Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 160

Thursday, December 2 1999

• Frimer
• Brave New World or Retroactive Fatherhood
• RE: Youths at Risk
• Dulberg Sisters
• Hamokom Yanacheim
• Problem kids
• Re[2]: Bechora
• Re: Problem kids
• Re[2]: Problem kids
• Homeless on Channuka
• (no subject)
• Re: Re[2]: Problem kids
• Hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural
• Re: hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural
• Re[4]: Problem kids
• Re: Re[4]: Problem kids
• aryeh frimer
• kiddush during the week
• Israeli seminary expenses
• agunahs in baltimore
• Re[2]: hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural

HaMakom yenachem eschem bisoch she'ar avelei Tzion viYerushlayim.

Hershel Ginsburg <ginzy@netvision.net.il> asked about the impregantion
of a widow with the frozen sperm of her late husband. This technology
has been around for a number of years and I am aware of one individual
who is writing a halakhic article on the subject.  In conversations with
this person, he raised an intriguing question that RHG did not mention:
to whom does the frozen zera belong?  Apparently. R. Yisraeli z.t.l.
addresses the question tangentially in an article in an old volume of
Torah She-be-'al Peh, though I do not recall his conclusion.

On the subject of nibbul ha-met, RYGB suggested that this would appear
to be le-to'elet.  To amplify the issue somewhat: when artificial
insemination was first introduced, many posekim weighed in; one of the
issues upon which they diverged was whether one fulfills piryah
ve-rivyah through artificial insemination.  But, even according to those
who conclude that one does fulfill piryah ve-rivyah  through artificial
insemination, in this case, of course, the father is no longer alive and
therefore cannot be mekayyem any mitzvah.  The widow is not mehuyyevet
in the mitzvah of piryah ve-rivyah.  So the question remains: what is
the to'elet in this case?

Two possible answers present themselves: one is the kiyyum of shevet (as
in lo tohu bera'ah, la-shevet yatzerah), i.e., the general injunction to
populate the world.  A number of posekim who rejected the notion that
one fulfills piryah ve-rivyah through artificial insemination
nevertheless agree that one fulfills shevet.  And a woman arguably can
fulfill shevet as well.

Second, mi-sevara one can argue that artifical insemination in this case
represents a new method of hakamat zera ha-met.  This works only by
analogy, of course, and would require the imprimatur of a world-class
posek.

Regarding some of the yibbum issues mentioned by RHG:

As R. Harry Maryles has pointed out, R. Moshe Feinstein holds that there
is no issue of giluy arayot in the case of artificial insemination,
because there is no ma'aseh bi'ah; this view is also held by the Seridei
Esh, R. Ovadyah Yosef, R. Uziel and R. Shelomo Zalman Auerbach.  While a
substantial number of earlier posekim disagreed, the contemporary
consensus follows the mekilim.  On this basis, I would suggest that the
woman could undergo artificial insemination prior to halitzah, but that
a hiyyuv of halitzah would still exist afterward.  On the other hand,
there would be no possibility of mamzerut in such a case.

>c)  Does the baby become his dead father's heir retroactively?
Prospectively?

This raises the fascinating question of when and how yihus is
established for yerushah purposes.  This is too big a topic to address
here.  A few points to consider.  The halakhah recognizes paternity
post-mortem, i.e., a child born after the death of the father is still
considered his father's son.  Of course, up to now the halakhah has
always dealt with a child who was conceived when the father was alive
and born after the father's passing.  In the case at hand, even
conception takes place after the death of the would-be father.

In discussing artificial insemination, in vitro fertilization and other
modern reproductive technologies, all posekim assume that paternity is
established at conception (as opposed to maternity, which is established
at parturition).  This is illustrated by the Gemara in Yevamot 97b,
according to which twins conceived by a a gentile woman who then
converts are not considered brothers for halitzah and yibbum purposes
(and see Rashi there).  On the one hand, this seems logical; given that
contributing zera is all the father does, it is understandable that
paternity should be established once that role has been fulfilled.  On
the other hand, this leads to some anomalies.  For one thing, a velad
immediately after conception does not yet have the halakhic status of a
human being.  So perhaps we should reformulate our principle and say
that the halot of paternity is deferred until the child is actually
born.  In any case, the Halakhah assumes an intentional ejaculatory act
on the part of the father.

