Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 105

Sunday, February 16 2003

• Cohanim marrying non-besulos.
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos.
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos.
• Fw: Tehilim ha'Chida
• Re: Fw: Tehilim ha'Chida
• Cohanim marrying non-besulos
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos
• Re: Cohanim marrying non-besulos.
• Re: Fanaticalness
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Re: excuses for living in chu"l
• Re: Avodah V10 #101
• Half a pasuk
• Re: manipulating the pshat
• What requires Psak
• Re: Mishenich'nas Adar is not in SA
• Re: History, Truth, Memory: Nemonus of Baalei Mesorah
• ketubot and non-betulot
• Re: Rambam and Yisachar Zevulun
• Re: rambam yisachar zevulun
• Re: manipulating the pshat
• Re: fanaticism

A discussion this morning (which included a friend who was recently
appointed as rabbi in a 'mainstream O' shul (ie: they follow O traditions
and nusach - but probably don't have less than 5 shomrei shabbos.)

The question asked, was, that unfortunately these days - outside of the
religious community - there are very few marriages where the kallah is
a besulah. (In many/most cases the choson and kallah have been living
together for quite a while.)

1) Should the ksubah contain the word 'besulah'? It would seem to be an
open and clear lie and also a 'chiyuche utlili' for anyone understanding
the document and knowing that they have been in a de facto relationship
for months/years.

And if it does have the word, is it still kosher? Someone looked up
one of the newly published "Kehilchosoy" seforim and found a footnote
quoting someone saying that it is OK. But how are rabbonim is such
shuls actually noheg?

2) A much more serious shaaloh is regarding a Cohen marrying a
non-besulah. AIUI such a woman is al pi din considered to be a zonah
which a Cohen is assur to marry. And the children in this case would be
psulim lekehunah and no longer Cohanim. So how can a rabbi be mesader
kiddushin for Cohanim cases where there is no sofek of the kallah's
status.

And does this mean that almost every single Cohen whose parents were/are
irreligious cannot claim Kehunah? It would be very sad for BTs if that
is the case.

And what if someone used such a Cohen for a Pidyon Haben - must they
perform it again? (And with or without a brocho?)

I know we have a few full-time rabonim here (I will CC them), but would
like to know how all this is explained.

(I have no doubt that this matter is not a new shaaloh and would like
to hear their comments)

SBA

At 01:44 PM 2/16/03 +1100, SBA wrote:
>1) Should the ksubah contain the word 'besulah'?
>It would seem to be an open and clear lie and also a
>'chiyuche utlili' for anyone understanding the document and knowing
>that they have been in a de facto relationship for months/years.

Sometines they write "be'ulta" - usually, for obvious reasons, "itesa."

>And if it does have the word, is it still kosher?
>Someone looked up one of the newly published "Kehilchosoy" seforim and
>  found a footnote quoting someone saying that it is OK.
>But how are  rabbonim is such shuls actually noheg?

Sometimes they write besulta b'hako that the chosson can be mekkabel
al atzmo.

Why is this not on Avodah?!

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

On 16 Feb 2003 at 13:44, SBA wrote:
> 1) Should the ksubah contain the word 'besulah'?
> It would seem to be an open and clear lie and also a
> 'chiyuche utlili' for anyone understanding the document and knowing
> that they have been in a de facto relationship for months/years.

> And if it does have the word, is it still kosher?
> Someone looked up one of the newly published "Kehilchosoy" seforim and
>  found a footnote quoting someone saying that it is OK.
> But how are  rabbonim is such shuls actually noheg?

What's the issur involved? The only effect is the amount of the ksuva,
and if the husband is willing to pay her a ksuva as a bsula, why shouldn't
they write it in the ksuva regardless of the reality?

> 2) A much more serious shaaloh is regarding a Cohen marrying a non-besulah.
> AIUI such a woman is al pi din considered to be a zonah which a Cohen is
> assur to marry. And the children in this case would be psulim lekehunah and
> no longer Cohanim. So how can a rabbi be mesader kiddushin for Cohanim
> cases where there is no sofek of the kallah's status.

If the husband was the Cohain with whom she was living (and there were
no others) it seems to me that there ought not to be any reason to
pasel her from marrying him (I addressed the other part of this in a
separate email).

> And does this mean that almost every single Cohen whose parents were/are
> irreligious cannot claim Kehunah? It would be very sad for BTs if that is
> the case.

