Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 107

Mon, 24 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: Tinok Shenishba (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 4. Re: . Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi) (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Re: [Areivim] rabbi org) (Michael Makovi)
• 6. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Shayna Livia Korb)
• 7. Re: Sheva Brochos (Michael Kopinsky)
• 8. Re: Defining concern for the klal (Arie Folger)
• 9. Re: Defining concern for the klal (Rich, Joel)
• 10. Shemini Olam Chesed Yiboneh (Cantor Wolberg)
• 11. Re: schechtworthy (Chana Luntz)

Richard Wolpoe wrote:

> Disclaimer:, I am in no way endorsing the C position as Halchially OK on 
> this issue  but as far as stam yeinam goes, there is SOME wiggle room 
> here and even the Rema opened the door on this with a radical Teshuva.  
> AIUI a lot of commercial wine is precessed w/o human contact at certain 
> critical times.

1. The teshuvah can't be from the Ramo, because it contradicts an
explicit Ramo.

2. The author of that teshuvah, whoever he is, does *not* open any door.
He explicitly limits his heter to a choleh (presumably defined the same
way as it is for hilchot shabbat, i.e. ein bo sakana but chala kol gufo)
who wine for his refuah and has no Jewish wine available; and says that
if anybody else relies on the heter "lo yo'veh Hashem s'loach lo".  That's
not opening a door, it's slamming it shut.   However even this is too much
for the Ramo, who explicitly forbids stam yeinam even for a choleh.

3. The main point of that teshuvah is not the actual heter for cholim,
but the question of how to deal with a whole country full of Jews who
drink yein aku"m.  The author says that since there is a tosfos that
can be read in such a way as to imply a heter, we must assume that they
once had an incompetent rabbi who read it in such a way and permitted
it for them, and therefore they are all shogegim and don't lose their
ne'emanut.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

>  I still don't see a clear answer to the question, because we are still
>  conflating accepting that one is obligated to do the mitzvos, and
>  promising that one will do the mitzvos.  These are different, and unless
>  we have a clear source indicating that the latter is required for
>  geirus, I'm not sure why we should presume that that is what RMF or
>  other poskim mean.  Of course, there is very strong reason not to accept
>  RMA's position even so, so as not to create geirim who are also avaryan.
>   But that is irrelevant to the question at hand, which is posuling
>  gerus done by a BD based on the former kabbalah only.
>
>
>  Daniel M. Israel
>  dmi1@cornell.edu

Indeed - ALL gerim are not going to be able to keep all the mitzvot at
first - like a bar mitzvah. It's simply impossible for it to be
otherwise. Heck, an FFB is not able to keep ALL the mitzvot properly!
So practical observance of the mitzvot cannot possibly be measured by
anything except the effort and the intent.

So putting acceptance of the obligation per se aside, no one, no one
(including RMF), can insist on perfect mitzvah performance - it is
literally and objectively impossible. The only difference opinion
there can be is, is the required degree of success (by the ger) in
keeping all the mitzvot - NO ONE will succeed, but some will be better
than others. RMF and RMA can argue on this, but they cannot argue on
whether or not the ger must keep the mitzvot perfectly.

Mikha'el Makovi

> R' Meir Shinnar <chidekel@gmail.com> wrote:
>  a) WRT R A Folger response to my comments:
>         i) I appreciate his description of gemeinde - but,BMKVT,it is
>  irrelevant to the point that I was making.  I wasn't arguing that
>  anyone held gemeinde to be the ideal in the sense that isn't it
>  wonderful that instead of everyone being O, we have diversity.  The
>  issue that arose on this list was the very permissibility of dealings
>  with the non O, given their status, according to some poskim, as
>  kofrim - and the heter being sought was that they were tinokot
>  shenishbu.  My point was that the gemeinde approach permitted and
>  even encouraged such interaction - I would agree for the sake of the
>  masses who were am aratztim - but the status of the leadership did
>  not prevent the formation of institutional ties.  I would think that
>  the vast majority of American R/C are as much am aratzim as the
>  German 19th century -  and the lack of institutional relationships
>  limits our ability to reach out to them.

Also, though, I would argue that even according to an pure austritt
position like RSRH, today's R clergy are not like those of his day. In
his day, the R clergy KNEW what they were doing, knew they were
deviating from classical Judaism - there was NO ignorance. But today's
R/C clergy are as ignorant and misguided as their laity - not in terms
of textual knowledge, but rather in terms of weltanschauung.

