Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 108

Tue, 25 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: schechtworthy (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: Sheva Brochos (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 4. Re: What Chassanim know (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: half shekel (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: schechtworthy (Micha Berger)
• 7. tachanum on Sunday (who holds what..) (SBA)
• 8. Re: schechtworthy (Daniel Israel)
• 9. Re: Tinok Shenishba (Arie Folger)
• 10. Re: schechtworthy (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Halakhos that depend on LH? (MOSHES@MM.HUJI.AC.IL)
• 12. geirim (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 15. Re: tachanum on Sunday (who holds what..) (Michael Makovi)

Chana Luntz wrote:

>> 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?

Well, trimming the beard is a matter of halachic psak, not just
communal norms, but another example I gave was wearing galoshes,
which nobody holds is inherently assur, and today everybody wears
them without question.  And yet, when they were new and "modern",
a shochet who wore them would be sacked on the spot.

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

Michael Kopinsky wrote:

> 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.

If one of them had never been married they would have had seven days.
There is no such thing as three days of sheva brochos.

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

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
> 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.

Yes, you are correct. No one is perfect, so it is silly for there to be a
requirement that the ger must be perfect. So when the current discussion
talks about "one who says that he won't keep halacha", it must be for some
other reason than the fact that he is imperfect.

Specifically, I think we are referring to a person who says that he accepts
that there is an obligation for all the mitzvos, but there is one specific
mitzva (or several) which is so difficult (physically, financially,
philosophically, whatever) the he is not even going to TRY to observe it.
He accepts that it IS an obligation, but he refuses or declines to fulfill
that obligation, and is willing to suffer the consequences of that
decision.

I suspect that this is what R' Daniel Israel meant when he wrote:
> we are still conflating accepting that one is obligated to
> do the mitzvos, and promising that one will do the mitzvos. 

When he wrote "promising that one will do the mitzvos", I believe that what he meant was "promising that one will TRY TO do the mitzvos".

(I was just about to press the "send" button, but I reread the post first.
And now I see that my quote from R' Michael Makovi's post does include the
word "try". So when all is said and done, I think RMM would agree with me.
He just didn't realize what his own words were saying. Or so I suspect.)

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Chances to WIN a Fabulous NYC Vacat
Enter for your chance to WIN in the TotalBeauty.com Sweepstakes!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/JKFkuJi7JWOF2ThpVj2s5iQuBYWOE2qhmqqE9e5K3A3yoY1GDfHAqG/

Kayza Zajac wrote on Areivim:
> Zev Sero wrote:

>> I assume that when a chupah is held at home, even at the kallah's
>> parents' home, the couple are the home-owners' guests. 

> One of the things that Shmuel pointed out to me is that the Chosson may
> not have bia sh'niya until they go to his / their home if they actually
> got married at her father's house - that is actually specifically
> addressed.

Where?  The only similar thing I can see refers to kiddushei bi'ah,
not to nisu'in.  What did people do 150 years ago, when boys got
married at about 15?  Surely the couple didn't have to rent their
bedroom from whichever set of parents they lived with!

Looking again at EH 55 and the nos'ei kelim, I still can't see any
discussion on the word "beito" or "beitam" indicating that it's
davka.  It seems rather to refer to their being seen by themselves
and others as a couple rather than as engaged singles.  In fact, if
nisu'in required the kallah to be physically removed from her father's
actual house rather than legally removed from his household, then
the discussion in Beis Shmuel 55:1 wouldn't seem to make much sense.


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

On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 10:34:13PM -0400, Richard Wolpoe wrote:
: I'm still stumped how Hazal permitted Tammuz [the name of a Babylonian
: deity] as the name of a Jweish month.  After all "Sheim elohim Achaeirim lo
: sazkiru".  How  did Tammuz get in the mix?   couldn't they at least change
: it a bit [e.g. Gammuz  etc.]

In Jan, R' Aryeh Segal quoted R' Arthur Scroll (mishnayos AZ) that the
issur only applies to gods that were still worshipped. He asked for a
primary source. Never got one. Instead, we went on a tangent asking what
"still worshipped" meant. Tammuz mythos lives on within the Xian Easter
myth. And then there are neoPagans who might worship him as Adonis
(Tamuz = Dimuzid = Adonis). But that's a hint of a heter...

