Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 305

Wednesday, January 19 2000

• Re: Mixed seating at weddings
• Re: Charedi vs. MO
• Re: use of chareidi on Avodah
• Re: use of chareidi on Avodah
• Re: Walking behind a woman
• Techelet
• Internet
• Mixed Dancing
• Tefilin: Rashi vs. Rabbenu Tam
• Re: Rav Moshes Teshuvot on Gittin
• Re: Walking behind a woman
• Re: Motzoei Shabbos
• Re: Charedi vs. MO
• Masah U'matan - peula or chalos
• sources
• Re: Techelet
• Re: Vending Machines on Shabbos
• Re: Vending Machines on Shabbos
• Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa"l
• Re: Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa"l

--- "Lawrence M. Reisman" <LMReisman@email.msn.com>
wrote:
> Dr. Meir Shinnar writes that "Mehitzot at nonhasidic
> weddings are very
> recent."  This is correct.  However, it is equally
> correct that women
> dancing is also very recent.  At pre-war and recent
> post-war German and
> Litvishe weddings, women did not dance at all, and
> men only very briefly. 

I agree.  I remember a time not so long ago when (The
60's?) when the focus of all the dancing was the men
and the Chasan and Kallah were seated together in the
middle of the circle for almost all of the dancing. 
What little dancing by women that did go on, took
place at a corner of the room by just a very few women
and hardly anyone noticed.  This was rather standard
fare. Today, I would argue, the women's dance circle
is larger, more organized, even choreographed to a
certain extent, and more sustained than the men. 
Sometimes, near the end of the wedding you will see
women still dancing while men are just standing around
shmoozing.

How do I know this?  Did I peek? 

Ask me and I'll tell you (if you haven't guessed).

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

In a message dated 1/18/00 5:24:47 PM US Central Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< Modern is meant in terms of OPEN as opposed to insular.
  >>

Modern also means living at the edge of the 21st century. In that sense we're 
all modern. We behave that way, too, including the charedi who build all 
sorts of walls to keep out secular influences. The walls themselves are 
evidence of their interaction with modernism. To the extent the walls leak 
and the contemporary derech eretz sneaks through -- and that'll happen to all 
of us, whatever our halachic posture -- you'll have objective modernism.

David Finch

I would love to read it.

HM

--- Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> 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.   
>      
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In a message dated 1/18/00 8:07:12 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 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"


Why - isn't it likely that a cheshbon hanefesh results in a reaffirmation of 
the ideal but a need to recalibrate one's personal path towards that ideal?

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich

In a message dated 1/18/00 8:04:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< 
 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
  >>
The text of the tshuva seems to reject your chiluk

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

Micah corrected his original post on techelet in tzitzit which mentioned
the use of cuttlefish "ink" by the Radziner hassidim and made the claim
that only the nitrogen content of that fish extract was used in the
actual making of the dye.  He then "corrected" that to state that only
the potassium from the fish was actually used in the dye.  Actually both
claims are partly correct..  According to the description of the
Radziner process as described by the Radziner producer to Harav Yitzhok
Halevi Herzog (as a young man) and quoted in the latter's Ph.D. thesis,
the extract is heated in a cast iron kettle until the kettle glows
brightly and is maintained at that very high temperature for a number of
hours.  Under those conditions the organic compounds in the fish extract
are destroyed, and only very stable entities are left.  The iron of the
kettle also undergoes oxidation at those temperatures to ferrous and
ferric oxide.  Among the products are potassium cyanide, where the
cyanide is a decomposition product of the dehydration and decomposition
of proteins and the potassium already existed as ions in the original
biological material.  The cyanide salt combines with the iron compounds
on the walls of the kettle {KFe(III)Fe(II)(CN)6}to form the deep blue
ferric ferrocyanide complex {Fe(III)4[Fe(II)CN6]3}.  This complex is a
well-known dye known as Prussian blue.  It is made more readily from
other organic materials, and bears no relationship to the original fish
extract other than containing the elements C and N.   The above high
temperature Radziner process does not match the talmudic description
which calls for the chilazon extract to be added to a pot with some
chemicals and boiled to form the techelet dye [B. Menachot 42b].

