Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 064

Tuesday, December 12 2000

• RYBS and Brisk
• RE: Intent in Get
• Sarah and Hagar
• Yaakov's kiss
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• Re: Parhas Vayetzei
• Re: Parhas Vayetzei
• RE: Women and Hannukah Lights
• Women and Learning
• Re: Woman and learning
• Re: Woman and learning
• Shaatnez
• Re: Get vs kiddushin
• Re: hechsher on bubble baths
• RE: Badekin
• Re: badeken
• Re: Badekin

[I am again folding an Areivim discussion into a single email for Avodah.
The last paragraph is my current addition to the topic. -mi]

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:36:39PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: While that may be true in general I find it astounding that anyone
: could say that RYBS Torah is not Brisk.

RYGB:
} On Chumash, it is extremely remote from Brisk. K'rachok Mizrach me'Ma'arov. 
} Briskers do not employ drush. RYBS was a mster of drush. I believe his use 
} of drush, in cases such as his sermon on the Brothers and Yosef, was part 
} of the complications that arose between him and R' Shach.

RET (continued):
: BTW the Soloveitchiks in Monsey and Switzerland are not descendants
: of R, CHaim Soloveitchik and so thre Torah need not be that of R. Chaim.
: Even the beis haLevi said he didn't understand Brisker Torah (and he
: was rav of Brisk -)). So his other children did not necessarily
: follow in R. Chaim's way. However, R. Chaim's 2 sons did follow in
: his derech which is what they gave over to their children.

RYGB (continued):
} Perhaps in lomdus.
} Even there I am not sure.
} But not in other facets.

MSB replied to RET:
> I don't think RYBS's Torah is true Brisk. But I mean that lishvacho.

> The true Brisker hashkafah is not to have a hashkafah. That halachah
> stands on its own, doesn't build off first-principles, and is the end-all
> of limud Torah.

> An attitude you also hear in Ish haHalachah.

> Except that Ish haHalachah is itself not a halachah seifer, it's a seifer
> that aims to place halachah on a philosophical foundation built of first
> principles. Ish haHalachah is "about it, not it" -- it describes Brisk in
> a way that is inherently non-Brisk.

> To RYBS, R' Chaim's tzvei dinim is an expression of Kant's unrealizable
> dialectic. And lihefech -- RYBS's dialectic are based on halachic
> conclusions. Hainu hach.

> I think this philosophized Brisk is why his talmidim find RYBS so inspiring.
> He provides a "so what".

R' Joel Rich:
) Which is why it's probably a misnomer to call R'YBS  an Ish Halacha, at
) least in his own terms.  The Ish halacha that he describes (and as Micha
) points out so eloquently) is not interested in the philosophy of halacha.  I
) believe R' Ziegler (from Gush) in his classes regarding  R"YBS posited that
) Ish Halacha was more a eulogy for his father (R" Moshe).

R' Mark Dratch:
; Don't forget that the RYBS also wrote "Lonely Man of Faith" and is said to 
; have written yet another work which was a synthesis of the two (many say that 
; this is his article"Ubikashtem mi-Sham).  The Rav was certainly a complex and 
; complicated individual, not easily defined.  The interesting question for 
; this discussion, however, is whether his Torah (Gemara, Rambam, etc.) was 
; influenced by his philosophy.  If not, his "Torah" itself could be thought of 
; as pure Brisk, no?

MSB, second email:
> I was arguing that hainu hach -- that he did NOT divide the two. A
> couple of examples we've already discussed on Avodah: the tzvei dinim
> in shofar (blowing vs shemi'ah) are mapped by RYBS (see our chaveir R'
> Arnie Lustiger's seifer) to nosei vs nisa (man as subject vs man as
> object). Dinim of kinyan and the types of kinyan are learned by studying
> the history of trade, and the etymology of the word koneh (the word for
> buying or assuming a chiyuv is also that of making or repairing). RYBS's
> position WRT bein hashmashos depends on his understanding that halachah
> isn't a bivalent (ie true vs false with no grays and no boths) logic.
> Vechulu...

