Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 183

Monday, December 13 1999

• Re: Shmini Atzeres (was Re: Naaseh v'Nishma)
• Re: Shmini Atzeres (was Re: Naaseh v'Nishma)
• Re[2]: Homosexuality
• Re: Miketz/Vayigash, Shimon, and the extermination of Shechem
• dayanim/agunah
• Re: Avodah V4 #178
• Re: poverty
• Bach
• lawyers
• Re: problem children
• Re: Re[2]: co-opting music
• Re: Shmini Atzeres (was Re: Naaseh v'Nishma)
• Re: Re[2]: co-opting music
• Re: Homosexuality (was Re: what counts as suffering)
• Re: Shmini Atzeres (was Re: Naaseh v'Nishma)
• Re: Mikketz/Vayigash - Shim'on
• Re: Avodah V4 #176
• Homosexuality
• Fwd: Avodah V4 #182

aha that's NOT a minhag that's a DIN (bal tosef!)

And tell me what do frumme yiddin in Eilat or other "sofeiK" chutz lo'oretz 
people do?!

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________



On 13 Dec 99, at 14:15, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> I am throwing out a  cahllenge to our list to expand the cases where we know t
he
> text says one thing but hte practice is different. 
> 
> EG the common minhag of NOT eating in a sukkah on Shmini Atzeres

Speak for yourself! I gave up eating in the Succah on Shmini 
Atzeres only when I made aliya and no longer had a sfeika d'yoma!

-- Carl

On 13 Dec 99, at 15:01, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> aha that's NOT a minhag that's a DIN (bal tosef!)

I said I gave it up when I made aliya. Until I made aliya, I followed 
the explicit edict in the Gemara of yisoovei yasvinon, bruchei lo 
mivrochinan.

> And tell me what do frumme yiddin in Eilat or other "sofeiK" chutz lo'oretz 
> people do?!

I have no idea. Since I made aliya, the only Yom Tov I have spent 
in chutz la'aretz is Pesach (and that B"H only once).

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

how about "hirhurei aveiro kashin mei'aveiro

V'lo sossuro acharei .. aniechem

There seems to be a lot of cautions against certain prohibited sexual desires 
not just actions

Several caveats
1) prohibitions against desires or hirhurim is NOT a prohibiton against 
orientation.  Lema'ase this might be a hair split, how can a homosexual help 
himself against desires that are prohibited?  My best guest is to 
channel/sublimate somehow, but I am clueless as to the efficacy of such 
techniques
2) Even if we are all modeh that prohibited desires are ossur, we cannot by 
right enforce this.  Only actions can be sanctioned by society.  A person's 
thoughts unaccompanied by actions are between that person and HKBH only.  So 
even if a person had chemdo all day long for things that are ossur, we could not
enforce nor condemn that person unless/until he/she takes action.

Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Homosexuality  


I was a Psyche major in college during prehistoric 
times.

Some clarity would be helpful here. 

Homosexual orientation is no more assur than is 
heterosexuality.  What is assur... is acting on an 
inclination to perform a homosexual act.

<snip>

HM 
__________________________________________________ 

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

<<<
Question:  Why did Yehudah need to wait until the food ran out to plead to 
Yaakov to trust him witht Binyomin.  Why didn't he simply plead on behafl of the
missing Shim'om?
>>>

I would say that this simply confirmed to everyone the special status or place
that Yosef and Binyamin occupied in the heart of Ya'akov.  Part of the 
teshuvah that was required of Yehuda and the other brothers was to accept
this, if you'll pardon me for saying so, fault in their father without holding it
against Yosef or Binyamin.  The brothers are offered the opportunity to rid
themselves of the other favorite son of Rachel, but this time Yehuda comes
forward to sacrifice himself for the sake of a favored brother, which confirms
to Yosef that Yehuda the de facto leader of the other sons has truly 
repented of his role in the sale of Yosef.  Of course one could also say that 
Ya'akov's anger toward Shimon and Levi was such that the brothers knew
that it would have been futile even to suggest to Ya'akov that he risk 
Binyamin for the sake of Shimon.  It was only when the lives of the entire 
family were threatened that the subject of sending Binyamin could even be
raised to Yaakov.

