Avodah Mailing List

Volume 03 : Number 077

Friday, June 4 1999

• MB
• Re: Goal of Yahadus
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Re: L"H (and Newspapers?)
• Re: Olam Habba -- and the Non-Jew
• Re: kidushey ta'us
• Re: Olam Habah - and the Non-Jew
• Hypothesis, the Gemor may err in metzius
• Re: Gemoro may err in Metzius
• Re: Gemoro may err in metzius
• Re: kidushey ta'us
• Re: MB
• Re: Hypothesis, the Gemor may err in metzius
• RE: kidushey ta'us
• Mussar is not the same thing as Yiras Shomayim
• Hypothesis, the Gemoro may err in metzius
• Re: Kidushei Ta'us
• Re: Goal of Torah
• RE: kidushey ta'us
• RE: Kidushei Ta'us

>>Pray tell: What is possibly the putpose of Yahadus if not "proper hanhogo
and Yir'as Shomayim" (perhaps Ahavas Hashem, but you porbably included
that in one of the terms used). If so, what possible other agenda can an
Halachic work have?

YGB<<

IOW there lies no distincion between mussar works and halachic works?

And the alleged disttioncion made by R. Moishe Feinstein made legabei USDA milk,
that it is halahcially ok, but a yerei shomayim should drink cholov Yisroel was 
just a waste?

Are you saying that poskimg should consult Mesilas yesharim, orchos Tzaddikim 
was well as or in lieu of the Shulcahn Aruch and shut?

Rich wolpoe 

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Not every work what addresses proper hanhogo needs to be a halachic
> work. It
> could be one about lifnim mishuras hadin, hanhagos tovos, and the
> like -- in
> addition to halachah. Mussar had many hanhagos beyond the limits of
> halachah.
> 
> In fact, one could argue that the true ba'al mussar doesn't have
> lines between
> strict obedience to halachah, chumros (e.g. chosheid for shita X),
> and the
> hanhagos tovos dictated by mussar. Perhaps we're imposing external
> categorizations on a system of thought that blurred the
> distinctions we're
> making.
> 

That was exactly my point in bringing up the Ramban on "v'aseta
hayashar v'hatov."  The Ramban says that the 613 mitzvot are only
examples -- Hashem could not list each hanhaga we should do every
minute of the day so He told us, "here are some examples; you figure
out the rest."  Ramban says or at least implies that every person
must live up to his own potential in his own unique way.  That is why
there are catchall mitzvot of "kedoshim t'hi'yu" and "v'aseta
hayashar v'hatov."  Lifnim meshurat hadin is required (Ramban brings
a proof from dina d'bar metzra, where the gemara says "dina hu").

BTW, Rav Lichtenstein, when he gave shiurim on Bava Metzia, indicated
that he thought this Ramban is absolutely seminal in Jewish thought.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Yitzchok Zirkind writes:
: There is difference between punishment and reward, a Yid has a natural Chelek 
: Lolom Haboh, to loose it would require those Aveiros that ...
:        a non-Jew to get Olom Haboh has to earn it ...

Is there really a difference between punishment and a lack of reward? Isn't
hana'ah (as in neheneh miziv haSh'chinah) a spectrum from "aspaklaria ham'irah"
to gehennom?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jun-99: Shishi, Beha'aloscha
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H O"Ch 323:8-324:2
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Eruvin 90b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

In a message dated 6/4/99 9:41:55 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> First, I excluded the Rambam bichlal for the discussion, asserting he's a 
da'
> as
>  yachid in making o"h about causality and not cupability. But bichol zos...
>  
>  I'm not asserting that a person who worshipped avodah zara because he was 
> raised
>  in it could be a chassid (lower case C)

The source that a non-Jew can get Olom Habboh is the Gemoroh which says that 
"Chassedei Umos H'olom Yesh Lohem Chelek L'olom Habboh" IOW not a Chassid no 
Olom Habboh (vs. a Yid "Kol Yisroeil Yesh Lohem Chelek L'olom Habboh" with 
the exception "Veilu Shein Lohem"), hence one would need to bring a source 
from Poskim who disagree with the Rambam's interpertation of what makes a 
"Chosid" by Umos H'olom.