By the time we left Bavel, Tamuz worship was overtaken by Zoroastrianism.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I slept and dreamt that life was joy.
micha@aishdas.org        I awoke and found that life was duty.
http://www.aishdas.org   I worked and, behold -- duty is joy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Rabindranath Tagore

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 02:06:15PM -0000, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> 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...

Which is following a different pesaq than that of the people who hired
him as a shocheit. Yes, in the case of a national brand, the definition
of that becomes iffy. But primary sources on shechitah predate such
concepts. A poseiq would have to step in to adapt precedent to this
reality.

Beard cutting is actually a simpler case than television watching, which
is where we began. If the poseiq in question actually believes, beli
guzma, that watching TV inevitably leads to watching things that are assur
-- and remember we must include ads, double-entendres, news about Pres
Clinton or NY or NJ governors... I could easily see the tzad issur. And
if the hiring kehillah holds accordingly, then he is poreitz geder in the
same sense as someone who is the town's only meiqil on electric shavers.

And not in the same sense as someone who has green tablecloths on
Shabbos. (Which match our walls quite nicely, thankyouverymuch.)

Even if certain terms -- pesaq, cheirem, kofer, etc... -- have been
abused to build up those gedarim, one can still dig through the layers
anf find who really violated a society's *halachic* norms rather than
lesser norms labeled in guzma-ridden terms. Notice that I am implying
(now stating outright) that someone who violates halakhah in a way
everyone else does would not necessarily be unsuable as a shocheit.

AIUI, this is the definition a wise woman brought sources for in v24n47.

Of course, many people may not believe TV ownership isn't actually
assur. But if the poseqim who decided that community's norm did so
on halachic rather than lifnim mishuras hadin grounds, then the
person would be a poreitz geder, lose his chezqas kashrus, and be
unusable as a shocheit.

In the historical case: A shocheit in Hungary whose wife didn't cover he
hair was unusable, a Litvak in the same shoes was. (Barring complicating
issues, like the Hungarians imported a Litvisher shocheit, etc... Much
like the case RZS cited where the L community in Melbourne asked their
rebbe about the cleanshaven German shocheit.)

BTW, RDR wrote on Tues Mar 11:
: Zev Sero wrote:
:> It's a question of poretz geder.
: But that's not a Biblical prohibition.

The phrase "poreitz geder" is biblical, although I think RDR means
deOraisa. Koheles 10:8: "veporeitz geder yishkanu nachash". So, even if
derabbanan, it's described as death-worthy.

But here we're not talking about issur; LAD, it's something simpler.
Somoene who proved himself capable of resisting positive social pressure
in one sin simply can't be presumed not to cut corners in other ways.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
micha@aishdas.org         'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
http://www.aishdas.org    'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
Fax: (270) 514-1507                     - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

From: "M Cohen" < >
the velt says this is a machlokes between RSZA and R eliyshuv 
>>

Which reminds me something I once heard about a bit of a tummel which took
place in a BHMD in BP, when the "chassidish" BT skipped Tachanun.

A "yeshivish" mispallel got quite upset, but the BT replied 'and what about
you "Litvaks"'? 'How come your regularly skip saying "korbonos"'?

Is this correct? And if so, what indeed, is the reason for this?

SBA

Micha Berger wrote:
> In the historical case: A shocheit in Hungary whose wife didn't cover he
> hair was unusable, a Litvak in the same shoes was. (Barring complicating
> issues, like the Hungarians imported a Litvisher shocheit, etc... Much
> like the case RZS cited where the L community in Melbourne asked their
> rebbe about the cleanshaven German shocheit.)

Except that either I  misunderstood this whole thread, or your 
"complicating issues" completely undermine your argument.

I've been assuming we're talking about someone who holds that, e.g., TVs 
are mutar, and is fired because the Rav haMachshir holds it is assur. 
In which case the examples in your parenthetical comment would support 
the shochet, as they are examples of shochtim being accepted if they 
keep their own hanhagos rather than those of the hiring community.

