Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 098

Friday, January 25 2002

• Re: From whence Kohanim
• Re: What to ask the rabbi
• re: Chalav hacompanies
• Re: Chalav hacompanies
• "New Route for Kohanim? Heard Nothing About It"
• re: tav lemeitav
• Boneh, Soser, Korayah
• Re: tav lemeitav
• Din Torah
• Din Torah
• Re: Din Torah
• Subject: Re: eruv
• Oruch Hashulchan & Cholov Akum
• RE: Chalav hacompanies
• Re: CY - 'humra or kulla
• Re: Ta'anis Esther
• Re: Subject: Re: eruv
• Re: Din Torah

In a message dated 1/22/02 10:21:10pm EST, linaseli@netvision.net.il writes:
> Where there more Kohanim m'yuchasim around after Doeg's slaughter at Nov,
> or was Evyasar the only one? According to (IIRC) the Ralbag, Beis Eli was
> descended from Isamar, while other Kohanim Gedolim were all from Pinchas.

See Radak Divrei Hayomim 1 5:27.

> Does this include Tzadok, who took over from Evyasar? If there were others
> besides the Kohanim from Nov, how does one tyche Tosfos on Brochos 4b,
> which states that it was obvious Evyasar was the CG, because there was
> no-one else to be CG since Doeg had slaughtered everyone else? If there
> weren't, how does on explain the Gemora in RH 18a which notes that Rabbah
> and Abayei were from Beis Eli - which other battei avos could they have

See Yifei Aynayim on the Tos. 4a, (one could add the above mentioned Divrei 
Hayomim as further proof that there were other Kohanim as well).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

RDF quoted:
> > But as other people understand DT, and as the chassidim understand the
> > role of the tzaddiq, he has the ability to make non-religious choices
> > (such as which job is more likely to be successful financially) better
> > than the rest of us. Whether because of a refined intellect because it's
> > more in line with the "Mind" of the Borei (via His Torah) or because of
> > a level ruach haqodesh.

I am fairly (or very) close to a not so well known 'hassidishe rebbe,
who happens to be the youngest surviving great grandson (or is it one more
generation removed? anyway, there aren't too many of these around) of rav
'Hayim of Sanz. His take on this entire parshah is that the 'hassiedim
would make the rebbe a partner in their business, and because of the
'hessed project they become a partner in (they fund the rebbe's operation)
and the rebbe's power of tzaddik gozeir, therefore Hashem brings success
to said individual.

IOW, according said practicioner, this has usually little to do with the
kind of DT quoted above, unless (again, according to said rebbe) it is an
area in which the rebbe has consulting experience, which anyway grows on
him because of his numerous partnerships. It's a little like rav Bleich's
interpretation of the need for 'hakham sheba'ir for exceptional medical
procedures (I posted this on Areivim a while back as a reply to RCS).

Arie Folger

Several posters have compared this discussion to beating a dead horse. But
that was on Areivim, where we were just shouting past each other. Now
that posters are actually citing specific makoros in the poskim, I hope
that we can have a calmer and more productive chabura.

R' Shlomo Abeles writes <<< ... see Oruch Hashulchon YD 115. ... In sif
6 he brings a shocking story about people who were nichshol [via CA]
in treifos and bosor becholov.

Oh, yes! One of my favorite stories!

I would like to first offer my translation of that story, and then we
can discuss it objectively.

The Aruch HaShulchan YD 115:6 writes: <<< ... When I was the posek
in Plonit, one of the chashuv balabatim used to act leniently in this
matter when he was away from home, in the largest city in the country. He
always used to go there on business. When he and the other guests used to
drink their hot drinks each morning, they would buy creamy milk, called
"(smant?)", from a non-Jewish merchant near their hotel. Once, they began
to wonder (lachkor - perhaps "investigate" is a better translation?) among
themselves, from where did this small merchant get such (kol kach - i'm
not sure if the focus is on the quality or the quantity) creamy milk? So
they went to the merchant and asked him. And the merchant said, "I buy
animal brains from the butcher, and I mash them with a lot of milk and
cook them together, and that is [how I make] the creaminess." So they all
fell on their faces because of their great sin, eating treifos and basar
b'chalav. The balaboss confessed before me and cried out, "The words
of the chachamim are so great!" The truth is, I have a kabalah that every
gezeira of the chachamim, in addition to its explicit reason, it also has
many implicit reasons which were not revealed. He who listens will carry
a bracha from HaShem, and will be repaid both here and hereafter. >>>

