Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 166

Tuesday, February 16 1999

• Re: Sheitlach
• Yotzrot
• Humility...
• Re: adar-av
• Collecting on Kesubo
• Re: Mishenichnas Adar Marbim Torah
• Halakhah and Kabbalah
• Source for Rambam
• heicha kedusha
• Re: Source for Rambam
• Re: CH, Heicho kedusho etc.
• Halocho and Kabbolo
• Re: [4-Parshios] yotzrot
• Kabbala and Halacha
• Beis Din
• Re: Halakhah and Kabbalah
• Re: Beis Din
• Re: Avodah V2 #165

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:

> Yes, my proof is anthropological, since that is the way to demonstrate
> what Das Yehudis, at least, is.  It is not the case that all women
> covered hair in similar fashion, as is evident from paintings and
> drawings of non-Jewish women from same periods. 
> 

If that is how you demonstrate Das Yehudis (I disagree, obviously), then
its parameters would be the same as Chullos Akum, i.e., if one can wear
b'zman ha'zeh short jackets (men) one can wear also sheitlach (women).

> I shall cite poskim of the various schools who disagree with the
> permissibility of sheitlach.  Let me make clear that my point is not to
> argue that women may not wear these today but only to indicate that
> Gedolei Yisroel of all schools and venues indeed felt that it was
> prohibited to wear them, that some poskim held it to be a violation of
> issurei Torah and that therefore it is a reasonable position to argue

I do not choose to devote the time now to a lengthy perusal of the sourcs,
but let me note below one or two responses.

First, however: If you are to treat a wig as the halachic equivalent of
hair, there can be no leniency for wigs anymore than real hair. thus, a
tefach b'sheitel would be ervah, and the pillbox hats or half-tichels
commonly seen in some Chassidic circles over sheitels are to no avail.

> that the wearing of sheitlach today represents the widespread acceptance
> of a major kula.  Conversely, those who are medakdek not to wear
> uncovered sheitlach are surely not engaged simply in a display of
> greater yiras shomayim but in a genuine effort to avoid a safek issur. 
> I shall not quote any Oriental poskim, since it seems clear that RYGB
> agrees that they prohibit en masse. 
> 
> Osrim (a limited selection, and excluding later Hungarians):
> 

(deleted)

> Pri Megadim, OC 303 Mishbetzos Zahav 9 considers it a safek d'rabonon to
> say krias shma in presence of women wearing sheitel and possibly sofek
> d'oraisa. 
> 

This one I looked up, for I have it readily accessible at home. He does
not say sheitels are prohited. He quotes the Be'er Sheva who argues on
the Rama and says that *l'shitaso* there would be a safek as you have
noted.

> Rav Zvi Hirsh Chayos, Shu"t, 53.
>

I looked this up because I have it at home and it intrigued me that davka
he should prohibit, so I saw that basically hw would have been mattir
except that it was a pirtza, since it was doe in the wake of perikas ol,
and also, for a peripheral resaon, because of issur hana'a min ha'meis.
 
> Rav Menachem Mendel of LUBAVITCH in comments on mishna Brachos 
> ch. 3 " but a wig even on weekdays is permitted only in the courtyard."
> 

How then can it be that the last RMM of Lubavitch *encouraged* wigs?!

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

>>From: "Newman,Saul Z" <Saul.Z.Newman@kp.org>

meinyana dyoma, does anyone know why there are yotzrot for musaf on shkalim
and hachodesh, but not for zachor and para?  [at least in the common
siddurim that i've seen ]<<

I don't know THE answer but I'll hazard a guess.  The nusach of both of the 
Musaf "yotros" (acutally a misnomer, because Yotzros tehcnically refers to those
piyyutim during bircahs Yotzer...) deal with the themr of Arba.  I suspect that 
these piyyutim comprise a matched set deliniating the 1st and 4th of the arbo 
parshiyos.  Of couse, the 2nd nad 3rd COULD have been included but either:
1) were not composed  (my guess)
2) lost
3) omitted for some unkown (at last to me) reason.

The structure of the piyytim for shacharis, (inlcuding yotros, zulas, krovos, 
siluk, etc.) follow similar structures thoughout Yomim Tovim, etc.)  The Musaph 
for shkolim and Chodesh are "unique" and in many German kehillos share the same 
melody.

