Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 191

Thursday, December 16 1999

• Re: Avodah V4 #188
• Re: Avodah V4 #189
• Re: Avodah V4 #189
• RCA pre-nup
• Re: Avodah V4 #187
• Re: Agunot, etc.
• Yetzer Ha'Ra for MZ
• Re: Avodah V4 #188
• re: humor alert
• humor alert
• Re: Avodah V4 #188
• Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Avodah V4 #187
• Re: Lashon Nikiy'ah
• RE: Mechiras Chometz
• RE: Mechiras Chometz
• mechirat chametz
• Re: mechirat chametz
• Re: Mechiras Chometz
• Re: Mechiras Chometz
• Minors and kiddush wine

The author, below, is engaging in an exercise of semantics. He may be right
that a technical definition of ***** refers to inclinations. The issue at
hand however deals with actions. I can't imagine Avodah would devote this
much space to, say, those people who would LOVE to not put up a Mezuzah..


I must take strong exception to Rabbi YGB's request, despite my great
respect for him.  Homosexuality is NOT Mishkav Zachar and that is precisely
why the correct term must be used.  Some people with homosexual inclinations
engage in mishkav zachar, and many frum ones do not.  Mishkav zachar is a
chiyuv misah, homosexuality is not.

Re: R Berger's comments, below, allow me to defend R' Bechhofer's position.
When I was in 10th grade and we were studying a sugya in Kesubos about
Oness, a student used the term "rape". The rebbi corrected him, and said we
use the term "oness". Even though Oness ultimately denotes rape, it is a
cleaner loshon.

Phrasing *** in a torah way, is just a cleaner, holier way to speak, and it
frames *** in a totally halachic context. When using the term ***, one is
opening up the discussion to much wider implications.


Seems to me (and I invite correction!) that YGBechhofer
is actually requesting that we *disguise* mature topics by using subject
lines that minors will not comprehend and/or find noteworthy -- while quite
subjective (pun intended), such an aim is worthy, but I don't think it's
the same as requesting loshon n'kiyah, which also applies to terms which
will be scanned by adults.

Regarding Lawyer Schwartz's postings ...

"I am however appaled by the treatment R. Bechhoffer has recieved"

I did not perceive shabby treatment aimed at RYGB, rather an intelligent
analysis of his request, very much in the Avodah spirit of nothing being out
of bounds for Torah analysis.

"has he (RYGB) not earned enough of our respect to be able to make this
request?"

I don't think a discussion about the validity of a request is disrespectful,
nor has anyone refused to abide by the request. I hardly think RYGB would
agree that his intellectual disdvantage renders him incapable of defending
his opinion, thus warranting him to be "above the law". I would guess he'd
rather his positions stand up on their own merits, not because of whom he
is. (OTOH, perhaps he's like them to stand up on their own, but in case they
don't, then use his position :-).

>>From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
    Subject: Re: RCA pre-nup

>>There is no case per se.  Having seen the form, I know that it is invaid.
>>NY case law requires that all agreements about the res marriage be executed
>>in a "form acceptable to be recorded as a deed."  They must have  an
>>acknowledgement page.  The form promulgated by the RCA contains no such
>>form.

    That would seem to be a very minor problem that could easily be solved by 
appending an acknowledgement page (or other such notary statement) to the 
form. A good suggestion that you should forward to the RCA. 
    By the way, In Connecticut, any attorney is a "commissioner of the 
Superior Court" authorized by law to take acknowledgments and oaths like a 
notary.  Should be very easy for a couple to execute. 
    David I. Cohen

Actually, I don't think that children not attending funerals in
Yerushalayim has anything to do with unfortunate incidents. I think
it has to do with a kabbalah that R. Eli Turkel alluded to earlier.

The reason yotzai chalutzav shel haniftar are not allowed at the graveside
in Yerushalayim is that there is a kabbalah (perhaps from Kabalah) that the
neshama goes through great suffering for the sin of hotzoas zera l'vatalah
at the time he is placed into the kaiver and that the suffering is increased
if a direct descendent is in attendance.

I would have to agree with R' David, adding a theological he'oro:

If we accept that mitzvos impart kedusha to the one who performs them
according to the strict letter of the law, and vice versa for aveiros, then
this highlights the legitimacy (in areas where one does not, thereby, become
a "naval b'reshus ha'Torah") of legal fictions/workarounds: The potential
tum'ah that the aveira would impart is averted.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: <DFinchPC@aol.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 1:15 PM
Subject: Re: Agunot, etc.


