Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 116

Tuesday, January 30 2001

• RE: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• RE: hefsed mrubah
• Re: Chas V'sholom
• RE: Har Habayit
• RE: chumash question, one week late
• Re: chumash question, one week late
• Re: chumash question, one week late
• Chazanus in the late 58th century
• Re: Hawaiian date line and roshei teivos alert
• birds
• Chazaras hashatz
• Fwd: Sfas-Emes, Sfas Emes, (Zechuso Tagein Aleinu), Va'eira, 5635
• RE: Har Habayit
• Re: Hawaiian date line and roshei teivos alert
• The mechabeir's rule by majority
• Translating the Chumash (daf yomi related)
• Re: Translating the Chumash (daf yomi related)
• Re: Daf Yomi Question
• Re: manadatory divorce
• Re: manadatory divorce
• Re: Translating the Chumash (daf yomi related)

David Glasner <dglasner@ftc.gov>
:                                         The Sanhedrin of R. Yehoshua and
: R. Eliezer could have refrained from using the power at their disposal
: and acceded to the Divine Will and paskened according to R. Eliezer
: as they were instructed to do. But they were defiant and paskened as
: they saw fit, and the RShO understood...

Nit: The Sanhedrin of R. Yehoshua and R. Eliezer was NOT actually the
"real" Sanhedrin in the lishka. See Mishna Makkos 1:10.

We can see that during the era of the Sanhedrin in the Liskha there were
virtually no named machlokesin (with some exceptions such as the Smicha
machlokes of the zuggos and the 3 of Hillel vs. Shammai)

Rich Wolpoe

Micha Berger
> OTOH, fans of Dr Haym Soloveitchik could point to some rupture that was
> putting the Sepharad of the Beis Yosef into a reconstruction period, and
> therefore the mechabeir took a more textual approach. Ashkenaz, being
> more stable in the Rama's day, relied on basra'i and what was nahug.

Aiui the Maharil had in effect incroporated much of Minhag Ashekenaz
into his texts, and the Rema frequently echoed the Maharil.

If rupture indeed was a factor in this case, I would guess it would have
been "the black death".

Rich Wolpoe 

On Sun, 28 Jan 2001, Michael Frankel wrote:
> RYGB's "chas v'sholom" which is intriguing as it suggests he precludes
> even entertaining the possibility that such could be the case. do you
> believe that an odom godol/poseiq cannot possibly have erred in his
> t'fisoh of the physical m'tzius underlying a p'saq? 

No, many Gedolei Yisroel are likely to err in technological matters.

But not RSZA.

KT,
YGB
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 02:42:21PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: For me, being a Ba'al Tefillah and relating to Judaism via nusach and
: music has allowed me to balance my intellectual side with a more emotional
: aprroach. But how many Yeshiva bachurim think of Yosselle Rosenblatt as
: a hero on par with a Chofetz Chaim? I'll bet not many.

Micha Berger:
> I wouldn't consider the CC, or any ba'al mussar, as my paragon of
> cerebralism. I would have asked how many Yeshiva bochrim see R' Yisrael
> Salanter (emotional approach) on par with R' Chaim Brisker (cerebral). The
> answer yields a result indicating that we're much closer to the
> shvil hazahav.

> (Another flaw in your comparison is that few of my generation and
> those younger than me are moved by traditional chazanus. We therefore
> can not relate 1st-hand to C' Y. Rozenblatt as a force to move someone
> religiously.)

The Chofetz Chaim's weight in today's is based upon his being a big Talmid
Chacham. It is clear to me that had he been a "maggid" or mnehal Ruchani,
or other genre of mussarnick, subsequent Roshei Yehsiva would not have
given him the same kind of deference. Let's face it, The Chofetz Chaim
was very much part and parcel of the Yeshiva movement and not in the
way a R. Moshe Sherrer, R. Naftali Neuberger or a Mashigach ruchani are;
after all he was rosh yeshiva in Radin. Or to put it another way whatever
weight RYBS did have in the Yeshiva world, it was not due to his being
an eminent philosopher <smile>

Your point about traditional chazzanus is to the mark. Today people have
forgotten how to cry when they daven. QED. Thanks for the raya by the
way. <smile>

When I was in Yeshiva we did spend a bit of time learning the Vidduy on
Yom Kippur. We spend virtually zilch doing unesnaeh tokef. Vidduy is nice
and structured, it's a "cold" list done in alphabetical order. Little
poetry. It can be memorized and even intellectualized. Unesaneh tofef
makes you feel AWE. It has been scored by many Jewish litrugiests. It
is majestic. Let's face it, it is too emotional to broach.