First off, I will admit that if these businessmen had been careful about
chalav yisrael, they would have been prevented from these aveiros.

But to me, the story goes much deeper than that. This story says nothing
about Cholov haCompanies. It doesn't really say too much about Cholov
Yisroel either. But it speaks volumes about being a naive customer who
eats unlabeled products. This story is about people who are not only
uncaring about which kashrus standards to rely on, but more than that,
they don't even look at the ingredients list.

Read the story again. This was not a three-month investigation by the
Dept of Consumer Affairs. They simply asked the merchant where he gets
the milk, and he told them. This story is not about Cholov Yisroel, it is
about general kashrus. The merchant never even *claimed* that the stuff
was plain milk. Rather, either by its appearance or by a label or sign,
it was clearly a creamy type of milk which goes by another name.

The story is important, but its message goes far beyond milk. Suppose
you are at a hotel, and in the morning they offer a free breakfast in
the lobby. You see a pitcher full of orange-colored liquid. Can one
presume that it is plain orange juice, which I understand to not need a
hechsher? Perhaps one can make that assumption, but to me, the point of
the Aruch Hashulchan is that one should at least make a minimal effort
to ask one of the staff, and verify that it really is orange juice,
and not some cheap orange-colored drink. If one presumes it to be pure
orange juice, isn't that EXACTLY what the men in the story did?

Yes, perhaps at some point in history, the goyim were adulterating the
milk supply by mixing pig milk into the cow milk, so Chazal... Well,
I'm not sure what it was that Chazal did. Some say that they instituted
a gezerah against any milk that was milked by a non-Jew without a Jew
watching. Others say Chazal took a somewhat different line, that they
made a distinction between eggs (which can be presumed to come from
a chicken) and milk (which could no longer be presumed to come from a
cow), and that henceforth Practical Kashrus is that one must make sure
(by any reliable means) that the milk really does come from a cow. And
that's where we get our exemptions for milk which was under government
supervision, milk which was churned into butter, and even (IIRC) milk
which was intended for butter but not yet churned.

I often wonder whether Cholov Akum was a specific piece of legislation
that suggested, debated, and passed by the Sanhedrin? Or, possibly, it
was not at all different than the practical observation by a kashrus
organization that a certain ingredient (which used to be acceptable
without supervision) now needs a hechsher because manufacturing methods
have changed? And maybe that is what the whole machlokes about Cholov
HaCompanies is about?

Part Two:

R' Abeles also writes <<< [BTW he ends that sif with "... shomati
shebeAmerica yesh rabim meho'umos sheshosim cholov chazir mipnei
shemetsuyim shom harbeh." >>> Or in English, "I've heard that in America,
there are many non-Jews who drink pig milk because they are so plentiful."

I don't doubt his sincerity for a moment. I'm sure he did hear such
stories. Today, we'd refer to it as an "Urban Legend". If anyone can
find documentation of commercial sales of pig milk in 19th century United
States, please share it.

Akiva Miller

> On 23 Jan 2002 at 17:30, SBA wrote:
> > >>>... RMF in volume 8 of IM [YD 5] writes thus (in reference to ChC):
> > "...ibra d'ikka taamim lehokel ...hu RAK B'SHAAS HADCHAK..."<<<

> > EVERYBODY who has since responded has ignored this psak of RMF.
> > Why?

> Frankly, because I think it is almost impossible to reconcile it with
> any of RMF's other tshuvos relating to Cholov HaCompanies (there are
> about six of those).