On the subject of Shechem.  I would raise the following question.  According
to the opinion of (I think) the Rambam that the extermination of Shechem was
justified because the inhabitants of Shechem were culpable for not enforcing
the law against the rape of minor child still under the custody of her father 
(apparently the rape of an unmarried adult is not necessarily a per se 
violation of the seven Noahide laws for which they would have been 
culpable) are all the citizens of the United States culpable for not preventing
abortions which are a violation of the seven Noahide laws?  Would one be
allowed, under this reasoning, to kill American citizens, either
individually or collectively?  Just to avoid any misunderstanding, let me say
explicitly that we know that that can't be right.  The question is does that
question disprove, as I think it does, the opinion that the extermination of
Shechem was justififed, or is there some way to distinguish between the 
two cases?

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov


                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               !
!
!
                                                                                                                                                                           

What I meant to say is whether we should assume that just because members of 
Beis Dayanim are paid for their services this will automatically lead to 
corruption.

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

----- Original Message ----- > Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 14:21:03 +0200
> From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Subject: RE: cynicism, agunot, solving the problem...
>
> On 8 Dec 99, at 16:52, Jonathan J. Baker wrote:
[del]
> > Is modern society, where Jews are no longer ghettoized, so different
> > from any society conceivable by halacha, that the rabbanim can find no
> > way to enforce the halacha? to restore the equity granted by the takanah
> > Rabbenu Gershom that women must consent to divorce? to engage in the
kind
> > of sympathy encouraged by the ethico-legal works?
>
> I think it is different because we are no longer willing to use some
> of the means that halacha gave our Rabbanim to force recalcitrant
> husbands to do what they are supposed to do - e.g. kofin osso ad
> sheyomar rotzeh ani. And if you think incarceration is a solution,
> think again. There are many husbands in Israel who are sitting in
> jail for refusing to give their wives gittin. Hasn't helped in most
> instances.

Actually - there aren't many such men.  There has been only 1 husband who
stayed in jail for over 40 years, until he died, rather than give his wife a
get.  But he is the exception.  I know of a few husbands who recently
decided to give their wives a get -- after  a short stay in jail (cases
where K'fiyat Get was paskened).

> I'm NOT saying, let's go out and beat all the recalcitrant husbands
> (although clearly some of them deserve it). But I do think that the
> community (and not just the Rabbanim) has to take a lot more
> initiative in calling these people on the carpet for their actions. That
> means walking out when the husband comes into shul, not doing
> business with him, organizing demonstrations outside his home
> and place of employment, attempting to obtain and enforce
> contempt of court orders where possible. All of these methods
> HAVE worked. We just don't pursue them a lot of times (I haven't
> seen ANYONE pursue them in Israel).

There used to be an organization connected to Rebbetzin Eliyahu (the wife of
the Chief Rabbi of Tzfat)(or I was told she knew about them) .
Unfortunately I haven't heard anything from them recently.  I know that
there have been some occasions of demonstrations in front of work places in
Israel, but not many.

[del]
> Ah, but THIS is where the problem lies. The problem (IMHO) is less
> that Rabbanim refuse to try to force the husband to give a get; the
> cases where the husband out and out refuses to give a get are rare
> AFAIK. The bigger problem (IMHO) is that many Rabbanim are too
> quick to order Shalom Bayis in cases where there is clearly no
> chance of shalom, and where their orders may be endangering the
> wife's physical health and well being. Many batei din tell a wife to
> agree to having NO support because, "if you ask for support, he'll
> hold up your get," even in cases where the husband has given NO
> indication of any attempt to hold up the get.

My husband says that if the couple is getting a divorce -- there is no
support (for the wife).   The support is given when the Get is not given
immediately.  In actuality, when the wife _get's_ high support payments-- it
is far more likely that a husband who has been thinking of delaying the
Get --- will change his mind.

In Israel there is no alimony (post-divorce support for the wife).
>
> Does anyone have a clue how large a class we are talking about?
> And while I am playing lawyer, how are we defining "aguna?"

A few years ago I posted the official Batei Din Rabbaniyim figure for Israel
for Mesoravot Get/Mesoravei Get (look up Dejanews).  There were a few
hundred at most.  What was interesting was that we are talking about men and
women whose spouse refused to give a Get within 1 year of the Psika of Beit
Din for a Chiyuv or Kefiyat Get -- and that the number of men and women in
this situation is actually almost the same.

A separate problem are the cases where no psak has been given or a psak for
Shlom Bayit was given.


Shoshana L. Boublil

Schnorrers in Jerusalem.