On 11 Dec 2000, at 12:57, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> BTW, this is based upon my expereince of being an ed several times.
> At no time was the ba'al queried: "Do you believe in Toras Gittin and
> the authority of this beis din to be mekayyem this get?" Instead there
> were formulaic questions about the ba'als' free will. ...

Maybe that was based upon a chazaka that anyone who appears before the 
Beis Din believes in the process, but if someone walked in and said 
explicitly, "I don't believe in this," it could be a different story. 

-- Carl
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.

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote
> And this would explain how the older brothers grew resentful. Yaakov was
> making a statement, that just as Yitzchak was favored over Yishmael
> because Sara was Avraham's ikkar zivvug, similarly, Yosef supercedes
> Reuven et. al. because Rachel is the ikkar zivug. He might actually
> have had nothign against Leah per se, just as Avraham might have had
> nothing against Hagar per se.

	I would have to disagree with your comment that Sarah was Avraham's
ikkur zivug. Sarah was Avraham's only zivug in regards to producing the
future klal yisroel. See the malbim in which he contrasts Rochel giving her
maid to yaakov with Sarah giving her maid to Avraham. L;gabei Rochel, she
did it withthe understanding that the offspring would  be part of the
shevatim while as far as Sarah was concerned any offspring of Hagar would
still be considered the child of a slave and not part of any future klal
yisroel.. 

From Rabbi Winston's parasha sheet of a few years ago:

One of the most troubling accounts in the Chumash is Ya'akov's initial
encounter with his cousin and future wife, Rachel:

Ya'akov kissed Rachel and raised his voice and cried ... (Bereishis 29:11)
What makes this so difficult to understand is that if the Forefathers kept
all the mitzvos, how could Ya'akov break such an important halacha (law) as
avoiding intimacy with a stranger? And how could he do so in full view of
everyone else at the well?

Some say that Ya'akov, at most, gave Rachel a kiss on the head, as one
relative would to another (at the time, Ya'akov was 77 years old and Rachel
was 14 years old). Some say that Ya'akov, a man whom the midrash says never
sinned, did not kiss her as an act of intimacy, but rather, had his mind on
a far deeper, far more spiritual connection.

The truth is, if you look into the midrashim on this section, you will find
that the well that Ya'akov uncovered to water Lavan's flocks represented
Torah (this is why the Fathers always met their spouses by a well, since
water symbolizes Torah). Not only this, but in the previous possuk when
Ya'akov "watered" Rachel's flock, the word "vayashk" (watered) is used,
which happens to be made up of the same letters as the word used for
"kissed" (vayishuk); only the vowels are different. And as if that wasn't
enough to make the connection, the word "rachel" means a sheep!

Perhaps then, given this information, the possuk is telling us that Ya'akov
didn't just kiss Rachel, he "watered" her, so-to-speak, by "pouring" Torah
into her. After all, he had just spent fourteen very intense years in the
yeshiva of Shem and Eiver, where he had learned day and night. And Ya'akov
is known in the midrashim as one who never spoke a wasted word ... only
words of Torah.

Furthermore, if the word "neshika" can refer to a Divine kiss (see Rashi on
Devarim 34:5 and BaMidbar 20:29), that is, the infusion of G-dly "knowledge"
so intense that the soul is literally "sucked" out of the body, then maybe
Ya'akov, who is called "El" (one of the names used for G-d; Megillah 18a)
was capable of giving such a holy kiss! Perhaps this was the kind of kiss
that Ya'akov gave to Rachel that fateful day!

This would make sense given that Ya'akov was considered to have personally
rectified the sin of Adam HaRishon, who, before the chet, had no innate
desire or pride, at which time he did everything for the sake of Heaven.
This is why the rabbis teach that it was Ya'akov's face that appeared on the
holy throne of G-d, and why it says Ya'akov never died, but went right to
Gan Aiden!