Now, RSRH would probably still insist that an Orthodox congregation
cannot belong to an R umbrella organization, if the O's membership is
lending legitimacy or material assistance to any R activities, such as
publishing R educational materials or funding HUC - an in fact, I
cannot imagine most supporting such an O membership of such an R
organization. But if the organization is doing nonsectarian activities
that are not inimical to the goals of O, or if the organization is
dialog exclusively, etc., then I would say that perhaps even RSRH
would permit working together. His austritt was because O membership
aided the R in their efforts, and because R was not TsN, but since
today R certainly is TsN (IMHO), and if the organization is not
inimical to anything O, then perhaps RSRH would permit.

Rabbi Moshe Shmuel Glasner in haTzionut b'Ohr haEmuna argues that
austritt is perfect for when O and R oppose each other, but when they
share a common goal, austritt is out of place. His example of a common
goal is Zionism (RMSG was Mizrachi), which is national/peoplehood and
not purely religious, but I would extend this to any activity in which
R and O have the same goal. And I'm adding that additionally, today's
R are TsN unlike RSRH's R, so this is an additional factor to permit.

Mikha'el Makovi

>  > I would add that there is a tshuva by rav shlomo goren zt"l, who asks
>  > about a ger who fully accepts ol malchut shamayim and the mitzvot, but
>  > does not accept the national identity - and says that such a ger is
>  > not valid gerut.
>  > R' Meir Shinnar

>  Sorry, I'm not familiar with this t'shuva, but what exactly is "national
>  identity"?  I mean, how is he rigorously defining this in an halachic
>  context.
> R' Daniel Israel

I'm not sure, but I suspect he would define it as solidarity with the
Jewish people, sharing in their victories and losses, being a
patriotic Jew who sees being Jewish the same as a red-blooded American
sees being American, etc.

In other words, NOT seeing it as a religion alone the way Christians
view religion - France and Britain can go to war, and their both being
Christian is irrelevant.

-------------------------------


the Union and Confederacy in the American Civil War) is absolutely
contrary to Judaism. B'vadai (IMHO), if I personally feel the German
or the British cause is true and moral and the other side is in the
wrong and immoral, then I can fight for it, and the fact that there
are Jews on the opposing side is irrelevant - IMHO - I am not fighting
for Germany or Britain per se, but rather for whatever moral cause
Britain or Germany represents, and any Jews I am fighting are ones
that are opposing what is moral.

But if I simply support Britain or Germany because it's my country and
I am patriotic for it, then how can I fight for them if there are Jews
on the other side - by supporting my German/British nationality, stam,
I am placing it above Jewish nationality because I am fighting Jews!

Obviously, if the country's cause is immoral, then it is irrelevant
whether I will fighting Jews - if it is wrong, then fighting for it is
to fight Judaism itself regardless of whether I am fighting against
any actual Jews on the opposing side. Therefore, I am assuming a war
with no moral claim for or against - you are fighting for a morally
ambiguous cause, solely because your country is, and you are fighting
against Jews on the other side - this a Jew cannot do.

If the war is moral, then you are fighting for a moral cause and any
opposing Jews are irrelevant, and if the war is immoral, then you are
fighting Judaism itself, and any opposing Jews are irrelevant.

Now, if the war is morally ambiguous, then perhaps I cannot fight in
it, because I will be killing others (Jewish or gentile) without
proper reason, which is murder. Even if it is not murder, however, the
fact that I am fighting against other Jews means I am placing
German/Britain/American, etc. nationalism and patriotism above Jewish
nationalism and peoplehood.

Mikha'el Makovi

> R' Daniel Israel:
>  The basic issue is in the following:
>
>   > 9) And yes the vast majority of poskim would declare posul - a convert
>   > who is not clearly committed to keep the entire Torah.
>
>  The requirement is "kabbalos ol mitzvos."  My reading of that is
>  accepting the binding nature of the mitzvos and the obligation to keep
>  them, as opposed to a promise to actually keep them.
> ...
>  It is not clear to me from the sources you are talking
>  about what the status of this case is.
>
>  I see three possibilities:

>  1) We say that the requirement of "kabbalos ol mitzvos" actually means
>  someone promises to keep all the laws.  The problem here is (a) it
>  doesn't fit the simple meaning of the words (IMHO), and, (b) where do we
>  draw the line between this person and the one who says he will try to
>  keep the halahca, but he's only human and know he will mess up occasionally.