Doubtful in earlier generations - the pritzus wasn't as bad. 

-- Carl

> From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer"
>> My daughter brought home a "Tehillim ha'Chida" yesterday upon which the
>> girls did a chalukah.
>> First time I ever heard or saw it. I think it objectionable.
>> In all my years in yeshiva I never heard such a minhag.
>> The Tehillim book has no haskomos, and the Chida's entire shayachus is
>> that he notes he saw a book arranged in such a pattern. That's it,
>> no mekoros.
>> Any information?

Someone showed me on Shabbos a new sefer 'Oros Hachido' which quotes his
sefer Yosef Tehilos as saying: If someone is unwell, "...yesh shemekabetz
asoro anoshim velomed kol psukei tehilim hamas'chilim bechol os me'osios
shemoy, venidfas sefer likutei tehillim al seder alef beis zeh...'

I also see that the Tehillim Hachido in the foreword states that the
Chido mentions this in his sforim 'Sansan leyoir"(sp?) and Kaf Achas. It
it is also mentioned in Kitzur Sheloh (p 101b) - to say the psukim of
the name of a city if it is under threat.

BTW these seforim bring only to say the unwell person's name - not that
of his mother...

SBA

At 01:19 PM 2/16/03 +1100, SBA wrote:
>Someone showed me on Shabbos a new sefer 'Oros Hachido'...
>I also see that the Tehillim Hachido in the foreword states that the Chido
>mentions this in his sforim 'Sansan leyoir"(sp?) and Kaf Achas. It it is
>also mentioned in Kitzur Sheloh (p 101b) - to say the psukim of the name of
>a city if it is under threat.
...

(whivh O I quoted all these here before - note the "velomed" - that's
from the Sansan l'Yair (which I saw inside) that says also "yilmad."

I am not sure what the heter is to print Tehillim al pi Alef Beis.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> 2) A much more serious shaaloh is regarding a Cohen marrying a
> non-besulah. AIUI such a woman is al pi din considered to be a zonah

Why? A zonah is someone who was niv'ala to a pasul. Rashi in Chumash
says clearly it doesn't refer to a panui with a penuya.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

On 16 Feb 2003 at 0:11, Gershon Dubin wrote:
> From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
>> 2) A much more serious shaaloh is regarding a Cohen marrying a
>> non-besulah.
>> AIUI such a woman is al pi din considered to be a zonah

> Why?  A zonah is someone who was niv'ala to a pasul.  Rashi in Chumash says
> clearly it doesn't refer to a panui with a penuya.

I think there's a halachic presumption that if she's mufkeres, she has
no way of knowing whether the person to whom she was niv'eles was (for
example) a goy or other pasul.

-- 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.

From: "SBA" <sba@iprimus.com.au>
> 2) A much more serious shaaloh is regarding a Cohen marrying a non-besulah.
> AIUI such a woman is al pi din considered to be a zonah which a Cohen is
> assur to marry.

As a number of posters have pointed out to me privately (and publicly)
I have erred.
I should have known. Rashi in Emor on Isho Zonah and also the Mishna
in Ksubos 'Ro'uho medaberes'.

I suppose that makes life a bit easier for rabbonim.

But in a case where it is known she lived with a goy or mamzer etc -
hadran kushyen leduchtei...Is a rav allowed to be mesader kiddushin in
such a case? Or is he being oyver on lifnei ivver or being a mesaye
le'aveira?

SBA

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 10:40:08PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: A bachur from Chofetz Chaim explained me this, Middos are like medicine,
: you have to use them in proper dosages...

I would rephrase that to:
Personality traits are like medicine, you have to use them in the
proper middos.

Note the lashon! Sifrei mussar don't speak of personality traits, they
speak of their sizes!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RRW wrote:
>1) The Rambam probably never meant to allow for such a loophole
> {intellectual honesty}
> BUT
> 2A)Poskim have a right to use their interpretive powers to read into
> the text

Poskim do not make up their own halachos. If they poskin a certain way in
the Rambam, it is because they sincerely believe, with all intellectual
honesty, that the Rambam meant it that way.

motya

On Mon, Feb 10, 2003 at 11:29:47PM +0200, gofman wrote:
: See Rambam in hilchos tshuva 9:1, 10:1 where he states repeatedly that
: olam haba is a composite reward for mitzvos and knowledge of torah.
: Consequently, olam haba goes beyond yedias hashem and therefore could
: be a commodity.