> I'm not sure that there really is a down-to-earth practical difference
> between a legal fiction and a workaround in most contexts. A workaround,
as I
> understand the term, is a halachic loophole that allows one to adhere to
the
> words of halacha, and maybe even its spirit, where it would be
impracticable
> or even impossible to carry out the requirements literally. A legal
fiction
> is somewhat more abstract and symbolic, like kinyan chalifin with a
> handkerchief or fountain pen. Legal fictions, at least as I understand
them,
> are endorsed by Torah, if not exactly created by it -- they are logical
> devices used in Gemorrah to fit all the pieces together. Workarounds have
> more prosaic origins, and may or may not be Torah-true. But to the extent
> they are accepted by the rebbonim and followed by the community, they are
> sort of balebatish equivalents of legal fictions that serve almost
identical
> purposes.
>

I believe my old friend (since kindergarten) R' Aharon Berger succinctly
summed up and elucidated what I was trying to say. Yasher Ko'ach.

R' Melech Press asked what my objection to his taxonomy might be.

Simply put, it is my understanding that short of achieving the madreiga of
"Tzaddik" by the Tanya's definition thereof (roughly akin to the Chasid of
other systems), we are all inclined by our respective yetzer ha'ra's (YH) to
aveiros. Some of us are inclined by our YH to some aveiros, some to others.
There are many types of YH as well.  Some are psychological, some emotional,
some mystical. I think it is very worhtwhile, on a list called "Avodah", to
discuss the types of YH's and their various manifestations (i.e., to
paraphrase RAB, the difference between the YH for MZ and the YH not to put
up mezuzos. But I think it is a disservice to isolate a certain type of
aveira and analyze its antecedents independently of the more fundamental
concept of YH that underlies all ta'avos and more.

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

Using the volume and digest number as a subject line
only works for those who receive their postings in
digest form.  I get my post individualy so it would be
confusing for me to try and follow a thread this way,
at least initially.  

Dr. Press you raise an interesting point. 
Homosexuality in the orthodox community  is virtually
ignored by the Orthodox media.  It's kind of swept
under the carpet as a public issue.  How pervasive is
it in the Frum community?  When I lived in Yeshiva
dorms in High school and college, whether it was
Telshe or HTC, there were always rumors about certain
people being homosexual.  Is it a greater problem then
we are led to believe? What pecentage of the orthodox
community is Homosexual? How many are men? womem? what
do the numbers look like?  should we be discussing
this problem in a more open forum?  Can a community do
anything to help? Or, is it just a problem to be dealt
with on an individual basis, discretely in the privacy
of a Dr.s office on a case by case basis?

HM



--- Mark Press <mpress@ix.netcom.com> wrote:


> I must admit that I find it puzzling why we should
> suddenly be asked to
> avoid discussion of an issue which is far more
> important in many ways than
> most of the issues discussed here and not less in
> need of sophisticated
> analysis from a Torah perspective.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Thousands of Stores.  Millions of Products.  All in one place.
Yahoo! Shopping: http://shopping.yahoo.com

From Shlomo B Abeles <sba@blaze.net.au>

Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> wrote:
Subject: humor alert

>>>Reminds me of the old joke asking why if "osoh haish"  ...
>>>was Jewish,  why did he have a Puerto Rican name?

I recall years ago hearing him referred to as "Yoshkeh (sometimes
even Yossele) Pondrek". Anyone have details/reasons
(and, is *that* supposed to be Jewish?) ?

...And,  whilst we're on a humor alert, and still on the Mishkav Zochor
topic, a politically incorrect (very old) joke -
 Heard of the exclusively  homosexual
Jewish cemetery in San Francisco?

- It's called "Gay in Der Erd"...