Rich Wolpoe

Gershon Dubin gershon.dubin@juno.com:
> The posuk describes Elisheva bas Aminadav achos Nachshon, to teach you to
> investigate the kallah's brother. The very next posuk appears to negate
> this, as Elazar took mibnos Putiel,  which according to one meaning is
> mibnos Yisro shepitem agalos la'avodah zara.  Comments?

Hypothesis:
Perhaps Nachshon - like Nevayos - was the brohter who acted as surrogate
father after the father (i.e Aminadav) was niftar. Perhaps in THAT case
one should at least check into THAT brother.

Rich Wolpoe

On 29 Jan 2001, at 10:45, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> The posuk describes Elisheva bas Aminadav achos Nachshon, to teach you to
> investigate the kallah's brother. The very next posuk appears to negate
> this, as Elazar took mibnos Putiel,  which according to one meaning is
> mibnos Yisro shepitem agalos la'avodah zara.  Comments?

Yisro was her father, not her brother. As far as we know she had no brothers. 

Yisro was chozer b'tshuva.

-- 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.

On Mon, 29 Jan 2001 22:57:20 +0200 "Carl M. Sherer"
<cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
> Yisro was her father, not her brother. As far as we know she had no 
> brothers.

        We probably  *know* she didn't the same way we know Rochel and
Leah didn't.  However,  my point was that first the posuk stresses the
importance of yichus,  then it says, in effect,  that it isn't all that
important.
 
> Yisro was chozer b'tshuva.

        Is this a consideration, based upon tzarich livdok be'acheha? 
What if she had a no-good brother who did teshuva?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

For once, an actual question related to improving our Avodah...

On Mon, Jan 29, 2001 at 03:42:20PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Your point about traditional chazzanus is to the mark. Today people have
: forgotten how to cry when they daven. QED. Thanks for the raya by the
: way. <smile>

WADR, I disagree because I think you're overgeneralizing. The fact that
the younger generation doesn't identify with chazzanus doesn't translate
to not crying when they daven. If this were so, there wouldn't be a spate
of Carlebachesque Fri. Night minyanim.

IOW, we can feel and not just think our davening, but D'veikus better sets
the mood than C' Shenker.

The problem is, as I see it, two-fold.

1- It's just not the style of music that our generation responds to. You'll
   note that successfull contemporary chazanim end up drawing as much if
   not more from contemporary Jewish music.

2- Partly because of 1, partly merely because of its age (any technique to
   add hislahavus runs the danger of merely becoming the next rote) ,
   traditional chazzanus is seen as formal; drawn out without adding
   emotional content.

-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

At 08:14 PM 1/29/01 +0000, Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:
>No, I understand the ruling of the Chazon Ish to be that we do not
>divide a land mass.  It may be that minhag hamakom decided which side
>was seen as being dominant...

The CI holds that a land mass which has even the slightest portion thereof 
in the hemisphere of which Yerushalayim is at the center follows EY's date.

Minhag ha'Makom is irrelevant. R' Kasher (heretofore RMMK) and R' Tzvi 
Pesach Frank (heretofore RTPF) hold that Minhag ha'Makom is kovei'ah.

R' Chaim Zimmerman, and, it seems, the Brisker Rav, held that Yidden in 
Australia (Eastern Australia) are Mechallel Shabbos every week, as the 
Halachic International Dateline (heretofore HIDL) in their opinion bisects 
landmasses.

The Kuntres Yud Ches Sho'os of the CI is a must read!



At 08:16 AM 1/28/01 -0800, Michael Frankel wrote:
>hawaii lies east of the international date line as well as east of almost
>every jewish date line shitoh, so shabbos is saturday there not just
>according to CI, but according to practically everybody. Thus there is
>no particular need to accept the CI for "traditional" hawaiian shabbosim
>while doing so, per RYGB, may lead to other difficulties.

Ummm...