No matter what you make of it, this episode represents an important turning
point in Jewish history, indeed, in world history. For, it was stage one in
the building of the Jewish people, and the fulfillment of a Divine plan that
began before creation, approached fulfillment through Avraham and Yitzchak,
and reached a climax in Ya'akov, and the birth of the Twelve Tribes.

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gil> See another example of this kind of kissing in Avodah 17a.  The She'arim 
Gil> Metzuyanim Bahalachah on that daf goes through the poskim regarding negiah
Gil> shelo bederech chibah.

And Rashi on the spot says (though in brackets in my gemara ) "mishum
kavod".  

BTW, who wrote "She'arim Metzuyanim Bahalachah"?  I'm not familiar with
that sefer, and as I'm in the middle of AZ, I'm definitely interested ;-).

Gil> This brings into question the custom in certain areas of greeting with a
GIL> kiss on the cheek and whether it is mutar. I'm not so sure that it isn't.

Agreed.  We have examples from Torah (and see Bereishit Rabbah 70:12 for
more examples of acceptable kisses from Tanach) and from the Gemara.

At the risk of causing yet another MO/RW bash-a-thon, I'll generalize
and possibly extend what RGS asked.  Perhaps the strong discouragement
of non-derech-chibbah touching, while a successful and highly important
aspect of chinuch, is slightly overdone.  Working with the assumption
that the kissing described in AZ 17a was common social practice in 4th
century Bavel, and, as RRW notes pshat in Vayetze, was the standard
social greeting in Charan, shouldn't halachot based on _subjective_
criteria (derech chibba, tznius pants on women) also be adjusted as the
subjective criteria change?  Derech chiba in one society may be
innocuous in another society.  A garment may be scandalously non-tznius
in one society, but perfectly acceptable in another.  Another example
would be the descriptions of avelut in the mishnah/gemara.  We don't
turn beds over today b/c the beds these days are different.

YH

Micha> BTW, I generally take these halachic games with medrashim more as a
Micha> statement that Chazal's meshalim couldn't be examples of people doing
Micha> issurim than an insistance that the historical facts were as presented.
Micha> (As per the Rambam on medrashei aggadah.)

Micha> Anyone see a problem with this approach?

Not at all.  IIRC the Maharatz Chajes writes about how (not) to
interpret aggadot, especially historical ones.  E.g., the beginning of
R.H. "hu achashverosh hu daryavesh hu artachshasta" should not be taken
literally (thanks to listmember R. Shalom Carmy for assigning this in
his course (a long time ago! ;-) )

In this specific case, I can't accept Rachel being 3 years old as
pshat.  A 3 year old, even in ancient times, could not possibly be
entrusted with herding an entire flock of sheep to the well to drink!
Wouldn't her father be concerned about bad shepherds taking advantage of
her (see Eliezer/Rivka for another example of well trouble...)

YH

Micha> BTW, I generally take these halachic games with medrashim more as a
Micha> statement that Chazal's meshalim couldn't be examples of people doing
Micha> issurim than an insistance that the historical facts were as presented.
Micha> (As per the Rambam on medrashei aggadah.)

Micha> Anyone see a problem with this approach?

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 08:23:44PM -0500, Isaac Hollander wrote:
: Not at all.  IIRC the Maharatz Chajes writes about how (not) to
: interpret aggadot, especially historical ones....

Aside from the Rambam's introduction to Cheilek (and you should see what
he thinks of people who do think they're historical), this is also the
opinion given by R' Saadia Gaon in Emunos viDei'os, by the Maharshah in
his hakdamah, by the Maharal and by the Vilna Gaon in "Peirush al Kama
Agados" (the booklet that "The Juggler and the King" is based on, there
is a copy of the full text in the appendix).