That's almost as bad as the joke about the Chabad Shaliach who when asked by 
a goy if he was amish responded "yes I am Hamish."
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In a message dated 12/15/99 9:58:01 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

> Dr. Press you raise an interesting point. 
>  Homosexuality in the orthodox community  is virtually
>  ignored by the Orthodox media.  It's kind of swept
>  under the carpet as a public issue.  How pervasive is
>  it in the Frum community?  When I lived in Yeshiva
>  dorms in High school and college, whether it was
>  Telshe or HTC, there were always rumors about certain
>  people being homosexual.  Is it a greater problem then
>  we are led to believe? What pecentage of the orthodox
>  community is Homosexual? How many are men? womem? what
>  do the numbers look like?  should we be discussing
>  this problem in a more open forum?  Can a community do
>  anything to help? Or, is it just a problem to be dealt
>  with on an individual basis, discretely in the privacy
>  of a Dr.s office on a case by case basis?
>  
One of the reasons for not publicizing these issue in media etc. where Yad 
Hakol M'mashmishin Boh, is once something is brought out in the open it may 
soif kol soif trickle down to someone that was able to be Goveir (in what 
ever way) on his YH of MZ (Tartei Mashma Machshovo Zara and the other one), 
and say oh I am not the only one etc. It is known that many frum people think 
long and hard before sending their boys to a dorm, Bnosof that good 
Dormitories will make sure that there are more then 2 beds in a room (even 
though Ein Apotrupus).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I would like to distinguish between two aspects of Mechiras Chometz: (a)
sale of tangible and measurable packages of chometz in my pantry, liquor
cabinet, and elsewhere, and (b) sale of other stuff that gets shlepped
along with the deal.

Packages of pasta, bottles of whiskey, and even a bottle of ketchup
(which contains chometzdik vinegar) can easily be sold, and when we do so
it is a sincere and genuine sale. In recent years, some rabbis (e.g. Rav
Riskin) have told their non-Jew to actually pick up (and pay for) some of
this chometz on Chol Hamoed, to impress the reality upon us.

But the chometz stuck to one's pots is another matter entirely. Let's
imagine a situation where the non-Jew has come to collect all (or a
portion of) the chometz which I sold him. And we have to be able to
envision such a scenario, because if you can't, then please explain what
is meant by "a sincere and genuine sale". So...

I do not know *which* pots have chometz stuck to them. I do not know how
*much* chometz is stuck to them. I do not know what *kinds* of chometz is
stuck to them. The only thing I am sure of, is that the market value of
all that chometz put together is most likely less than a pruta, and
surely less than the value of the time spent looking for it!

I will reiterate the points made by R' David Finch:

<<< How does one establish a meaningful market value for the chametz on
the pots minus the pots? Does such chametz even have a value, apart from
the courtesy shown by the so-called purchaser? Perhaps it is Shlomo's
point that the "value" that creates the genuineness of the purchase is
the avoidance of any need to be tovel and mag'l the pots after the
holiday. That creates value to the seller, maybe, but it hardly creates
value to the buyer. Without value to the buyer, how is there a genuine
sale? >>>

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Why pay more to get Web access?
Try Juno for FREE -- then it's just $9.95/month if you act NOW!
Get your free software today: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Let's get lomdishe.

The sale of the chometz on the pots may in and of itself not apply to a
shaveh perutah, but lichora this transaction gives the goy a shi'abud on the
pot itself - as his "property" permeates the pot. Shi'abud is worth money.
Thus, the purchase of the chometz in the pots gives him a valuable control
over the pots themselves.

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

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 15, 1999 10:38 PM
Subject: Mechiras Chometz


> But the chometz stuck to one's pots is another matter entirely. Let's
> imagine a situation where the non-Jew has come to collect all (or a
> portion of) the chometz which I sold him. And we have to be able to
> envision such a scenario, because if you can't, then please explain what
> is meant by "a sincere and genuine sale". So...
>
> I do not know *which* pots have chometz stuck to them. I do not know how
> *much* chometz is stuck to them. I do not know what *kinds* of chometz is
> stuck to them. The only thing I am sure of, is that the market value of
> all that chometz put together is most likely less than a pruta, and
> surely less than the value of the time spent looking for it!
>

In a message dated 12/15/99 10:07:46 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
CMarkowitz@scor.com writes:

<< I think RYGB has a very good point. I would liken it to the gemara's
 discussion in Pesachim of the torah's use of the term "Einenah Tahor" as
 opposed to "Tamei".        ]
  >>

First of all, I refer all to M. Press's excellent post on the difference 
between Mishkav Zachor and Homosexuality. I stand corrected in my assertion. 
Second, I agree with MPress that any one on this list that feel that some 
subject matters are inappropriate for children should supervise their 
children's access to the internet.
Third, I think that RYGB, whose intentions are above criticism in this case, 
may be a little unrealistic in censoring the discussion for the sake of his 
children. Perhaps it would be better that discussion of these issues start 
with the debates a Torah oriented group of friends such as us  conduct than 
on the "street corner." I don't mean for a second to tell anybody on this 
list how to raise their children, I am just not sure this is a make it or 
break it  issue.