I am not sure what the problem is. The comments of Rabbi Rappaport to
this tshuva in the 8th volume (page 161) address the issue.

Commercial milk is chalav yisroel though not the best type of
chalav yisroel but one can readily utilize it sha'as hadchak e.g.,
when supervised milk is inconvenient, too expense, not available,
tastes bad. However not when it impinges upon ones core values of
yiddishkeit. Thus chinuch which needs to emphasize that one makes
sacrifices for avodas hashem and one should not look for easy ways,
or where people fully cognizant that it is hiddur want to lower their
long held practice to save money or if the person views himself as a
ba'al nefesh and decides to lower his standard because afterall it is
permitted. All of these reflect debasement of core values and are not
a reflection of whether the milk is kosher.

This is similar to a psak that Reb Moshe supposedly gave [never could
confirm whether it is true] concerning cheating on tests. He supposedly
said it is permitted under the following conditions 1) It doesn't harm
any other students i.e., test is not graded on curve 2) It can not be
in an area of competence that ignorance could be harmful i.e., brain
surgery or engineering where ignorance is a catastrophe 3) it is only
permitted if it has no impact on ones midos.

In sum, all the cases I have seen - commercial milk is only permitted
when it doesn't impact one's self image as an observant Jew. Or put
the other way, as long as it doesn't lower one's spiritual self image -
one can freely utilize commercial milk according to perceived need (i.e,
shaas hadchak).

You might want to contact Rabbi Rappaport 02 641-5579 or Fax 02- 642-2148

                    Daniel Eidensohn

[Since everyone getting Areivim gets Avodah, please don't send
Avodah posts to Areivim too. -mi]

"Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> writes:
:I would argue that he would be allowed to take part (even though he was
:an aveil b'toch shiva) on Shabbos because the fact that the discussion
:is taking place in front of numerous people (your son went there for
:Mincha IIRC so there was a presumably a minyan), would take it out of
:the category of davar she'b'tzina, and therefore Shabbos would trump
:the aveilus

I would go one step further and say he probably could discuss it even
bechol during aveilus since rabbim tzerichim lo.

I also wonder why he davka wanted a minyan on Shabbos-the shul he
"shanghaied" my son from was NEXT DOOR.

cc:  Avodah

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

A long time ago, I wrote:
<<I listened to the pre-RCA 1974 convention shiur of RYBS, where he made
his statement concerning tav lemeitav tan du. It seems that Rackman's
proposal was coming up for a vote at the RCA, and RYBS solicited a
(small) number of talmidim to a(n unusual?) shiur.>>
<snip>(I quote more of my original post below)

R Yisrael Dubetsky suggested to take a look at RHS's new Mipninei harav,
pgs 265-66. Today I did, and my impressions are interspersed with the
quotes of my original post:

<<After the shiur is over, he explains his opposition to Rackman's
proposal, and pleads from his talmidim (whom I believe he called
colleagues) and includes his interpretation of 'hazakot such as tav
lemeitav tan du.>>

RHS confirms that the entire episode happened at the RCA convention
(Rackman wanted a vote) and a preconvention shi'ur.

<<RYBS's position on 'hazakot is quite difficult, as there are cases
where we overrule previously held 'hazakot, based upon nishtaneh hatevah
or that sicial circumstances have changed. Thus, I believe that his
interpretation of tav lemeitav was not as much a general approach to
'hazakot of 'hazal, but a particular approach to that 'hazakah.>>
<snip>
<<I will, however, rehash from memory the thrust of RYBS's argument: tav
lemeitav is not based on probabilities, but is the result of a drashah>>
<snip>

RHS confirms this. In general, says RHS, the Rav was very aware and
attuned to the interplay of science (even social sciences, even psych,
as RHS explains) an Torah. It is just that in this particular instance
he disagreed.