Gut Shabbos V'kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- Zvi Weiss <weissz@idt.net> wrote:
> > >[Zvi:]  All that we are really saying is that one has to ask a
Rov
> whether
> > > a
> > > matter is a case of to'eles rather than try to rationalize for
> > > one's self
> > > that communication with a spouse is *automatically* to be
> > > considered
> > > to'eles....
> > 
> >[Moshe:] I seem to recall quoting various rabbanim I asked this
very
> question.
> 
> ===> Then I misunderstood your quote.  I thought that the poskim
> that you
> had asked had determined that there was to'eles *in specific cases*
> and
> not as an "automatic" matter.  Please clarify.
> 
>
I asked poskim specifically, in a situation where one has been yelled
at or otherwise criticized by a boss, whether it is permissible to
speak to one's wife in order to vent and come to psychological grips
with the situation and thereby put one's mind more at ease.  The
comparison I made was to what people often do when they see a
psychologist about a particular interpersonal problem.  Those who are
matir (R. Dovid Weinberger -- advisor to CCHF, and Rav Aharon
Lichtenstein --quoted to me by Yossi Prager) believe that the
psychological benefits constitute to'elet.

I separate said that (Yossi Prager in the name of) R. Aharon
Lichteinstein said he is unsure whether it may permissible to
communicate all information to one's wife, based on the concept of
ishto k'gufo, presumably with the proviso that one is not making the
communication with the specific goal of spreading negative
information (cf. Rambam Hilchot De'ot 7:5, dealing with LH which was
already said b'apei tlat).
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

In a message dated 6/4/99 9:47:29 AM EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:

> Yitzchok Zirkind writes:
>  : There is difference between punishment and reward, a Yid has a natural 
> Chelek 
>  : Lolom Haboh, to loose it would require those Aveiros that ...
>  :        a non-Jew to get Olom Haboh has to earn it ...
>  
>  Is there really a difference between punishment and a lack of reward? 

My point is that not receiving Olom Habboh is not a punishment or a lack of 
reward for a non-Jew, there is no obligation to receive Olom Habboh, however 
a Yid HKB"H chose to give a Chelek Lolom Habboh (Bdugmas Lcho Lvadcho Vein 
Lzorim Etoch), just as he chose him "Uvonu Vocharto Mikol Am Vloshon", to 
lose it requires some very harsh sins. OTOH Chassidei Umos H'olom do get that 
very special reward.

Gut Shabbos V'Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

<<
For example, maybe a woman is willing to be smacked
around twice a week. If her husband does so for a couple of years, but then
degenerates to three times a week, can she walk out and claim kiddushei
ta'us, since the very first time an intolerable situation arose (i.e.
getting smacked around three times in one week) she walked out? (I would
suspect not, but according to what you've stated above, maybe yes?)
>>

I agree with you.  I realized that the end of my last sentence was not clear. 
 Once a woman accepts a condition, she can not back out based on the severity 
of the condition.  For if we allow this, then we have thrown out all of 
marriage.  ANY situation can get worse, and therefore any woman can claim 
ta'us.  This would lead, in short order, to no marriages.  

For a condition to even enter into the realm of ta'us it has to be something 
that is not tolerable by anyone.  Obviously not 100% of the world.  We see 
women living in the worst of conditions, and not leaving.  But it must be a 
situation where if you asked a person to rationally consider entering into 
it, they would say no.  And yet, men accused of abuse get remarried, with 
their new partner knowing the situation.  This argues against using abuse as 
a blanket reason for ta'us.  

This does not mean that under certain circumstances it can't be used.  But we 
can not make a generalization about it.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

It's one thing to accept that the Beit Din shel Ma'alah cannot compel the Beit Din shel Matah to accept the opinion of the Beit Din shel Ma'alah.  See BM 59.  I must say, however, that I find it a bit strange to say that the Beit Din shel Matah can compel the Beit Din shel Ma'alah to accept the opinion of the Beit Din shel Matah. 

