Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 378

Sat, 08 Nov 2008

• 1. Re: Hypocrisy in halakhah (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: a troubling halacha (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Another View on How to Portray People of the Past (Samuel Svarc)
• 4. Re: a troubling halacha (Rich, Joel)
• 5. How the Torah portrays our great men (Eli Turkel)
• 6. Re: a troubling halacha (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: abraham and sarah in Eygpt (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 8. Re: a troubling halacha (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: childbirth (Chana Luntz)
• 10. Re: a troubling halacha (kennethgmil...@juno.com)

RMM wrote:
> However, I'm not sure what particularly happened around 1906 or 1926
> which would have affected JTS's Orthodox status. As for Rabbi Revel's
> statement that in JTS they learn only about Talmud and not Talmud
> itself, this does not seem to impugn JTS's Orthodoxy, as JTS itself
> admitted its students were pulpit leaders and not halakhists; plenty
> of Orthodox baalei batim do not learn Talmud, but this makes them
> ignorant, not non-Orthodox!

Yes, but the ba'alei bayit do not claim the mantle of rabbinic leadership. In 
fact, the text you quote shows how, with time, the intermediate leadership, 
such as the pulpit rabbis, counts a lot, and since these where ra' banim, 
they led everything astray. It behooves us to learn this lesson and 
understand why pulpit rabbis ought perhaps not to be on the bleeding edge of 
halakhic experimentalism. Hint hint at certain circles and institutions...

Good Shabbos,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://ariefolger.wordpress.com
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 02:43:09PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In the latest shiur of R. Zilberstein he repeated the halacha against
: informing women of the death of a close relative (assuming they dont
: live nearby) since they don't say kaddish.
...

What about the chiyuv mishum kibud av va'eim?

RYBS writes that aveilus mishum availus is never more than 30 days. This
is why the worst of mourning, when a parent loses a child, the aveilus
is only 30 days. The rest of the year for a parent is caused by kibud
horim, not aveilus itself.

Also, those who follow minhag Vilna and its environs would have her say
qaddish. So the assumption doesn't apply.

...
: I have great difficulty with this halacha (and have gotten a contrary
: ruling from the rabbi in charge of the Israel burial procedures)...

As I assume is the norm, since I never heard of this halakhah before.

...
: I fail to see why the anguish of the relatives (especially women) is
: not of importance.

Bottom line is I agree with you, but I don't see how the halakha works
even without this.

: In fact in the story in the gemara  R. Chiya in fact does tell Rav
: that his parents passed away but only indirectly.

Which gemara?

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

The following comment is based solely on what was posted here on Avodah. Due
to the length of the quote and the completeness of the thought I'm quite
confident that I have understood his position clearly. If this is not the
case, my comment, likewise, will be incorrect. 

 
> The following is from  Haskalah, Secular Studies
> and the Close of the Yeshiva in Volozhin in 1892
> by Rabbi Dr. J. J. Schachter. ...
> 
> Rabbi Schacter writes, "In a recently published
> essay [R. S. Schwab, Selected Writings (Lakewood,
> 1988), 234], Rabbi Shimon Schwab justified this
> neglect of history on positive ideological
> grounds rather than simply considering it as
> reflecting an avoidance of bittul Torah. His
> comments are remarkable and deserve being cited in detail: ...
> 
...
> 
> Suppose one of us today would want to write a
> history of Orthodox Jewish life in pre-holocaust
> Germany. There is much to report but not
> everything is complimentary. Not all of the
> important people were flawless as one would like
> to believe and not all the mores and lifestyles
> of this bygone generation were beyond criticism.
> An historian has no right to take sides. He most
> report the stark truth and nothing but the truth.
> Now, if an historian would report truthfully what
> he witnessed, it would make a lot of people
> rightfully angry. He would violate the
> prohibition against spreading Loshon Horah which
> does not only apply to the living, but also to
> those who sleep in the dust and cannot defend themselves any more.
> 
> What ethical purpose is served by preserving a
> realistic historic picture? Nothing but the
> satisfaction of curiosity. We should tell
> ourselves and our children the good memories of
> the good people, their unshakeable faith, their
> staunch defense of tradition, their life of
> truth, their impeccable honesty, their boundless
> charity and their great reverence for Torah and
> Torah sages. What is gained by pointing out their
> inadequacies and their contradictions? We want to
> be inspired by their example and learn from their experience....