For this reason, the instant case presents difficulties.  If I recall
correctly, the medical procedure involves using an electrical shock to
cause an ejaculation on the part of the deceased.  With no intentional
act of a living person, I do not think there is a halakhic argument for
paternity.  (This is in contrast to a case of insemination of a widow
with the zera of her husband that was frozen before his death.)  If this
analysis is correct, then any children born of such a procedure would
not have a halakhic father.  This is the same rule that applies to a ger
and, according to some authorities, to the clone of a woman.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

>Date: Tue, 30 Nov 1999 13:59:40 -0500
>From: gil.student@citicorp.com
>Subject: Youths At Risk

>Kudos to the Jewish Observer for their most recent issue dedicated to the 
>topic of teenage dropouts.  If any of you have not yet seen it then try to 
>get a copy.  It contains a lot of practical advice about raising children 
>today and helping out other people's children.
=================================================

I agree; it is a very good issue, and all parents should read it.  It was
interesting to see that one of the recent threads on Avodah, the
over-abundance of simchas in our communities, were mentioned as one of the
problems related to the current teenage dropout crisis.

Aryeh

----- Original Message
From: amechad@isdn.net.il
 To all those who wrote to us concerned with how to help the Dulberg
sisters:
            There will be an important meeting with the Italian
ambassador to the U.N. tomorrow, and so
writing him today will be a great help.  Please do what you can and pass
the word onto anyone who can
help.
    There is a new Italian ambassador to the U.N. His name is Politi. He
has replaced the former
ambassador Fulci so in any further letters please use his name.
Unfortunately we do not have his first
name. The U.N. Email address, which I do not believe you previously had
is Italy@un.int
    Another address is the Italian embassy in Israel:
italemb@netvision.net.il
    Don't forget to keep these girls in you prayers.

    Aviva

Also not to add to our sorrows (someone might have already mentioned this) 
but the Tanker Rov passed away yesterday afternoon.  Folks in my 
neighborhood (within which he lived his later years) said he was a Major 
Posek, finished his most recent sefer about a month ago, was a teacher of 
many of the present-day Chassidishe Rebbeim.  He was 96.

May we merit with the coming of Moshiach no more levayas or Hillulas and 
celebrate the completion of Mesechtas Moed together in Yerushalayim tonight.


______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

I haven't seen the Jewish Observer article yet (I should borrow it from my 
sister -- it tends not to be found lying around Chabad shuls).  I do know 
that a good number of shuls in Brooklyn do have shabbos and even weekday 
programs for these youths (with the eventual intent of getting these 
students back into yeshiva).  Often times what happens is they fall of the 
track at school or have problems at home, leave school, and once they leave 
school might even get thrown out of their homes.

Not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder what link there may be if any between 
high tuitions, high costs of bar-mitzvah and additional pressure on these 
kids?

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

And perhaps that scorn was more about defening his poor choice rather than upon 
the intrinsic value of the Bechorah. IOW his scorn was about raionlizing his 
foolish decision by saying how worthless it was all along...

(FWIW I feel that way when I pass up an oppurtunity to get a bargain, I tell 
myself oh well it probably wan';t such a valuable item after all)

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


We learned from Rabbi Pinchas Winston the other day that it's significant 
that the Torah states meforash that Esav scorned the bechora AFTER he'd 
eaten.  If not, you could say he was under duress, and was forced to make a 
sale in this state. He was fainting with hunger- at that point he attached 
real significance to the lentil stew than to more abstract long term 
concepts.  After he'd eaten he showed his real attitude towards the bechora- 
bizayon.  He simply didn't care about negotiating.   Mrs. G. Atwood.
>

In a message dated 12/1/99 12:51:05 PM US Central Standard Time, 
perzvi@hotmail.com writes:

<< Not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder what link there may be if any 
between 
 high tuitions, high costs of bar-mitzvah and additional pressure on these 
 kids? >>


You betcha.

David Finch

That link might be more about the distraction the parents face rather than the 
pressure they impose on the kids.

Isn't there a study showing that neglect does more emotional damage than does 
abuse?  

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


<< Not to beat a dead horse, but I wonder what link there may be if any 
between 
 high tuitions, high costs of bar-mitzvah and additional pressure on these 
 kids? >>


You betcha.