If the Ribbono shel Olam decides, b'rahamav ha-atzumim, to reward the priest who risked his own life to save Jewish lives, with the eternal bliss of Gan Eiden, I would not personally feel compelled to issue a written or oral protest of any kind or to fling a copy of the Mishneh Torah at Aron Kodesh of my (or any other) synagogue.  

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

Joel Rich:>>Would you extend this analysis to medical advice in the gemora? If 
not, why not?<<

Let me ask some reverse questions:

Lehavdil elef havdolos

1)  Would an astologer modify his beliefs regarding the "4" elements in light of
Mendelyev's  periodic table of elements?

2) Would an accupuncturist change his model of the meridians based upon 
contemporary anatomy?

3) Would an herbalist research chemically based pharmeceuticals?

4) Would a naturopath alter his dieteray recommnedations in light of the latest 
research paper re: brna muffins and colon cancer? 

Within their alterntative paradigms, certain elements of science are largely 
irrelevant, no?

If these practitionaers are successful because they are faithful to their 
mesora, why are we any less faithful to our mesorah?

Yoda shor koneihu vchamoro eivus b'olov, Yisroel lo yoda? Ami los hisbonnen?

How can it be that maaminim bnai maaminim are so skpetical about our Chazal?   
Have we greater faith in science?

A partial answer I think is that Chazal's prounouncements, while true, are often
not literal.  And this requires some skepticism and analysis to fathom what they
actually MEANT as opposed to what they apparently said.  That digging is about 
TSBP, Mesorah AND dovor mitoch dovor.

More Later BEH
Rich Wolpoe

--- Moshe Feldman <moshe_feldman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> 
> Of course, this hearkens back to the classic issue of why the
> Gemarah
> seems to be binding in a way different from Rishonim or the
> Shulchan
> Arukh (where, for example, the Shach and even the Gra feel free to
> argue on the SA).  Do we believe that there was greater hashgacha
> pra'tit in the case of the Gemara so as to ensure that Halacha
> developed "correctly?"  (Cf. the Chazon Ish dealing with the
> irrelevance of newly discovered Rishonic manuscripts.)  And, what
> does "correctly" mean in light of Rav M. Rosensweig's article
> dealing
> with Eilu v'eilu (which article I mentioned about a month ago)?
> 

I wrote a paper on this issue 11 years ago (for Dr. Hyman) dealing
with the opinions of R. Elchan Wasserman in Kovetz Shiurim, the
Chazon Ish's response, and the opinion of Prof. Shlomo Yosef Havlin. 
Personally, I thought Havlin's position made the most sense--he
viewed this as a sociological issue rather than a halachic one.  In
his opinion there is no reason not to argue on the gemara, just that
klal yisrael, as generations passed, felt that the Talmud was
binding (even though this feeling has no halachic status).  He makes
a similar with regard to the "binding" nature of the Shulchan
Arukh--especially because of the completeness of the work, and I
would make a similar argument with respect to the MB.

Interestingly, Dr. Chaim Soloveitchik said that early chachmei
Ashkenaz such as Rabbenu Gershom did not accept the primacy of the
Bavli and preferred the Yerushalmi and the Midrashim.

And there's the related issue of whether the Gemara was completely
redacted, who redacted it (stuff by Halivni and others), etc.  For
example, can "stama d'gemara," which according to many scholars
constitutes the bulk of the gemara, be considered binding?  Most
people in Yeshivot believe that R. Ashi is the author of the
stama'itic material, yet scholars have (in my opinion, based on Dr.
Yaakov Elman's course) brought strong proof that this is not the
case.  (The basis for the yeshivish opinion is the statement in the
gemara that "Rav Ashi sof ho'ra'ah"; see Rashi ad. loc.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:

<<<
>>What ikar emunah is at stake here?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov<<