And therefore we should write about those times. "We should tell ourselves
and our children the good memories of the good people, their unshakeable
faith, their staunch defense of tradition, their life of truth, their
impeccable honesty, their boundless charity and their great reverence for
Torah and Torah sages." It is the parts by which no one gains that we should
gloss over, as "What is gained by pointing out their inadequacies and their
contradictions? We want to be inspired by their example and learn from their
experience...."

This seems to have eluded Rabbi Dr. Schacter, as he writes, "While it (R'
Schwab's argument) may explain why one should not write about the past, it
does not justify distorting the past when one does write about it."

This is mistaken, as what R' Schwab would consider "inspiration" (talking
about previous generations of Jews in Germany and mentioning only their
positive traits - his explicit example) would be considered "distortion" by
R' D' Schacter.

KT,
MSS

 

...

What about the chiyuv mishum kibud av va'eim?

RYBS writes that aveilus mishum availus is never more than 30 days. This
is why the worst of mourning, when a parent loses a child, the aveilus
is only 30 days. The rest of the year for a parent is caused by kibud
horim, not aveilus itself.

:-)BBii!
-Micha
======================================
IIRC he added because of the loss of the transmitter of the mesora.
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.

With regard to the relations of Isaac and Rivkah towards their children
Yaakov and Esau a number of commentaries fault Yitzchak for not talking
to Rivkah and for not realizing the good and bad traits in Esau. I
recall someone
saying that had Esau been treated properly he could have turned out a
good "Jew" who would support the tzaddik Yaakov

-- 
Eli Turkel

He is talking about a daughter .
His claim is that shiva and kriya is only if she knows and there is no mitzvah
for her to know. If she finds out after a month she sits "shiva" for a
few minutes
and his attitude is that is fine.
Any desires on the part of the daughter to participate in the mourning
are meaningless.

Eli Turkel

On Sat, Nov 8, 2008 at 6:45 PM, Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il> wrote:
> Can you explain this? Why not tell them? He must be talking about an
> immediate family member. She has to tear, she has to sit shiva, no?
>
> Ben
>>
>> From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>
>
>> In the latest shiur of R. Zilberstein he repeated the halacha against
>> informing women of
>> the death of a close relative (assuming they dont live nearby) since
>> they don't say kaddish.
>> He even stated that if they live in the general area then one should
>> not post notices
>> of the death (common in Israel) so that they won't inadvertently find out.
>
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> >From R. Ari Kahn's Aish site
>
> One of the classic commentaries, Rav Moshe Alshech poses the question thus:
>
>     How could a man like Abraham come up with a plan which would save
> his soul from being taken, God forbid, to leave Sarah, who was greater
> than he in prophecy, to be defiled by heathens, she being a married
> woman. This is one of the seven Noachide laws, and (Abraham was)
> someone who observed (even) Eruv Techumin! (12:10-13)
>   
The above is a gross misrepresentation of the Alshech - who raises the 
above question and at the same time points out that Chazal praised 
Avraham for this. The Alshech goes on to answer this apparent conflict 
and explains why what Avraham did was praiseworthy! He says Avraham and 
Sarah's activities helped prepare the way for their descendants to be 
able to withstand the depravity in Egypt when they would be exiled there.