Rich Wolpoe

The following reached me via a co-worker. I have no idea how many hands it went
through, or when-and-where it was originally posted.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6091 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 16-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

From: "Boris M. Schein" <bschein@comp.uark.edu>
Subject: [JHUMOR] Humility

: This is not a joke but a true story.

: When the practice of ritual slaughter was under attack in Great Britain,
: the famed Rabbi Yechezkel Abramsky was called to court in its defense.

: The judge read from the deposition which lay before him: "Rabbi Abramsky,"
: said the judge, "it says here that you are the foremost authority of Jewish
: Law in the British Empire. Is that true?"

: "That is true, your honor."

: "And that you are the most eloquent spokesman for Jewish Law in the British
: Empire?"

: "That is also true, your honor."

: "It also says here that you are the most senior rabbi in the British Empire.
: Is that correct?"

: "That is correct, your Honor."

: Taken aback by the Rabbi's straightforward responses, the judge said,
: "Rabbi Abramsky, how do you resolve your answers with the Talmudic teachings
: of humility?"

: "It is indeed a problem, your honor," said the Rabbi. "But I'm under oath."

>>> The following outline lists some of the parallels, primarily liturgical, 
between Purim and the 9th of Av.
 
6 Month-wide 
     6.1 Mishenichnos Adar Marbin b'Simcho
     6.2 Mishenichnos Av M'maatin b'Simcho<<<

Nice list!  Saw in Or Gedalyahu that just as Av is characterized by churban
habayis, Adar is characterized as a time of binyan hamikdash; Chiddushei HaRim
explains Adar m'lashon dirah=shchina dwelling in the mikdash.  Hence the
practice of reading shekalim, parshiyos that relate to binyan habayis.
(Possible parallel to haftoros of puranisa?)  Also note that Haman's plan has
to be read in light of the efforts to stop the resettlement of E. Yisrael and
binyan habayis as outlined in Sefer Ezra, see also Ramban quoted by Ran first
page of Rif in Megilla.

-Chaim

>>From: EDTeitz@aol.com
Subject: Re: asmachta

<<
I don't believe that either I or my chosson really expect that I will
collect on the matayim zuz
..
Not to upset you, but there is a greater than 50% chance that you will collect
the 200 zuz, just not necessarily because of divorce.<<  

I was an "eid" at 2 gittin in Toronto circa 1971.  This was the "main" Beis Din 
headed bt R. Gelder.  After the Kiyyum haget,

1) The kesubbos were destroyed.  I was  told me they were"unenforeable" and 
therefore worthless. (US law might be different than Canadian, I do not know). 

The Gittin too were destroyed, and I was told it was  in order to avoid any 
subsequnet ir'ur.  Both parties were given receipts as evidence of the Get.

Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 2/16/99 9:42:06 AM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
  The following outline lists some of the parallels, primarily liturgical, 
 between Purim and the 9th of Av.
  >>
Dear Richard,
No real surprise-R' Schachter points out that we all know the gemora says- kol
....bshem omro meyve geula lolam.  Why geula rather than another 'reward'? The
quote the gemora uses(I'm not home so this is all from memory) is that Esther
said over the report of the treachery of Bigtan and Teresh in the name of
Mordecai and that is what led to the purim miracle which was their atchalta
dgeula, hence meyyve geula including rebuilding of bet mikdash. 

 Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Eli Ginsparg writes:

>Eli Clark gives the impression that the
>introduction of Zohar into halacha is the exception and not the rule, and
>is something unique to the MA. He also gives the impression that the Zohar
>isn't a halachik text at all, but is too be considered Aggadita in the
>same context asthe Maase with Kimchis. In fact the Chofetz Chaim brings
>down the ruling of the kabbala on many occaions. In the Sefer Yad Yisroel
>(index to the chofetz Chaim) he cites over 300 places where the C.C.
>introduces Kabbala into HAlacha. So much so that he allows a practice
>involving closing the eyes on a dead body based on a zohar even though it
>is contradicted by a MIshna (see o.c. 311:22). It might be that The C.C.
>is also an exception, but that wouldn't matter because of the general
>acceptance of the Mishna Brurah. Furthermore, Eli's implication that Zohar
>is treated like aggadita and not Halacha is challenged by dozens if not
>hundreds of Misna brurah's.

