Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 061

Saturday, December 9 2000

• Re: Intent to write a Get
• Re: get from a rasha
• RE: Gaza in Israel?
• Shaatnez
• Yaakov and Leah
• Parhas Vayetzei
• Re: Ani Bechorcha Eisav
• al yilbash gever
• RE: Shaatnez
• RE: Woman and learning
• V'yadbeik oso

On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 08:18:14AM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: The first question is not "Can ...ever be lishmah" but rather -- Does
: a Get need to be with Kavanah (intent).

: The answer is no.

Truly no intent? If a blind delivers a package from the sofeir to his
wife, not realizing that the package is her get, is the get chal?

If not, then why would someone who is blind in the sense of "lifnei
iver" to the consequence of his actions be any different?


As I pointed out to a couple of people in private email: I (unlike
Russell, who needed sources for his article) took it as a given that
the halachah allows such a get. I'm asking by what sevarah does it
work?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

In a message dated 12/7/00 10:03:12am EST, goldstin@netvision.net.il writes:
> A proof was brought that a mumar can deliver a get from an oblique reference
> in S"A.  I would like to deal with the issue more directly.

I Davka picked that M"M (Simon 129 im E"H) as in the title of that Simon is 
"Din Mumor Hamigoreish", and that is the Si'if that deals with a Mumar, 
however Loi Nelam Mimeni the Beis Shmuel S"K 5 in Simon 123, Vayin Sham.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

From: S. Goldstein [mailto:goldstin@netvision.net.il]
>>> Therefore, while there are lands that do have dinim of shevi'is, shouldn't
>>> those lands come first?

>> I don't see why that should be.  By dint of fate, the olei bavel settled in
>> certain areas but not other areas of the Biblically-promised E"Y...

> The Ramban's mitzva to settle E. Israel probably relates primarily to the
> kiyum mitzvos of E. Israel...                                  Since olei
> bavel determine kdushas haaretz bzman hazeh, it's not mere repeating history
> to want to live there.

But we pasken that (most/all?) mitzvos hatluyos ba'aretz today are
m'drabanan.  If so, it hardly seems likely that the mitzvah deoraissa of
yishuv ha'aretz should be connected to the fulfillment of mitzvos drabanan.

Not to mention those who believe this period to be atchalta d'geulah (of
binyan bayis shlishi)--when the third Bais Hamikdash is built, all areas
settled by current Israelis (which are in the original gvulos haaretz) will
be kadosh for purposes of mitzvos hatluyos ba'aretz.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

I had asked on Areivim whether anyone had any data on whether shaatnez
was a problem in Israeli sofas. (I am still looking for information
there, since no one has yet given me anything more substantive than
"there used to be a problem but it is not so much anymore." Any help is
appreciated.) Carl Sherer sent me the following information for a book
called "Toras haBeged" by a Rav Erlich:

> According to Rav Erlich, the percentage of clothes containing shatnez 
> (based on place of manufacture?), including only those types of clothing in 
> which there is an expectation of finding shatnez, are as follows:
> Eastern Europe - 90%
> Australia, South Africa - 80%
> Western Europe - 60%
> US - 50%
> Israel - 20%

Mark Feldman and Joel Rich commented:
From: Rich, Joel
> Interesting-my anecdotal experience in having clothing tested in the US 
> over the last 30 years is that only once in that whole period(about 25 years 
> ago) did the lab find shatnez.  Perhaps it's related to my status as a well 
> known clothes horse ....  I'm curious as to other's experience in this 
> area

> I too am very suspicious about these numbers.  I have generally heard that 
> US made suits have very a low incidence of Shaatnez.  In contrast, I bought 
> a Hong Kong tailored suit and it had shaatnez galore.
> The statement could be misleading:

> According to Rav Erlich, the percentage of clothes containing shatnez 
> (based on place of manufacture?), including only those types of clothing in 
> which there is an expectation of finding shatnez

> What does "only those types of clothing" refer to? This statement could
> be correct if, let's say, 95% of US suits don't have shaatnez (I seem
> to recall hearing that sort of number) but 50% of US made 4 button dark
> green suits with high collars do (perhaps because they all derive from
> one of two suppliers) (I made this up).>

I have made some inquiries among people who test for shaatnez here in the
US, and the data I have gotten so far is that shaatnez was found (or
suspected) in less than 2% of the US clothing they had checked.
So my question for the list is this: a while ago, various sources said that
anything less than 10% is a miut that one does not even have to be hoshesh
for (I have also heard 5%, but it is the same for this issue). Is there
still an obligation to check for shaatnez in American clothes nowadays?
(Note: this is a theoretical question, I understand that the situation could
change any day, and so of course people have to check). And if there is no
hiyyuv al pi din, then do we say that the Rambam "haloqeah clei tzemer min
haGoyim tzorikh levodkon yofe yofe," which is also brought by the SA, was
only when the probability of shaatnez was over 10% (or 5%, as the case may
be)?

Lefi aniyus daati, that's what is implied by the Mishna in Kil'ayim 9:7,
where the mahloqes between tano kamo and R. Yosi on whether you have to
check certain clothes is based on whether linen was commonly used, and if it
was not, you don't have to check. But I would like to hear other opinions.
Anyone?