> are the tzedakah funds drying up?  is there too much
> demand and not enough donations?
>
Our local Tzedaka fund dried up shortly before Succot-  which meant there
was NO money right before Succot for Chag expenses of families in need.  The
community continues to try to raise money but, as you say, more demand than
supply.  I don't know enough about the Tzedaka funds downtown but probably a
similar story everwhere.   Mrs. G.A.

>   I'm not sure what this means - whether you think Bach's music seems to
> have been Divinely inspired, or whether you think it could have been
> improved by Divine inspiration.  In either case, though I too greatly
> enjoy Baach's music, I find the statement puzzling.
>   Doesn't divine inspiration have moral or intellectual content? I
> hardly think that theory of counterpoint, as fun as it is, is
> sufficiently abstruse to require Divine assistance.
>
> David Riceman
>
I learned in chassidus that Hashem bestowed a great shefa of music on the
world at the time of the classical era.  You could call it a general ru'ach
hakodesh on a lower level. There are at least five basic levels of Ru'ach
hakodesh before you get to Nevuah.  Anyone living at that time who was
musically talented and had the opportunity, could receive this shefa and
produce amazing stuff. Individually, they could take that stuff whichever
direction they chose.  It would have been better if it were taken by yirei
shamayim -  chassidic nigunim for example. (Perhaps not as impressive to the
connoisseur, but more elevating when used with the right kavana) , but quite
a lot was also taken in the direction of the sitra achra.  A similar shefa
of chochma was given to the world-  manifesting chiefly as the scientific &
industrial revolution.   Mrs. G. Atwood.

We spend so much time
> trying to say lomdus, that we forget that sometimes things said on this
list
> do not require textual or halachik analysis. >
> Jordan
>
Thankyou, thankyou,  thankyou!

While I appreciate the erudition of many list members, there are some issues
that frankly amaze me.  Can we serve as lawyers etc for issues that go
exactly counter to ratzon Hashem?  There is the concept of 'naval b'rshut
haTorah' .(I'm NOT talking about anyone on this list! :-)) We might be able
to find a halachic route that permits this behaviour, but in all good
conscience, does that mean we can go ahead and IN ANY WAY facilitate acts
which really belong to the sitra achra? Explore the parameters, fine,  but
let's be openly yashar on this.  Mrs. G.Atwood.

> I have also heard several cases where parents have abandoned infants with
> major problems because of the affect on the older children, again
especially
> the chances of getting a good shidduch.
> The rabbis have spoken against this phenomena but social pressures count
> for more than pronouncements of rabbis.
>
> Eli Turkel
>
Certainly we can only agree with you that such abandonments are worse than
counterproductive.  However,  we've observed that babies with genetic
defects are abandonned for a variety of reasons,  and that shiduch chances
have become less of a concern. With regard to babies with Down's syndrome
for example, it is now quite widely known that age is a significant factor.
Fear and stigma for this and other disabilities have for the most part given
way to tolerance, understanding and compassion, at least in Jerusalem.

Why do women abandon their babies? Many reasons, practical and
psychological. Women who already have very large families, or are trying to
hold down a job to supplement or supply income do not feel they can give the
child the special attention that child needs. Down's syndrome children
require extensive physical therapy, speech therapy, health and general
attention considerably more than a normal healthy child. (We fostered such a
baby some years ago-  baruch Hashem now adopted into a loving family) . On
the other hand, there are many charedi families who have no problem taking
their afflicted baby home.

In any such possible cases I strongly advocate genetic testing- (in cases
where there is no question of consideration of abortion) simply so that the
parents can prepare themselves for their new baby or arrange foster
parenting as soon after the birth as possible. If this is not done, the baby
can be waiting for weeks or months till foster parents appear, further
retarding their development and happiness.   Mrs. G. Atwood.

He  was a devout Lutheran, and would often inscribe his scores "For the
Glory of
 God." (In German. :))

Is there anything wrong with that?  No mention there of the threesome, or of
Yeshke.  Do we assume that his monotheism is pagum beyond recognition?  Do
we discriminate between Catholicism with all its icons and Methodism and
similar which has moved far away from that?  Linguistically,  Yiddish is
based on Medieval German, proving that even the original Ashkenaz language
is redeemable- :-)

In a message dated 12/13/99 2:57:39 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< EG the common minhag of NOT eating in a sukkah on Shmini Atzeres >>

That Minhag is not so common among Litvaks.