>this would further my point that the
>Zohar does play a role in halacha, 57 times by the Beit Yosef, dozens if
>not hundreds by the C.C., I'm not sure we can dismiss these as mere
>exceptions.

In the passage above, you repeatedly attribute to me categorical
statements that I have not made.  As I have done in the past, I will ask
you to please read my posts more carefully.

As students of Halakhah are well aware, the relationship of Kabbalah and
Halakhah has been a complex and often controversial one.  Though I would
have thought it too obvious to point out, the influence of Kabbalah on
Halakhah cannot be summarized by an enumeration of citations, whether by
the Mehabber or the Mishnah Berurah.  I would urge those of an academic
bent to consult the articles on this subject authored by Jacob Katz
z.l., collected in a work entitled (appropriately enough) Halakhah
ve-Kabbalah.  While not the final word on the subject, these studies
shed much light on the topic.

First, a point of taxonomy.  As Elie writes, I give "the impression that
the Zohar isn't a halachik text at all."   Quite right.  It is not.  I
would think this proposition obvious to anyone who has studied the
Zohar.  Certainly one's classification of a work must take into account
the composition as a whole.  While this is more difficult with respect
to the Zohar than many other works in the traditional Jewish canon, it
seems to me indisputable.  For clarity's sake, though, it may be helpful
to set down an ad hoc definition.  By  "halakhic work" I mean a
composition that is primarily dedicated to a presentation of halakhah in
an organized and systematic fashion, with an eye to guiding normative
practice or illuminating the sources underlying such practice.  I
believe this definition would include such works as the Mishneh Torah,
Levush, Tur, Shulhan Arukh and Bet Yosef and would exclude the Sefer
Hasidim, Zohar, Perush ha-Ramban al ha-Torah and Nefesh ha-Hayyim.  The
defintion is imperfect: Many sifrei shut would not fit into this
definition, because of their lack of organizaton on the basis of
content.  But I believe the defintion will do for purposes of this
discussion.

My point, of course, is that halakhic content may be located outside a
halakhic text, e.g., in Ramban's Perush.  Moreover, many non-halakhic
works, such as the Zohar and Sefer Hasidim have influenced Halakhah.
Nevertheless, while the incorporation of Zoharic elements into Halakhah
is an evident, if controversial, phenomenon, it remains, as I said, an
exception to the basic trajectory of halakhic development, which begins
with the Mishnah and Gemara, blossoms in the hands of Rishonim and Early
Aharonim and crystallizes in the sifrei pesak.  I think this too an
uncontroversial observation.

Elie believes that 57 citations is a large number and reflects a
substantial influence of Zohar on the Bet Yosef.  It should go without
saying that statistics do not really tell us very much, but I am willing
to play this inning by his rules.  Regarding the number 57, I would say
that its significance should be measured against the number of citations
in the Bet Yosef to an unambiguously halakhic text, such as the Talmud
or Mishneh Torah, which probably run to the thousands, if not tens of
thousands.  In short, a systematic statistical measure of Bet Yosef
citations would, I believe, very clearly demonstrate that the references
to Zohar are indeed exceptions.  Similarly, with respect to the Mishnah
Berurah.  In order to determine the significance of 300-odd citations to
Zohar, we should compare that to the number of citations to a halakhic
work such as the Eliyahu Rabbah.

But Halakhah is not a numbers game, and statistics are no way to address
the issue of Halakhah and Kabbalah.  Understanding issues from
knowledge.  The Zohar first emerged in Sefarad in the 13th century and
for centuries its influence there remained far greater than in Ashkenaz.
 Study of Zohar (and its concomitant influence) increased dramatically
in the wake of the infamous burnings of the Talmud  in the late Middle
Ages.  Nevertheless, the influence of Kabbalah on Halakha remained a
point of controversy well in to the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
 Many issues discussed on this list, such as wearing tefillin on Hol
ha-Mo'ed, were rooted in the controversy regarding the halakhic
authority of the Zohar.  Pro-Zohar authorities developed the rule that
we follow the Zohar anywhere it does not conflict an explicit Talmudic
source.  But, as Elie notes, sometimes the Zohar overrides the halakhic
sources.  (This phenomenon is not limited to the Zohar; halakhists have
also wrestled with certain accepted rules of the Sefer Hasidim which
contradict Talmudic sources.)  In any case, the debate over the Zohar
has not always broken down historically along Ashenazic-Sefardic lines.
As noted in my previous post, R. Avaraham Gombiner routinely introduced
Zoharic rules into his Magen Avraham (which no doubt accounts for many
of the citations in the Mishnah Berurah).