1) How about Emunas chachomim!? <smile>
2) I think it is presumptive (almost arrogant) to ASSUME we have it right and 
the Gemoro had it wrong.  Hashkofo-wise, we should presume the Gemoro is right, 
and look for a reconciliation, preferably an elegant one.  I think the hashkofo 
that the Gemoro is fualty re: science is what bolstered Reform during the 
"enlightened" 19th century, - the thought that WE are right and the Gemoro and 
poskim are wrong,
>>>

1)How about drashah on the pasuk "lo tasur min ha-davar asher yagidu l'kha yamin u'smol"?  Doesn't that drashah presume the possibility that the beit din (Sahhedrin) could err in metziut?  If Chazal were prepared to entertain such a possibility why is my emunat hakhamim impaired by likewise entertaining such a possibility? <frown>  And let me pose a further question.  Why is the determination of whether a person  is "treif" for purposes of administering capital punishment established "al pi imud ha-rofim" (a judgment that is notoriously fallible) rather than on the supposedly superior knowledge of metziut of the beit din?  Why would the physicians be presumed to be more likely to get it right than the dayanim?

2) Excuse me, but is it arrogant to believe that the picture of the solar system described by modern science is closer to the truth than the one (or ones) offered by Hazal?  I am willing to accept that science is no more infallible than Hazal, but if, considered on the merits, a factual assertion made by science appears to almost all reasonably intelligent beings to be more reliable, plausible, sensible than a contrary factual assertion made by Hazal (and especially where there is evidence of internal disagreement among Hazal - how pray tell is that possible?), I see not even a trace of arrogance in accepting (provisionally, of course) the current weight of the factual evidence.  Ein l'dayan ela ma she'einav ro'ot.  A presumption (hazakah) is only a presumption, not an absolute conviction that can withstand any amount of contrary evidence.  I don't want to sound too outraged, but can't we please stop using arguments like "well isn't that what the reformers said"?  If Orthodoxy!
!
!
 obligates one to be stupid, is it any wonder that there will be those who are disinclined to discharge that obligation?  There have been y'raim u-sh'lamim who did not think that such an obligation, in fact, exists.  I cast my lot with them.

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                            

--- EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:
> <<
> For example, maybe a woman is willing to be smacked
> around twice a week. If her husband does so for a couple of years,
> but then
> degenerates to three times a week, can she walk out and claim
> kiddushei
> ta'us, since the very first time an intolerable situation arose
> (i.e.
> getting smacked around three times in one week) she walked out? (I
> would
> suspect not, but according to what you've stated above, maybe yes?)
> >>
> 
> I agree with you.  I realized that the end of my last sentence was
> not clear. 
>  Once a woman accepts a condition, she can not back out based on
> the severity 
> of the condition.  For if we allow this, then we have thrown out
> all of 
> marriage.  ANY situation can get worse, and therefore any woman can
> claim 
> ta'us.  This would lead, in short order, to no marriages.  
> 
> For a condition to even enter into the realm of ta'us it has to be
> something 
> that is not tolerable by anyone.  Obviously not 100% of the world. 
> We see 
> women living in the worst of conditions, and not leaving.  But it
> must be a 
> situation where if you asked a person to rationally consider
> entering into 
> it, they would say no.  

People are often unaware of their psychological limitations.  If I
tell a woman that her husband to be is a mulit-millionaire, a lamdan,
etc. and his only fault is that he smacked his former wife twice a
week, the woman may say, "for $1000 a smack--it's a good deal."  But
when she lives with the man for 5 years and gets utterly depressed,
withdrawn from life, etc. because her husband, through his repeated
slaps, has made her feel like a nothing, she will say, "had I known
of the cumulative impact of 2 slaps a week for 5 years, I would not
have married him."  This is the stuff that hatarat nedarim is built
on.  Why not apply the concept to kiddushei ta'ut?

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

On Fri, 4 Jun 1999 richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> IOW there lies no distincion between mussar works and halachic works?
>

Mussar works are not about "proper hanhogo and Yiras Shomayim". They are
about character improvement.
 
> And the alleged disttioncion made by R. Moishe Feinstein made legabei
> USDA milk, that it is halahcially ok, but a yerei shomayim should drink
> cholov Yisroel was just a waste? 
> 

I believe the term used was "Ba'al Nefesh". Big difference.