RHS also adds a nice little quip. He quotes a TuM article about using
genetic testing to prove that the Ethopian Jews are either halakhikally
not Jewish, or from another shevet, and a reply to it (whose author he
mentions by name!). RHS then says about the reply that claimed that the
Rav would not endorse using science to investigate this matter, that ehr
(the author of the reply) makht a groisse tooooess (Heb: ta'ut gassah,
pronounce with heavy Polish or Galitzianer accent. Heavy Hungarian will
qualify besha'at had'hak). ;-) ayin sham.

<<One gets the impression, from listening to the tape, that RYBS wasn't
even talking about a general approach to tav lemeitav, as much as an
attack to Rackman's proposal.>>

RHS explains that the Rav thought tav lemeitav was an exception to the
general 'hazakot and really was based on psukim in Bereishit. However, my
impression from listening to the tape has not changed. OTOH, the Rav would
not make up stuff to rebuff Rackman. If anything, he may have simplified
the message to get the point accross clearly and unequivocally. I believe
that what the Rav thought was that tav lemeitav is not a reflection
of what women tell us consciously, or what is reflected by societies
whim's. Rather, tav lemeitav reflects deeply engrained drives that were
created in us with ma'aseh bereishit, hence the Rav stating it comes
from a drashah, even though 'Hazal don't claim that. (am I right on
this? comments please)

Arie Folger

I am aware that the issue of opening kelim (cans, bottles etc.,) on
shabbos is one strongly debated by the poskim - RMF, Rav Ovadiah Yosef,
Rav Shlomo Zalman etc., - I am interested however in the Shita of the Rav
ztl - I have heard that the Rav was of the opinion that anything which
could be opened by hand fell into the category of chosamos ( o"c 314:7 )
and was therefore mutar to open - I could not find this position or any
other position attributed to him in print - does anyone have any info
on this matter ?

kol tuv
warren

In a message dated 01/24/2002 5:34:51pm EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> RHS confirms this. In general, says RHS, the Rav was very aware and
> attuned to the interplay of science (even social sciences, even psych,
> as RHS explains) an Torah. It is just that in this particular instance
> he disagreed.

There's a piece in Nefesh Harav where R'MF mattired a get by an individual
who thought he was mashiach. A part of the heter was that maybe it was
just gaavah that he thought he was capable of being mashiach. R'YBS asked
his students not to talk about this since thinking one is Masshiach is a
universally recognized insanity. 
(FWIW I suggested a possible reconciliation based on not knowing
the facts. Perhaps the individual had a "contained insanity(my term)"
that didn't impact the rest of his functions, but this fact was not
reported to R'YBS?????

KT
Joel Rich

>>>A few weeks go by, and the insurance agent does not receive a check.
The insurance agent calls Reuvain and asks why payment has not been
received, and Reuvain says, "I sent the check." The check does not
arrive. ...., Reuvain produces a copy of the check, which has been paid
by the bank. The check was sent to Shimon at the insurance agent's
address - no "in care of." Furthermore, instead of being made out to
"Shimon Joseph," the check was made out to "Josepha Shimon." The check
was also marked "pay only to payee;" it's not supposed to be endorseable.

Shimon is suing Reuvain in Beis Din for the money that he never
received. <<<<

Lo zochisi lehovin!
The check went into the insurance agents account. No?
Why doesn't he simply reissue a check to Shimon?

Or did I misunderstand?
So which account  did the check end up in??
Why a DT?
Get the check repaid!

> What are the other side's ta'anos?

That R wrote out the check wrong and/or addressed it to the wrong person???

SBA

From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
<< The insurance agent calls Reuvain and asks why payment has not been
 received, and Reuvain says, "I sent the check." >>

Forgive my ignorance, but did the check clear? Did Shimon actually
receive the money? If not, what's the issue? If so, what's the issue?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

<it's not supposed to be endorseable. Shimon is suing Reuvain in Beis
Din for the money that he never received. Who wins and why? What are the
other side's ta'anos? ... - Carl>

ok, i'll take a quickie shot from the hip.

