Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 441

Thursday, March 16 2000

• Re: Tav L'Meisav
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: Daf Question
• Re: Moshe's Streiml
• Re: Proper Jewish Fashion
• Re: Science and Halacha
• Re: [none]
• re:chazakos
• stalking
• Banning Torah Classes
• Re: Avodah V4 #440
• Re: Avodah V4 #422
• RE: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re: chazakos
• re:chazakos
• [none]
• loneliness
• RE: birkhat ha-gomeil
• Re[2]: Science and Halacha
• Re: Re[2]: Science and Halacha
• Anti-Semitism

On Wed, Mar 15, 2000 at 11:24:02AM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
: I heard from a descendant of RYBS that it is possible to say that chazakos 
: depend on the mindset and psychology of those at mattan Torah. Unfortunately,
: I never followed up to find out what he meant by that.

: The Chazon Ish (in Hilchos Tereifus) says that chazakos were determined
: during the 2000 years of Torah which ended around the time of R. ...

Perhaps both were indicating that chazakos aren't about what is, but about
what ought to be? And therefore we ignore changes due to niskatnu hadoros?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Mar-00: Shelishi, Vayikra
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 9a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

See the Aruch Hashulchan Orach Chaim 2 # 10 (".....v'hinei yesh min hagedolim
hasovrim she'm'ikkar hadin yesh issur bazeh vyesh shesovrim she'zehu rak
mi'midat chasidut. [now comes a very cryptic line] OMNAM IM KOH V'IM KOH
HANISAYON YA'IR AL ZEH ...[now comes a line about the secular courts]
MUTAR ACH SHELO BIMKOM HECHRECH, mi sherotzeh lizkot b'yirat hashem yishmor
[now comes a very cryptic phrase] ...V'DAI L'MEYVIN V'DOK".)

Josh

The Nishmat Avraham EH (Hilchot Chalitza) 169 # 8 discusses whether
a chereshet (who uses sign language and can *communicate*) can do
chalitza. He brings down the Maharsham Chelek Bet 140 who says that halacha
l'maaseh a chereshet (who can communicate) is permitted chalitza.

Josh

In a message dated 3/15/00 7:05:34 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< Seriously (and I mean it, nothing to do with Purim here), my guess is that
 Mosheh Rabbeinu wore a nose ring. >>

Yes. The first Jewish husband.

David Finch

In a message dated 3/15/00 8:22:17 AM US Central Standard Time, 
Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:

<< But that Shu"t Ta'am VaDa'as (R. Shlomo Kluger?) still agrees with the 
Rema and 
 Maharik that the REASON for wearing the clothes determines its 
permissibility.  
 If you wear the clothes specifically to imitate gentiles then it is 
forbidden.  
 But, if you wear them to look good or to look respectable then it is 
 permissible. >>

It's a question of which Gentiles one wishes to imitate. True unadulterated 
ethnic Jewish dress would entail flowing robes (some with many colors, no?), 
belts of silken rope, turbans, and sandals. You don't see such ensembles in 
Chicago or Manhattan, except, perhaps, at the Ugandan consulate. Many Chasids 
and other Haredis dress like l7th century Polish noblemen -- evocative, 
perhaps, but of a sad era for Yidden. Other RW Jews dress like Humphrey 
Bogart after a bad day at the track. Graduation photos of HTC's semicha 
classes in the 1950s showed more bowties than beards.

We should be naturalistic, I think. If you look like Cary Grant, go ahead, 
dress like Cary Grant. Who thinks HaShem will care? If you look like, say, 
me, for instance, than no particular style of dress will save your grace. 

David Finch

In message , David and Tamar Hojda <hojda@netvision.net.il> writes
>To: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
>
>I did not quite understand what you intended by using the example
>of not wanting to marry someone whom you would not trust to give  a Get.
>That sounds like a pretty good idea, but what, exactly did it have to do
>with "Tav l'Meitav Tan Du M'Leitav Nitarmala" and a woman's level of
>credibility after the fact? Did you mean to say that a woman can say that
>she is entitled to an annulment because she, like any other woman, would
>not have married this guy had she known that he was such a jerk that he
>won't give a GET once the marriage is over, five years later? Are you
>comparing that to Rav Moshe's case of a woman's discovering that her new
>husband is permanently  incapable of having sexual relations? Or, to the
>Gemara's examples of him being sexually repulsive because of certain skin
>disorders or terrible physical odor?

What I was doing was just following the logic through.  Rav Moshe
extended the examples of the gemorra from the purely physical to include
the psychological (not the example you cited, but I believe in others).

