Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 304

Tuesday, January 18 2000

• Walking behind a woman
• Re: MO and the Rav
• Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
• Re: Walking behind a woman
• Re: use of chareidi on Avodah
• Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
• Re: Vending Machines on Shabbos
• Re: Avodah V4 #302
• Re: Avodah V4 #303
• Post-Get Debts
• Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
• New York Times
• Re: Charedi vs. MO
• Re: Sephardik vs. Ashkenazik pronunciation
• Re: Motzoei Shabbos
• Mixed dancing
• Re: Rav Berkovits and Rav Weinberg
• Re: Charedi vs. MO (was Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?)

R. Chaim Brown wrote:

>  Leaving the IG"M aside, I
>would imagine the source of the heter is based on the simple fact that for
>most people walking down a street does not elicit an erotic reaction.
>L'mashal, the Levush (discussed by Eli Clarke) applied the same logic to
>mixed seating at weddings, and the roots of the sevara are really in Tos.
>Kiddushin 81 regarding hishtamshus b'nashim.

Barukh she-kivanta.

In Tzitz Eliezer IX, no. 50, pp. 194-95, R. Eliezer Waldenberg quotes a
statement of the Leket Yosher, Yoreh De`ah, p. 37, that it is permitted
nowadays to walk behind the wife of a haver.  R. Waldenberg suggests --
and reports that R. Shelomo Zalman Auerbakh concurs -- that the
rationale must be that men are now accustomed to seeing women in public
and therefore walking behind a woman will not lead to licentious
thoughts.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In a message dated 1/18/00 2:23:39 PM US Central Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< What he objected to was the
 invocation of the Rav's name by people whose agenda the Rav did not
 share. >>

So far as I can tell, the Rav didn't have an agenda. "Ish ha-halacha" and 
"The Lonely Man of Faith" reveal his extraordinary intellectual honesty. It 
tortured him. He was far too learned and far too brilliant to fall into the 
type of polemics that inhere in RW/LW/MO/Knitted Kippah/Black Hat labelling 
wars. 

He was obsessed with HaShem, so much so that language could barely express 
his feelings. Maybe that was his agenda after all.

David Finch

I would only point out that in New York, Bet Din has no right to adjudicate
issues of custody.  The RCA is trying to assume jurisdiction where is has
none.

----- Original Message -----
From: David Roth <droth@pobox.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:12 PM
Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv


>
> The following comes from the "Standards and Guidelines with respect to
> Get Proceedings at the Beth Din of America," which can be found at
> their web page: http://www.bethdin.org/publications/standardsget.htm
>
>     9. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to
>        adjudicate financial (and where appropriate, custodial) matters
>        relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America
>        finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the
>        parties.
>
> Kol Tuv,
>
> David
>
>

On 18 Jan 00, at 15:36, Clark, Eli wrote:

> R. Chaim Brown wrote:
> 
> >  Leaving the IG"M aside, I
> >would imagine the source of the heter is based on the simple fact that for
> >most people walking down a street does not elicit an erotic reaction.
> >L'mashal, the Levush (discussed by Eli Clarke) applied the same logic to
> >mixed seating at weddings, and the roots of the sevara are really in Tos.
> >Kiddushin 81 regarding hishtamshus b'nashim.
> 
> Barukh she-kivanta.
> 
> In Tzitz Eliezer IX, no. 50, pp. 194-95, R. Eliezer Waldenberg quotes a
> statement of the Leket Yosher, Yoreh De`ah, p. 37, that it is permitted
> nowadays to walk behind the wife of a haver.  R. Waldenberg suggests --
> and reports that R. Shelomo Zalman Auerbakh concurs -- that the
> rationale must be that men are now accustomed to seeing women in public
> and therefore walking behind a woman will not lead to licentious
> thoughts.

Again, he says "the wife of a Chaver" which would imply a woman 
who is dressed tzniustically. I don't think you can take it as a 
blanket heter.

-- 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.

On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 09:18:17AM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: If I have to label myself I would use the word
: Centrist which, to me, means I try to incorporate the
: best of both worlds into my Hashkafa.