I was fishing for the opinion of those who are choleik, of the Tzenah uR'enah,
of the pre1-a and 1st grade mechanchim who teach my kids a version of the
parashah I sometimes don't recognize. (Often from "The Medrash Says", BTW.)

There is a certain maximalism going on. To return to our original example,
my kids were taught that Rivka was 3. It's equally a medrash that she was
15.

: In this specific case, I can't accept Rachel being 3 years old as
: pshat.  A 3 year old, even in ancient times, could not possibly be
: entrusted with herding an entire flock of sheep to the well to drink!

Not to mention she wouldn't be strong enough to drive a camel. Someone
would have had to lead the beast.

: Wouldn't her father be concerned about bad shepherds taking advantage of
: her (see Eliezer/Rivka for another example of well trouble...)

Less so than if she were 15, or even 25. Bipashtus, he just didn't care.

-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

On 7 Dec 2000 18:37:24, Mark Feldman wrote:
> That's because RYBS learned different pshat in the gemara Shabbos 23a than
> did the Mishnah Brurah... Certainly, the Rambam in my example would light 10
> not 8 candles.

What you have written is true, and very nicely put. (One picayune
correction: you say that "the Ramo's shittah is relatively new.. not
recorded in the Rishonim." The Remo in fact is quoting the Maharil to that
effect, that everyone in the house lights, but we can avoid Toshephos'
kashya by everyone lighting in a separate place.)

However, there is more to RYBS's custom than the fact that he learned a
different pshat in the gemoro than the MB did. Neither the Rov nor the MB
were being mehaddesh a custom based on their pshat in the gemoro; certainly
if the MB had been doing so he would have spent some time explaining this in
a Be'ur Halokho and not just put down a simple statement that the wife
doesn't light. Nor was this a minhag that the Rov was mehaddesh; I know
that in his father's house they did the same, and, since R. Moshe changed
very little from his father's customs, this probably goes back to R. Hayyim
Brisker, although I never heard it specifically in his name.

The history of this is indeed based on the mahloqes rishonim that you bring.

But the part that your exposition misses is what happened from the times
of the rishonim until now. When the Tur brings the mahloqes, the Beis Yosef
explains the shittos, and then notes that the minhag in Spain is as it was
in the Rambam's time, that the father lights 1 the first night up to 8 the
last night, regardless of the number of members of the household. (The
Rambam specifically notes this custom, since it is follows no position in
the gemoro according to his pshat). The Remo', on the other hand, says in
the Darkhei Moshe that our minhag is like the Rambam.

Now the Rambam is explicit that the number of candles lit correspond to all
the members of the household, men and women and children: "harei shehayu
anshei habbayis 'asoro" then you light 10, and before that he mentions
"lekhol ehod v'ehod, anoshim v'noshim." The Remo' surely noted this. So
when the Remo' says that in Ashkenaz our custom is like the Rambam, and so
he says in the SA: "kol ehod mibbenei habbayis madliq," he must have meant
that everyone is madliq. If the Remo' had meant that only the men light or
the men and girls but not the wife, he would have noted that the Ashkenaz
custom is somewhat SIMILAR the Rambam, but not exactly alike.

All the early ashkenaz aharonim identify the ashkenaz custom with the
Rambam; they don't just quote the Remo', but discuss how is it we pasken
like the Rambam while the mehabber is like Tosephos. The Taz puts it best
(and many of the later aharonim use his language): "v'zeh hiddush b'minhag,
shehaSefaradim nohagim keTosephos v'haAshkenazim keRambam; v'zeh lo matzinu
bish'ar meqomos." It is inconceivable that none of the aharonim would have
noted that their minhag is not really like the Rambam in that the Rambam
includes women and girls in his candle count.