The murex snail used in Israel to make techelet is a far more reasonable
source of the blue dye.  I am still not comfortable, however, with the
fact that the dye chemical is identical to the plant dye, indigo.  The
only difference between the snail extract and the indigo plant extract
are the other non-dye components.  Unless it can be shown that starting
with the snail extract leads to a more colorfast or a more brilliant
dye, then I have serious reservations about it being the authentic
techelet.  The gemara in Menachot (43a) mentions some chemical tests
that distinguish between techelet and plant indigo (called kla ilan in
the gemara).  If the dyes are identical, and the other extract
components are irrelevant, then how can a chemical test distinguish the
two?  It is also necessary to clearly distinguish between the snail that
is the source of techelet and the one that is the source of the biblical
argammon (royal purple?).  It is possible that both questions have been
adequately answered by now.  If so, then I would appreciate an
appropriate reference.

Yitzchok Zlochower

<<I just read in the financial section of YEDIOT that Network Associates
is launching a special computer program called "Cyber Cop" (sp?) for
the Charedi users of the Internet. The program will be updated daily with
all "off the limit" websites whose access will be automatically
blocked.>>

	Who volunteers to vet all the offensive sites to protect the rest of us?
 Vechi omrim le'adam chateh bishvil sheyizkeh chaverecha?

Gershon

	R'Meir Shinnar has cast the issue of dancing as one of sociology.    It
was my post which included (but was not limited to) the observation that
hamefursamos einan tzrichos lerayah,  so I shall respond.

	Takanos from Chachmei Padua or from the radach (who is that?)Chida have
little relevance,  since we don't know what they meant by dancing,  as R'
Meir himself mentioned.  

	Furthermore,   the argument that "none of these poskim ever saw the
issue of women dancing in the same room as men as being assur because of
histaklut."  or  "nobody combines them no one says that women should not
dance with men"  is not a proof,  in my way of thinking.  They may just
not have been addressing that issue.  Lo ra'inu eino rayoh. 

	In a similar vein, in one of the rayos she'ainan tzrichos that I 
mentioned,  Rav Moshe Feinstein says quite clearly that although
histaklus is not the reason for a mechitza,  it is clearly osur.  So you
could infer from the fact that it is not the reason for a mechitza,  (or
could have if he did not debunk that idea derech agav), that histaklus is
permitted, but the inference would be wrong.

	Similarly,  the fact that mixed dancing is osur because of chibuk
venishuk does not in any way mean that histaklus is mutar.  I think if we
stack the sources brought by Rav Henkin on one side and Rav Moshe on the
other, clearly we need to go with Rav Moshe,  especially since there is
no cholek who clearly permits histaklus,  which the Gemara and the SA say
is osur.

	Finally,  the argument that  "until recently, these norms were not
widely practiced, and categorizing them as d'oraita would impugn many
yire shamaim."  has been bandied about forever.  I consider it a specious
argument but for reasons of time will not go into it.  It's all in the
archives.

Gershon

Saul Weinreb (Avod. 4:291) asked about the origin of the two well-known
variants in placing the tefilin parshiot in the compartments in the head
tefila, known as Rashi's and Rabbenu Tam's order.  Specifically, Saul
wondered how such a variation in practice arose considering that Jews
always wore tefilin.  The question becomes more striking if one realizes
that Rashi's order, which is the same as the order in which the parshiot
occur in the torah, is posul if Rabbenu Tam is correct, and Rabbenu
Tam's order, where "vehaya ki yeviacha and vehaya im shamoah" are
adjacent and "shema" is at the end, is pasul if Rashi is correct.

In truth, this disagreement on the order of the four parshiot in tefilin
is more ancient and goes back at least to the times of the gaonei bavel,
Rav Sherira and Rav Hai in Pumpeditha (around 900 CE) both of whom have
the same order as Rabbenu Tam living in northern France in the 12th
century.  There may be some evidence for the existence of these two
variants in the times of Bar Kochba since such tefilin belonging to his
soldiers were found in a cave.  More information is needed, however, to
substantiate this information.  The different arrangement of torah
portions in tefilin found in Quomran is irrelevant to this discussion,
however, since these are the tefilin of sectarians and contain sections
of the torah not found in our tefilin such as the 10 commandments.
There is an additional order of parshiot in tefilin that is described by
the Ra'avad living in southern France (Provence) in the 12th century
which is the mirror image of Rabbenu Tam.