One of RMMK's interesting hasogos on R' Yechiel Michel Tukachinski
(heretofore RYMT)'s Sefer ha'Yomom, was that he left Hawaii off his maps
- conveniently so, contended RMMK, for just as areas between the CI's
HIDL (90d E of EY) and the Secular IDL (heretofore SIDL) are she'eilos
according to the CI, so too are areas between the SIDL and RYMT's HIDL
(180d E of EY) - Hawaii falls into that region.

Alaska also poses problems for RYMT. He bases his arguments for Alaska 
following the American Shabbos on the (erroneous from current 
anthropological views) argument that the natives of Alaska first migrated 
there from the more southerly portions of the North American landmass.

>that said, R. F. Cohen's chashoshos, as reported in above posting, re
>hawaii are certainly reasonable since some (though not much) precedent in
>the acharonim exists that places hawaii over the line when flying from the
>us mainland. -- these shitos (R. Tokachinsky/Hayomom, R. Slonimski and
>R. Sh'muel Mohliver quoted in Divrei Chakhomim, R. Henkin in Hapardes )
>basically take the date line at 180 deg from jeruslam but differ about
>bending it here and there to avoid passing through land. but his reported
>fomulation is quite puzzling when it limits the "heter" to hold shabbos
>on saturday to students of CI...           Since RYGB wishes to pasken
>like CI bein l'quloh bein l'chumroh, i'm wondering what he will do the
>next time he passes a weekend in japan, as the CI was quite adamant that
>the sort of compromise shitoh -- to refrain from m'lochoh on two days --
>was inappropriate and any japanese saturday should be treated as a full
>yom chol for all purposes -- no wussy compromises.

Kana"l - I believe that one is entitled to pasken like the CI both l'kulla 
and l'chumra, but in Japan one would need to be machmir like the chumros of 
makom she'bo l'sham, at least in a yishuv, and keep at least d'orysa's on 
their (erroneous) Saurday. Outside the yishuv it is reasonable to assume 
one might be meikel.

Nevertheless, I do confess that, although I do not understand, based on the 
sources and the logic, how Gedolei Torah like Rav Herzog (heretofore RYIHH) 
and R' Isser Zalman Meltzer (RIZM) argued with the compelling halachic 
position of the CI, I am afraid to pasken totally against them (and, RTPF 
as well) where the Minhag ha'Mokom is like RYIHH and RIZM, and where it is 
not a she'as ha'dechak like Yom Kippur.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

Dear Mr. Baker,

Your point about birds is well taken. The minhag not to to eat birds
which lack a mesorah is based on Rashi in Chullin 62b and the t'shuvah of
Maharil #95. Compare them to the Ramban in Parshat Shmini (Vayikra 11-13).

Stuart Fischman

SG: <From your quote it seems RYBS did NOT find it an integral part of
chazaras hashatz!>

RSM: <I don't know where you find that in what I wrote: I said only that
RYBS considered standing me'iqqar haddin.>

Earlier it was posted that RYBS said he can walk around, for birkas
kohanim, if he wants because it is his chumrah; he can therefore, keep
it or not as he pleases.

SG: <If many Jews stand with feet apart, they are probably correct.>

RSM: <Maybe not, if they are just following what they believe to be
"the yeshivishe minhag." Do you not agree that many Jews sit and talk
during the hazoro,>

SG <What happened to limud zchus to understand and uphold a minhag?
Why do you treat aveiros as minhagim? Why does the "yeshiva" posul
the minhag?>

RSM: <By dukhaning, the g'moro says that the kohanim are 'oqer raglayim
during R'tze. It seems a very strange lashon to use, unless they were
standing with their feet together.>

SG: <In hilchos Shabbas mleches hotzaah there also is "'oqer raglaiv" does
that mean feet were together, otherwise patur? In hilchos kinyan meshichah
of a cow there also is "'oqer raglaiv", were the cow's feet together?>

Shlomo Goldstein

[I thought this would be of interest to the chevrah, particularly those
of us concerned with eliminating any internal "chill". -mi]

The SE begins by quoting a Medrash (Medrash Raba, Shemos, 9, 3). That
Medrash, in turn, refers us to a Mishna in Berachos (5, 1): 'Ein omdim
le'hispalel elah mitoch coved rosh' (That is: a person may not begin to
daven unless he/she is serious about it.'). The Mishna continues: '... And a
person may not interrupt his/her davening--EVEN if a serpent has coiled
itself around his/her heel!' Scorpions, however, are apparently more
dangerous than serpents. Thus, the Gemara states ( Berachos, 32, b) that if
a scorpion is targeting a person while he/she is davening, the person may
interrupt his/her prayer to take appropriate measures.