1. if all the relevant factoids are presented -- in particular no further
explicit instructions to the insurance agent -- it would seem that the
particulars of the procedure suggested to reuvain were the initiative
of the agent -- thus why should we not simply invoke "lav ba'al d'vorim
didi at" for the reuvain/agent axis (i.e be shimon's tayneh to reuvain
would be that he (the agent) is not in the loop -- and thus shimon was
obligated to conclude his business directly with reuvain, unless reuvain
specified otherwise) and have shimon send a new check. only imponderable
here, which i have no knowledge base to fall back on, is whether israeli
law imputes an implicit sh'liach l'qabboloh function to the agent by
virtue of reuvain's involving him. but Rcarl has not mentioned this.

2. however -- even were a sh'lichus l'qabboloh appointment be assumed
(either explicit tasking by reuvain or a legally imputed status by the
legal system), yet another consideration leads to same conclusion. i
am thinking of the discusssion of sh'lichus in sixth pereq of gitin. In
particular the sugyoh on 63b -- d"h "holeich monoh l'floni she'ani chayyov
lo,..chayyov b'achrayoso v'im boh lachzor, lo yachzor". So we may infer
that -- even with the sofeiq that the sholiach(agent) is a qabboloh
sholiach (hence lo yachzor) nevertheless, chayyov b'achrayoso. QED,
and pay the man again.

note, there seems no need to argue about the correct spelling of the
name and whether a reasonable person could assume that the recipient is
indeed well identified if mispelled (after all, its not a get), etc.

Mechy Frankel                  W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com    H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

> On 22 Jan 2002 at 10:23, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> If the couple is going to visit people why is it more shaat hadchak for
>> the mother than the father of the children?
...

> I think because there is a presumption that the wife is the one who is
> tied to the child. This would certainly be the case if the child were
> an infant and the mother were nursing.

may I then ask my wife to also push the button on the elevator when
going on a visit on shabbat?

sk

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
>>> As far as I know, EVERYONE (each according to his own shitos)
assers Chalav Akum. The point of disagreement is what is/isn't in that
category.<<<<

As I already posted, cholov akum is cholov akum - even when it is 100%
cows milk. The shaaloh is whether 100% cows milk - supervised by the FDA -
but unsupervised by a Jew, is muttar or not.

>>>Do you have a specific siman and seif where the Aruch Hashulchan
discusses milk supervised by the government?<<<

I no longer have the OH in my office - but it is in the 1st vol YD, siman
115. There is no doubt at all [in my mind] that government inspection
would not make ANY diffeence at all in the OH's psak.

>>>You did quote the Oruch Hashulchan as complaining against those who
<<< tolim es atzmom b'eizeh TC >>>. I did not see a specific siman/seif
for that quote. <<<

Same place - ayin shom

>>>Did the Oruch Hashulchan specify exactly what it was about that
Talmud Chacham's psak that he disagreed with? Perhaps it was a svara
that differs from Rav Moshe's, and perhaps the Oruch Hashulchan might
actually agree with Rav Moshe?<<<

Ayin shom and I think you will have no further doubts.

SBA

> Commercial milk is chalav yisroel though not the best type of
> chalav yisroel but one can readily utilize it sha'as hadchak e.g.,
> when supervised milk is inconvenient, too expense, not available,
> tastes bad. However not when it impinges upon ones core values of
> yiddishkeit.

How does one define "However not when it impinges upon ones core values
of yiddishkeit"?

Especially in the cases under discussion -- where it's NOT sha'as hadchak
by your definition?

Akiva

RAM wrote:
"... this might be the clearest example of all, that Rav Moshe
deliberately tried to avoid pinning down the "ikkar din"."

ZGG. I have claimed for many years that poskim like to include disclaimers
in their tshuvot (especially the more surprising ones) because they are
poskim, not revolutionaries.

As far as RMF's idea of pushing CY in schools, I don't think he was
suggesting that CY was such an important 'humra, but rather that it
could become the vehicle for teaching lifnim mishurat hadin, even as it
is not the best example of LMhD.