All I was doing was following that logic through.  Let us define what he
we have here.  Somebody who would deliberately and with intent over an
extended period of time keep a human being caged (after all, the term
means chained), even though the only "benefit" he derives from that
caging is the pain he is causing that other (sometimes which may be
parleyed into money, sometimes even without desire for money).  The word
for that, and there is no other, is "cruel".  This is somebody who gets
pleasure and satisfaction from causing pain to others.

Now this is not a characteristic that somebody wakes up one morning and
suddenly has.  While we may believe in the powers of teshuva and mussar
in uprooting bad midos, I have never heard of somebody "suddenly"
acquiring something of this nature.

And in fact, our sources would seem to suggest that this is the one
characteristic that cannot be uprooted.  After all, Dovid HaMelech was
gozer against the Givonim marrying into klal yisroel on exactly this
basis (see Yevamos 78b-79a)- that they had this characteristic of
cruelty. When their livelihood was taken away by Shaul, they would only
be pacified by killing his descendants.  And the point was the bnei
yisroel bnei rachmai ninhu, and Dovid HaMelech wanted to keep it that
way.

So we are perforce forced to say that what these people are doing is
just not Jewish (and maybe there should be a serious question mark over
their yichus - while of course, even if you are doubtful of somebody's
Jewish yichus, you still need to ensure that gitten etc are given
m'safek, but one does wonder about matters such as wine - did the
Givonim posul wine?).  After all, the Givonim only wreaked havoc on
Shaul's descendants, while these people wreak havoc on their own
descendants (talk to any psychologist about the havoc this kind of
cruelty towards the other parent wreaks on the kids).

This, to my mind, is very much the root of the problem.  The Torah was
given to Yidden, ie it is premised on the assumption that the people who
are subject to it will behave like Yidden - it is not a document meant
for Amalakites and others with cruelty in their bones - and it doesn't
deal with such people very well.

It is hard to see, given the sources, that cruelty is not a pre-existing
and substantive defect.  And it also is hard to see that anybody
(certainly any Jew with the characteristics of rachamim) would put
themselves, out of choice, anywhere near somebody with such an anti-
Torah characteristic, had they been able to detect it. But if you do
allow for psychological defects as grounds for mekach taus (and not just
physical defects), it seems hard to match this one (and my anecdotal
survey of women seems to bear out their repugnance of this).

As I say, I am just thinking the logic through - not suggesting that you
could actually posken halacha on this basis.

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
>It is difficult to give a source for something that I cannot find!
>The main source for kippa is Sanhedrin 79b and on.
>In fact the mishna on 81b seems to indicate that if one kills without
>witnesses than they are sent to a kippa with a meager amount of food.
>However, the gemara immediately qualifies this to mean that one starts
>with a small amount of food and then suddenly increases it so as to
>kill the murderer.
>
>As such I know of no source that indicates the existence of a kippa
>where one would live for a long period of time.

You clearly haven't read siman 2 of Choshen Mishpat in the Tur, as I
suggested you should in a previous posting on the subject.  The Tur
includes in his long list of punishments that can be meted out at all
times and all places (ie not just by those with smicha in Eretz Yisroel)
with or without halachic witnesses or strict halachic justification
imprisonment in a house of imprisonment (b'beis ha'asurim) and to remain
there against his will.  This is along with having the power to kill
those who are not chayav misa and to lash those who are not chayav
malkos.  Then read the Beis Yosef to understand how we get from the
gemorra to the sweeping powers in the Tur (and to understand the
limitations placed on the requirement for gadlus and by the Tuvei HaIr).

>
>Eli Turkel
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Joel Rich asks, "How would this work wrt cheresh - if based on current
technology any cheresh could communicate(and receive communication) so as
to be perceived as a bar deah, and the majority of them did, would we
still hold them not to be so."

However, the Mishna in Yevomos 112b (next Tuesday's Daf), states that a
person who became a cheresh after marrying "lo yotzi olamis."  Thus, even
though he was capable of hearing and speaking at least until the age of
13, since his kidushin are mid'oraisa, and certainly Chazal did not
suppose that such a person lost the knowledge that he had obtained prior
to his loss of hearing, it would seem that he is nonetheless considered
halachically a non-bar daas because he lacks the sense of hearing and the
power of speech. 
Elazar M. Teitz
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
Subject: Re: science and halacha

>...the guy... is still "stalking" me (even though I am now married ...)
>... I just lost it today and yelled at him..
>the purpose of the calls has been do I know anybody
>"like" me for him ....what am I supposed to say, tell him explicitly that if I did know
>somebody like me I wouldn't recommend him ...