Jordan
  

In a message dated 12/15/99 10:38:48 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Personally, I don't see why there's discussion about RYGB's request. Using
 lashon neki'ah is, in general, a good idea. Since subject lines are even
 more birabbim than the rest of the email, why not be extra-careful in how
 one phrases things? It's not like it will obscure the discussion -- subject
 lines aren't discussion. >>

I think that R' Melech's point is that in this case, the difference is a 
substantial one, going right to the point of the discussion, which is quite 
important, and of course is not limited to Homosexuality, namely, at what 
point do hirhurim become acts that would be considered aveiros?

Jordan 

>
> > But the chometz stuck to one's pots is another matter
> entirely. Let's
>

Rav Moshe Halberstam, a well-known posek for the Eida here in Jerusalem,
refuses to sell pots for a simple reason:

Who would buy ble'as chametz?

I've seen him cross the items off peoples lists during mechiras chametz.

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

On 16 Dec 99, at 9:52, Akiva Atwood wrote:

> >
> > > But the chometz stuck to one's pots is another matter
> > entirely. Let's
> >
> 
> Rav Moshe Halberstam, a well-known posek for the Eida here in Jerusalem,
> refuses to sell pots for a simple reason:
> 
> Who would buy ble'as chametz?
> 
> I've seen him cross the items off peoples lists during mechiras chametz.

If that's the case, what does he hold happens after Pesach? I 
assume he does not require people to go out and buy new pots!

-- 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.

> 
> wrt chometz, I continually empaphasize to my shul that it is a REAL sale
> 
> It's analogus to a stock trade that is official at one gvien time and is 
> "settled" later.  
> 
> The  objection to this legal abstraction is - imho  -due to the lack of 
> sophisticatoin of the average perons who feels it is a ha'aronmo.  And that is
> perhaps the motivating factor behind those who insist on any mechiro as being 
> l'olomis w/o intention of buying it back.
> 
I would like to know how of your congregants call after Pesach to check if
the sale went through or not or does everyone take it for granted that
the chametz was repurchased.
If it is a real sale it should be a (potential) theft to use the chametz
after Pesach without verification.
Obviously everyone takes it for granted that the Chametz is repurchased
after pesach and that is what makes it different from a stock trade where
the price really does fluctuate.

Eli Turkel

On 16 Dec 99, at 13:59, Eli Turkel wrote:

> > 
> > wrt chometz, I continually empaphasize to my shul that it is a REAL sale
> > 
> > It's analogus to a stock trade that is official at one gvien time and is 
> > "settled" later.  
> > 
> > The  objection to this legal abstraction is - imho  -due to the lack of 
> > sophisticatoin of the average perons who feels it is a ha'aronmo.  And that is
> > perhaps the motivating factor behind those who insist on any mechiro as being 
> > l'olomis w/o intention of buying it back.
> > 
> I would like to know how of your congregants call after Pesach to check if
> the sale went through or not or does everyone take it for granted that
> the chametz was repurchased.

I think people do assume that the Chametz will be repurchased, 
although I do know of Rabbanim (and I think my shver used to do 
this when he had a shtellar in the States) who tell the congregants 
to wait an hour and a half or two hours after Yom Tov ends to give 
the Rav a chance to buy it back.

> If it is a real sale it should be a (potential) theft to use the chametz
> after Pesach without verification.

Many of us use an eruv on Shabbos. Do we all call before Shabbos 
to make sure the eruv is up? Obviously that's not an issue of 
(potential) theft, but we all rely on a chazaka that if it's NOT up, 
someone will tell us. (As an aside, I don't think there even is a 
number to call in Yerushalayim, and I can only recall one time in 
the eight plus years I have lived here that the eruv has actually 
been down). I think it's the same thing here - we all kind of rely on 
the Rabbonim to make sure people find out if for some reason they 
don't buy it back.