RMB wrote:
>Leis din veleis dayin? Or is justice a commodity.

See Yalkut Shimoni, parshas vayehi 161, that states that Yisachar and
Zevulun had a shutfus baolam hazeh u'volam haba.
Your question is essentially on the midrash. All those who would like
to say that the Rambam would assur YZ will have to explain who he dealt
with the original YZ partnership which is explicit in the midrash.

motya

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 10:26:02PM +0200, gofman wrote:
: See Yalkut Shimoni, parshas vayehi 161, that states that Yisachar and
: Zevulun had a shutfus baolam hazeh u'volam haba.
: Your question is essentially on the midrash. All those who would like
: to say that the Rambam would assur YZ will have to explain who he dealt
: with the original YZ partnership which is explicit in the midrash.

Not really. I would suggest that Zevulun -- and all subsequent "Zevulun"s
-- are rewarded for assuming the shutfus be'olam hazeh. IOW, Zevulun's
reward is for valuing Torah enough to make it what he wants to spend
his money on.

His own zechus for his own "asher hu sham".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

In a message dated 2/9/2003 10:48:28 AM EST, sherer@actcom.co.il writes:
> >Bepasthus to me
> >Echad ha'marbeh v'Echad ha'mam'it - uvilvad sheyechavein es libo
> >lesheim shamayim.

> I don't think that applies when it's being used as an excuse to avoid 
> the performance of other mitzvos aseh, especially when the one you're 
> (ostensibly) doing could also be done in EY.

Why didn't the Gra choose to don 64 permutations of Tefillin? Was he
making an excuse not to be machmir, or did he view this as an unnecesarry
trade-off?

The use of excuse for not living in EY is like a "when do you stop
beating your wife". You don't consider not living in EY an excuse unless
you pre-suppose that all must live there unless they have an excuse.

It's not a matter of excuse. It's a matter of intent and trade-offs.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 2/14/2003 7:10:19 AM EST, Rebelkrim@aol.com writes:
> >>Echad ha'marbeh v'Echad ha'mam'it - uvilvad sheyechavein es libo
> >>lesheim shamayim.

> >I don't think that applies when it's being used as an excuse to avoid 
> >the performance of other mitzvos aseh, especially when the one you're 
> >(ostensibly) doing could also be done in EY.

> Rav Lichtenstein tells a story that he was on a panel with rabbis
> of different denominations and one of them used the above Gemara as
> an excuse for differering levels of observance seen in the different
> denominations. He said that he couldn't sit back and let this Gemara be
> perverted. This Gemara (in Menachos and Brachos) refers to differing types
> of mincha offerings - based on one's financial ability to donate. Some
> could spend more on a shlamim and others could only give a very basic
> flour/oil offering. It doesn't mean that I can choose to neglect certain
> mitzvos b/c my heart is in the right place.

On this basis let's say  I am in a hospitable.
Q: Must I visist EVERY choleh there?
Q2: if not why not?
Q3: Am I obligated to get up now and get up and visit a hospital?
Q4: if not why not?

Point: you are almost definitely avoiding and evading countless potenial
mitzvos asei.
Are you saying the only excuse is being a marbitz Torah on the level
of RHS?

Just a further point about observance
Does not the Gmara say:
mitzassam be'aryos, rubam begneiva v'chulam b'avak lashon hara?
Who is so perfect that they do not mess up?

Do you realize that from ne'ilah to Maariv is only seconds yet we already
say v;hu rachum yechapeir avon!

Halevai that those who are over aveiros do it lishma!

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
<<The Gemara actually quotes the entire pasuk and the hagahos haGra
takes out the second half.>>

It occurred to me that the second half of the pasuk, "elyon samta
me'onecha" might not "fit" with the idea of kedushas ha'ir, and that's
why they stopped there.

If anyone else is listening to me post on my thread <g>, any comments?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

In a message dated 2/11/2003 11:27:21 AM EST, cmsherer@fandz.com writes:
> >Are you essentially saying that the meforshim are manipulating the
> >text? 

> I understood him as saying that halacha does not necessarily agree 
> with pshat in the text.

That's basically my point

Even in Midrash Halachah, acharie rabbim lehattos is a fact of Halachah
but i actauly takes the phrase out of context in the original.

Kal VAchomer that midrash Aggadah stretches the text.

Certainly the Yoshvei in Ashrei Yoshvei Veisecha means to dwell and
not to sit though I have heard that some davka sit down during minchah
for Ashrei.