Today, of course, the Zohar is little studied.  As a result, its
halakhic influence is now largely frozen and is not likely to increase
in the foreseeable future.  If anyhting, its influence is one the wane.
Leading posekim of the latter half of the 20th century, such as R.
Moshe, R. Shelomoh Zalman, and R. Ovadyah, do not cite the Zohar
regularly, focusing instead on the Talmud, Rishonim and standard
halakhic works.  To take a practical example, R. Moshe authored a
well-known teshuvah (OH I, no. 1) about the wearing of a kippah at a job
interview, one on which many frum American Jews rely today.  Yet, the
Zohar (Naso, 122b) prohibits giluy rosh.  Although I do not recall
offhand whether R. Moshe cites this Zohar, he apparently did not view it
as normative.  Nor does R. Ovadyah (Yehaveh Da`at IV, no. 1).

While this topic is an interesting one, it strikes me as a bit too broad
for this list.  Perhaps there are specific halakhic issues you would
like to in which Zoharic influence is evident.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

re: The Rambam and heicho kedusho, the source cited is the Teshuvos hoRambam, a 
sefer that may not have been available to earlier poskim such as the BY/SA, etc.

Rich Wolpoe

Is the Rav's opinion that, when a minyan is reciting a heicha kedusha, it is
preferable to recite the first three brachos along with the leader rather than
listen quietly contingent on what the rest of the minyan is doing?  In other
words, if the rest of the minyan is listening quietly rather than reciting the
brachos with the leader, is it still the Rav's view that one should recite with
the leader or is it then preferable to remain silent in order to recite one's
Amidah together with the minyan?

Davd Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

In a message dated 2/16/99 1:50:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< re: The Rambam and heicho kedusho, the source cited is the Teshuvos
hoRambam, a 
 sefer that may not have been available to earlier poskim such as the BY/SA,
etc.
 
 Rich Wolpoe
 
  >>
Dear Rich,
Interesting since R' Avraham ben HaRambam mentions in his tshuvot that he
would do away with chazarat hashatz due to the talking .. etc. that goes on!

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

As RWolpoe knows, we've been maintaining an e-mail conversation re these
and related matters.  I hope he doesn't mind my adding a few notes to his
post....
> 1) The Heicho kedusho was advocated by the Rambam [in his T'shuvos -- MP
via RW e-mail] in order to address the widespread problem of taling during
CH.  He used Model #2, i.e. unison with the shatz thru Hokel hakodosh. <
RW tells me that he did find the other method (tzibbur listens to SHaTZ,
who audibly says first three b'rachos; all participate in k'dusha; SHaTZ
continues silently, while tzibbur starts silently; no CH) in the Kaf
HaChaim; I asked him for the exact language.  If anyone knows of any
[other] source for this other method, please let us all know.  (RW noted
that RMA does hint at the other method by dint of insisting on [at least]
one member of the minyan answering "omain" to the SHaTZ's b'rachos in order
to avoid b'rochos l'vatolo <i.e., the minyan is operating under the "Model
#2" method, but the "omain"-sayer de facto is using the other method>; I
responded that the de facto occurence was the only alternative for the
"omain"-sayer and doesn't imply that the other method is equal in
applicability for the tzibbur to "Model #2.")

> 2) The Meharsho states that Limud Torah creates a sha'as hadechak.  Not
only is
this the source for Yeshivos saying Hiehco dkeudsho at Mincho, but it ws
used at
YU/Riets when there was a sofek re: kohanim going into a building whre a
nochri's skeleton was present... <
This provides a source for those minyonim whose members will be continuing
their Torah studies after mincho but does not explain the practice of a
minyan whose members will be starting secular studies after mincho, much
less that of minyonim at work whose members are entitled to the full amount
of time (if not more) which mincho-cum-CH would take as part of a "lunch
hour."