If the shochet doesn't even keep the psak of his own Rav, that's a 
different issue.  I can't see how anyone could object to refusing to 
rely on such a person in that case.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
dmi1@cornell.edu

On Monday, 24. March 2008 17.07:44 avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org wrote:
> Many Ortho's have made wholesale changes to nusach. ?Too many to even list.
> An Ortho working as educational director in a C shul told me that he could
> not understand the hypocrisy of attacking C changes in Nusach when ?many
> ortho's have done it, too. I must confess, I had no answer - except to
> become a student of the history of authentic nusach

While I wholeheartedly endorse the idea of becoming an avid student of 
nussa'h, I must stress that there are changes and there are chnages. Many 
changes are based on theological positions that may or may not be compatible 
with O belief. Hence, there is a world of a difference between C changes and 
O changes.

Please do not use this as a springboard to discuss shalom 'aleikhem or 
malakhei ra'hamim, as we have beaten that horse to death - not all O is 
Rambam, but we do generally recognize what is an O compatible theology and 
what is not. Sufficiently to make my point.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Mon, Mar 24, 2008 at 09:34:35PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
: I've been assuming we're talking about someone who holds that, e.g., TVs 
: are mutar, and is fired because the Rav haMachshir holds it is assur. 

We're discussing a teshuvah which says as much. It's not an "e.g.",
it's the case under discussion.

: In which case the examples in your parenthetical comment would support 
: the shochet, as they are examples of shochtim being accepted if they 
: keep their own hanhagos rather than those of the hiring community.

They're examples of shochetim who keep their source community's hanhagos
rather than those of the hiring community. Presumably the teshuvah is
not discussing a MO shocheit shechting for a chassidishe shlachthoise
who continues to watch TV.

: If the shochet doesn't even keep the psak of his own Rav, that's a 
: different issue.  I can't see how anyone could object to refusing to 
: rely on such a person in that case.

Well, he could have chosen a meaningful other shitah, in which case
people who also follow that shitah might find the outcome non-intuitive.
But yeah, that's it -- he's a member of a community who doesn't follow
that community's rabbanim's pesaq.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Here is the test to find whether your mission
micha@aishdas.org        on Earth is finished:
http://www.aishdas.org   if you're alive, it isn't.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Richard Bach

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Here is what I thought he was asking... How do we codify
> halakhos that presume people will continue to be
> avaryanim? Particularly given the severity of LH?

> To add to the question... Do you think these dinim will
> necessarily change le'asid lavo, when LH would be rare?

R' Akiva Miller wrote:
= I still don't understand the question. Why are you singling out LH for
= this question? Wouldn't it apply just as well to gezel and murder and
= chometz and over 600 other mitzvos?

Obviously, I did not make myself clear. Of course there will be all 613
mitzvot. Murder is murder and chometz is chometz. My question is about
a mitzva where a _detail_ in the mitzva is "dependent" apparently on
people speaking Lashon Hara. For example, the rule of "kol d'lo posak"
which can force a person to divorce his wife. The aveira is niuf. That
won't change. But the parameters for assuming the aveira took place,
seem to be dependent on people speaking LH about it.

I recall a Gemoro in Sotah which gives as a parameter "mezoros balevanah"
which means IIRC women who do work by moonlight and talk about what
happened. As I recall, there it is a _d'oraisa_ parameter. Perhpas
my knowlege of the rules of LH are deficient and such talk is indeed
permissable. I would like then to know why. HTH and TIA

Moshe Schorr
It is a tremendous Mitzvah to always be happy! - Reb Nachman of Breslov
The home and family are the center of Judaism, *not* the synagogue.