The issue of course in Midrahs Halachah is which came first, the Halachah
or the Drashah

It is pashut that when Rambam tells us we learn X mipi hashmua that
this is the Normative Halachic Masorah MiSinai, but it is alos just as
obvious that it is not the only way the passuk Could have been read.

Illustration: Tashbisu on yom harishon is acordgin to mipi hashmua to be
on the 14th of Nissan, but it is by no means obvious that this is the
ONLY way to read it. The offical way al pi Massorah is as the Rambam
has reported it.
 IOW This is the "official" spin. I'm not sure if parshanus wise you
wouldn't learn an alternate pshat, jsut that Halachically we are obliged
to follow this version.

Thus, Massorah and/or Chazal have the authority to tell us how to
udnerstand the passuk Halachically, but that does not mean they mean to
convey to us the pshat when they do so. This conflation of Halachah
with pshat is IMHO an unfortunate pedgogical problem and has resulted
from this very lack of distinction.

I heard the Maharal quote that certain Midrashim/Aggedita has responsible
for mistabsin hadei'os IIRC. IMHO this is a bigger problem. People are
so imbued with the Midrashic import, that they lose sight of the simple
meaning of the Passuk. Which leads one to think that Rashi is saying a
lot less than he is. When Rashi needs to spin a passuk it is because of
a real problem. If one fails to discern the underlying problem in pshat,
then one tends to overlook the impact of Rashi.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

On the other, Areivim, list, there has been much badinage recently
concerning what is Halacha and what requires Psak or is relevant to Psak.

I would like to remind the group that when I was in a quandary over
whether to go to College k'ratzon my parents sheyichyu or to remain in
EY k'retzoni, my RY in Shaalvim did not tell me this was a matter of
personal decision to be concluded on my own.

He sent me to RSZA.

RSZA did not tell me (nor said RY, who called to clarify the ruling)
that to go to Baltimore and to College was an eitzah tovah.

He said it was a Psak.

I would expect that our chaverim here reformulate their perspectives
on what defines a PSak and what requires a Psak on the basis of that
Maaseh Rav.

I certainly did.

Kol Tuv,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org  or  ygb@yerusalmionline.org
essays, tapes and seforim at: www.aishdas.org;
on-line Yerushalmi shiurim at www.yerushalmionline.org

In a message dated 2/14/2003 7:10:02 AM EST, dannyschoemann@hotmail.com writes:
> 2. MAMBS is followed with "therefore one should (not) go to court with a
> goy in (Av)/Adar because our mazal is (not) good". Since we pasken that
> "ein mazal leYisroel" hence MAMBS is not lehalocho. But since in Av it
> may be that the goyim's mazal is good, so the SA warns us about going
> to court during Av.

BTW, as mentioned KSA mentions the mishenishnas Adar and it led me to
think is the idea of "din" here a function of Mazal?

I think the function is of psychology. In Av we are deressed and
sad. this puts us a t a disdvantage in a contest with a Gentile

OTOH, we feel elated and confident during Adar. A good time to pursue
a judgment.

This is reflected on Rosh Hashhan when we are told to dress up
with confidence that we will be zakkai badin. It's a self-fulfilling
action. Act like you are Zakkai and you will be Zakkai {shades of Dale
Carnegie again?!}

So the mazal factor is not the ONLY reason to avoid din in Av and to
pursue it in Adar. Our own psyche's as a result of the dispositions
prescribed by Halachah may make one time a bad idea and the other time
a good idea.

So we can hold ein mazal beyisrael and STILL feel better about doing
battle at certain times over others.

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe <RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com>

In a message dated 2/10/2003 10:24:58 PM EST, mgofman@zahav.net.il writes:
> Who crowned historians with the laurel of objectivity? More often
> than not, any particular historian is attempting the forward his
> own interpretation of events. Under the guise of "historic truth," he
> attempts to prove justify and uphold his own philosophies. Your argument
> could equally be reversed. Perhaps those who are seeking to show that our
> gedolim were "less charedi than we think" are seeking to find a haskama
> for their own lifestyles through history. If no such nod of approval is
> forthcoming from current gedolim then conscience forces us to find some
> basis for our decisions. Perhaps through history we can prove that the
> gedolim would have really been on our side.

I agree that historians have their own agenda and are not necessarily
objective that said, the question is not the historians but the
methodology of historians. What if someone was writing the typcial
hagiographic history with all kinds of intentions for hte positive and
then ran into "facts" that contradicted what was opoularly believed?