????? ?????? ?"? - ??? ???? ??? ?? ?????? - ??? ?? ???? ?-??
??? ???? ???? ??, ??? ??? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ???? ???? ????? ??', ?? 
?? ??? ??????? ????? ????, ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ???? ??? ??????, ?? ??? ?? 
??????? ??? ?????, ???? ?? ?? ??????? ????? ???? ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? 
???? ???? ?????? ??? ??? ??'. ???? ????"? ?"? (?????? ?? ?) ??? ?? ?? 
??? ?? ??? ???? ??????, ?? ??????? ?"? (???? ???? ?????? ??? ??) ????? 
?????? ?? ????, ???? ?? ???? ??? ???????. ??? ????? ???? ???? ??? ???, 
????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ?????, ????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? 
???????, ????? ???? ???? ??????? ???? ????? ???, ???? ???? ???? ??? ??, 
??? ?? ?? ????? ????? ????? ???????:


??? ???? ????? ???? ???? ?? ???' ???? ???? ?? ?????? ??' ????? ????? ?? 
????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ?? ????? ????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????? 
?????. ??? ?? ?? ???? ????"? ?????? ?? ???, ?? ?? ??? ??? ??????? ?"? 
(???? ???? ?????? ??) ???? ????????. ??? ???? ????? ???? ??????? ?' ??? 
??????, ?????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ??? ??' ?????? ??? ?????? ??? ????.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: yadmoshe.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 103 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081108/83d690d4/attachment-0001.vcf>

Eli Turkel wrote:
> In the latest shiur of R. Zilberstein he repeated the halacha against
> informing women of the death of a close relative

What halacha?  I don't believe there is any halacha against telling.
It's just natural not to want to bring bad news to someone, and if the
news might harm them then there's a greater reluctance.  But I've never
heard that this applies especially to women.  Surely it all depends on
the situation; if a woman is pregnant, for instance, why upset her?
Let her find out later, if possible.  Or if a person is elderly, male
or female, or in poor health, why upset them?  Why risk their health,
or just cause them agmas nefesh for no reason?  For that matter, why
subject an elderly or frail person to the physical deprivation of
the laws of avelus, if it's not for a parent?

But sometimes there's nobody else to sit shiva, so you have to tell
*someone*, and that would preferably be a man, who will say kaddish.
But none of this is halacha.



> Sitting shiva especially together with the family is of great
> importance for most people and they are greatly offended if denied
> that privelege. It caused great anguish to my mother when it happened.

Every person is different, and you have to be able to assess how the
person will react if and when they find out.  If it's an old person
it may be possible to keep the news from them permanently, until they
meet the niftar, either in Olam Ha'emes or at Techiyas Hamesim.


> In fact in the story in the gemara  R. Chiya in fact does tell Rav
> that his parents passed away but only indirectly.

Other way around.  Rav is the one breaking the news to R Chiya about
his (Rav's) parents, or according to Tosfos about R Chiya's parents.
The gemara is in Pesachim 4a.

But this story isn't really a direct proof to us, because R Chiya
directly asked Rav about his parents' health, so he had to answer
*something*.  Had he not asked, perhaps he'd never have told him.
What we do learn from the story is the great reluctance to bring bad
news.  And R Chiya doesn't react, as your mother did, with regret that
he didn't get to have the "shiva experience", but by immediately
announcing that after a brief avelus he will be off to the bath house.
Perhaps if Rav had known that R Chiya felt like your mother about it,
he'd have written to him immediately after each of his parents died,
so that he could perhaps get the news within 30 days, and get to sit
a full shiva.  Or perhaps not; the gemara doesn't say.


Micha Berger wrote:
> What about the chiyuv mishum kibud av va'eim?

If the person knows, and doesn't mourn, then they're violating KAvE;
if they don't know then they have no chiyuv.


> Also, those who follow minhag Vilna and its environs would have her
> say qaddish. So the assumption doesn't apply.

In those families do daughters say kaddish even if there are sons
saying it, or only if there aren't any?  If the latter, and if in
this particular case there are sons, then the same considerations
apply.  For that matter, even with a son, if there's already one son
who knows and is saying kaddish, it's not necessarily right to tell
the other sons; it would depend on how they will feel if they learn
later that they were deprived of saying kaddish.  Which brings us
back to the earlier point, that with women too it depends on how they
will react, and one can't make one rule to fit all.

