Living together first - can ruin marriage

Fox News

Couples who shack up before tying the knot are more likely to get divorced than their counterparts who don't move in together until marriage, a new study suggests.

Upwards of 70 percent of U.S. couples are cohabiting these days before marrying, the researchers estimate.

The study, published in the February issue of the Journal of Family Psychology, indicates that such move-ins might not be wise.

And it's not because you start to get on one another's nerves. Rather, the researchers figure the shared abode could lead to marriage for all the wrong reasons.

"We think that some couples who move in together without a clear commitment to marriage may wind up sliding into marriage partly because they are already cohabiting," said lead researcher Galena Rhoades of the University of Denver.

Couples might also be nudged into nuptials because of a joint lease or shared ownership of Fido — along with other practicalities.[...]

Shoteh - How defined /psychology or behavior?

Shalom Reb Daniel Eidensohn,

I was directed to you by a Rav who said you are a psychologist and a talmid chochom who has thought a great deal about the topic matter I would like to bring to your attention and get your opinions on.

Basically, my question is would you consider a person who thinks perfectly rationally, but who is prevented from acting accordingly because of severe OCD (on the level of Howard Hughes) and psychotic paranoia, to be a shoteh according to halachah?

This is a real-life scenario as the person in question absolutely exists and they have been diagnosed by a board certified psychiatrist with those mental illnesses.

Thank you for your time and I very much look forward to your feedback.

RS

Obama's Stimulus Plan - failing

Time Magazine

The $787 billion stimulus plan is turning out to be far less stimulating than its architects expected.

Back in early January, when Obama was still President-elect, two of his chief economic advisers, and leading proponents of a stimulus bill, predicted that the passage of a large economic-aid package would boost the economy and keep the unemployment rate below 8%. It hasn't quite worked out that way. Last month, the jobless rate in America hit 9.5%, the highest level it has reached since 1983. (See 10 ways your job will change.)

The two advisers who wrote the paper, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein, went on to land key jobs in Obama's Administration. Romer is the head of Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, Bernstein is the chief economist and economic-policy adviser to Vice President Biden. And the stimulus bill that both economists championed became law in mid-February. What has not come to pass, however, is the boom in job creation that Romer and Bernstein predicted. A little over a month ago, the Administration said the stimulus bill had created or saved 150,000 jobs. That's a far cry from the 3 million to 4 million jobs that Romer and Bernstein foresaw back in January.[...]

EJF's hilchos geirus program - what is it's purpose?

It has been claimed by Kanoimpogimbo that his community is being destroyed by rabbis as the result of EJF's welcoming attitude toward interfaith couples. The question is whether EJF in fact encourages the proselytizing of non-Jews who are dating Jews and encourages non-Jews to attend Torah lectures or that these rabbis who are participating in EJF hilchos geirus program have serious misunderstood EJF. Perhaps Roni could explain the purpose of the hilchos geirus program and what it teaches. If in fact these rabbis have misunderstood it, it is obviously necessary to inform R' Tropper that the goals of EJF - in least in this instance - are seriously misunderstood and that he needs to make sure the participants properly understand it. Below is the contract that participants sign. Perhaps R' Tropper should write a public letter condeming their attitude and I would be glad to pass it on and/or publicize it.

Agunos - Fairness and halacha

JPost

Susan Weiss, founding director of the nonprofit Center for Women's Justice, will never forget the day in 2000 when a 36-year-old mother of five walked into her office and pleaded with the New York-born lawyer to help her fight for a divorce.

"She'd been trying to obtain one for more than 10 years," recalls Weiss, a Jerusalem-based mother of five, who in June received an award from the Israel Bar Association for her work in helping agunot or chained women, whose husbands refuse them a get (divorce).

"The rabbinic court had ordered the husband to give a get and to pay child support, but he was still refusing," she continues, adding that the husband had invoked an ancient Jewish law where he claimed to be willing to divorce but only based on certain conditions.

"He said he would divorce her but that she had to waive all her rights to child support," remembers Weiss. "[The rabbinic judges] said that if she did not agree to his demands, then the fact she did not yet have a divorce was her own fault. When she asked the judge how she would be able to support herself and her children if the husband did not pay some form of child support, the rabbis said, 'Go to the haredi community, they will support you there.'"[...]

Supreme court slams acquital of forgiven yeshiva student

Jpost JPost2

The Supreme Court on Monday harshly criticized Jerusalem District Court judge Moshe Drori for his decision not to convict a yeshiva student who ran over Ethiopian-Israeli parking lot cashier Noga Zoarish. The decision was apparently made in order not to harm the man's chances of being appointed as a judge in the rabbinic courts.

"This is a very severe incident. I read the district court decision and did not understand how the yeshiva student was not convicted, it is inconceivable," Justice Edmund Levy said.

Levy also questioned the sincerity of the perpetrator's remorse and public apology to Zoarish, which was one of the grounds for Drori's acquittal, pondering why he expressed no such sentiments while being interrogated by police.

"He was involved in such a severe incident and expressed no remorse. That should also be taken into account when one decides to pave the way for him becoming a rabbinic judge," Levy said.

Levy backed the prosecution's request to remove the gag order on publishing the man's name. "It's unacceptable that he be treated favorably just because he could potentially be appointed as a rabbinic judge. Why does he need to remain anonymous?" he said.

The State Prosecution launched an appeal against the acquittal Monday, and during the court session, Zoarish burst into tears.

"He asked me for forgiveness in court, and I forgave him," she said, referring to the Jerusalem District Court hearing during which the student was acquitted. "But his apology wasn't genuine."[...]

Allow victim to suffer to prevent collateral damage to community?

Under what circumstances should I avoid saving a person from harm because of the collateral damage? Does it make a difference what type of colleteral damage would occur or how many people would suffer?

Is there a difference if the collateral damage is to a single individual, family, school or community. Sources?

If the rabbonim say that the saving the victim of abuse would mean that community's main yeshiva would be destroyed by lawsuits and as a result 90% of the kids would go off the derech. Does the victim have the right to insist on taking measures to protect himself from harm - even if collateral damage results?

Or what about the future. The molesting has stopped but the victim wants to punish perpetrator to deter other perpetrators in the future. Community says that they are not willing lose yeshiva for the sake of protecting against future acts. Does the victim have to go along with their decision. Sources?

Does the non compliance with the community wishes constitute a transgression of any specific mitzva? Or is it simply that the community has the right apply all types sanctions to achieves but there is no actual sin.

Another way of looking at it is that the community should have taken proactive measures to make sure this dilemna never arises - but since it didn't can they avoid the consequences?