Kol tuv,
Seth

>  Micha Berger wrote:
> Bereishis Rabba connects Leah's rama'us on their wedding night
> to that incident. The Medrash has Yaakov ask Leah why she tricked
> him by pretending to be Racheil. She replies, "Every student has a...

> Leah was destined to marry Eisav, but remember that Eisav had the
> potential to be one of the fathers of klal Yisrael. Her role, therefore
> should have been that of the eim opposite the ideal Eisav. Through her
> trick, she midah-kineged-midah connected with that nekudas-Eisav that
> Yaakov adopted to get the berachah.
	I would even take it one step further.I believe, the wording of the
medrash is that when Yaakov found out that Leah tricked him, he called her a
Ramai bas Ramai. Leah's response was you were also a ramai. In other words,
Yaakov misunderstood Leah's intentions. He felt she wasn't his correct zivug
and was trying to trick her way into his family. Leah responded that yuo
have it wrong-I acted l'shem shamayim. Originally I was destined for Eisav
but now that Eisav blew it and you received his chelek also I am now your
zivug as well. This ties in very well with the mehalech I mentioned before
that Eisav's tafkid was to serve Hashem thru gashmiyus and Yaakov thru
ruchniyus. Leah represented the partner of the one who would serve Hashem
thru gashmiyus (i.e. Eisav until he blew it) and Rochel represented the
partner of the one who would serve Hashem thru ruchniyus (Yaakov). In fact I
heard from Rav Aharon Feldman last week that we see this play out through
the shavatim. The bnei Leah were shepards-involved in Olam Hazeh while Yosef
and Binyamin were home learning with Yaakov. 

		I also think that this was the "machlokes" between Yaakov
and Leah. Yaakov refused to accept Leah as one of his  true zivuggim
because he felt she was really destined for Eisav and just tricked her way
in. Leah on te other hand knew the"truth" and was always striving for Yaakov
to accept her. That is why her 1st 3 children are named qas expressions of
hoping Yaakov would finally accept her-after all how could she be the mothe
rof some of the shvatim if she wasn't one of Yaakov's true zivuggim.

2 short thought on this weeks parshah.

1) I noticed that the word for "giving animals to drink" and "kissing" has
the same shoresh. Am I correct in assuming that the shoresh means to put
ones lips onto something. Any grammarians out there?

2) After the dream the posuk says Yaakov woke up (Vayeketz Yaakov). However
2 pesukim later the posuk says "Vayashkem Yaakov"-Yaakov got up in the
morning. I've always understood that Yaakov woke up from the dream in the
middle of the night. If so it seems he didn't get up out of bed right away
but got up in the morning. What was he doing after he woke up from his
dream? How could he have gone back to sleep once he realized he was in a
holy place? Am I missing something?

> cmarkowitz@scor.com

In a message dated 12/8/00 7:14:19 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

> What this says about why Racheil's children -- Shaul, Mordechai,
>  mashiach beis Yosef -- are the ones to defeat Amaleik (who are b'nei
>  Eisav) is left as an excercise for the reader.

See Rashi Breishis 30:25.

As to the Drush side I too will leave it for the reader :-)

Gut Shabbos v'Kol Tuv, 

Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 12/7/00 10:03:40am EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> Perhaps the reason to say it's nonJews is that since 
> the original Jewish practice was for men not to shave that hair, then the 
> only way that Jews did it was nonhalachik, so that if now the majority do it 
> we still don't want to validate a minhag based on inappropriate action. 

Yitzchok Zirkind
: We find Al Derech Zeh that Doshu Bah Rabim (Amei Ho'aratzim) removes a Sakana
: even from Talmidei Chachomim.

I had thought about that as a model - where is the definition of rabim as
amei hoaratzim found?  The same issue has always bothered me there although
on one hand its not issurim, we do see sakkanh is more chamur then issur -
so why should people doing the wrong thing make it ok? 

What if all the goyim (but no amei hoaratzim) began going over Niagara falls
in a barrel - would it be mutar for Jews?

KT and SS,
Joel

> Lefi aniyus daati, that's what is implied by the Mishna in Kil'ayim 9:7,
> where the mahloqes between tano kamo and R. Yosi on whether you have to
> check certain clothes is based on whether linen was commonly used, and if it
> was not, you don't have to check. But I would like to hear other opinions.

Perhaps the principle of "kol she'fshar levareir..." applies?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Gil.Student@citicorp.com
> Unbelievable as it may seem, for thousands of years Jewish women have 
> managed to maintain their belief and faith in Hashem without having a 
> seder kavua. Certainly, saying Tehillim does the trick also....
     
Chaim Brown wrote:
> But recognition that that is unsustainable in our society is what led 
> the C"C to his psak in Likutei Halachos.

But the Chafetz Chaim only advocated teaching women the basics (and 
perhaps the more advanced) of yiddishkeit so that they would recognize 
that Judaism is profoundly true.

We are now talking about women who have already had that education 
continuing their studies independently.  That is totally different.

Gil Student

							Bs"d
In VaYetzei 31:23, it says that when Lavan pursued Yaakov, he was yadveik
him. It seems to me that this is somewhat of an unusual choice of words.
The only use I'm aware of this root is to cling to, to stick to, to glue
to, etc. Why didn't the pusik use the same lashon as it does in verse 25 -
"v'yaseig Lavan es Yaakov."? I've looked in a lot of places, including
Malbim (don't have access to a Hirsch), but no one comments.

Eli

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


[ 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         ]