Jordan

In a message dated 12/13/99 4:32:05 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
gatwood@netvision.net.il writes:

<< Is there anything wrong with that?  No mention there of the threesome, or 
of
 Yeshke.  Do we assume that his monotheism is pagum beyond recognition?  Do
 we discriminate between Catholicism with all its icons and Methodism and
 similar which has moved far away from that?  Linguistically,  Yiddish is
 based on Medieval German, proving that even the original Ashkenaz language
 is redeemable- :-) >>
\
I was merely responding to someone who was characterizing Bach as less of a 
religious composer than a secular one, that's all.
Don't kvetch to me, I was at Avery Fisher for the NY Philharmonic B minor 
Mass. (For all the uncultured out there, a famous piece by Bach)

 
Jordan

> Certainly the ACT is a tei'ovon - the Torah says so.  But I think a "frum" 
> homosexual would probably feel the ACT is not ok either, only they are not 
> such gibborim that they can withstanding such strong drives.   

or they pursue homosexual activities other than the one which is a toevah.
obviously, these are also asur, but not on the level of excluding someone 
from aliyot, not to mention that we also don't have any reason to assume
these.  (just as we couldn't assume anything about a 50 year old
lifelong bachelor and exclude him from honors.)

while we can't be sure if a frum homosexual has done anything wrong, we
can be sure that wrong has been done by the one who assumes he has.

putting "frum" in quotation marks is just insulting to people who do
their best to live observantly despite being rejected by their communities.

i'm assuming that all of this apparent negativity is inadvertent and
people just aren't familiar with the kinds of struggles these people
have.  last spring, a director brought clips of his documentary 
_trembling before g-d_, about frum homosexuals, to harvard hillel.

i went with a group from the minyan and all of us were just really
struck by the commitment that these people had that, even after 
spending a decade trying to blend in (yeshiva, marriage, etc), even
after years of therapy, and even after finding themselves alienated 
from their communities, they were completely certain of both their
sexuality and their religion, even at the cost of losing the emotional
support of both the frum and homosexual communities.  their commitment
to frumkeit was, to say the least, impressive.

janet

RR Wolpoe wrote:

>>I am throwing out a  cahllenge to our list to expand the cases where we 
know the text says one thing but hte practice is different.

EG the common minhag of NOT eating in a sukkah on Shmini Atzeres>>

Are we talking about where minhagim are against the simple reading of the 
gemara?  Because there are rishonim who say not to eat in the sukkah on 
Shemini Atzeres.  Or are we talking about where minhagim are against the 
Shulchan Aruch?  If so, the Mishneh Berurah is full of cases where we are 
more machmir (and sometimes even more maikel) than the S"A.

Here's two from the gemara.  Avodah Zarah 7b says that we cannot do 
business with gentiles on their holidays - including Sunday.  The rishonim 
discuss why the minhag is not like that.  See tosafos on 2a.  The gemara 
26a says that we cannot be mechalel Shabbos for gentiles.  The acharonim 
discuss why the minhag is not like that.


RCM Sherer wrote:
<<Speak for yourself! I gave up eating in the Succah on Shmini 
Atzeres only when I made aliya and no longer had a sfeika d'yoma!>>

You know what he meant!

R Wolpe wrote:
<<Yedhudah in pleading To Yaakov and then to Yoseif diccusse the father
and
Binyomin etc.  But there is apparently no plea on behalf of Shim'on.

Question:  Why did Yehudah need to wait until the food ran out to plead
to
Yaakov to trust him witht Binyomin.  Why didn't he simply plead on
behafl of the
missing Shim'om?

I heard a teairutz saying that Shim'on had "earned" his sentence by
wiping out
Shchem >>
I have not heard that teretz, but ...

Rashi is pretty explicit in quoting the medresh that Yehuda said "wait
for the 'old man' until there is no food".  In other words, when this
becomes a pressing issue, we will be able to convince him. Without the
threat of starvation of us all, there will not be a compelling enough
reason for Yaakov to send Binyamin.  Not even the life of Shimon could
convince him to jeopardize Binyamin.

You might ask:  would there not be an obligation for Binyamin to go (or
Yaakov to send him) in order to save Shimon?  If so, then that could
have been offered in an attempt to convince Yaakov.

I think the answer is that the issue of lo saamod al dam reicha, which
requires one to save a fellow Jew in danger (in this case, shimon),
would not apply according to almost all (see the minchas chinuch, new
version, on this mitzva), since Binyamin would be putting himself in
danger to do so.   An interesting counterpoint:  The Hadar Zekainim (I
have never seen this, but my brother passed this note to me) says that
Yaakov sent yosef to his brothers, despite the safek sakana to yosef,
because the brothers were near shechem; Yakov thought there was the
danger of reprisals for the destruction of Shechem (and that this danger
was a vaday compared to Yosef's safek).