Yeshivat Har Etzion's Virtual Beis Medrash just sent out the first of
three parts of an essay titled "Centrist Orthodoxy - A Cheshbon haNefesh",
summarizing R' Aharon Lichtenstein's views on the subject. I would like to
make the article available to people who aren't on that list. Assuming the VBM
allows, I'd like to post a teaser and a URL where the article could be found.

RAL's Cheshbon haNefesh comes in two parts: 1- determinining the laudability
of the ideal; 2- determining conformance to that ideal. The 1st section
is entirely praising the value of the centrist ideal, and not really what
you'd expect from an article titled "Cheshbon haNefesh". But it does very
eloquently sum up the Centrist ideal.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Jan-00: Shelishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 101a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

On 18 Jan 00, at 15:48, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:

> I would only point out that in New York, Bet Din has no right to adjudicate
> issues of custody.  The RCA is trying to assume jurisdiction where is has
> none.

They say "where appropriate." I assume that "where appropriate" 
means "where the parties stipulate to it," in which case, why would 
they not be able to assume jurisdiction as you would in any kind of 
arbitration proceeding?

-- Carl

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: David Roth <droth@pobox.com>
> To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:12 PM
> Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
> 
> 
> >
> > The following comes from the "Standards and Guidelines with respect to
> > Get Proceedings at the Beth Din of America," which can be found at
> > their web page: http://www.bethdin.org/publications/standardsget.htm
> >
> >     9. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to
> >        adjudicate financial (and where appropriate, custodial) matters
> >        relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America
> >        finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the
> >        parties.
> >
> > Kol Tuv,
> >
> > David
> >
> >
> 
> 


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.

What makes this question interesting is that the gezeirah of masa umatan is
on a chalos (kinyan), not a pe'ulah. Otherwise it would be a discussion of
shevisas keilim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Jan-00: Shelishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 101a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I can't comment on what he had in mind, only on what he wrote.

I'll leave the interpretation to expert Dayanim.

As to the statement that the Get means that there are no debts, I find
strange, if only b/c financial demands can arise after the Get having
to do with Child support.  I doubt this would invalidate a Get, in any
case I have never heard of such a case, but then, I never claimed to
be an expert or to know about every case in the world.

Shoshana L. Boublil

> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:12:23 EST
> From: Tobrr111@aol.com
> Subject: Rav Moshes Teshuvot on Gittin
>
> Shoshana L. Boublil quotes a letter from R. Moshe saying
> "...Ve'Ein Reshut LeShum Tzad Le'Agen... BeShum Ikuv
> MeeTzad Tevi'ot Mamon..." and informs us that dayanim may know be
mesader a
> Get even before all financial agreements are made.
>
> It seems to me that there is no reason to assume that this what R.
Moshe had
> in mind. It is very possible that he was merely saying that neither
side has
> a right to make ridiculous financial demands but rather should
immediately go
> to bes din to clarify the financial considerations and then give a
Get. The
> reason I say this is that In IGROS MOSHE even haezer chelek # 4
siman #
> 115-116 Rav Moshe is adamant that all financial considerations MUST
be
> complete BEFORE giving a Get and that this is something that "all
batei dinim
> in the world" should know. Furthermore, R. Moshe claims that a Get
is a rayah
> (proof) that all such considerations were completed and even if one
side has
> signed documents that they are owed money, the documents can be
ignored bec.
> a Get is proof that all is taken care of. He even goes further and
claims
> that any claims made after the giving of a get may retroactively
invalidate
> the get. I hope any bes din reading this new letter is aware of
these
> teshuvot and doesn't draw any incorrect conclusion from this new
letter.