However, at one point the custom changed in Europe. I have the testimony of
a Rov who was born and bred in Lita and learned in some of the major
yeshivos there that the custom in the earlier part of the century in Lita
was like most people nowadays, only the men light and not the women, not the
wife nor the girls. This is the custom that the MB reflects. (As you note,
the MB does not mean ishto kegufo literally. First, in that case, women
wouldn't have to take lulav or hear shofar, ishto kegufo. Second, ishto
kegufo is a halokho that has to do with issues such as a man cannot testify
against his wife, or his wife's honor is like his own, and has nothing to do
with kiyyum hamitzvos. Rather, the MB is using it to refer to the fact that
al pi din, only one set of lights is enough for the house, regardless of who
lights.)

So when did this change take place, from the Remo' where everyone lights to
the later custom that only the men? I have no proof, but I suspect the late
18th/early 19th century when some similar changes in women's customs spread.

I am referring to sefiras ha'omer, where the Mogen Avrohom says that the
women in Ashkenaz have taken it on themselves as an obligation (just like
lulav and shofar), but by the late 18th century we find ashkenaz rabbonim
saying that women don't count (this latter change just took place in Eastern
Europe; in the Rhine valley and most of Germany [AAUI] women continued the
older custom of counting).

There is nothing wrong, of course, with not everyone lighting: you can rely
on Tosephos. The only quibble is that the custom of all the men, and only
the men lighting, does not follow any of the shittos of the rishonim, and is
contrary to the Remo'. It is for this reason -- that the custom in Ashkenaz
used to be like the Rambam and that if women don't like it isnt according to
any shitta -- that in RYBS's household everyone lit. I know other Litvishe
rabbonim who go along the same road: even though they don't force their
wives to light, they light an extra set of candles for the wife, so that at
the end of the day the house will follow the Rambam, as the Ashkenaz
aharonim say should be done.

Kol tuv,
Seth Mandel

The simple understanding of learning as optional for women is that some
women MAY learn, but none are obligated to learn.

Here is another possible understanding.

Men are permanently obligated to learn
Women are sometimes obligated to learn and soemtimes not. Thus the option
is not applicable to the individual but is based upon the era the times.

Men have an intrinsic need ot learn for Women that need is transitory.
When that need arises, it is optionally invoked not by individuals but
by the dor, the generation. When the need "passes" the option expires.
 
It's not necessarily MY way of seeing it, but it might explain what
prompted RYBS to encourage women learning gmoro in this day and age,
given his late rebitzen's own PhD.

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....

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 05:30:20PM +0300, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
: You know, I wonder where you all get this idea? If you go back in time,
: while there may have been less Nevi'ot than Nevi'im -- they did exist,
: and you couldn't become a Navi or Nevi'a just be saying Tehilim....

Do we really know that? Nevu'ah is some kind of gnostic experience, how
are you going to get it out of texts? R' Aryeh Kaplan held the key to
nevu'ah was to meditate on deveikus. Again, nothing to do with having
a seder kavu'ah in a text.

I might even argue that mimeticism has more fundamental impact on
an existential level and is therefore MORE likely to be the key to
nevu'ah than textual learning does.

The Rambam holds that a navi is some kind of super-philosopher,
but his hashkafah WRT the role of knowledge is a
da'as yachid (to say the least). Also, I argued in
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n005.shtml#15> and
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol03/v03n014.shtml#16> that the Rambam
holds that studying hashkafah is a kiyum of ahavas Hashem, not in talmud
Torah. He therefore might not include in the issur the kind of learning
thatg he holds is necessary for nevu'ah.

: I recall a mention in the sources that at the time of Chizkiya women and
: men were experts in all Hilchot Taharot. Again, you couldn't know this
: without learning.

To get back to the old standby, does expertise in Hil Taharos imply textual
learning, or mimetic learning? If everyone was makpid in Hil Taharos,
people would pick it up without opening texts.

The tanna'im make "shema bini mussar avicha vi'al titosh toras imecha"
to be about what R Dr Haym Soloveitchik has gotten us to call textualism
vs mimeticism. Mussar avicha is formal chinuch in halachah. "Al tikri
'toras imecha' ela 'toras umascha'" makes the latter about mimeticism.