David Finch

The Gemara in Shabbos stipulates that the chiyuv of ner Channuka is "ner ish
u'bayso."  How literally do we define "bayso?"  For example, Rashi
understands it to mean "household,"  whereas Tos., in Sukkah 46a (d"h
Haroeh), takes it more literally.  Tos asks why is there a birkas haroeh by
Chanuka and no other mitzvah?  Tos (in his second answer) responds that some
people don't have homes to fulfill the mitzvah. The nafka minah would be the
homeless population.

Based upon this assumption, do the homeless have a chiyuv to seek out a lit
menorah and make a birkas haroeh? Any ideas?

I came across the following excerpt from the kitzur shulchan aruch.  Any 
ideas as to how this reconciles with our previous discussions concerning 
Tshuvot that indicate one should take funds in order to continue unabated 
learning?

15. A person should always avoid taking tzedakah, accepting difficulty 
rather than seeking the assistance of others. Similarly, [Shabbos 118a] 
states: "Make your Sabbath like a weekday, but do not seek assistance from 
others." Even a dignified Torah Sage who has become impoverished should 
involve himself in a profession, even a menial profession, rather than 
accept help from others.


Halacha-Yomi is excerpted directly from the new translation of the Kitzur
Shulchan Aruch by Rabbi Eliyahu Touger, published by Moznaim Publishing
Corporation. 


Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 12/1/99 1:29:35 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< That link might be more about the distraction the parents face rather than 
the 
 pressure they impose on the kids.
 
 Isn't there a study showing that neglect does more emotional damage than 
does 
 abuse?  >>

What's the difference, other than the arguably specious distinction between 
"active" and "passive" parental misconduct?

David Finch

--part1_0.6a1a6a87.2576e95a_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I've heard people say the prayer of "hamakom" at a house of shiva to one 
person in the singular..."hamakom yenachem oscha" .  i've also heard others 
say it in the plural to one person, "hamakom yenachem eschem".   is there a 
preferred way to say this to one individual?  what is the original source of 
this sentence?   
 
any comments would be appreciated.  thanks.
 
michael feldstein 


--part1_0.6a1a6a87.2576e95a_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-path: MIKE38CT@aol.com
From: MIKE38CT@aol.com
Full-name: MIKE38CT
Message-ID: <0.4e6318ac.2576d105@aol.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 14:29:09 EST
Subject: hamakom yenachem, singular vs. plural
To: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: AOL 4.0 for Windows 95 sub 38

i've heard people say the prayer of "hamakom" at a house of shiva to one 
person in the singular..."hamakom yenachem oso" .  i've also heard others say 
it in the plural to one person, "hamakom yenachem eschem".   is there a 
preferred way to say this to one individual?  what is the original source of 
this sentence?   

any comments would be appreciated.  thanks.

michael feldstein

--part1_0.6a1a6a87.2576e95a_boundary--

The origin of "HaMakom" was one of the things I looked at when I was sitting
shiv'ah. 8 years ago, and I wasn't sitting with a notebook. As far as I can
tell, it came from bikur cholim, where the Shulchan Aruch tells you to part
with the words: HaMakom yirapei...

: i've heard people say the prayer of "hamakom" at a house of shiva to one
: person in the singular..."hamakom yenachem [oscha]".

As the version of HaMakom we say as part of nichum aveilim wasn't formally
coined by Chazal, I don't think there's value to keeping the grammar constant
just because that's the coined expression. I personally didn't find anyone
who argued this either.

I did find two opinions: According to one notion, you're consoling the
mourner[s] so the grammar appropriate for the particular mourners should be
used: "oshcha", "osach", "eschem", or "eschen".

Others include the soul of the deceased amongst those consoled, so the singular
forms would never be used; it would be "eschem" unless both the deceased and
[all] the mourner[s] were women, in which case "eschen".



When I was sitting shiv'ah, my parents (sheyichyu) were -- and are -- both
alive. My father heard many people say "HaMakom..." followed by something to
the effect of "You should no from no more tza'ar". My father was bothered by
this. In the natural course of events, people outlive their parents. For me
to know no more tza'ar is actually a kelalah that he too would have to sit
shiv'ah for me ch"v, and not the other way around.

He realized what people meant, and wasn't insulted, etc... But you see how
tampering with a crafted minhag isn't a good idea. People don't get insulted
when you still to the standard. Perhaps this is why there are rules about who
pays for what at the chasunah, or who gets first choice of name for which baby.
And a standard "goodbye" for nichum aveilim.