I would say you cannot possibly draw a line - NO ONE can possibly hold
a distinction between one who promises to try to keep halacha, and one
who says that he won't keep halacha because he simply cannot. It is
not a theoretical question of where the line would be drawn; rather,
it is objectively impossible to even consider drawing a line. EVERY
ger will mess up. EVERY bar mitzvah will mess up. EVERY *Jew* will
mess up. NO ONE can keep all the mitzvot perfectly, and so NO posek
can demand this. Poskim can argue on how close to success (in perfect
mitzvah performance) the ger must achieve, but they all must concede
that perfection is impossible.

So there is no difference, at all, whatsoever, between one who admits
that he will fail, and one who will try his best to keep all the
mitzvot (and does not say that he will fail).

>  2) We say that such a person, although he claims he accept the mitzovs,
>  is insincere.  But the problem is this is directly contradictory to his
>  own words.

Plus, you are declaring him insincere simply because he speaks the
objective truth. If the ger says he will perform all the mitzvot
successfully, he is either lying or objectively wrong. The ger who
says he will *try* to keep them all, but surely fail, is simply
speaking the *objective* truth (i.e. it is *objectively* true for
*all* gerim that they will surely fail).

How can you pasul a person simply because he refused to lie?

So the third one must be the true one, as R' Daniel Israel himself
will say in a moment:

>  3) We say that the person is sincere, but that the BD that accepts him
>  as a ger creates a tremendous michshol.
>
>  My question is this: assuming the third is correct, then b'dievad if
>  such a BD actually forms, wouldn't we have to accept their geyrus?

Mikha'el Makovi

 So what if there is a BD that
>  accepts candidates that it feels sincerely accept Torah min haShamayim,
>  but that it suspects will conform to the practices of the more lax
>  members of the community?  Can we posul this b'dievad.  For simplicity,
>  let's even forget the cases where there are additional factors to create
>  suspision, such as conversion for marriage, where the convert commits to
>  keeping nothing, or C converts.

I have a related question. I heard a story of an openly gay convert
yesterday who was told that if he had homosexual intercourse that it
would invalidate his conversion. Is there any such thing as a
conversion with a tanai like this?

RallisW@aol.com wrote:
> I understand that the Gemoro rules that if a couple marries, and both 
> have been married before, they are entitled to three days of Sheva 
> Brochos. I recently heard that a local rabbi ruled that just such a 
> couple, wasn't entitled to any Sheva Brochos or at most one day. Can 
> anyone shed any light on this matter?
Sorry for the delay, but I'm catching up on old Avodah posts...

I was once at a wedding of two divorcees in Chicago, and Rav Yehoshua 
Eichenstein (on Devon*) paskened that they should only have one day of 
sheva brachos.

I was under the impression that that was davka because they were both 
divorcees, and if only one of them was, they would have had three days, 
but I may be wrong.

* There are two Rav Yehoshua Eichensteins in Chicago, first cousins.  
They are distinguished by what street their shul is - Rav Eichenstein on 
Devon is (I believe) older than Rav Eicheinstein on Touhy.

KT,
Michael

RJR wrote:
> And where do you see the pirud disappearing, or is this not a goal? (I'm
> reminded of a cartoon of a mathematical proof which ends in "and then
> there was a miracle" - perhaps in a way this describes a very basic
> philosophical issue - how much weight do we focus on the
> individual/micro halachik issues (the knife is not tamei) and say hkb"h
> will take care of the big picture and how much on the community/macro
> issues (yes you all gave tzedaka but we still need to feed the hungry))

Is there no chessed done by Os for non-Os? No 'hevra qadischa? No soup 
kitchens? No chaplains and biqur 'holim services that include the non-Os? No 
help in navigating the maze of doctors and hospitals for those in need for 
them? No day schools that also take in not-yet-Os?

All of the above are done, as is also political and legal advocacy for Jews 
and for the Jewish Land. You think that that is pirud? Sure, it ain't 
perfect, but it is a lot better than if we were fighting for our rights 
within a constraining system, which is exactly what happens when you force 
all into a single umbrella structure. Tell me, is it easy to change funding 
priorities at UJA-Federation? Can you get them to include Yesh residents with 
no problem? 'Hareidim? Or is there a lot of politics in order to get just 
little changes?

Plus, how about how one feels for the klal? Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnefeld is 
rumored to have been spotted by his gabbai mumbling a prayer as secular 
school children where marching through the streets. When prompted about it, 
he, the zealous fighter, replied that they are Jewish children. You call that 
pirud?