Note that the medrash is implying gender roles to the two kinds of
chinuch. While the father is mechuyav in formal chinuch, the mimetic
stuff you are expected to pick up "at your mother's knee".

For the same reason, I wonder if there were actually fewer nevi'os than
nevi'im. Or, just fewer that we know of.

Yes, a message that is to be recorded lidoros in a text as part of
mussar /avicha/ was far more likely to be given to a man. However,
how much of who we are and how we live on a mimetic level isn't the
"writings" of nevios?

:                                                                If the
: only thing forbidden to learn is actually the Shakla and Tarya, that
: still leaves oceans of Jewish knowledge that women can learn and can
: enhance everyone's lives as Jews.

That's what I understood from the little I saw of R' Weinberg's words.
That the issur is limited to gemara in the Rambam's sense of the word,
lehavin davar mitoch davar to understand the process of where it comes
from.

: BTW, I'm still waiting for some Vorts from the learned rabbis here on
: housekeeping, Mitzvat Noy, Hadlakat Neirot and all the other actions a
: jewish woman, a daughter of Israel is expected to do.

One would think that such divrei Torah would better come from the people
who are actually living, thinking about, and being inspired by that
lifestyle. Asking a bunch of men to project themselves and see what they
can find is a much harder task.

-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

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:38:03AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
:> Halachah is divine. Which means that even the non-chukim have an element
:> of chok -- we can't possibly fathom what HKBH intended, or what He inspired
:> others to intend (niskatnu hadoros). But we do know that He constructed
:> halachah as exactly to the spirit of the law as possible. Therefore, with
:> halachah, one goes from the letter of the law to the hashkafah; and not
:> the other way around.

: Lav davka, Prozbol yochiach

Pruzbul is a loophole, not a din. IOW, it's a sociological change not a
halachic takkanah. Pruzbul is based on a heter that existed before they
formalized a mechanism for utilizing it.

: So does writing down TSBP.

Eis la'asos laHashem. It was acknowledged that this is against the
halachic norm when they were mesakein it.

Or did they? Is "i ata rasha'i" an issur, or a preference? Where does
this issur come from? It's the only eis la'asos that has lasted for
generations, and the Rambam explicitly limits a navi's "eis la'asos"
to a hora'as sha'ah. Something is odd here.

: A ger not marrying a former sibling is another.

This isn't an example any more than any other diRabbanan.

: While I do agree with you generally, nevertheless there are meta-issues
: that do place a challenge on this.

I'm sure there are conflicting priorities in which there are exceptions
to the rule. Of the three you cited, I would only agree that writing
down TSBP qualifies, though. (Assuming it really is a full-fledged
issur.)

R' Chaim Brown was nice enough to point me to the Tif'eres Yisrael on
Edios, where he discusses three kinds of diRabbanan, as opposed to the
two I listed in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n017.shtml#26>
based on the Rambam.

Whereas the Rambam lumps together all takanos that are to avoid the
violation of a di'Oraisa under the ruberik "gezeiros" (siyagim), the TY
limits the concept of "siyag" to avoiding people having the wrong idea
about what is assur (e.g. milk and fowl). He then adds the notion of
"cheshash", those laws that would lead people through habit or neglect
to be over a lav. For example, wearing tzitzis with techeiles (which is
wool) on a linen begged needed to be assured because one moment after
nightfall one is wearing sha'atnez that is not lisheim mitzvah.

The TY allows changes in such halachos without a b"d gadol mimenu
bichachma ubeminyan as soon as the metzi'us changes in a way that causes
the cheshash to evaporate.

I must have misunderstood the distinction, though. Because I doubt the
TY matired taking medicine on Shabbos.