In a message dated 1/18/00 3:51:42 PM Eastern Standard Time, David Roth 
writes: 
  The following comes from the "Standards and Guidelines with respect to
 Get Proceedings at the Beth Din of America," which can be found at
 their web page: http://www.bethdin.org/publications/standardsget.htm
 
     9. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to
        adjudicate financial (and where appropriate, custodial) matters
        relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America
        finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between the
        parties.
  >>
This is very interesting. Does anybody know how this fits in with the pesak 
of Rav Moshe Feinstein (igros moshe even haezer chelek # 4 siman # 115-116) 
that I mentioned in a pervious post, who holds that all financial matters 
must be completed before the giving of a Get? Of course, the Beth Din of 
America does not have to follow every pesak of Rav Moshe's, but R. Moshe 
seems to say that the seder gittin of the shulchan aruch also says like him 
and that this is the normative practice of all batei din, and that is the way 
it should be for halachik reasons. Does anyone know of a specific pesak that 
argues on R. Moshe and which is the basis of the Beth Din of America's 
guidelines?

On 18 Jan 00, at 23:13, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

> As to the statement that the Get means that there are no debts, I find
> strange, if only b/c financial demands can arise after the Get having
> to do with Child support.  I doubt this would invalidate a Get, in any
> case I have never heard of such a case, but then, I never claimed to
> be an expert or to know about every case in the world.

I think what that refers to is that after the Get the ksuva is 
considered parua. The man is not halachically required to support 
his (ex) wife after the Get (the ksuva money is meant to support 
her until she finds another husband or other means of support), and 
his obligation to support his children runs directly to the children 
and is not a debt to the wife. So technically there should be no 
financial demands of the wife on the husband after the Get. 

Note - despite the "Esq." or "Adv." after my name, this is not my 
field, and I may be mistaken....

-- 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.

Because the stipulation is unenforceable.   A party can stipulate to custidy
being tried in the Beth Din and the day after the Beth Din issues  a ruling
can challenge it in court.  In one simple motion, that ruling can be thrown
out, and the whole custody issue can be re-opened.


----- Original Message -----
From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
To: Daniel B. Schwartz <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>; <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 4:03 PM
Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv


> On 18 Jan 00, at 15:48, Daniel B. Schwartz wrote:
>
> > I would only point out that in New York, Bet Din has no right to
adjudicate
> > issues of custody.  The RCA is trying to assume jurisdiction where is
has
> > none.
>
> They say "where appropriate." I assume that "where appropriate"
> means "where the parties stipulate to it," in which case, why would
> they not be able to assume jurisdiction as you would in any kind of
> arbitration proceeding?
>
> -- Carl
>
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: David Roth <droth@pobox.com>
> > To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, January 18, 2000 3:12 PM
> > Subject: Re: Agunot: News flash from the Beit Din Rabbani in Tel Aviv
> >
> >
> > >
> > > The following comes from the "Standards and Guidelines with respect to
> > > Get Proceedings at the Beth Din of America," which can be found at
> > > their web page: http://www.bethdin.org/publications/standardsget.htm
> > >
> > >     9. When a husband and wife agree to come to the Beth Din to
> > >        adjudicate financial (and where appropriate, custodial) matters
> > >        relating to the end of their marriage, the Beth Din of America
> > >        finalizes the Get at the beginning of the proceeding between
the
> > >        parties.
> > >
> > > Kol Tuv,
> > >
> > > David
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>
> 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.
>

> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 14:27:03 EST
> From: 
> Subject: Re: New York Times

<<One should not say Kisdom Hayinu, SHimu Dvar Hashem Ktzinei...>>

	This refers to the punishment of Sdom. If you refer,  as I did,  to the
state of sin,  it would only be osur if it were a Jewish city,  as in
today's Daf Yomi.

Gershon

On Tue, Jan 18, 2000 at 12:26:45PM -0500, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
: Chessed is not strictly about money, it's about a generous attitudes for ALL 
: briyos, it's about kiruv and outreach, even outreach to non-Jews.

Yes and no. IOW, someone who does X for his own community is showing less
chessed than someone who does X for all. On that I'd agree. However, you can't
say that just because one group looks to a wider circle they *necessarily*
do more chessed. It's possible that the group that addresses fewer people
does far more for each person, something that more than offsets the range.