It's well known that when the LR's brother died, he kept the news from
his mother for the rest of her life.  When he was sitting shiva he
painted his slippers to look like shoes and would go every day to visit
his mother as he usually did.  And afterwards he would forge letters
from his brother and have them posted to her from EY so she wouldn't know.

Some personal anecdotes: When my mother's grandmother died, my mother
was pregnant, and my father asked everyone to keep the news from her,
but after a few months my great-aunt forgot, and mentioned it in a
letter.  This obviously wasn't a case of shiva.

When my father's uncle died, we got the news early on Purim.  He had no
surviving children, and the only people left to sit shiva for him were
his brother and sister.  The brother's grandchild was getting married
later that week, so nobody wanted to tell him and disturb his simcha.
Thus it was decided that my grandmother had to be told.  She was
persuaded with some excuse to hold the family Purim seudah early, and
then they broke the news so she could sit shiva.  I'm not sure whether
the brother was told right after the wedding, or whether they waited 30
days to tell him so he wouldn't have to sit for more than a short time.

In that same family, when one of the siblings died shortly before a
yomtov, the others weren't told the news until erev yomtov.  (In that
case the niftar had children who sat the whole shiva.)


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

RET writes:

> 1. In fact many commentaries say there is a difference between
> childbirth and other sakkanot in terms of shabbat. For other pikuach 
> nefesh we override shabbat and one can do whatever is necessary without 
> hesitation. However, for childbirth one is required to start with the 
> least problematical work (ha-kal ha-kal techila)
> The reason given is that childbirth is a natural danger

I must say I am not sure I understand what is meant by a "natural danger"?
Is a tsunami (as opposed to a terrorist) a natural danger?  How about
cancer?  Both are not caused by human beings (as opposed to the case of
terrorism, for example).

> 2. In the medical shiurim of R. Zilberstein he has several times dealt
> with the question whether a woman can get pregnant when she has a serious
> disease that the pregnancy will aggravate even to the point of pikuach 
> nefesh. His standard answer is that the woman is not required to but is 
> allowed to get pregnant if she wishes. Her desire for children
> overrides putting herself into danger.

The Tzitz Eliezer poskens similarly.  However, in that case, the woman has
been appraised of the risks, and decides that she has an overwhelming desire
to have children.

But what if her desire is not so clear?  If she is ambivalent about getting
pregnant (or about getting pregnant again)?  And how about the husband?
What gives him the right to assume that the woman has an overriding desire
to have children (without an extensive discussion about it)?

> Though he does not mention it a  similar situation occurs when one's job 
> entails danger that we pasken that can is allowed to take on a dangerous 
> profession, eg Nodah BeYehuda allows one to become a hunter (he has side 
> problems that are not relevant here).

Is there anybody however who holds that after entering a dangerous
profession, one is then locked into that profession and cannot cease to do
it if one decides the risks are not worth it?

But that is not exactly what happens with women, and even if you say that
she chose to enter the "dangerous profession" by getting married, she has no
choice about staying married (gitten not being within her control), and only
limited choice about having relations (moredet etc).  

What about apprising the person of the risks before entering the dangerous
profession, is there any obligation to spell out to somebody considering a
dangerous profession precisely the dangers?  Could one be considered to be
over on dam re'echa if one knew how dangerous a profession was and at least
did not let the person know?  Would this not be true even if one knew that
their desire was strongly for this profession (they had a hunger for the
hunt, let us say)?

And yet counselling for women on the risks of getting pregnant at the pre
chuppah stage (or any other stage) are non existent.  

> 3. Do we assume  Rachel Immenu violated one of the 3 sins that cause
> death in childbirth. More generally there were many righteous women who 
> dies in childbirth throughout the ages. It was in fact one of the major 
> causes of death for women in the middle ages.
> Do we assume they were all violating niddah, challah or candle lighting?

Your question is not on me, it is on the simple language of RMF's teshuva.
I agree with you, which is why I felt it was impossible to reconcile the
simple words of RMF's teshuva with the reality.