<<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.>>

The problem is that some batei dinim in Israel do indeed demand more of geirim
than many orthodox Jews keep in practice

-- 
Eli Turkel

>  (I was just about to press the "send" button, but I reread the post
>  first. And now I see that my quote from R' Michael Makovi's post does
>  include the word "try". So when all is said and done, I think RMM
>  would agree with me. He just didn't realize what his own words were
>  saying. Or so I suspect.)
>
>  Akiva Miller

Correct. I was under the impression that we were distinguishing between
1) Saying "I will TRY to keep them all", and
2) Saying, "I will fail to keep them all, because I am imperfect"

It was my impression that some would disqualify the second for gerut.
Therefore, I said that number two is simply the same as number one,
except he admits the simple truth that though he will try, he will
fail. Number one, OTOH, is simply naive. Therefore, I couldn't
understand how anyone could disqualify two for simply being honest
with a fact that is no less true of one than of two.

So your suggestion is well taken, that one and two as I have given are
the same as far as the beit din is concerned (as I myself said that
really, they ought to be the same, with two simply being more
realistic than one), and in place of 2 should be substituted,
2) Saying, "I will not even try to keep them all, because they are too
hard, but I recognize the chiyuv"

This, I understand why some would disqualify.

In my personal opinion, even this new version of two should be
accepted for gerut, because I would presume that someday in the
future, he *will* try to keep what he cannot today. Since he accepts
the chiyuv, but is simply not ready yet, he is not so different from
the ger who will try to keep everything, but whom we all know already
that he will fail. But OTOH, I can see why some would disqualify. I
disagree, but my opponent doesn't seem so barmy anymore.

Mikha'el Makovi

>  > Well, as I said, I've seen numerous statements that a nonreligious Jew
>  > today is a tinok she'nishba/shogeg, and bears no guilt for what he
>  > does, b'klal. I am having trouble remembering exactly where I have
>  > seen this (too many places; it's like asking where I read that pork is
>  > treif), but I know Einayim Lirot (English translation from Urim: Eyes
>  > to See) has a chapter on this.
>  > Mikha'el Makovi

>  It would be helpful if you gave "specific citations" instead of vague
>  recollections.
> R' Daniel Eidensohn

I had said that (almost?) every MO writing I have seen implicitly
assumes that today's R/C are tinokim she'nishbu. I just now found a
random source. It will be obvious why I cannot remember the sources;
they are so apropos of nothing and so "by-the-way/as-an-aside" that
only a photographic memory could recall them:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125677
Dr. Richard Joel: "Most people aren't even leaving Judaism or
rejecting it - Judaism was watered down and they simply never
experienced it. I want them to walk away and go, 'Wow! This Jewish
stuff is really important to me.'

Additionally, I had said that Ravs Kook and Hirsch seem to assume R/C
are tinokot she'nishbu. I just found at R' Gil Student's "The
Religious Zionism Debate XV"
(http://hirhurim.blogspot.com/2005/09/religious-zionism-debate-xiv.html
),
the following that corroborates my association of Rav Kook with this
shita of Hazon Ish's:

III. Today's Non-Religious
Earlier in the volume [Ha-Tekufah Ha-Gedolah] (ch. 6, pp. 100-101), R.
Kasher argues that non-religious Jews today are different than the
wicked of earlier generations. Citing the Hazon Ish and Rav Kook, R.
Kasher explains that because non-religious Jews in the current era
were not raised and educated in a traditional Orthodox environment
they have the status of tinokos she-nishbu.

Mikha'el Makovi

>  Which reminds me something I once heard about a bit of a tummel which took
>  place in a BHMD in BP, when the "chassidish" BT skipped Tachanun.
>
>  A "yeshivish" mispallel got quite upset, but the BT replied 'and what about
>  you "Litvaks"'? 'How come your regularly skip saying "korbonos"'?
>
>  Is this correct? And if so, what indeed, is the reason for this?
>
>  R' SBA

I'm pretty sure it's simply not Ashkenazi minhag. Many of the
Sefaradim I know are very makpid to say Korbanot, and Nusach Sefarad /
Chassidim presumably got it from the Sefaradim. But the Ashkenazim,
AFAIK, were not makpid on this - as far as I remember, no Ashkenazi
halachic sefer lays serious stress on the matter.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch goes straight from chapter 13 "The Sanctity of
the Synagogue and the House of Study" to chapter 14, "Pesukei
Dezimra", with no mention of korbanot, AFAIK.

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 108
***************************************

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..."