Sure, we can do a lot more to achieve unity, but organizational unity with 
those whose behaviour unfortunately detracts from our mission does not 
necessarily bring about (in fact, from my experience, likely hampers) unity.
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

RJR wrote:
> And where do you see the pirud disappearing, or is this not a goal? 
> (I'm reminded of a cartoon of a mathematical proof which ends in "and 
> then there was a miracle" - perhaps in a way this describes a very 
> basic philosophical issue - how much weight do we focus on the 
> individual/micro halachik issues (the knife is not tamei) and say 
> hkb"h will take care of the big picture and how much on the 
> community/macro issues (yes you all gave tzedaka but we still need to 
> feed the hungry))

Is there no chessed done by Os for non-Os? No 'hevra qadischa? No soup
kitchens? No chaplains and biqur 'holim services that include the
non-Os? No help in navigating the maze of doctors and hospitals for
those in need for them? No day schools that also take in not-yet-Os?

All of the above are done, as is also political and legal advocacy for
Jews and for the Jewish Land. You think that that is pirud? Sure, it
ain't perfect, but it is a lot better than if we were fighting for our
rights within a constraining system, which is exactly what happens when
you force all into a single umbrella structure. Tell me, is it easy to
change funding priorities at UJA-Federation? Can you get them to include
Yesh residents with no problem? 'Hareidim? Or is there a lot of politics
in order to get just little changes?

Plus, how about how one feels for the klal? Rav Yosef Chaim Sonnefeld is
rumored to have been spotted by his gabbai mumbling a prayer as secular
school children where marching through the streets. When prompted about
it, he, the zealous fighter, replied that they are Jewish children. You
call that pirud?

Sure, we can do a lot more to achieve unity, but organizational unity
with those whose behaviour unfortunately detracts from our mission does
not necessarily bring about (in fact, from my experience, likely
hampers) unity.
--
Arie Folger
============================================================

WADR I carefully chose the phrase "how much weight do we focus" so as to
avoid a counterexample as a pircha.  I also have no opinion on the
organizational issues you raise and never claim to know how anyone
feels, just the evidence of how their actions and decisions are
perceived in public.

I think a great example of the difference in approach is the letter
concerning a "draft" for orthodox chaplains from R' YBS found in C-C-C.
He deals with the micro halachik and the broad scope implications, in
particular the role of the Jew in society in general and the role of the
orthodox Jew in the perception of our "unchurched" Jewish brethren (and
not just those who come to us).

KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

There's a verse in this week's Sidra (Lev. 11:13) which states: "These  
shall you abominate from among the birds, they may not be eaten; they  
are an abomination..."  In other words, fowl that are cruel are not  
eligible to be kosher. One will not always find cruel fowl necessarily  
exercising cruelty (we see this in the human species as well).  It  
would therefore have been impractical and impossible to have  
positively identified a specific bird as being unfit. Therefore, the  
Torah must list all the fowl that are unsuitable for eating.

There is an overriding concept in the laws of kashruth that the  
characteristics of what we eat somehow have a great influence on the  
way we behave. The old saying: "You are what you eat." We do not want  
to associate ourselves for instance with cruelty, therefore we are  
forbidden to eat cruel animals, and in this case, some species of  
fowl. Among the fowl that are listed as being non kosher is the  
chasidah, the white stork. You may ask what cruel character trait does  
the stork possess. Rashi mentions that the reason it is called a  
"chasidah" is because it does chesed only with its friends regarding  
the food it finds. On the surface this seems strange.  If the stork  
acts kindly with its food, why is it disqualified as being kosher?

A beautiful explanation to this difficulty has been given by the  
Chidushei Harim, in which he explains the nature of the stork. He says  
that the fact the stork only shows its kindness with its friends  
defines its cruelty.  A fowl who is not in the circle of the stork's  
good buddies is excluded from getting any help from the stork in  
finding food.  In other words, the stork is very selective in its  
kindness. This type of kindness is misleading.  We, as Jews, are  
commanded even to help our foes.  If we come across someone we dislike  
intensely who needs help, we are commanded to help.  The stork, on the  
other hand, helps only his inner circle of friends.  It is this  
character trait of differentiating between close friends and others  
when it comes to providing food that makes the stork non-kosher.

Chesed means reaching out altruistically, with love and generosity to  
all. The process of maturing involves developing our sense of caring  
for others. This is crucial for spiritual health. The Talmud likens  
someone who doesn't give to others as the "walking dead." A non-giving  
soul is malnourished and withered. It is only through unconditional  
love that our successful future will be built. In the words of King  
David (Psalm 89:3): Olam chesed yiboneh - "the world is built on  
kindness." The more this kindness dissipates and degenerates, the more  
danger of the foundation collapsing.

ri
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080324/829d6159/attachment.htm 

RMB writes:

> I am not sure how peritzas geder can be described as 
> chitzoniyus.