It's also hard to show that any one community is dominating the kiruv front.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 18-Jan-00: Shelishi, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 101a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

"Ari Z. Zivotofsky" wrote:


> 
> Have you had a chance to ask if you can make a copy?
> 


I'm afraid not. I'm in the middle of an intensive job search, and my
wife and kids are all ill, and between the two I haven't had any time.
My apologies. I hope to be able to do something tomorrow.


---sam

gil.student@citicorp.com wrote:


> >>I often put on the radio or TV a few hours after havdala to hear the news and
> sometimes hear the announcer say Shabbat Shalom.>>
> 
> Maybe they were speaking from the korbanos perspective of halailah holech achar
> hayom.



I always assumed it was recorded. I like your answer, though.


---sam

The discussion about dancing has raised some interesting insights into
current sociology of halacha.

The issue of women dancing in the same room as men could be assur (if it
is assur) for one of three reasons.

1) Because of today's pritzut, it is a matter of a geder la'arayot which a
local posek can institute.  Few would disagree that this falls within the
power of a communal posek, although it is not clear that a major, widely
accepted current posek has indeed made such a determination.

2) This takkana has already been made by previous generations.  This was
the question for sources, and R Zirkind posted several.  However, the
oldest one directly addressing the issue (rather thna the general issue of
histaklut) was the Ben Ish Hai, and others, who, while they may be
respected talmide hachamim, are not widely known as authoritative for
American Orthodoxy.  Therefore, there doesn't seem to be a generally
accepted takkana.

3)  It is pashut that this is assur for ervah, whether a d'orayta of lo
taturu or a clear application of the issur of histaklut.  As one poster
said, why do we need sources for something that is mefursam? A
talmid hacham such as R Zirkind could even ask why do we need sources, as
the problem of ervah is so clear.  (I would say that on avodah, this is
the first time I remember that anyone questioned the need for sources)

However, it is not pashut.  Dancing by women, whether alone or with men,
has been discussed in the halachic literature for a long time. Rav Yehuda
Henkin has an excellent discussion of the sources in shut bne banim volume
1, no 37, where he concludes that there is a takkanah against mixed
dancing, however, there is no problem with men and women dancing
separately in the same room (Rav Henkin emailed some with this mar'eh
makom), so at least one  posek  disagrees with what people here see as
pashut. 

The source material brought there is interesting.
For example, takkanot hachmei
Padua from 1507 allowed mixed dancing between unmarrieds, the radach
mentions a takkana against mixed dancing except between a husband and his
wife or brother and sister, the hida (yosef ometz 103) mentions a takkana
against mixed dancing except husband and wife.... regardless if we accept
these takkanot as normative for us, and mixed dancing then was different
than current ballroom dancing, none of these poskim ever saw the issue of
women dancing in the same room as men as being assur because of histaklut.
Indeed, in all of the early sources before the ben ish hai, while shut
talk about mixed dancing and about issur histaklut, nobody combines them
- no one says that women should not dance with men and furthermore, their
dancing has to be in a separate room.  Indeed, the rationale of most of
the poskim about mixed dancing has to do specifically with touching
(hibbuk venishuk)

This discussion clearly shows a great ideological divide - the assumption
by some, including talmide hachamim,  that current 
norms are mandatory or even d'oraita.  This, in spite of the well known
fact that until recently, these norms were not widely practiced, and
categorizing them as d'oraita would impugn many yire shamaim.  For
practical psak, one may wish
to be machmir for themselves or their community.  However, we should
distinguish between a humra and ikkar hadin.  Why is this so difficult?
Meir Shinnar

--- Chidekel@aol.com wrote:

> Marc Shapiro (who just published
> a book about Rav 
> Weinberg) said that he had a letter from Rav
> Weinberg, where he criticized 
> Rav Berkovits's approach to halacha as Conservative.
>  I wrote to Marc Shapiro 
> for clarification, and he asked me to post the
> following:
> 
> 
> I can send you a copy of the letter if you want.