> Are you saying that poskimg should consult Mesilas yesharim, orchos
> Tzaddikim was well as or in lieu of the Shulcahn Aruch and shut? 
>

See above.

YGB

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

In a message dated 6/4/99 12:06:12 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 
 Within their alterntative paradigms, certain elements of science are largely 
 irrelevant, no?
 
 If these practitionaers are successful because they are faithful to their 
 mesora, why are we any less faithful to our mesorah?
 
 Yoda shor koneihu vchamoro eivus b'olov, Yisroel lo yoda? Ami los hisbonnen?
 
 How can it be that maaminim bnai maaminim are so skpetical about our Chazal? 
  
 Have we greater faith in science?
 
 A partial answer I think is that Chazal's prounouncements, while true, are 
often
 not literal.  And this requires some skepticism and analysis to fathom what 
they
 actually MEANT as opposed to what they apparently said.  That digging is 
about 
 TSBP, Mesorah AND dovor mitoch dovor.
 
 More Later BEH
 Rich Wolpoe
  >>
Skeptical of chazal? Not in the slightest.  I think this goes back to an old 
issue of whether chazal received a "mesora" of all "scientific" fact. How 
could tosfot ever answer nishtaneh hateva under your scenario? I agree with 
your comments on digging - we may differ on what we have the right to dig on 
(but I love you anyway:-)

Shabbat Shalom,
Joel Rich

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Moshe Feldman [mailto:moshe_feldman@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 12:45 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: kidushey ta'us
> 
> People are often unaware of their psychological limitations.  If I
> tell a woman that her husband to be is a mulit-millionaire, a lamdan,
> etc. and his only fault is that he smacked his former wife twice a
> week, the woman may say, "for $1000 a smack--it's a good deal."  But
> when she lives with the man for 5 years and gets utterly depressed,
> withdrawn from life, etc. because her husband, through his repeated
> slaps, has made her feel like a nothing, she will say, "had I known
> of the cumulative impact of 2 slaps a week for 5 years, I would not
> have married him."  This is the stuff that hatarat nedarim is built
> on.  Why not apply the concept to kiddushei ta'ut?

I think Rav Schachter of RIETS once quoted Rav Soloveitchick that since
kiddushin involves a formal maase kinyan and nedarim do not, it's easier
(simpler?) to undo nedarim than kiddushin. A pesach for hataras nedarim
wouldn't automatically be strong enough to create a kiddushei ta'us. Indeed,
in your situation, it's savra v'kibla, unknown cumulative effects
notwithstanding.

(By the way, assuming the husband's net worth doesn't change over the five
years, each smack is worth approximately $3,800. Do professional boxers (not
heavyweight contenders) make that much?)

Avi Pechman 

> 
> Kol tuv,
> Moshe
> _________________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
> 

Some people tend to equate the two. They are not the same. Halacha
requires Yiras Shomayim. It is for the lack of this quality that we reject
the "Poskim" of the Conservative movement (see my essay on the Aishdas
website on "Eilu va'Eilu"). The anti-mussarists, including R' Chaim and
the CI, were jam-packed with YS. Mussar is something else. It is the
independent pursuit of character development and ethical refinement as a
separate discipline. Mussar need not inform halacha (although that may be
laudable). But yiras YS is an essential preconsdition for prowess and
acceptance as a Posek.

YGB

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

Footnote:

How about the boy born on 29 Adar Rishon and another boy is born 2 Adar Sheini.

Then 13 years later, it's a shono peshuto.  Who is Bar Mtzvo first?  

Is mei'ais l'eis metzius relevant here? Should we revise the maturation date 
based upon the elpased length of time?
Rich Wolpoe

Rabbi Teitz realizes that, in his words, <<< there are many women who
marry men who are known to be 
'rough' and 'difficult'. >>>

I want to clarify my previous post, by echoing Avi Pechman's suggestion
that when the abuse degenerates from "rough and difficult" to "violent",
it might be possible to invoke Kidushei Ta'us, despite the fact that she
was willing to put up with a husband who was merely "rough and
difficult".