And that's without even considering the issue that theft from the 
Goy would still (likely) be gezel akum....

> Obviously everyone takes it for granted that the Chametz is repurchased
> after pesach and that is what makes it different from a stock trade where
> the price really does fluctuate.

Actually, the chametz is usually repurchased at a profit for the goy. 
I've been there.

-- 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.

In a message dated 12/15/99 10:50:13 PM US Central Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< The sale of the chometz on the pots may in and of itself not apply to a
 shaveh perutah, but lichora this transaction gives the goy a shi'abud on the
 pot itself - as his "property" permeates the pot. Shi'abud is worth money.
 Thus, the purchase of the chometz in the pots gives him a valuable control
 over the pots themselves >>

I regret to suggest that RYGB's argument is circular. One can't argue that 
the chometz in the pot is the goy's property because it permeates the pot and 
gives him "valuable control" over the pot, not if the chometz isn't the goy's 
property in the first place. How can the inweighable, unusable, and virtually 
undetectable remnants of chometz in the pot be his property, if the goy 
perceives no value in the chometz cannot be said to have "bought" the chometz 
for value independent of the value of the pots themselves.

I also do not see the shi'abud. A shi'abud, as I understand it, is a lien or 
an analogous (perhaps moral or symbolic) obligation. How does the chometz in 
the pot create a lien beyond the chometz itself? Is it the fact that the 
nearly-invisible chometz adheres to the pot, and is thus a part of the pot? 
If so, then dirty pots must be said to be worth more than clean ones. That is 
very unlikely, at least from the buyer's point of view. A shi'abud is not 
worth money unless the property it represents is worth money. The property 
here is worthless wheat scum, no more -- thus, alas, the circularity of 
RYGB's argument. 

A symbolic shi'abud is different, but then we are back in the territory of 
legal fictions.

Again . . . again . . . if I'm wrong, please correct me.

On 16 Dec 99, at 8:38, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 12/15/99 10:50:13 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:
> 
> << The sale of the chometz on the pots may in and of itself not apply to a
>  shaveh perutah, but lichora this transaction gives the goy a shi'abud on the
>  pot itself - as his "property" permeates the pot. Shi'abud is worth money.
>  Thus, the purchase of the chometz in the pots gives him a valuable control
>  over the pots themselves >>
> 
> I regret to suggest that RYGB's argument is circular. One can't argue that 
> the chometz in the pot is the goy's property because it permeates the pot and 
> gives him "valuable control" over the pot, not if the chometz isn't the goy's 
> property in the first place. How can the inweighable, unusable, and virtually 
> undetectable remnants of chometz in the pot be his property, if the goy 
> perceives no value in the chometz cannot be said to have "bought" the chometz 
> for value independent of the value of the pots themselves.

Why can't we say that the goy agreed to buy them agav the 
purchase of the valuable chometz? (I don't necessarily mean a 
"kinyan agav." I mean that because the goy wants to buy the 
valuable chometz, he also agrees to buy the chometz in the pots 
because we won't sell one without the other).

> I also do not see the shi'abud. A shi'abud, as I understand it, is a lien or 
> an analogous (perhaps moral or symbolic) obligation. How does the chometz in 
> the pot create a lien beyond the chometz itself? Is it the fact that the 
> nearly-invisible chometz adheres to the pot, and is thus a part of the pot? 

I think that's what RYGB meant.

-- 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.

Akiva Miller wrote:
<<< I would suggest that it is mutar to serve alcohol to minors in situations
    which are similarly ignored by the civil authorities. The Vice Squad is
    quite aware that we serve kiddush wine to the children not only at home
    but even in public places such as shul, and they ignore it even there.

    This could even apply to a Seudas Purim where entire families are
    present, but not to a teen-oriented Purim Party, which is an example of a
    situation which we know the authorities to be makpid on.

    Any lawyers want to add a more professional opinion?>>>>

Most jurisdictions allow, either by statute or local enforcement custom, that 
wine can be given to minors for "sacramental" purposes. I believe, though i 
am not sure, that there was a similar exemption in the Volstead Act during 
prohibition. Of coirse, the exception does not extend to the single-malt 
scotch being served.
    I think the whole question of drinking "l'chayim" at the shul kiddush and 
the poor example it sets for our children needs to be examined. Any takers?
    David I. Cohen

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


[ 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         ]