-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

On Sun, 10 Dec 2000 08:25:00, S. Goldstein wrote:
> The Bartenura says the machlokes in Kelayim 9:7 regards what type of wool 
> and linen combination is forbidden.  Who learns this relates to the relative 
> probability of wool and linen being found?  According to you, why would they 
> mention different types of clothes as opposed to different locations of 
> clothes?

See the Rambam, peirush hamishnayos. You are certainly correct that the
mishna is discussing specific types of clothing where shaatnez is likely to
be found, but the Rambam says that the mahloqes of Tano Qamo and R. Yossi is
that in R. Yossi said that those from the shore and the islands don't
require bediqa since linen is not common there. The Rambam further quotes
the Yerushalmi to show that it is not dependent on the specific place (the
Atlantic City/Deal shore, say), but on how common linen is in a given place
and time.

Kol Tuv,
Seth Mandel

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:45:54PM +0200, S. Goldstein wrote:
:> As a comparison, aren't we meikil by a couple who think they are married
:> by a non-halachic ceremony? ...

: In this case he says nothing.  By get he explicitly states that he is giving
: a get for divorce.

This seems to be divarim shevileiv vs what he explicitly says. This would
imply that we don't actually require kavannah, we only require a show
of kavanah. Which would make for a much simpler answer to "kofin oso
ad she'amar 'rotzeh ani'" than the Rambam's. Merely argue that he said
"rotzeh ani" so we don't care what he's really thinking.

-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

> Is ra'ui la'achilah specifically unsafe to eat, or also something people
> wouldn't eat? Or, to put it another way, how unhealthy does it have to
> make a person?
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

As a means of getting another perspective I emailed the OU's kashrus 
department on this issue. I will forward their response to the list.

                                              Steve Brizel
                                              Zeliglaw@aol.com

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> Isn't omitting the badekken a public display?  Seems to me that: 
> 1)There is either more to this story 
> or
> 2) Thise OR omitted this badekken in bad taste.

I seem to recall that there is an issue of whether to say "bsultah" (in the
Ksubah reading) when marrying a couple which has been living together.  As
far as I recall, most poskim advise not writing that she's a bsulah but
reading aloud bsultah in order not to embarrass her.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

The rav who did not have a badeken for a kallah who was openly living
with the chasan prior to marriage knew what he was doing.  The likeliest
reason for the badeken is that it is the hinuma of Ksubos 17b, which is
only applicable to a b'sulah. For the same reason, there is no badeken if
the woman has been married previously.  Whether the hinuma effects nisuin
is a discussion among rishonim.

Even if it is nisuin, it is a machlokes harishonim whether nisuin is
considered davar sheb'ervah and requires eidim, or is valid even without
them.  (A nafka mina lahalachah would be if all kosher eidim left after
kiddushin, leaving behind a minyan of relatives for the nisuin.) 
However, since we consider yichud to be a form of nisuin and require
eidei yichud, consistency would seem to dictate that there be eidim at
the badeken as well.  

The question then raised is that the badeken is before the kiddushin. 
However, there are opinions among the rishonim that the act of nisuin can
precede the kiddushin, so that when he is m'kadesh, she is an instant
n'suah.

Tieing in with a previous thread, I have suggested to couples wishing to
take pictures before the chupah, but also wanting to observe the minhag
of not seeing each other in the week before the wedding, that (a) since
the reason for not seeing is because of dam chimud, and (b) since once
the kallah has seen the chasan, the reason no longer pertains, and (c)
since they see each other at the badeken in any event, the solution is to
do the badeken, in the presence of kosher eidim, two hours or so before
the scheduled start of the wedding.  Having seen one another, they can
then take pictures, including photos of another badeken right before the
chupah for the benefit of the guests (and, of course, for the album.)

Elazar M. Teitz

"Wolpoe, Richard" wrote:
> 1)There is either more to this story
> or
> 2) Thise OR omitted this badekken in bad taste.

I should have added it was in a "traditional" ie non-mechitza shul and most
guests did not know that something was missing. IMHO there was no busha.

steve

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


[ 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         ]