Lemashal, let's say hypothetically that were several "gedolim" who
opposed college in the last few decades but we discovered documents
showing the they themselves tried to start a college with state approval
{something akin to Touro} earlier. Do you sit on this information or
publish it?

I once read about a biographer of Alger Hiss who in the process of trying
to prove his innocence confirmed his guilt!

In a message dated 1/21/2003 10:30:26 AM EST, sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu
writes:
> I work for another division of Artscroll, so there critique of AS
> above is not nogei'ah me directly. But the faulting of a publishing
> house for publishing books that sell to its audience in a capitalist
> society has always struck me as quite odd.

FWIW, I dunno much about AS's history books, nevertheless  the bits and 
pieces of History in AS footnotes found in their books on liturgy, such as 
Machzor, Kinos, and Slichos are very good.  

Kol Tuv - Best Regards
Richard Wolpoe
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Two modern teshuvot on the topic of ketubot for non-betulot are 1. 
Yachel Yisrael 31 and (a very sweet Teshuva by RMF in ) Igrot Moshe OC4, 
118.  Both give the kallah her 200 zuz.  (reminds me of a song by Madonna).
menucha chwat

On Tue, Feb 11, 2003 at 01:18:49PM -0500, RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com wrote:
: 2B) Klal Yisrael can see it in a slightly different manner and not take
: things as orignally intended.

I don't understand this phrase. Are you saying there are things in the
Torah its Author didn't intend? Lich'orah, if some conflicting connotation
is there, it's because He wanted it to be there.

Now, it may be a case like "na'aseh adam", where HQBH chose to allow a
deduction only a chotei would make. However, it's hard to carry through
that kind of reasoning in cases where the wrongness is so obvious.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org                           - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

RDR wrote:
> He [the Rambam] permits payment of obvious opportunity cost

Thank you for the exact source in Avos. However, you did not address
my second point. The Rambam in hilchos shekalim makes no mention of
the fact that they were being paid s'char betala. The implication is
that they were drawing their regular salary from the trumas halishka.
Contrast that Rambam to the one in perek 14 of hilchos g'zeila v'aveida
were the Rambam discusses compensation for a shomer aveida. There he
mentions s'char betala specifically.

> See Rambam in hilchos tshuva 9:1, 10:1 where he states repeatedly that
> olam haba is a composite reward for mitzvos and knowledge of torah.

RDR wrote:
> A general principle of Rambam is that he gives details in one place
> and general summaries elsewhere (see R. Benedict's book HaRambam L'lo
> Stiyah Min HaTalmud for many examples). In this case the details are
> in H. Yesodei HaTorah 4:9 and 4:13.

The Rambam at the end of the fourth perek of yesodei hatorah says that
limud torah is a means to olam haba. He does not say that knowledge of
torah is the exclusive means. The Rambam in hilchos teshuva, however,
says that olam haba is a composite reward for mitzvos and learning. I
fail to see how your principle applies. If anything, the two rambams
must be reconciled.

motya

RRW wrote:
>Manipulating the text is changing what the text SAYS
> Putting a sping on the text is changing what the text MEANS!
...
> Defining the text to mean WHAT YOU THINK IT OUGHT TO MEAN instead of
> what it says is a spin.

Are you saying that the Kesef Mishna, Aruch Hashulchan, Mishan Berura,
and Rav Moshe were explaining "WHAT YOU THINK IT OUGHT TO MEAN"? If they
didn't believe that the Rambam actually had in mind their respective
interpretations, on what were they basing their psak? Why didn't they
just say kach nira li lifsok? Why bother mention the Rambam? What is
your explanation of the halachic process- an arbitrary selection of
psakim loosely based on rishonim?

motya

On Sat, Feb 15, 2003 at 10:09:34PM +0200, gofman wrote:
: The ultimate crime in today's world is being a fanatic. However, why do
: you assume that Judaism agrees with that assumption. Moral relativism
: automatically tars fanaticism as being politically incorrect. However,
: if there is an absolute truth, does fanaticism have no place? Is it wrong
: to be "excessively enthusiastic" about the truth? ...

I think the problem is in being uncritically enthusiastic (to pick
another phrase from RYGB's original post) about something, which means
that one's enthusiasm gets in the way of the pursuit of emes.

-mi

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


[ 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         ]