The language attributed to Yehuda is hard for me to understand, however,
as it gives the impression that Yehuda is speaking disparagingly of his
father.

elly bachrach

On Sun, Dec 12, 1999 at 06:33:32PM -0500, Broasters@aol.com wrote:
> On a more basic level, there are times when halacha demands that one 
> sacrifice his or her actual life, which would also imply that lesser, but not 
> insignificant, demands are also possible.
 
the problem with applying this idea to homosexuals is that this
implicitly affects others.  how could a homosexual fulfill with kevana
the demands made of him by the ketuba?  

otoh, in the documentary clips i saw, there was a story about the brisker 
rav who paskened to a gay may that he is patur from marriage and pru uvru
but he should fulfill the latter in other ways. he lived in a bachelor 
apartment in b'nei b'rak. not tied down by family, he traveled all over 
the world as a fundraiser. his efforts built a yeshiva, a mikve, and 
an orphanage in israel that still stand today. 

janet

Like David Finch I too think there is a substantial
difference between homosexuality and agunos.

1) Homosexuality is a matter of bein odom l'mokoym while
agunot is bein odom lakhveyroy. Therefore the obligation of
helping the unfortunate woman out is a matter of loy samoyd
al dam rey'ekho;

2) An aguna's plight is not by her tendency but by the abuse
of her husband exploiting the halokhe to her detriment. If
we are not allowed to use the Torah as kardoym lakhpoyr bo
kal vokhoymer for the way it is used by recalcitrant
husbands.

There is therefore, apart from the husband's abuse, a
terrible khilel hashem in that halokhe is not only allowing
him to get away with it but is the very basis for his wrong.

Comparing, therefore, Agunot to homosexuals only enforces
the impression, which in my view is not far from right, that
those who are most able to provide a solution lack the will
and courage to propose a feasible solution.

Comments such as those made on this list that agunot are
better off than mamzeyrim because the woman can remarry upon
the death of her husband would be funny if they were not so
callous and heartless. Try telling that to a 40 year old
woman married to a 43 year old man refusing her a get.

If any thing kesef metaher mamzeyrim puts them in a better
position and shows how where there's a will there can be a
way.

Dovid Herskovic

--part1_0.c1923524.2586c98e_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

In a message dated 12/13/99 3:08:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
owner-avodah@aishdas.org writes:

<< Homosexual orientation is no more assur than is
 heterosexuality.  What is assur... is acting on an
 inclination to perform a homosexual act.  The act is
 the capital crime, not the thought.  Lusting in one's
 heart (i.e. Hirhurim), may LEAD to the Aveira but
 lusting is not the the Aveira itself.  In this sense
 Homosexual behavior is always volitional.  It's just a
 question of being Misgaber on one's Tavos, whether
 those tavos are "straight" or "gay". Lo Tachmod may
 have different meaning to a Homosexual.
 
 So, it doesn't really matter whether one believes
 homosexuality is a genetically predetermined behavior
 or that it is learned behavior.  G-d does not punish
 thought. 
 
 So, When someone proclaims his Homosexual orientation,
 as long as there is no proof that he has acted on
 those inclinations, then he should be consisdered a
 full fledged member of the community with all the
 rights and responsibilities that entails.
 
 Many of us are disgusted with that type of behavior. 
 But are we equally disgusted by Heterosexual behavior
 that involves Issurei Ervah?  I doubt it.
 
 One of the more common occurances in society today is
 infidelity to one's marraige partner.  In the case of
 a married woman, it is a Yahrog VeAl Yavor. 
 Unfrotunately we seem to have more pathos for this
 behavior than Homosexual behavior.
 
 I am not sure whether there is a "Gay" gene or not.
 But I am sure that we could have a lot more compassion
 for our fellow man than we do.
 
 HM 
 ______________________________________ >>

Thank you for saying (much more eloquently, I might add) what I believe about 
the homosexuality issue. 

One additional comment...I have heard some people say that the torah 
prohibition against the homosexual act only applies to males and not females. 
 What do the rabbis say about this issue?  Are there clear opinions that 
state that a lesbian act would be equal from a torah perspective to a male 
homosexual act?  Or is one d'oraysa and one d'rabanan?

Michael Feldstein

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


[ 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         ]