo Chein: well an annulment means you are saying the first thing never really happned. But a Jewish marriage is a very important action, and it definately did happen! It is not just a simple agreement between two people, it is a bonding of two souls. So if they want to get out of it, they can't simply say it never happened. It did happen! And they are in it! Now they need to follow G-d's direction how to exit

Reba: thank you.

muman613 · « **Reply #40 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:05:35 PM »

Binyamin has correctly brought up the discussion of the 'Annulment of Vows' which is indeed in this coming weeks Torah portion.

http://www.chabad.org/library/article_cdo/aid/92380/jewish/Matos.htm

The Annulment of Vows

The Torah portion Matos begins with Moshe speaking “to the tribal heads of the Jewish people, telling them that this is the word that G-d commanded.”1 The Torah then goes on to spell out the laws of vows, nedarim , and their annulment, hatoras nedarim.

In explaining why the Torah singles out the tribal heads, Rashi says that “Moshe honored the tribal heads, teaching them first.” Rashi goes on to ask, “why was this specifically mentioned here, since this was always the case? To teach us that vows can be annulled even by a single individual, if he is an expert [such as a tribal leader or other scholar].”

The following question presents itself. Since this is the section that relates to vows and not to the annulment thereof, how does Rashi deduce that the tribal leaders were singled out here to inform us that even a single expert can annul a vow — the very antithesis of making one?

The main thrust of this section is not that “If a man makes a vow to G-d, or makes an oath to prohibit upon himself, he must not break his word,”2 for that is self-understood. Moreover, this is also included in the commandment to “distance yourself from falsehood.”3

Evidently, the Torah is telling us here that notwithstanding the fact that one must keep his word, it is possible for a vow to be annulled. Thus, the main thrust of the section is to let us know that vows can be annulled in any number of ways.

This is also to be understood from the more esoteric understanding of vows and their annulment:

With regard to vows, the Yerushalmi states:4 “Does it not suffice for you that which the Torah prohibited; you seek to prohibit yourself from other matters as well!?”

The reason for this statement is obvious. G-d’s intention is that through the performance of Torah and mitzvos we transform the world into a dwelling place for Him.5 As such, spiritual service must be performed with physical entities,6 making them into vessels for G-dliness. This purpose is not served if a person removes himself from involvement with them by means of oaths and vows.

On the other hand, our Sages also state7 that “vows are a fence for abstinence,” i.e., they enable a person to perform the command to “Sanctify yourself [by refraining from indulgence] in permitted matters.”8
.
.
.

muman613 · « **Reply #41 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:17:56 PM »

myjewishlearning.com seems to be a deformed 'judaism' site... I would not use it as a source for Halacha concerning real Judaism.

Kahane-Was-Right BT · « **Reply #42 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:31:53 PM »

Quote from: bullcat3 on June 29, 2013, 12:11:05 PM

Is that how it goes?
It's pretty gay when people don't get their facts right.

hehehe

Quote

An annulment in Catholicism seems surprisingly similar to an annulment in Judaism. But I'm no expert on either. Maybe you know different.

Actually, annulment's are not allowed in Judaism except in extremely rare circumstances (for example if there was deception involved in the marriage circumstances, it could be determined that the marriage document was not legally valid). In probably 99.9% of cases, there is no way to annul, and people who can't stay together simply get divorced. (Divorce is permitted by Judaism).

Kahane-Was-Right BT · « **Reply #43 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:37:52 PM »

Quote from: Binyamin Yisrael on June 30, 2013, 05:37:27 PM

I say gay like if people say "That's so gay.". I didn't mean it literally.

Gay doesn't even mean homosexual. It means happy. So either way people use gay, it's not the real meaning of the word.

Although it's admittedly a bit immature, calling something "gay" makes sense when someone does or says something gay - and I admit I find it comical to refer to it as gay. But to ridicule a gentile religion by calling it "gay" (and especially when you know that some of the members here practice that religion) is pretty inappropriate and disrespectful.

I suppose I think it's gay to call other religions gay on the JTF forum. Ok, that was just childish. But you get my point.

Kahane-Was-Right BT · « **Reply #44 on:** July 01, 2013, 10:42:37 PM »

Quote from: bullcat3 on July 01, 2013, 09:04:19 AM

While the Torah does not mention the concept of annulment, the rabbis in the Talmud interpreted the laws of marriage as allowing a beit din to intervene and annul a marriage if the husband has acted in a way that causes harm (physical or mental) to his wife. This could be done without the husband's participation or approval and over his protestations. In the Talmud the cases cited are specific: where a woman is coerced into the marriage upon threat of violence to her person or where a woman is kidnapped and forced to marry a man against her will.

Those are very rare instances. It cannot be applied to other cases than the ones listed in the Talmud. In today's world, maybe less than 0.01% of Jewish marriages come about through threat of physical violence.

Quote

In the early Middle Ages we find rabbinic rulings that an annulment can be decreed by a beit din if “defects” in the husband were found after the marriage took place. If the husband suffered from a condition (mental illness, abusive behavior, impotence, or a physical defect) at the time of the marriage and the wife was unaware of the condition when they were married, she can seek an annulment from the beit din.[/i]

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/life/Life_Events/Divorce/Contemporary_Issues/Agunot/Annulment.shtml?p=2

Sounds very similar to a Catholic annulment to me.