However I felt it more clear cut to bring a straightforward Shulchan Aruch
that proofs such as you bring above.  After all, Rachel Imanu, according to
many did die due to some sort of sin (even if it was not, in her case, that
of the three mentioned in the Mishna), so it is not really a good
counterproof to the simple reading of RMF's teshuva.

The wording of RMF's teshuva is extremely difficult to reconcile.

RDE then suggests:

>A possible resolution of the apparent contradiction is the fact that Rav
>Moshe was addresssing the issue of induced labor. He is simply saying that
>induced labor is dangerous relative to natural labor and therefore
>shouldn't be done for the sake of convenience.

The problem with that interpretation is the force of the language contained
in the original teshuva.  I quote again from RDE's fine translation:

> because childbirth in its natural time in the natural way is not 
> considered a danger at all. Since G-d created the world to be fruitful 
> and multiply, there is no question that he created it that it should 
> be for beracha and not for danger. Furthermore He commanded the 
> obligation to have children. It is not logical that there would be a 
> command to place one's self in danger in order to fulfil the mitzva of 
> having children. Especially since women don't even have a mitzva to 
> have children that we would say that the Torah is giving them the 
> option of placing themselves in danger in order to have children.. We 
> must conclude that there is absolutely no danger in childbirth at all. 
> That mean that G-d promised that there would never be danger in 
> childbirth.

That does not at all sound like a description provided merely to explain
that induced labour is dangerous relative to natural labour.  What is
written here explicitly is that it is not logical that there be a command to
place oneself in *any* danger, especially since women don't even have the
mitzvah to have children.  Hence G-d *must* have promised that there would
never be any danger in childbirth.

That seems pretty clear cut and unequivocal.  The logic makes sense.  The
only problem is a) the statistics don't bear him out, as RTK brings (as well
as RET's anecdotal references to righteous women); and b) the halacha states
flatly that this is not the case, and that a woman in childbirth is to be
considered a chola sheyesh bo sakana and shabbas must be violated.  If the
simple straightforward reading of Rav Moshe were right, however, one should
surely be relying on the promise of HKBH that there would never be danger in
childbirth *at all* and not violate shabbas, should one not?

The wording of the teshuva, to my mind, is extremely problematic and
difficult to explain. The second teshuva helps, by seeming to resile from
the clear cut language of the first teshuva, but even that does not seem
that easy to explain.  And I am not sure RDE's attempted reconciliation
fully deals with the problem.

On the other hand, if one disagrees with Rav Moshe, then one does come up
against his questions. How could HKBH have commanded us to place ourselves
in danger?  How could he have instituted an obligation to have children?
How in particular could this be something undertaken by women who have no
mitzvah?  The questions are all piercing fundamental questions, and if the
answers he appears to give appear problematic, then so too do the implicit
answers of anybody who holds differently.

> --
> Eli Turkel

Regards

Chana

R' Eli Turkel wrote:
> In the latest shiur of R. Zilberstein he repeated the
> halacha against informing women of the death of a close
> relative ... since they don't say kaddish. ...
> Sitting shiva especially together with the family is of
> great importance for most people and they are greatly
> offended if denied that privelege. ... R. Zilberstein's
> reaction was that these were non-halachic reasons and
> he wasn't interested in psychological reasons of is
> importance. I fail to see why the anguish of the
> relatives (especially women) is not of importance.

I do not understand what R' Zilberstein means by "non-halachic reasons". Isn't the desire to do these mitzvos/minhagim a halachic reason?

I also don't understand what he means by "psychological reasons". If a
person will be offended if a say a certain thing to him, is this a
violation of mitzvos bein adam l'chaveiro, or is it merely an unimportant
"psychological reason"?

Akiva Miller

_____________________________________________________________
Shop now for huge discounts on quality surveillance cameras. Click here!
http://thirdpartyoffers.ju
no.com/TGL2121/fc/Ioyw6i3mYPvtKZ9QfWyU8mKij8y41gBxFnJcFxApAoJaWaK8gRNRCi/?c
ount=1234567890




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 378
***************************************

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..."