The main sources of these divergent views are talmud bavli, Menachot 34b
(the Men. 84 cited elsewhere is an error) which mentions the order of
the head tefilin and concludes that fulfillment of the mitzvah requires
the correct order.  Rashi and Rabbenu Tam bring their conflicting
interpretations of that gemara.  Rashi is satisfied with just learning
peshat in the gemara, whereas Rabbenu Tam cites Rabbenu Hananel and Rav
Hai Gaon to support his order.  The Tosfot concludes, however, with
rejecting Rabbenu Tam's views in favor of Rashi and an old manual for
sofrim called the "shimushei rabbah".  They argue further that the
ancient medrash halacha, the Mechilta requires that the parshiot must be
written in order and mention the order in which they occur in the
torah.  [Those who write the hand tefila (which is written on one
scroll) according to the Rabbenu Tam order are required to write the
"shema" parsha before they write "vehaya im shamoah" parsha to fulfill
the mechilta, but they leave a space for the "vehaha parsha" so that it
can be the third parsha].  The Rambam in 12th century Spain, north
Africa, and Egypt, (Mishne Torah, Hilchot Tefillin 3:5) gives the same
order as Rashi.  [The Ra'avad disagrees as noted above].  The Kesef
Mishneh (R. Yosef Karo) quotes a facinating responsum of the Rambam to
the sages of Provence on this subject.  The sages presented the Rambam
with a dilemma.  Their tefilin tradition had followed Rav Hai Gaon, and
now the Rambam insists that the "Rashi" order is the correct one.  He
replied that their tradition was also the tradition in Spain and he,
himself, had always worn such tefilin until he came to Eretz Yisrael
during the course of the family wanderings and the sages there convinced
him that their order (the "Rashi" order) was more ancient and should be
followed.  He then changed his tefilin and now councels Jews worldwide
to do the same.  He also attributes the Spanish custom to a Rav Moshe of
Cordova. [Presumably one of the four shaluchim of the gaonim who were
captured by pirates and ransomed by various communities.  This Rav Moshe
ended in Cordova and became head of the yeshiva there - also writing a
sofrim manual according to the views of the gaonim].

We see that the Pumpeditha tradition ("Rabbenu Tam") was carried over to
N. Africa (Rabbenu Hananel, mentioned above and the Rif), Spain, and
Provence.  Whereas in Eretz Yisrael, Italy, and northern France/Germany
the tradition was as Rashi and the shimushei rabbah describe.  It should
be noted that the above assignment of countries into two camps
corresponds to the spheres of influence of the Moslem and Christian
worlds (except for Provence which though nominally Christian was
influenced by its Moslem Spanish neighbor).  Communications between
those vastly different cultures was infrequent and the influence of the
gaonim on Jews in the Christian countries was not as great.  Moreover,
the Jews in Italy, France and Germany had their origins in Roman
Palestine and kept their long-standing traditions even though they
accepted the Babylonian talmud as binding.  Rashi therefore does not
have to justify his interpretation of the gemara in Menachot on the
tefilin parshiot.  That was the Eretz Yisrael tradition that was carried
over to Europe.  Rabbenu Tam has to justify his position by citing the
Babylonian gaonim since he was, apparently, advocating a revolutionary
change in the way of making tefilin.  His approach was not accepted in
his country, and after the Rambam's pesak, Spanish, N. African,
Egyptian, and Provence Jewry changed over to the "Rashi" order of
tefilin.  The "Rashi" order thus became the standard everywhere
including Babylonia since the prestige and scholarship there waned
enormously after Rav Hai.  The fact that Hassidim and some Sefardim wear
both types of tefilin stems from the Zohar (Pinchas) which justifies
both arrangements of parshiot and from the Ari who insisted that both be
worn.

In sum, the two variants in the arrangement of parshiot in tefilin
probably stem from Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia going back to the times
of the second temple.  Initially the differences were not, apparently,
considered mutually exclusive since there was a justification for both
(as per the Zohar), but by the time of the later Amoraim (Rava) the
"right" order became mandatory.