Just saying! I'm no expert on either.

I don't know what Catholic annulment is, but Binyamin described it as being used instead of divorce since divorce is not allowed. That type of carte blanche annulment (if in fact that is how it works) is clearly NOT what you described there. The annulment you cited from the middle ages (and these rulings in the middle ages are based on the Talmudic laws, so I'm sure they also happened in the Talmudic period, but the article is just bringing some evidence that they were carried out practically I guess), involves a marriage that was made under false pretenses. When deception like that is involved, it makes the marriage document - a sacred and defined legal entity - invalid.

The sanctity and legally binding nature of the marriage document is precisely why annulments in the vast majority of cases cannot happen in Judaism.

To our Jewish members participating in this discussion, first of all you should know this stuff - especially what bullcat cited (Go learn some tractate Kethuvoth please), and second of all, what I stated about the importance of the marriage document and the halachic difficulty in annulling it is partly the cause of what is referred to as the Aguna crisis.

Lisa · « **Reply #45 on:** July 01, 2013, 11:07:21 PM »

Good post, KWRBT.

Binyamin Yisrael could say that from what he understands or has heard, annulments make it so the marriage never happened. At least that's how I understand annulments, and I don't know much about them at all.

But please, since we have Jews here, Catholics, various denominations of Protestantism, and a few Hindus, let's refrain from calling the religion of other members "gay." We want all good people who come here to feel welcome.

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #46 on:** July 02, 2013, 12:00:40 AM »

Quote from: Lisa on July 01, 2013, 11:07:21 PM

Good post, KWRBT.

Binyamin Yisrael could say that from what he understands or has heard, annulments make it so the marriage never happened. At least that's how I understand annulments, and I don't know much about them at all.

So what if a Catholic couple gets their marriage annulled and they had kids? Does that retroactively make them "bastards" as understood by the Christian definition of the word? I say "Christian" because for Jews, bastards are only the product of a prohibited relationship. Simply having kids outside of marriage does not make bastards in Judaism but rather just illegitimate children.

Quote

But please, since we have Jews here, Catholics, various denominations of Protestantism, and a few Hindus, let's refrain from calling the religion of other members "gay." We want all good people who come here to feel welcome.

So I guess we can call Islam gay since any real Muslim is by definition not a good person. They might call themselves Muslim but they're trying to hijack the religion from the real Islam that is espoused by Al-Qaida (The opposite of what Bush said.).

muman613 · « **Reply #47 on:** July 02, 2013, 12:14:40 AM »

Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on July 01, 2013, 10:42:37 PM

Those are very rare instances. It cannot be applied to other cases than the ones listed in the Talmud. In today's world, maybe less than 0.01% of Jewish marriages come about through threat of physical violence.

I don't know what Catholic annulment is, but Binyamin described it as being used instead of divorce since divorce is not allowed. That type of carte blanche annulment (if in fact that is how it works) is clearly NOT what you described there. The annulment you cited from the middle ages (and these rulings in the middle ages are based on the Talmudic laws, so I'm sure they also happened in the Talmudic period, but the article is just bringing some evidence that they were carried out practically I guess), involves a marriage that was made under false pretenses. When deception like that is involved, it makes the marriage document - a sacred and defined legal entity - invalid.

The sanctity and legally binding nature of the marriage document is precisely why annulments in the vast majority of cases cannot happen in Judaism.

To our Jewish members participating in this discussion, first of all you should know this stuff - especially what bullcat cited (Go learn some tractate Kethuvoth please), and second of all, what I stated about the importance of the marriage document and the halachic difficulty in annulling it is partly the cause of what is referred to as the Aguna crisis.

You basically restated what I wrote above...

I have stated the Torah commandment concerning giving a Get (Divorce document). I also pointed out that Annulment is the process of invalidating the entire relationship as if it did not exist. Orthodox Judaism does not recognize such a thing as annulment. The only thing which resembles the Catholic process is in the case that the Ketubah was not factually correct, or the witnesses were not kosher.

See:

http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,70132.msg599286.html#msg599286

http://jtf.org/forum/index.php/topic,70132.msg600066.html#msg600066

Binyamin Yisrael · « **Reply #48 on:** July 02, 2013, 12:23:34 AM »

What if someone had a Deform or Conservative ketubah? Since they are not valid Halachically, would they require an annulment or just a civil divorce?

Lewinsky Stinks, Dr. Brennan Rocks · « **Reply #49 on:** July 02, 2013, 01:43:09 AM »

Quote from: Kahane-Was-Right BT on July 01, 2013, 10:37:52 PM

Although it's admittedly a bit immature, calling something "gay" makes sense when someone does or says something gay - and I admit I find it comical to refer to it as gay. But to ridicule a gentile religion by calling it "gay" (and especially when you know that some of the members here practice that religion) is pretty inappropriate and disrespectful.

I suppose I think it's gay to call other religions gay on the JTF forum. Ok, that was just childish. But you get my point.

Good post. BY would do well to learn some respect.