I would be very interested in reading this letter.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In message , Carl and Adina Sherer <sherer@actcom.co.il> writes
>But I'm not sure that's unique to Israel. In fact, from what some of 
>the English olim tell me, the situation in England is much closer to 
>that of Israel than to the States - some people "do English" and 
>some "do not," so it may be that it is actually the American 
>experience that is unique. I know we have a few English on this 
>list; maybe they could comment.
>

I am not English, but have been living here now for over four years, so
I might have something to add.

Firstly, it is interesting that the Jewish Tribune (the Aguda newspaper)
uses the term Charedi when it wants to describe the people it represents
and stands for (ie it does *not* use Yeshivishe, partly, I suspect,
because part of its olam include chassidim, and Yeshivishe is not
regarded as extending to Chassidim).  

Secondly, my observation is that there is a generational change.  Take
the classic "Yekishe" shul, ie Munks in Golders Green.  It has
frequently been remarked that while the parents who daven there tend to
have a secular education and higher degrees, their children do not,
preferring rather to go to Gateshead or Manchester (ie yeshiva/kollel).
On the other hand, the Chassidim in Stamford hill, neither the parents
nor the children went/go to university (although it is not clear to me
that the parents went to yeshiva either, while the children certainly
do).

That is, today, Oxford, Cambridge etc are the preserve of the "modern
orthodox" (although there are a few rare individuals who, by dress,
would be identified as charedi - ie black kipa/hat, who go to places
like UCL, which is located in London, meaning they can continue living
at home).

>The other way in which Israel is different from the US is that in 
>Israel there is a "uniform" that identifies you to a much greater 
>extent than anyone is identified in the US. 

Here also you can often tell by dress.  The only thing that differs
though, IMHO, is that a modern orthodox working guy is likely, if he
wears a kipa at all to work (and many still do not - believing that the
climate is stillsufficiently hostile for it to undesirable for
professional reasons) to wear a black knitted one (ie as discrete and
professional as possible) and a modern orthodox working woman will wear
to work professional type tailored suits (some will wear trouser suits,
some only wear skirt suits, but in any event the uniform of the
professional working world).  On shabbat and casually, however, some of
the men will revert to coloured knitted kippot while others will
maintain their black knitted one ( and of course, once a woman's income
is sufficient to afford designer suits, jeans skirts are less likely to
make a shabbat appearance). In addition, modern orthodox married women
who work in the outside world will, if they cover their hair, generally
wear sheitels where in Israel they would not. (I have managed to
flabagasted just about everybody by wearing a snood to work most of the
time - although I did buy a sheitel which I do wear for certain client
meetings).

But I think that here the division is more like the Israeli one -
*because* I am a *young* woman with a secular education who works in the
secular world I am defined (at least by the self identified charedi) as
modern orthodox (my beliefs being irrelevant).  A lot of those so
identified (eg surrounding Ner Yisroel) resist the modern orthodox label
(and claim to be continuing the tradition of the older generation at a
place like Munks), but nobody else believes them, given that secular
education, more than anything else, is the line by which two camps are
divided - it being the only issue on which you can generate passion on
both sides of the line (other issues, such as Israel, you are likely to
get at least as many who shrug their shoulders as who are passionate one
way or the other).

In fact the only other way of making divisions is the cholov
yisroel/regular milk division (something I have not yet managed to suss
out though, is whether there are any, or any significant numbers, of
people with higher degrees who work in professional jobs who only drink
chalav yisroel - with all the incredible difficulties that would create
eg living away from the major centers when one goes to university, the
elimination of just about all the food that can be easily acquired
outside Golders Green/Hendon/Stamford Hill (and comparable places in
Manchester) in the context of the long hours in the office environment
of the British workplace, travel limitations etc).  ie all the people I
know in this country who successfully negotiate the secular professional
work environment do it with the assistance of Rav Moshe's heter, and I
for one wonder if it is physically possible without it.

>
>- -- Carl

Kind Regards

Chana - having just arrived back from a three day work trip to Vienna
(involving all day and into the night meetings including accompanying
clients to lunch and dinner - that is, when the meals were not served in
house during the negotiations) and consequently having eaten very little
for the entire time

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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         ]