Yitzchok Zlochower

> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2000 13:12:23 EST
> From: Tobrr111@aol.com
> Subject: Rav Moshes Teshuvot on Gittin

Just by the way, I think you would find Rav Moshe's Teshuva in Igrot
Moshe chelek #3 Siman 37 of interest.

But I showed your question to an expert on Gittin in Israel and he
said that what appears in these Shu"t is the Klal, for Kulei Alma, as
you noted, but it is Muttar for the couple to have a written agreement
(Heskem Geirushim, in local parlance) in which they Matneh that all
financial matters will be resolved after the Get.  And this is common
practice in most Batei Din, at least in Israel.

In fact some Dayanim encourage the practice of Tenai so that the Get
will be given and so that financial issues won't delay it and leave
one side Be'Igun.


Shoshana L. Boublil

> 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.

Notice, that all the sources in the Shu"t you mentioned have to do
with the case of a wife suing for the Ketuba.

On 18 Jan 00, at 21:07, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 1/18/00 8:04:59 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
> cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:
> 
> << 
>  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
>   >>
> The text of the tshuva seems to reject your chiluk

I don't see why you say that. The tshuva says "aishes chaver." 

-- 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 18 Jan 00, at 16:55, sambo@charm.net wrote:

> 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.

Actually, no. If you're talking about Israeli radio and TV they do in 
fact have "halaila holech achar hayom" until midnight. That's why 
they observe Rabin's yahrtzeit on 11 Cheshvan and not on 12.

-- 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 06:40:51PM -0500, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
:             We behave that way, too, including the charedi who build all 
: sorts of walls to keep out secular influences. The walls themselves are 
: evidence of their interaction with modernism.

A point Dr. Haym Soloveitchik makes in "Rupture and Reconstruction" is
that an effort to rebuild the culture of pre-war European Jewry is itself
a break from that mold. They followed the lifestyle as a lifestyle, not as
a consciously imposed set of rules.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jan-00: Revi'i, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 101b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 13

>>>What makes this question interesting is that the gezeirah of masa umatan is on a chalos (kinyan), not a pe'ulah<<<

Whether masah u'matan depends on the ma'aseh kinyan or the chalos is discussed by poskim re: erev Pesach shechal b'Shabbos can you make the mechiras chametz on Erev Shabbos that will be chal on Shabbos.  (I don't quite see the relevance to a vending machine where the koneh does the peula on Shabbos, but that's a different issue).  

Rav Henkin shlita has given me reshus to post this.

-- Carl

                    b”h, 12 Shevat 5760

Shalom,

        On the question of mixed dancing, remarkable that you do not
        cite Shu”t Bnei Banim vol. 1, no. 37 (pp.117-132), “Hilchot
        rikudim, veha’im yesh b’rikudei ma’agal mishum lo tikrevu,
        veha’im’ yesh bahem yeihareig ve’al ya’avor.”

        On the question of mixed seating at weddings, Bnei Banim 
vol.
        1 no. 35 (pp. 110-117) “Yeshivat anashim venashim 
b’chatunot.”
        In a note there I expressed astonishment at Resp. Bach
        haChadashot no. 55, who wrote, “[when] only unmarried
        adolescents (bachurim ubachurot) are at the feast, there are
        no sinful thoughts, but only when married women (b’ulot ba’al)
        are at the feast.” But perhaps a community can be imagined
        where young adolescents, perhaps ages 13-15 before an early
        marriage, are completely innocent of sexual knowledge and
        therefore have no hirhur. This is in contradistinction to the
        situation in the time of the Gemara, see Rashi in Sukkah 26b,
        or today.

        I have suggested that the difference between walking behind
        “the wife or mother of a chaver” and other women, in Leket
        Yosher YD p. 37, is that the former can be relied upon not to
        sway provocatively while walking, in contrast to the daughter
        of R. Chanina b. Tradion in AZ 17a.

        On familiarity and habit as a factor in forestalling hirhur,
        see Yam Shel Shlomoh in Kiddishin in the introduction to 
4:25;
        Bnei Banim, vol. 1, pp. 119-120, and vol. 3 p. 96; and chapter
        9 in my “Equality Lost: Essays in Torah Commentary, 
Halachah,
        and Jewish Thought” (Urim, 1999). On how to reconcile that
        with the Yam Shel Shelomon in Ketuuvot, 1:20, where he 
agrees
        with Sefer Chassidim on not saying shehasimcha bime’ono at 
a
        mixed sheva berachot (in contrast to his student, the Levush),
        see in  Equality Lost in note 12.