The SE comments that 'Nir'eh' (i.e., he has the impression) that the reason
for our ancestors' descent to Egypt was to prepare them for living (later)
in Eretz Yisrael. In support of this interpretation, the SE notes that when
the Medrash (Parshas Shemos) lists the gifts (!) for whose acquisition
suffering was necessary, Eretz Yisrael is right up there, on the list.

How did our suffering in Egypt prepare us to live in Eretz Yisrael? The SE's
answer to this question may initially mystify us even more. Thus, the SE
cites a maxim of Chazal: ' (Only) He who has triumphed over the serpent
shall marry the king's daughter.' And, adding to our confusion, the SE
continues: not everyone who deems himself worthy is, in fact, worthy. At
this point, a person may legitimately react to what has been said thus far
in this paragraph by asking: WHAT is going on here?

To answer, note the following. First, the 'serpent' to which the Medrash
refers is the power of (ill-used) sexuality. The SE makes this connection
clear by an allusion to the 'serpent' who got Ahdam and Chava into trouble
in Gan Eden. Second, Egypt was well-known for being a place in which
promiscuous behavior was the norm. (See, e.g., Yechezke'el, 23, 20) Hence,
Egypt was, so to speak, the ideal training ground for handling that
'Serpent'. (In view of the prominent role that the 'Serpent' plays in the
ma'amar, I think that he deserves an upper-case 'S'.)

Why did Bnai Yisroel need that training? Because Eretz Kena'an was also a
place in which the 'Serpent' had especially strong power of seduction. In
fact, the Zohar refers to Kena'an as a 'Serpent'. And the Zohar is so
concerned with our capacity to handle that seductive power that it reads the
words 'Eretz Megu'rei'hem' (Shemos, 6, 4) not as ( ArtScroll) 'the land of
their sojourning', but rather as 'the land of their fears'!

The SE continues, telling us that the reason why HaShem and our ancestors
wanted us to enter Eretz Yisrael was that we accept HaShem's kingship there.
Thus, the purpose of our stay in Egypt--with all the suffering it
involved--was to prepare us for life in Eretz Yisrael. Chazal tell us that
'Kohl HaGadol Mei'chaveiro...'( 'The temptation to sin is greater for a
person who is on a higher level of spirituality than for a person on a lower
level of spirituality.') Apparently, a similar relation prevails
geographically. That is, Eretz Yisroel is a place where higher levels of
Kiddusha are feasible; likewise, a heightened susceptibility to go in the
wrong direction. Hence, the need for an 'immunization' process in Egypt.

Further, just as this logic was in operation at the national level, so too
at the individual level. Clearly, we cannot do a good job of accepting
HaShem's kingship if our minds are full of the 'mach'shovos zoros' (alien
thoughts) placed there by the 'Serpent'. Therefore, to free our minds from
such distractions, Chazal designed our Siddur with focus on our liberation
from Egypt immediately preceding our core prayer, Shemoneh Esrei.

Good! Thanks to the SE, we now have a better understanding of the role of
the 'Serpent'--and measures to deal with him -- both at the individual and at
the national levels. What can we say about the scorpion? We badly need the
SE's help in understanding the scorpion; for as you may remember, the
scorpion is even more dangerous than the Serpent.

The SE confronts the challenge of explanation head on. He does so by telling
us that the 'Serpent' seeks to entice us to Aveiros done with heat:
presumably of passion or of anger. By contrast, the SE says, the scorpion
reflects Mitzvos (!) done with 'Kerirus'--i.e., coldly. I say 'Mitzvos'
because the SE immediately refers to Amaleik--'asher korcha...' (That is :
'who cooled you off...'). The problem with Amaleik was not that he entices
us to do AVEIROS coolly, but rather, that he gets us to do MITZVOS coolly.
(How does Amaleik achieve this goal? Part of the story is reflected in a
Gematria: Amaleik = Safeik ( doubt).