> I spoke to Rabbi Joel Stern vis-a-vis R Schwab's minyon omitting Mogen
Avos.  He
said he Aske R.:  He asked that how can this be Aro'i after so many years?
After
all Bungalow's have minyoninm during the summer that are NOT aor'i? R.
Schwab
answered, that since it was conducted ONLY when he was in town and NOT when
he
was away, therefore it was aro'i and Mogen Avos should be omitted. <
Accordingly, the methodological logic of that minyan cannot be transferred
to minyonim in the home or office of a given person which occur whether or
not that person is present.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

Historically footnotes: Kabbolo has long  had a major influence upon halocho. 
The Tur is replete with Kabbolo before the BY.

The question remains is SHOULD Kabbolo influence halocho?

My understanding is that following the Shabtai Zevi debacle, many communitites 
tried their best to take kabbolo out of the hands of the public and put it back 
into the hands of yechiddim.  Chassidism reacted against that trend and brought 
back Kabbolo to the foreground. (The Gro and RCV also promoted some 
kabbalistically based minhogim.)

Rich Wolpoe

SZNewman writes:
> meinyana dyoma, does anyone know why there are yotzrot for musaf on
shkalim
and hachodesh, but not for zachor and para?  [at least in the common
siddurim that i've seen ] <
(Since no one's responding, here are my $0.02:) I don't know whether the
fact that hearing the reading of P. Zachor is a Torah-level mitzva and that
some (i.e. Tosfos...whose words may have been misinterpreted, but that's a
topic for a different thread) hold ditto re P. Parah may have somehow
influenced there not being Yotzros for their shabbosos...or whether the two
distinctions between the two pairs of Parshiyos are unrelated.

Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ

 There is a fundamental difference found between the Rema and the
Shulchan Aruch. The Rema (Darchei Moshe 141 (2)  holds that the Zohar
never takes precedence over Poskim. The Beis Yosef (O.H. 141)   holds
that the Zohar does take precedence over Poskim but not over the
Gemora.  The Kenesset HaGedolah [brought by Mishna Berura (24:42) says
the general rule is that  we follow the Gemora and Poskim when they are
in conflict with the Kabbala. However, the Chumras of the Kabbala should
be followed. People can not be forced to follow any Halacha mentioned
only in Kabbala but not in the Gemora, however, any Halacha mentioned in
Kabbala which is not contradicted by the Gemora should be followed. And
finally, anytime there is an unresolved dispute among the Poskim,
Kabbala should decide the normative practice.

The Chasam Sofer (Chelek I O.H. #100) in general held that where there
was a conflict between Poskim and the Zohar the Halacha was according to
the Poskim

An additional issue is the Arizal. Rav Moshe (E.H. IV #3 page 2) states
that the Arzial doesn't have the status of Kabbala in these rules. This
apparently was the position of the Gra. Sefardi poskim and chassidic
poskim seem to accept the Arizal in the same category as Zohar. There
are many inconsistencies however. For example I was told that the Arizal
wore two pairs of tefilin simultaneously - such as if found among many
sefardim. I was told that the chassidim do not wear two pairs at once -
but some rebbe's do so in private but not in shul.

RYGB:<< See, however, Shut HaRosh 107:6, that dayanim are responsible for Shalom
in the world, and ein lecha Shalom ba'Olam yosier mizeh.>>

Questions:
1) Is there a connection between advocay of an agenda and a tenendency to 
overlook certain sources?

2) Do botei dinim who cite certain sources - to the exclusion of others - 
increase or decrease their credibility?

3) Have Botei Dinim who have advocated the cause of Agunos by citing certain 
concepts (EG kiddushei Tous) increased Sholom or decreased it?  <smile>


IOW show me a beis din with an agenda, and I will show you people who will 
protest that agenda.  I might even round up about 250,000 in EY <smile>.

(We could say that iIn the good old days, the Beis Din of Shiv'im didn't have 
a big problem with advocacy;  because its very size assured some "checks and 
balances".