                                With Torah blessings,

                                Rabbi Yehuda-Herzl Henkin

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 10:47:57PM -0500, Isaac A Zlochower wrote:
:            The gemara in Menachot (43a) mentions some chemical tests
: that distinguish between techelet and plant indigo (called kla ilan in
: the gemara).  If the dyes are identical, and the other extract
: components are irrelevant, then how can a chemical test distinguish the
: two?

They may be irrelevent to the dye, but they do leave a detectable trace,
which a chemical test would still show up. Also, the sun is used to change
dibromide indigo into indigo. Some quantity of dibromide indigo is still going
to be left in the resulting product, which is not true if the plant is used
for the origin.

The problem I have is that the kaleh ilan is supposed to be a mixture used to
duplicate the look of techeiles. If indigo is chemically identical, why would
someone add anything to it in order to create an imposter?

:           I have serious reservations about it being the authentic
: is the source of techelet and the one that is the source of the biblical
: argammon (royal purple?).

Well, we do know from the Megillah that techeiles was associated with Persian
royalty, as it's among the cloths used in Achashveirosh's party, and among the
fabrics worn by Mordechai when he was elevated to cheif advisor (8:15). So
it is not outrageous to say it is related to royal purple. Medrash Esther
Rabba ad loc explicitly calls techeiles "purpura" (from which comes the English
purple, and is Greek for the murex).

In addition, we find that Zevulun is reassured that he'd have wealth because
of the chilazon (Megillah 6a), and yet we know that Zevulun made both
techeiles and as argaman. If argaman is royal purple, i.e. expensive, then why
didn't Moshe Rabbeinu mention its source in addition to "usifunei temunei
chol"? Unless, perhaps, the expression includes the source of both.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 19-Jan-00: Revi'i, Beshalach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 101b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 13

RM Berger wrote:

>>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.>>

The Binyan Shlomo has a teshuvah in which he paskens that the issur of making a 
kinyan on Shabbos is only through ACTIVE kinyans but passive kinyans - such as 
kinyan chatzer - are mutar.  That might be very relevant here.

RM Berger wrote:

>>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.>>

The Binyan Shlomo has a teshuvah in which he paskens that the issur of making a 
kinyan on Shabbos is only through ACTIVE kinyans but passive kinyans - such as 
kinyan chatzer - are mutar.  That might be very relevant here.

On Monday, Rav Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa"l, one of the Jewish world's
illuyim, prolific authors, and the last living Talmid of Rav Kook Zatsal
passed away. Hespedim were said by Rav Zalman Druk, Rav Chaim Drukman,
Rav Yaakov Ariel, Rav She'ar Yashuv haKohen, and Rav Avraham Shapiro. He
was buried in Har HaZeitim.
	Among his sefarim were: The Shittah Mekubetst on Pesakhim, Mishpat
haMelukha, Hukat HaPasach, Kol Tsofayikh, Hokhmat Gershon, Sha'arei
Tsedek
	Yehi Zikhro Barukh.

Is this the R. Gershuni who was a son-in-law of R. Eliezer Silver?

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message ----- 
From: Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer <frimea@mail.biu.ac.il>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2000 10:16 AM
Subject: Rabbi Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa"l


> On Monday, Rav Yehuda Gershuni Zatsa"l, one of the Jewish world's
> illuyim, prolific authors, and the last living Talmid of Rav Kook Zatsal
> passed away. Hespedim were said by Rav Zalman Druk, Rav Chaim Drukman,
> Rav Yaakov Ariel, Rav She'ar Yashuv haKohen, and Rav Avraham Shapiro. He
> was buried in Har HaZeitim.
> Among his sefarim were: The Shittah Mekubetst on Pesakhim, Mishpat
> haMelukha, Hukat HaPasach, Kol Tsofayikh, Hokhmat Gershon, Sha'arei
> Tsedek
> Yehi Zikhro Barukh.
> 

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


[ 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         ]