Maybe not. But why not - rather - introduce him  to some 24-carat witch - who,
hopefully, will give him some of his own medicine? (I'll bet he won't
ask for any further introductions after that).

SBA

From Arutz-7 News, 15 March

NO WOMEN'S TORAH IN TA UNIVERSITY

Tel Aviv University has forbidden a group of women students from holding a
weekly class in Torah studies.  The women wished to organize the classes
independently, with no connection to the official university studies.  The
directorate of the school forbade the initiative, claiming that a uni-sex
lecture "is harmful to the freedom of knowledge."  One of the students, who
preferred to remain anonymous, told the story to Arutz-7 today:
        "There are only about 100 religious women in the university, out of 30,000
students altogether.  Some of us feel a great lack in the area of Torah
studies, and so we decided to organize a Torah class for ourselves.  We
made phone calls, spoke to the Jewish Culture Club on campus, and even
found a rabbi who volunteered to teach us.  But then, one student saw a
little sign that we had posted, which advertised 'religious women students
gathering for a Torah class.'  He faxed a copy of the sign to many
university offices, and accused us of wanting to 'brainwash' students, of
attempting to get people to 'repent,' and the like.  The management called
us in, and made it quite clear:  All-women classes are forbidden on campus,
as they are damaging to the principle of "freedom of knowledge" - men who
want to study in these classes will be prevented from gaining knowledge!"

The student explained that the management at no time told them that they
must either accept men students or not hold the classes:  "We would not
agree to such a condition," she said, for both didactic and religious
reasons.  "They simply told us that we must not hold the classes.  We
refuse to accept this, however, and we actually find ourselves in a
position where we must hold underground Torah classes in the State of
Israel!"

An inquiry on the matter to Tel Aviv University by Arutz-7 has not yet
elicited a response.
=================
I heard - many years ago - that Rav Michoel Ber Weissmandl zt''l once said:
"There will come a time, when to leig tefillin in Israel, one will have to hide
in an undergroud bunker".
I wonder if Leigen Tefillin is already banned in the TA University?
(Maybe not - if the women also do it.)

SBA

Women and Birkat haGomel
 
 As you have read, the achronim discuss at length your question of
 whether a woman can recite birkat hagomel in the presence of other
 women. I will write what appears to me.
 
 R. Nachman’s verse explicitly mentions men
 In my opinion, the Scriptural basis for R. Nachman is clear from the
 one other place in Tanach where k’hal am is mentioned, in Judges 20:2,
 “They mustered …an assemblage of the people of G-d (k’hal am
 haElokim), four hundred thousand infantrymen with swords drawn.” This
 explicitly identifies k’hal am as being men.
 
 In any case, there is no doubt that according to Halachah the ten
 whose presence is required for birkat hagomel are men..

Yet, there are many poskim who hold that a woman who has no male relatives to 
say Kaddish, can recite it from behind the Mechitzah during tefillot? Using 
that heter, couldn't a woman recite Birchat Hagomel from behind the Mechitzah 
at its designated time?

Barry Schwarz

<< Subject: Re[2]: Bombing those railroad tracks 
 As far as ths state dep't anti-Semitism goes, one should distinguish between 
the
 country club anti-Semite and the virulent European Anti-semite.  Selznick's 
 Movie Gentleman's Agreement (circa 1948) is a portrait of the coutnry-club 
 variety and one scene makes clear the dsitinction between the 2 (ayein shom) 
 <smile>
  >>
I wouldn't put any confidence in cushy Hollywood plots, writers, producers, 
etc. They have always customized their "happily ever after" endings to 
conform to what they perceive the American public wants to see. Good always 
conquers evil--Ba'Olam Ha'zeh, with no rough edges, even today, and, even if 
the final scene is absurd. A sonay Yisrael is just that, whether we call him 
ignorant, depraved, deprived, Palestinian, or anything else, they still hate, 
with little hope of rehabilitation. The typical sonay Yisrael divides to 
conquer--"I don't hate Jews, I hate Zionists, Israelis, Neturei Karta, 
Satmar, Yeshivot, Kollelim, LW, RW, CW," and, our apologists invite them to 
speak at our functions? If Amalek would show up tomorrow, he'd donate a few 
thousand dollars to a school / yeshiva, have a "wing" dedicated to a 
relative, and, be named chairman of the next banquet, and, half of still 
wouldn't find a baby sitter!
Barry S.