Git Shabbes,
Arie Folger

We who receive these things as digests, and take occasional workbreaks,
always seem to be a few threads behind. But i did not want to let this
go before giving my final, (and, i fancy, quite devastating) response
to those zealous souls who have called on me to repent -- or was that
recant? Anyway, one last time into the breach:

<I did howeverwant to comment on one technical side point - RYGB's 
chiddush that acommemorative day must at least be closely associated with 
some event-date.This notion is an interesting halakhic conjecture, but 
should certainly berecognized as a chiddush (like some other halakhic 
chiddushim which havefirst seen the light of day right here on avodah) and 
it would also seem tobe incorrect. v'ta'anis esther yokhiach.
<WADR to my eminent and erudite friend RMF, author of the above argument, I 
am utterly perplexed (that is an understatement) by his flippant dismissal 
of my position. >

while it is true that the above lines cited from my post rejected
RYGB's position, I reread them carefully and find i must even reject his
perplexitude (please no calls to the neologic police). it is rather I
who am "utterly perplexed" at the imputation of flippancy. Just where
was this alleged flippancy detected? (and play fair -- you've got to
parse the original lines, not this current message which may indeed be
veering in that direction ever so slightly, despite my best intentions
to maintain a sober literary mien)

<In brief: TE was instituted by Chazal b'ru'ach kodshom. V'ein zeh inyan
l'nidon didan klal u'klal.>
Nay, nay and ix nay. Au contraire and punktfrkert. Also ipkhoh mistavroh
and no way Jose(f). Rather than dismissing the relevance of any precedent
"tainted' by ruach haqqodesh, it should be embraced as the ultimate
gushpinkoh of approval. kinda in the spirit of imatatio deo. The notion
that divine precedent has no relevance to human decisions is the truly
odd religious inference here. However, such considerations are actually
quite irrelevant to nidon didon since your founding assumption of ruach
haqqodesh operating to establish TE is itself incorrect. I quote shebolei
hal'leqet b'shem rashi -- "v'sa'anis zeh (i.e. TE) aino lo midiv'rei
torah v'lo midiv'rei sof'rim, eloh minhog b'almoh.."

<The event-date issue is discussed by the Me'iri in Pesachim and others --
see RMMK's introduction (I do not have the sefer unpacked, this is from
memory) to "Ha'Tekufah Ha'Gedolah.">
i too do not have ready reference to your sources, but shall nevertheless
register my anticipatory doubt that they proscribe commemorations not
tied closely to event-dates, as you have suggested.. Note that I have
never argued that commemorations "ought" to be disjoint from event dates,
as that would offend common sense, but the suggestion that something
may never be so is always mufroch by a single counterexample -- as we
have provided.

And finally a serious objection. A number of correspondents have
noted that, appearances to the contrary, TE is not disjoint from its
event-date as it commemorates not esther amd mordechai but a different
fast associated with 13 adar, (either for rachamim or for battle depending
whether you like rashi or tos'fos). Despite the obvious problems, --
besides the name itself one must now pilpul away the most obvious
p'shat in div'rei hatz'tzomos v'zaqosom -- this is indeed a widely
accepted understanding amongst the rishonim. Nevertheless it is not a
universal opinion as the Ra'vad quoted by the Ran understands div'rei
hatz'tzomos to indeed refer to mordechai and esther. And even l'shittas
the (admittedly) majority there is clearly no objection in principle to
moving off the event-date, since there is yet another! TE lurking in the
historical halakhic background. a number of sources (earliest seems to be
meseches sof'rim) quote a different minhog of ta'anis, and that is the
ancient practice of palestinian scholars to fast three non-successive
days immediately following purim in explicit commemoration of the three
day mordechai and esther fast. Along with the comment that it was moved
from nissan because of the mishkon. And nobody saw anything strange about
any of this. Now that's what i would call a slam-dunk game over. Which
naturally leads me to address RYGB's final question:

<Who exactly seems here to be incorrect?!>
ok ok, You've forced the truth out of me. It is you who are incorrect
here. There, i've said it. now please put away the rubber hose.