IMHO Shlomo haMelech gave us a very wise model for fostering Sholom. He didn't 
get up on a soapbox and say, "these Zonos aren't even worthy of my time and 
energy".  Rather he cut to the chase and got to the emes. <smile>.


Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 2/16/99 1:44:45 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< Similarly, with respect to the Mishnah
 Berurah.  In order to determine the significance of 300-odd citations to
 Zohar, we should compare that to the number of citations to a halakhic
 work such as the Eliyahu Rabbah.
  >>

It would also be productive, in the case of the Mishna Berurah, to keep in
mind the often, but not always, the Mishna Berurah cites the Zohar as the root
of a minhag he feels is worthy of adoption, not as a halachick source meant to
go head to head with other works authored in the medieval era. It is also
important to note that the Mishna Berurah is more a compendium of different
pieces of halachick information on a given Siff in Shulchan Aruch than it is
an arbiter of halacha. That many people today look to it for psak doesn't
change the fact that the Chofetz Chaim might very well have organized his work
differently had he felt it would have been used for tihs purpose.

Jordan Hirsch 

On Tue, 16 Feb 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Questions:  1) Is there a connection between advocay of an agenda and a
> tenendency to overlook certain sources? 
> 

I hope not, but do not understand the relevancy of the issue.

BTW, in this week's Jerusalem Post there is an essay on one of the
"get-getters" employed by the Israeli government to persuade recalcitrant
husbands throughout the world to issue gittin. What a great thing!

> 2) Do botei dinim who cite certain sources - to the exclusion of others
> - increase or decrease their credibility? 
> 

As above.

> 3) Have Botei Dinim who have advocated the cause of Agunos by citing
> certain concepts (EG kiddushei Tous) increased Sholom or decreased it? 
> <smile>
> 

They cannot be characterized as a BD. They are the equivalent of "sholosh
ro'ei bokkor."

> IOW show me a beis din with an agenda, and I will show you people who
> will protest that agenda.  I might even round up about 250,000 in EY
> <smile>. 
> 

We are not convinced.

> (We could say that iIn the good old days, the Beis Din of Shiv'im didn't
> have a big problem with advocacy;  because its very size assured some
> "checks and balances". 
> 

A pity we have no Sanhedrin, but we must make do.

> IMHO Shlomo haMelech gave us a very wise model for fostering Sholom. He
> didn't get up on a soapbox and say, "these Zonos aren't even worthy of
> my time and energy".  Rather he cut to the chase and got to the emes.
> <smile>. 
> 

Wish I understood the reference.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 09:07:00 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Objective or Advocates 
> 
> Zvi Weiss:>>
> ===> I strongly reject that logic.  The point of a B"D to free Agunot" is
> NOT to say that the woman is "right".  It is to assert that keeping a
> woman as an Aguna is NOT a halachically *acceptable* way in which to
> operate.  As far as I am concerned, ANY "Rov" who states that this is an
> acceptable tactic is so incredibly lacking in sensitivity and
> menschlichkeit that one should not consider this "Rov" to be a posek. <<
> 
> My point exactly.  As the baal walks into the Beis din Zvi Weiss's talmididm 
> will be subjectively pre-disposed to consider the baal as fostetering an avlo 
> without regard to the facts of the case.  it's like 2 ballei dinim coming
> in and
> we anounce here is Reuven Rav, etc. and here is Shim'on and he is ochel bsar 
> chazir...

===> No they won't.  When we see that BOTH "sides" respond to a summons of
B"D in order to resolve an issue, then there is no prejudgement.  As
originally noted, the only "prejudgement" is to refuse to accept an
attempt by one side *or the other!) to "club" someone into submission.
In fact, I believe that it is TOTALLY prohibited for a B"D to do as
described above.  All that we WOULD hear is that "here is the  Ba'al with
HIS claims" and "here is the Isha with HER claims".  No mention of Igum or
seiruv. 



> 
> The passion with which you contradicted my points speask more to the
> emotional 
> subjectivity than anything I could have written.  Had I made the same
> comments 
> WRT to kashrus you would not have felt that YOUR ox had been gored, but
> someone 
> elses...