> Again, when my wife was in Telz Stone, the men were asked to 
> stay after minyan and the women bentched one at a time. I think 
> we went through about 10-12 of them. It doesn't take THAT long!
> 
> > Personally speaking, I've made sure to bensch gomel after giving birth,
> > either at the bris or at Mincha on the first Shabbat I could 
> get to shule.
> > But for a routine flight to NY?  I'd like to, but it's not nahug.
> 
> Actually it is for those of us who live in Israel. At least in my 
> circles. 


It's nahug for women in your circles?  

-Kira

In a message dated 3/15/00 11:03:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, remt@juno.com 
writes:

<< 
 However, the Mishna in Yevomos 112b (next Tuesday's Daf), states that a
 person who became a cheresh after marrying "lo yotzi olamis."  Thus, even
 though he was capable of hearing and speaking at least until the age of
 13, since his kidushin are mid'oraisa, and certainly Chazal did not
 suppose that such a person lost the knowledge that he had obtained prior
 to his loss of hearing, it would seem that he is nonetheless considered
 halachically a non-bar daas because he lacks the sense of hearing and the
 power of speech. 
 Elazar M. Teitz
 ___________________ >>
but was this due to his new found lack of communicative ability?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

--- Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
> Joel Rich asks, "How would this work wrt cheresh -
> if based on current
> technology any cheresh could communicate(and receive
> communication) so as
> to be perceived as a bar deah, and the majority of
> them did, would we
> still hold them not to be so."
> 
> However, the Mishna in Yevomos 112b (next Tuesday's
> Daf), states that a
> person who became a cheresh after marrying "lo yotzi
> olamis."  Thus, even
> though he was capable of hearing and speaking at
> least until the age of
> 13, since his kidushin are mid'oraisa, and certainly
> Chazal did not
> suppose that such a person lost the knowledge that
> he had obtained prior
> to his loss of hearing, it would seem that he is
> nonetheless considered
> halachically a non-bar daas because he lacks the
> sense of hearing and the
> power of speech. 
> Elazar M. Teitz

It seem's to me that if someone was a hearing,
speaking individual at one time in his life and then
lost his power to hear AND to speak, then (unless it
is a physical impairment such as  the loss of the
larynx) that he is most certainly not a Bar Deiah. The
hearing impaired who have lost there hearing after
they have learned to speak do not lose their ability
to speak. If he has lost both, then such a person
would probably fit more into the category of a Shoteh.
Hence, he would be defined as a Cheresh.

HM

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

Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2000 08:48:51 -0600
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
<sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject: Tav L'Meisav



I think it is probably a manifestation of the Brisker Derech to take umdenos
of Chazal as dinim.

I would personally strike a middle position between RYBS and R' Rackman:
Umdenos of Chazal may change, but since we do not know how they were omed
them, we, in the absence of a Sanhedrin, have no way to ascertain if they
have changed or not. So, while theoretically R' Rackman may have had a case,
in practice RYBS's position is the correct one.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org




Please explain. Aren't there numerous instances where Chazakas regarding
human behavior would seem to no longer apply and a contemporary Posek would
not assume that they do apply, by default, to a specific case? ("Ain adam
oseh b'eilaso b'eilas znus", for example). Is this one, perhaps, different
because it is perhaps based on a societal norm that has now changed, as
opposed to certain other chazakas which deal with man's basic nature, which
does not change? How do we know the difference? We do know that
post-Sanhedrin Rabbonim (Tanaim, Amoraim, Rishonim, Acharonim) have openly
declared that certain halachic assumptions no longer apply because, "Nature
has changed" - See the sefer by Rav Neriah Moshe Gutal, Hishtanut HaTevaim
B'Halacha.

If I am not mistaken, doesn't Rav Moshe (even one generation ago, when Jews
were less promiscuous), question the applicability of the above chazaka to
Modern Jewish society?

Certain things seem to be beyond the bounds of consideration - gross anatomy
issues that impact on hilchos treifos, for example. But, it does seem that
some other things are not.

David Hojda

> 
> As for the "metaphysical curse" business; my wife feels that the Rav's
> "loneliness" idea is somewhat off-base: The "metaphysical curse" was that it
> is woman's nature to see her greatest fulfillment through giving to others
> and THAT is the reason that she would not wish to be alone. Loneliness or
> yearning for social activity has nothing to do with it at all.

The rav's loneliness was not a social loneliness but an existential one.