Returning to the main theme of the ma'amar, we note the following. The SE
states unambiguously that such 'cool' behavior is 'much worse' ('garu'a
be'yoseir') than the Aveiros done with heat. In fact, the SE says, our
descent to Egypt may have been in the nature of an escape from the Kerirus
(coolness) with which Lavan was trying to destroy us! Further, continues the
SE, we lack a remedy for the moral ailment of Kerirus. And, concludes the
SE, we may not find a remedy for this ailment until HaShem's Name is
complete; i.e., until Moshi'ach's arrival.

Finally, in discussing the problem of Kerirus, the SE notes two features:
namely, Atzvus and Atzlus--Depression and the closely related lassitude that
often accompanies Depression. He does not mention behavior that may be part
of the story today--a desire to be 'laid back' and 'cool'; i.e., emotionally
and intellectually disengaged. The reason for the SE's omission of this
feature may be simple. The ultimate in being 'cool' and 'laid back' is a
corpse on ice in the municipal morgue!

likhvod harav

this was not meant as an attack, unless my prose is unclear, although
clearly we do not have the same shita.  

I did not mean to deny you the depths of emotional attachments to har
habayit as representing mekom hamikdash and expecting biat hagoel bimhera
beyamenu, and if you think that my post did that, I will apologize.
However,

1)  R Breuer's shitta of denying the religious significance of nationalism
is one that you have endorsed, and have specifically applied to this
argument, that the sovereignity of har habayit is one that has leumi rather
than dati implications.

2)  Quite clearly from your posts, you do not see the same deep emotional
significance in our governance of har habayit bazman haze as much of the
group, ranging from RCS to Shoshana Boubil, and have also said that you
don't believe that it has that significance to the nondatiim (a question of
metziut about which we may disagree).  I think that it is an intellectually
consistent with your shitta.  After all, the depths of our attachment to har
habayit bazman haze are not based (especially if you reject, as you do, the
opinion of those who allow some limited access to har habayit) 
to anything that can be done there, and until bi'at hagoel remains one more
of doing kria over its current state than any celebration of our
sovereignity.  It is only within the context of leumiut that the depths of
attachment to our sovereignity (as distinct from an attachment to the har
habayit) expressed by others are understandable. 

Therefore, attachment to har habayit as mkom hamikdash is clearly something
that transcends the leumi/dati distinction.  However, attachment to our
control of har habayit is related to an emotional attachment to national
symbols, and there we differ.  

Lastly, I think that you believe that your position is the classical one of
Aguda.  

I would also say that while much of the haredi community rejected the
leumiut of "secular zionism", it had, until recently, a vibrant emotional
leumiut (which RYBS described as brit avot).  It seems that in the rejection
and fight with the zionut, some of this emotional leumiut has been lost.
My bechiya was on this loss, and not on a personal one, as I think that your
attitudes do reflect a significant part of the haredi community.  I thought
that my phraseology (even a major talmid chacham..) made it clear that I was
refering to my perception of a communal change in attitudes rather than a
presumed individual one, and apologize if a personal attack was understood. 

Meir Shinnar

On 29 Jan 2001, at 16:39, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> Kana"l - I believe that one is entitled to pasken like the CI both l'kulla 
> and l'chumra, but in Japan one would need to be machmir like the chumros of 
> makom she'bo l'sham, at least in a yishuv, and keep at least d'orysa's on 
> their (erroneous) Saurday. Outside the yishuv it is reasonable to assume 
> one might be meikel.

Is there a yishuv in Japan b'chlal? I always understood that a yishuv meant a 
yishuv of yidden. I don't know if there is such in Japan, but if there is not, 
wouldn't that mean that one is always outside the yishuv there?

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
eFax (US) 1-253-423-1459

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.

See pictures of Israel. Point your browser to:

http://www.members.home.net/projectonesoul/israel/israel.htm
http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/kdoshim/index.htm

I suggested in the past (way back in v2n23,
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n023.shtml#11>) that the
mechabbeir set out to follow a strict majority rule in part to preserve
"lo bashamayim hi". After all, Maran Bet Yosef's chavrusah was a maggid,
an mal'ach that was the embodiment of the Mishnah.

Reading OhrNet, I was reminded of a data point that makes this far
less likely. "Shu"t Min haShamayim", by R' Yaakov miMarvege, is quoted
lihalachah by the Shlah and Radvaz. As the title emplies, it is a
collection of teshuvos recieved bachalom to halachic questions asked
of Shamayim.