Well I think that this is one of the situations where the use of the
word may have morphed.  That is why I wanted a specific halachic
citation.

Consider this though: There has been some discussion on Areivim recently
and elsewhere about the fear that people appear to have, in the Orthodox
community, to do things like sign their names to letters to the editor,
due to the "PC Orthodox Police".  The particular fear appears to be
linked to having unmarried children - who it seems, will find themselves
unable to marry within the community should their position be
jeopardized, but certainly those who parnassa depends on community
functions are even more at risk.

We also are hearing increasingly about questions being posed in relation
to shidduchim such as the use of white (or non white) tableclothes on
shabbas, with unacceptable answers meaning one is rejected from the
acceptable shidduch pool.

Now, the halachic terminology that is used to describe people who do
such things as use white (or non white) tablecloths, not to mention
express opinions not necessarily in accordance with the norm,is poretz
geder.  Because, as you say:

>It's saying that this person refuses to follow 
> the pesaqim of his community.

That begs the question, who is his community and what are its pesaquim -
and how far does the concept of poretz geder extend  - which was the
question I was asking.  The specific example that RZS gave was of
somebody who trimmed his beard in a community where people didn't - this
potentially constituting poretz geder.  Why is trimming the beard any
different from white tableclothes or any of the other things that I
believe most people on this list regard as narrishkeit in shidduch
terms?  How far down this line do you go?  Where *is* the geder?  And it
is in the case of a shochet that the matter would seem to cut most
acutely, given that his parnasa is from the community, but unlike a Rav,
he does not even in theory set the halachic standards - which is why it
is the most logical place halachically to have the discussion

> And given that the issue of 
> peritzus on TV can be a matter of pesaq, I would think that 
> defying the local norm is rather penimi.

Well yes and no, because even the question of psak becomes increasingly
blurred.  So how far are you prepared to take this thinking?  Do you
agree with the kinds of questions that are apparently increasingly
common in shidduch situations?  If not why not? Those asking them would
no doubt insist they are trying to determine whether the family into
which they might marry is poretz geder.  

Or how about this one which runs closer to the question of psak - are
you prepared to go to a "Big Event" type concert?  If you had bought a
ticket to the Big Event concert, would you have refused to go following
the kol koreh if the organisers/performers had not cancelled the
concert?  What if your Rav was not one of the ones who signed the kol
koreh?  Are you poretz geder if you might still have be willing to go if
the organisers had not cancelled it?  Does this destroy your chezkas
kashrus?  Should you children be unmarriable within the community?
Should you lose your job as a shochet (or be unemployable as one?
 
> As for the connection to shechitah, my understanding is that 
> a poretz geder has no chezqas kashrus.

Where do you get your understanding from (ie sources please)? - and what
forms of poretz geder do you mean - an absence of white (or coloured)
tablecloths; an unwillingness to obey a kol koreh of the nature of that
regarding the Big Event?  A questioning eg of the kol koreh of the
nature of the Big Event? Or something else?  

 Now I admit that 
> that's different than his not being kasher, but it does make 
> it incredibly hard for anyone but the Bochein Kelayos vaLeiv 
> to determine.

Yes indeed it is different from his not being kasher.  And while I am
aware of a fair bit of discussion about the nature of chezkas kashrus -
including the Aruch Hashulchan's famous description of somebody having a
chezkas kashrus if he, inter alia, washes his hands for bread and
instructs his children to do likewise - I am not, but this may be my
ignorance, aware of a similar discussion regarding the boundaries of the
concept of poretz geder - all I am aware of is it being brought in the
context of particular halachos - such as that of not fasting on the
minor fast days, where it is specifically brought in the rishonim and
Shulchan Aruch that anybody who does not follow the accepted minhag
today which is to fast on such days is poretz geder.  One can understand
the need for this, because there is a readily apparent and fairly
logical argument based on the situations in which the gemora says that
one does and does not fast on minor fast days that perhaps that
requirement does not apply today - so the need to reinforce the
historically accepted position can be readily understood.

But how far does such a concept extend and how far do you believe such a
concept should extend beyond those cases brought specifically in the
Shulchan Aruch?  That was my question - particularly in light of the way
the concept is being used today.


> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha

Regards

Chana



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 107
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."