Eli Turkel

On 16 Mar 00, at 10:49, Kira Sirote wrote:

> 
> > Again, when my wife was in Telz Stone, the men were asked to 
> > stay after minyan and the women bentched one at a time. I think 
> > we went through about 10-12 of them. It doesn't take THAT long!
> > 
> > > Personally speaking, I've made sure to bensch gomel after giving birth,
> > > either at the bris or at Mincha on the first Shabbat I could 
> > get to shule.
> > > But for a routine flight to NY?  I'd like to, but it's not nahug.
> > 
> > Actually it is for those of us who live in Israel. At least in my 
> > circles. 
> 
> 
> It's nahug for women in your circles?  

After childbirth, yes, either at the Beit Hachlama (as was the case 
when I was there) or at the Bris. After travelling abroad, not AFAIK. 
Most of the women in my circles would be unlikely to be travelling 
abroad alone, and could be yotzei with their husband if he travelled 
too (I think a man can include his wife in his own bracha - that's 
what we have always done when we travel as a family). I'm really 
not sure on that one - I just don't recall any women showing up at 
my minyan to bentch gomel.

-- 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 a completely differnt thread, I belive this is what R. Moshe was attemping to
do with gomeil benching, that is to follow the logic - or the categories - thru 
to modern times

The Gmeoro sets up the definitions, and we do our best to apply them in our 
times

EG Planes (extension of boats) yes cars (extesnions of agalos) no.

It is arguable that statistics SHOULD be the criteria,but it is widely accpete 
that it is NOT the critera, the crieterai is to come up with caetgories that 
resemble precdent

EG, Star Trek

Havo Amino, the Federationn space ships are an extension of 20th century airf 
force and therefroe ranks should include colonels and generals

Comes along Gene Rodenberry to tell us NO, space ships are extension fo ocean 
going ships and titles such as captains, commodores and admirals apply.

This is a "rayo" that Space ships resemble ocean ships...

So too air ships resemble ocean going ships, s owe bench gomel in air ships but 
not land ships

If you do not find this logic compelling, then come next Tuesday (or Wed. in 
Shsushan) and imbibe at least 2 extra cups of wine and it wil bcome much 
clearer.

Richard_wolpoe@ibi.com

(with tongue in cheek)





______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Science and Halacha 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate
Date:    3/15/2000 5:56 PM




What I was doing was just following the logic through.  Rav Moshe 
extended the examples of the gemorra from the purely physical to include 
the psychological (not the example you cited, but I believe in others).

All I was doing was following that logic through.  
Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On 16 Mar 00, at 8:54, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> If you do not find this logic compelling, then come next Tuesday (or Wed. in 
> Shsushan) 

Not just in Shushan. Need I remind you that here in the Holy City 
of Jerusalem we celebrate Purim on Wednesday as well.

Next year, we get THREE DAYS of Purim IY"H :-) 

-- 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.

Are you categorically denying the distinctions made in the Torah between

Amaliki
Admoi
Mitzri
Moavi
Moaivyo

etc.

Is there ANY qualitative difference between the persecution of the Greeeks and 
the Persians (i.e. the chaunkah story and the Purim story)

Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #422 
Author:  <avodah@aishdas.org> at tcpgate 
Date:    3/16/2000 1:48 AM



<< Subject: Re[2]: Bombing those railroad tracks 
 As far as ths state dep't anti-Semitism goes, one should distinguish between 
the
 country club anti-Semite and the virulent European Anti-semite.  Selznick's 
 Movie Gentleman's Agreement (circa 1948) is a portrait of the coutnry-club 
 variety and one scene makes clear the dsitinction between the 2 (ayein shom) 
 <smile>
  >>
I wouldn't put any confidence in cushy Hollywood plots, writers, producers, 
etc. They have always customized their "happily ever after" endings to 
conform to what they perceive the American public wants to see. Good always 
conquers evil--Ba'Olam Ha'zeh, with no rough edges, even today, and, even if 
the final scene is absurd. A sonay Yisrael is just that, whether we call him 
ignorant, depraved, deprived, Palestinian, or anything else, they still hate, 
with little hope of rehabilitation. The typical sonay Yisrael divides to 
conquer--"I don't hate Jews, I hate Zionists, Israelis, Neturei Karta, 
Satmar, Yeshivot, Kollelim, LW, RW, CW," and, our apologists invite them to 
speak at our functions? If Amalek would show up tomorrow, he'd donate a few 
thousand dollars to a school / yeshiva, have a "wing" dedicated to a 
relative, and, be named chairman of the next banquet, and, half of still 
wouldn't find a baby sitter!
Barry S.

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


[ 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         ]