Rabbi Teitz continued: <<< One can not make blanket assessments that no
woman would tolerate such conditions, and therefore issue releases based
on an assumption to the contrary. >>>

I don't know if anyone has suggested making "blanket assessments". Let
each Beis Din decide each issue on a case-by-case basis. Taking
*everything* into account, does *this* situation constitute Kidushei
Ta'us.

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Moshe Feldman wrote: <<< No one denies that Yir'at shamayim ... is the
goal of Yahadut and that ultimately halachic observance should be geared
towards that goal. >>>

Rabbi Eliyahu Teitz adds: <<< Ramban seems to argue at least a bit ... If
yashar and tov are mandatory, then it is not only yiras Shamayim that is
the goal.  Being good is also a goal ... So we see many different goals,
there is no one clear goal. >>>

This discussion reminds me of my favorite psukim of all: Dvarim 10:12-13
-- "And now, Israel, what does HaShem your G-d ask of you, other than to
respect HaShem your G-d, to walk in all His ways, to love Him, to serve
HaShem your G-d with all your heart and all your soul, and to observe
HaShem's commands and decrees that I am giving you today for your own
good!"

I am struck by the rhetoric used here. It starts off sounding like "What
does He want from you, except Yiras HaShem?", as MF suggests. But then a
whole list is given, as RET suggests. Personally, I don't see much of a
difference. Separate goals, or details within a general category. Have a
Good Shabbos!

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

--- "Pechman, Abraham" <APechman@mwellp.com> wrote:
> I think Rav Schachter of RIETS once quoted Rav Soloveitchick that
> since
> kiddushin involves a formal maase kinyan and nedarim do not, it's
> easier
> (simpler?) to undo nedarim than kiddushin. A pesach for hataras
> nedarim
> wouldn't automatically be strong enough to create a kiddushei
> ta'us. Indeed,
> in your situation, it's savra v'kibla, unknown cumulative effects
> notwithstanding.

I agree that it's easier to undo nedarim than kiddushin (can you
imagine a bunch of ba'alei batim on Erev Rosh Hashanah getting
together to be mafkee'ah kiddushin?).  Nevertheless, the concept of
unknown cumulative effects may apply, especially if I change the
facts just a bit:

Suppose that the husband to be had never been previously married. 
The wife marries him and within 6 months he starts to smack her
around twice a week.  She does not know whether this will continue
indefinitely and obviously hopes he will get over it.  The beatings
continue and she gets more and more depressed from the cumulative
impact (and assume that she had no prior experience with depression
in her family and knew nothing about studies of abused women).  After
5 years, she seeks an annulment from the bet din.

> 
> (By the way, assuming the husband's net worth doesn't change over
> the five
> years, each smack is worth approximately $3,800. 

If she were to get divorced after 5 years she would get just 200 zuz
(plus tosefet ketubah).  To get the full million, she would have to
stay married her entire life.  So take 2 slaps times 52 weeks times
the actuarial estimate of the husband's lifetime (if she dies first,
she gets nothing other than a fancy funeral) and divide $1 million by
the total.

Kol tuv,
Moshe
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kenneth G Miller [mailto:kennethgmiller@juno.com]
> Sent: Friday, June 04, 1999 1:19 PM
> To: avodah@aishdas.org
> Subject: Re: Kidushei Ta'us
> 
> 
> Rabbi Teitz realizes that, in his words, <<< there are many women who
> marry men who are known to be 
> 'rough' and 'difficult'. >>>
> 
> I want to clarify my previous post, by echoing Avi Pechman's 
> suggestion
> that when the abuse degenerates from "rough and difficult" to 
> "violent",
> it might be possible to invoke Kidushei Ta'us, despite the 
> fact that she
> was willing to put up with a husband who was merely "rough and
> difficult".

Just to clarify, my suggestion was that R. Teitz l'shitoso might hold that
(he subsequently denied it and provided a distinction). I said that I
suspect that that wouldn't be the case.

Avi Pechman 

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]