Mechy Frankel                       W: (703) 588-7424
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com         H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil

On 24 Jan 2002 at 19:45, Steve Katz wrote:
> > On 22 Jan 2002 at 10:23, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> I think because there is a presumption that the wife is the one who is
>> tied to the child. This would certainly be the case if the child were
>> an infant and the mother were nursing.

> may I then ask my wife to also push the button on the elevator when
> going on a visit on shabbat?

Is there a snif l'hakel for pushing the button on an elevator? 

-- Carl

On 24 Jan 2002 at 22:27, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> << The insurance agent calls Reuvain and asks why payment has not been
>  received, and Reuvain says, "I sent the check." >>
> 
> Forgive my ignorance, but did the check clear? Did Shimon actually
> receive the money? If not, what's the issue? If so, what's the issue?

The check cleared but Shimon did not receive the money. Someone else
apparently got a hold of the check and endorsed it. The insurance agent
never got the check either.

By the way, this has become ma'asim b'chol yom here in Yerushalayim.
Any of you who send checks by mail here should do so by registered
mail and make them non-endorseable. In this case, the check was not
sent by registered mail, but was supposed to be non-endorseable (i.e.
the person who actually cashed it should have had to present ID that
they were Shimon).

[Email #2. -mi]

On 25 Jan 2002 at 14:22, SBA wrote:
> >>>A few weeks go by, and the insurance agent does not receive a check.
...
> Shimon is suing Reuvain in Beis Din for the money that he never
> received. <<<<

> Lo zochisi lehovin!
> The check went into the insurance agents account. No?

The check was made payable to Yosefa Shimon instead of to Shimon
Yosef. The insurance agent never received the check.

> Why doesn't he simply reissue a check to Shimon?
> Or did I misunderstand?
> So which account  did the check end up in??

We don't know. We only know that the check was paid to SOMEONE. 

> Why a DT?
> Get the check repaid!

Reuvain ta'anas that he paid already. But neither Shimon nor the agent
ever received the money.

>> What are the other side's ta'anos?

> That R wrote out the check wrong and/or addressed it to the wrong person???

Shimon ta'anas that Reuvain wrote the check out incorrectly and addressed
it incorrectly. Instead of being made out to "Shimon Yosef c/o Insurance
Agent, 18 Chasam Sofer Street" it was made out to "Yosefa Shimon, 18
Chasam Sofer Street."

[3rd email. -mi]

On 24 Jan 2002 at 23:12, Michael Frankel wrote:
> <it's not supposed to be endorseable. Shimon is suing Reuvain in Beis
> Din for the money that he never received. Who wins and why? What are the
> other side's ta'anos? ... - Carl>
...
> 1. if all the relevant factoids are presented.. - it would seem that the
> particulars of the procedure suggested to reuvain were the initiative
> of the agent -- thus why should we not simply invoke "lav ba'al d'vorim
> didi at" for the reuvain/agent axis...

The agent was acting for Shimon. It was the agent's initiative to speak
to Reuvain and to have the check sent to her, but that would be common
practice here because if Reuvain didn't pay Shimon, Shimon would file
a claim against his insurance company and Shimon's insurance company
would go after Reuvain (Reuvain is the mazik here - I think you may have
reversed them somewhere along the line).

> 2. however -- even were a sh'lichus l'qabboloh appointment be assumed...

> note, there seems no need to argue about the correct spelling of the
> name and whether a reasonable person could assume that the recipient is
> indeed well identified if mispelled (after all, its not a get), etc.

Actually, it wasn't just a question of misspelling (perhaps that wasn't
clear enough). Note that if the check was made out to Yosefa Shimon
instead of to Shimon Yosef, the sex of the check's recipient is also
changed.

-- Carl

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our 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         ]