==> My "passion" is -- in part -- generated by what I see as a totally
detached and unrealistic view of the entire Aguna issue.  I can only
assume that if there was a case of Battery and Assault, there would also
be this "calmness" that there is no need to "hurry"....

> 
> Let's say my ox was to make all synogogues accesible to the handicapped. Then 
> substitute all the comments vis-a-vis agunot re: senstivity etc. I could
> stir a 
> very passionate case to lay claim that shuls are insensitve etc. to
> parapeligics
> and that we should drop everythinge we;re doing and right this wrong.  do you 
> feel the same about that?

===> The issue is NOT "whether I feel the same".. The issue is whether
building a Schule that happens to be non-handicapped accessible is
considered a perversion of halacha.  It may be wrong not to have a Schule
accessible.  I will even go so far as to say that it represents (in some
cases) gross insensitivity BUT I stringly doubt that you will find Schules
that were DELIBERATELY designed to be non-accessible.




> 
> There are a lot of "single" issue people.  some are about Moshiach.  some are 
> about miexed swimming etc.  Ok.  But in Beis Din, the whole idea of
> being sinlge
> issue oriented samcks of an agenda to me.

===> Perhaps, you should speak to Rabbonim involved with the horrors of
this matter -- including the [potential] multiplication of Mamzerut before
you dsimiss it as an "agenda".



> 
> I'll concede the Aguna case following the shoaa as a horoas sho'o. And
> their the
> perpetrator was AH YS.

===> I think that it is not difficult to make a similar arguement in our
time.


> 
> And although Beis Din should promote justice at the expense of injustice, 
> picking Dayonim on the basis of being kanoim against X is IMHO not
> juidicious, 
> it's advocacy.


==> Who is "picking Dayanim as being kanoim against x"?  All I am noting
is a B"D that will deal with the issues that would leave a woman an Aguna.
Is there any dayan who is NOT against one who is mesreiv to accept the
summons of the B"D?  THAT is considered an "act of advocacy"??


> 
> Rich Wolpoe  
> ------------------------------
> 
> Date: Tue, 16 Feb 1999 10:01:14 -0500
> From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
> Subject: Beis Din L'agunot
> 
> Shoshana L. Boublil  wrote:>>I probably want' clear, if you could reach
> such a 
> conclusion from my post:
> 
> A. The Beit Din Agunot deals with both men and women who are
> actually Mesoravei 
> Get - and doesn't pre-judge which side is right, and I don't know how
> you could 
> reach such a conclusion.  The only "pre-judgement" that exists is the
> intention 
> of the Beit Din to reach a speedy resolution, which actually is very much 
> according to Halacha with regard to the issue of Tzedek etc.<<
> 
> Let me tell you a story.  A landlord in a certain community told me the 
> REPUTATION (lav davko the reality) of the local Beis Din was to favor
> tennats in
> their litigations with landlords.

==>Maybe that is because the reality is that the landlords really WERE in
the wrong.  Historically, it is not a secret that Rabbonim were forced
from their communities when they "stood up" against the "rich and
powerful" who just happened not to be in the halachic "right".  I would
actually draw the opposite conclusion from the above story -- that the
landloreds are so corrupt that the B"D is actually PROTECTING the ones who
rent.


> 
> Question:  do you think THAT landlord - based upon THAT perception - was 
> motivated to use the local besi din in a dispute with his tenants?

===> If he cannot verify that the perception was accurate, then I would
say he was NOT justified to go to a different B"D.

> 
> Concclusion: if a Beis din is PERCEIVED to have an agenda, then guess what? 
> One
> side will be probably be mesoreiv!  

===> Sorry -- the agenda here is NOT to favor anyone -- it is to make
clear that seiruv is not the way to go.


> 
> So my conclusion is based the perception; i.e. when you set up a beis din to 
> right the wrong of agunot,  I'll bet it will succeed in intimidating their 
> recalcitrant husbands based upon the name alone!? IMHO hardly a desirable 
> result! 
> 
> Now if you set up a Beis Din L'inyonei Even Ho'ezer, or some other
> neutral name,
> that perception would probably not exist.  Think about it.

==> WHAT you call the B"D seems a lot less important that having a B"D to
get the job done.

--Zvi


> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> 

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]