Of course, it's possible the Beis Yoseif is choleik about whether such
material is usable. But I can no longer make that assumption; the basis
of my theory needs work.

In either case, I'm sure there was discussion of whether and why Shu"t
Min haShemayim has halachic weight. Can anyone comment?

-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 Sotah 35b, R' Shim'on and R' Yehudah are choleik as to whether the
writing on the 12 stones carved during k'rias haYardein were carved and
then filled with plaster (RY); or if they were plastered, and the plaster
was what they carved (RS).

Note that both assume that the intent is to provide the text in all 70
languages to make it available to non-Jews. Which is why R' Yehudah has
to answer R' Shim'on's question of how can they learn from a text that was
plastered over? (They were supposed to chisel the plaster off. OhrNet (from
Ohr Samayach) suggests that this shows the need for ameilus to acquire
Torah.)

But, if providing a translation for the other umos to learn from is
"a good thing", then why was Targum Shiv'im something evil enough to
commemorate with a ta'anis?

-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

Micha Berger wrote:
> But, if providing a translation for the other umos to learn from is "a good
> thing", then why was Targum Shiv'im something evil enough to commemorate with
> a ta'anis?

Related to the recent discussion about teaching Torah to Gentiles, the
Netziv brings this as a proof that it is mutar to teach Torah SheBiChsav
to Gentiles. Others, however, counter that it was a hora'as sha'ah.

If it was a hora'as sha'ah, then it is understandable why the Targum
Shiv'im was viewed unfavorably. It did not have a similar hora'as sha'ah.

Alternatively, there could have been a concern that Jews would use the
Targum Shiv'im to learn Greek. That would not apply to the 12 stones
because the Jews did not stay there.

Gil Student

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
>  The minhag of prompting the kohanim word by word does not seem to have
>  been done in the time of the Gemara,  according to my understanding of
>  today's daf.  When did it start?

See Rashi D"H Mipnei Hatiruf, Brochos 34a (according to Rashi (who Teitches
that way the Mishne), it says in the Gemara in Sotah (39b)), according to
Tos. D"H Loi Yaneh, it's source is a Medrash.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

I just found this post hidden in my in-box.

Akiva Miller wrote:
> From several recent postings, I have gotten the impression that there are
> certain situations where a husband is required to divorce his wife, simply
> because she refuses to go to the mikveh. ...
> If the rabbis are afraid that a very lengthy nida period might be too much of
> a temptation, wouldn't an issur yichud suffice? Let him move to another
> bedroom, or another house. Why would he have to divorce her, if he is hopeful
> that she might someday change her mind?

A woman who does that is considered a "moredes" - rebel. The following
is what the Rambam says about her:

Hilchos Ishus 14:12-13
A woman who prevents her husband from having relations -- she is
called a rebel. [The beis din] asks her why she rebelled. If she says,
"I am disgusted by him and cannot willfully have relations with him,"
we force him to divorce her because she is not in captivity to have
relations with someone she hates. She leaves without any kesuvah at all...

If she rebelled against her husband in order to hurt him and said,
"I am hurting him this way because he did such and such to me or because
he cursed me or fought with me" or something similar, the beis din sends
her [a messenger] and says to her, "Know that if you continue with your
rebellion you will lose your kesuvah, even if it is for 100 manah"...

Gil Student

I thank R' Gil Student very much for the mar'eh mkomos about mandatory
divorce. I hope to learn these halachos in more detail.

In the first Rambam he brings, from the words "I am disgusted by him", my
guess is that the husband would be required to divorce her *only* if she
wants the divorce. If for some reason she does not want relations, but is
content to remain married, and the husband feels similarly, then I would
imagine that divorce would *not* be required.

In the second example, I would hope that the Beis Din would do some sort
of investigation to see if her complaints might be justified.

Akiva Miller

On 30 Jan 2001, at 12:34, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> Alternatively, there could have been a concern that Jews would use the
> Targum Shiv'im to learn Greek. That would not apply to the 12 stones
> because the Jews did not stay there.

Why would that be a concern? The Gemara says later on that the cherem 
was against learning "chochmas yevanis" and not the Greek language.

-- 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.

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


[ 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         ]