Once I became sensitive to that issue, I was more reluctant to extend
"Lishanah Tovah ..." with "li'alter li'chaim..." -- unless in a kehillah
where I'd be the sole person breaking what they perceive as the minhag.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  1-Dec-99: Revi'i, Vayeshev
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 77a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 6

Lemai nafko Mino?

1) If pressure is NOT the bogeyman then A very involved parent may have 
legitimate rcourse to pressure.

And 

2) If neglect is the culprit, then over-working paraents - even when indulgent -
are more destructive than overbearing parents!

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

What's the difference, other than the arguably specious distinction between 
"active" and "passive" parental misconduct?

David Finch

In a message dated 12/1/99 4:47:04 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< 1) If pressure is NOT the bogeyman then A very involved parent may have 
 legitimate rcourse to pressure.
 
 And 
 
 2) If neglect is the culprit, then over-working paraents - even when 
indulgent -
 are more destructive than overbearing parents!
  >>

Jewish kids on the verge of religious rebellion generally aren't going to 
straighten out because of parental "pressure" -- nagging, pushing, 
threatening, imposing new rules, inculcating fear, etc. Kids with overworked 
parents generally aren't going to rebel solely because of their parents' 
material struggle and lack of free time. Lots of studies, and lots of 
anecdotal evidence, have shown that much. Kids I know frequently take pride 
in their parents' sacrifice. On the other hand, I doubt such kids would have 
the same regard for their parents' "indulgence," however well-meaning the 
intention. Indulgence is weakness -- it is a form of ignorance, really, of 
the respect for the child that is reflected by the right form of discipline. 
Ask any Marine Corps drill instructor.

If a parent can't connect with his or her child, then I doubt the problems 
that will follow can be usefully categorized into passive "neglect" (the 
parent is always working, has too many community responsibilities, etc.) 
versus active "pressure" (the parent has enough time to bully the kid into 
compliance). There's got to be another way to analyze it.

David Finch

The funeral for Yaakov Frimer was held wednesday evening (halakhically 
thursday) in Bet shemesh.
My son attended and told me that after the funeral the chevrah kadisha
announced that the men (only) would pass through the shurah (row).
After they left Aryeh announced that the women would do the same
(he also quoted Rav Simchah Kook).

Aryeh is sitting shivah in his home in Rechovot
37 Nasi haRishon
coming from Tel Aviv/Nes Tziona it is the first street on the
left after Weizmann Institute.

phone
972-8-9470-834
972-8-9473-819

>(what do you call a "kiddush" during the week, when
> there is no kiddush?

It's called "tikun", which is posted to the credit of the donor (and
departed ancestors) as a multiple gmilus chesed and tzedaka. There is a
chasidic tradition that this is a modern-day substitute for korban todah,
for which the donor had to invite scores of people in order to completely
consume the entire korban, including the enormous amount of accompanying
bread, in one day.


Yaakov Schachter

Shlomo Godick <shlomog@mehish.co.il> wrote:

>American programs) is in excess of $10,000. per year,
>with absolutely no discounts or scholarships
>available.

Ein hachi nami!!!

This is an *American* expense, which Israelis don't have.


Yaakov Schachter (proud Israeli father of 6 girls blah"r)

please see naomi ragen's article in JPost today on shreklich cases of agunot
in baltim ore.  if her facts wrong terrible motzi shem ra. if her facts
right, terrible chillul hashem by the batei din/  rabbis/community
involved.....

"You should no from no more tza'ar". 

I understood this to mean the supernatural course of events, i.e the G'eulah

The Yekke brocho for being menahcem a  a Yahrzeit etc. is "ad bias hagoel"

the comforted peson replis bimheiro beyomeinu!

This is a direct reference to the ge'ulo

Knowing no more tzaar is AFAIK a veiled reference to the same thing.

Rich wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


When I was sitting shiv'ah, my parents (sheyichyu) were -- and are -- both 
alive. My father heard many people say "HaMakom..." followed by something to 
the effect of "You should no from no more tza'ar". My father was bothered by 
this. In the natural course of events, people outlive their parents. For me 
to know no more tza'ar is actually a kelalah that he too would have to sit 
shiv'ah for me ch"v, and not the other way around.

He realized what people meant, and wasn't insulted, etc...
-mi

-- 

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


[ 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         ]