Volume 26: Number 113
Fri, 12 Jun 2009
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: "Chana Luntz" <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:18:21 +0100
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates
RMM writes:
> One musing of mine is that often, we need not be concerned with
> intermarriage. That is, practically speaking, if the person is
> committed to doing giyur, we have no concern with marrying either him
> or his daughter; he will be kosher very soon, and his daughter, when
> she comes of age twenty or thirty years from now, will be a frum Jew
> as well!
But while no doubt many of those in such a circumstance do in fact finish
the course, not all do. In particular I am thinking about somebody with
whom my husband was very friendly when at university, and who subsequently
moved to London and was accepted as a giyur candidate by the London Beis Din
(which as you may know, is regarded as one of the toughest out there) and
was really a long way down the track when her father was diagnosed with
cancer. And she told them she needed to take time out to go nurse her
father. And they told her that if she took time out, she need not bother
coming back. And she took time out and nursed her father for a year before
he passed away (in the village a couple of hours drive out of London from
which she had come). And she was very bitter about it all, but somehow she
accepted their rejection and didn't (as far as I am aware, this was all long
before I met my husband) try other avenues (eg Israel), and she then met her
(non Jewish) husband, and they are now married with four daughters and
living in this village out of London where she grew up. We see them
occasionally, and a couple of times they have "come for shabbas" - they are
one of the few people one can without qualms invite for shabbas who live
hours driving away. And it is very weird because she can of course
completely follow the service, and she took her daughters along and was
explaining everything.
Now I confess that my instincts are that we should rather "have" the sort of
person who would put her father's needs over her own and take time out to
nurse her father, than the sort of person who would ignore those needs in
order to continue with her conversion, but then, I am not the beis din, and
it would seem you would also disagree with me.
> She notes that amira l'akum is permitted where there is real true
> suffering (the aged and infirm, etc.); should the personal feelings of
> a giyur candidate take precedence over the needy? Should not he be
> willing (if not proud!) to help these individuals by violating
> Shabbat? Is this not also a bein adam l'havero?
> This point is true, but I will emphasize again how profound the
> emotional pain can be of a giyur candidate. ...
>To
> ask them to perform melacha is simply a slap in the face; it is to
> remind them that despite all their endeavors so far, they are still
> nothing, that they haven't accomplished anything.
I am not denying the emotional pain. And yet, there are other aspects to
consider.
Let's take one of the categories of permitted amira l'akum that is probably
even more problematic for you than that of suffering - the situation where
it is l'tzorech mitzvah - ie in order to enable a mitzvah to occur. Without
the involvement of the akum then there will be no mitzvah, so their
involvement increases the number of mitzvos in the world. Thus in fact
their role is that of enabler. Of course a regular akum doesn't care
whether he is enabling a mitzvah or not, he is doing it, generally as a form
of favour to the Jew, but if anything someone on giyur track might perhaps
feeling differently. Now you will say "But if no Jew would deign to involve
himself in the present matter, then neither should the candidate himself be
expected to involve himself" - ie if nobody who is obligated in keeping
shabbas is allowed to violate shabbas to enable this mitzvah, then there is
clearly no value to this mitzvah and no value to an enabler role. An
enabler role is "nothing" and all that is of value is being within the scope
of being commanded in the mitzvos, particularly shabbas. That is what they
are giving up so much to achieve, and that is all that matters.
I would however point out that there is a very strong analogy to another
group of non commanded enablers. Probably not the minyan in your yeshiva,
as that is likely made up mostly of bochrim, but most minyanim around the
world run because the participants are enabled to attend by having their
wives (non commanded in tephila b'zibur) man the home front. Ditto for
torah study, as the gemora in Sotah acknowledges on 21a - and note by the
way the clear implication of that gemora that by enabling the boys to go off
to school and waiting for the husbands to come home, the women share in the
reward of the Torah study, to the extent of it suspending punishment for
being sotah, despite not being within the scope of the command.
Of course, there is a lot of emotional pain expressed also by numbers of
women at being expected to be the enablers, and not the main act, if you
like. And indeed they also express the view that without the main doing
they are "nothing". And there are two responses to that emotional pain.
The first is to try and do, even if not commanded (and to feel pain if one
is not able to do, not unlike your story with the driving to shul) and the
second is to denigrate the role of enabler. In relation to the first, I
would note that you will find opinions (like that of RYBS in the famous
story regarding a woman who wanted to wear a talit to be found at this link
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xMRTndCRTGUC&;pg=PA20&lpg=PA20&dq=rav+solo
veitchik%3B+woman%3B+talit&source=bl&ots=AFzkbTNc6U&sig=1IDVwBjWVh2ZY9SRjyHs
m35F6rw&hl=en&ei=7hIxSpu4FdKhjAehrtTOBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum
=1#PPA20,M1) which hold that unless you have a vadai mitzvah, there is no
value to any approximation, and emotional pain is completely illegitimate.
I confess that I find that position somewhat difficult to understand, as the
concept of nachas ruach l'nashim is from the gemora (Haggiga 17b) but even
so there are clearly limits on what this can allow.
I see from various links provided on Areivim that there is a shul in
Jerusalem called Shira Chadasha, where, in order to deal with the emotional
pain that their women members feel about being excluded from the count of a
minyan ("counting for nothing"), they have instituted a rule that they will
not start davening until there is both 10 men and 10 women. And you could
say that, where the difference is that perhaps they will wait a few minutes
longer to start davening, it does not really matter, and why not act in this
manner so as to assuage this emotional pain. But the nub of the issue is
this: - what if they find themselves in a scenario where there are 10 men,
and it becomes clear that 10 women are just not going to show up? Are they
going to forgo all of the mitzvos involved in davening b'tzibur because of
this emotional pain of their woman members? Your answer from the analogous
case with the people on giyur track would seem to be yes, they should -
because likewise in your case, you are willing to forgo the performance of
mitzvos because of the emotional pain of the candidates who feel they are
nothing if they are not mezuva and do not like to be reminded of this fact.
But can you also understand from my analogy why this is something of a
controversial opinion? Can you also understand why some people may feel
less than comfortable with a stress on emotional pain (no matter how deeply
and truly felt) which has at least certain roots in, or links to, a
denigration of the enabler role.
> Michael Makovi
Regards
Chana
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:40:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak
Although our positions and Mekoros where already stated, and WRT to Sevara
"Ein Deioseihen Shovos" and the Chazal say "Im Sevara Nisbrei", I will try
once more, vHabocheir Yivchar.
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 3:56 PM, hankman <sal...@videotron.ca> wrote:
> RYZ wrote:
> I think it is Poshut. My Hechrech is if there is times that they don't
> understand part or all of a Nvuoh, how come the Rambam does not write so
> Mfurosh, that would be the screaming difference between Moshe and others.
>
> CM responds:
> I think that the Rambam does so. It is part and parcel of the difference in
> the "aspaklaria sh'eina meira." The guaranteed pisron is for that part of
> the mareh that Hashem intends the novi to understand. Here the nature of the
> aspaklaria does not get in the way. Hashem of course understands the details
> of the novi's human frailties and thus his aspaklaria (the level of which is
> unique to each novi) and insures that the message he wants received by the
> novi gets through. To say otherwise, implies the inability of Hashem to
> convey a particular message to a given novi, which of course can not be.
>
In general (and especially in Sifrei Halacha) I am a literlist, as such LAND
this is far from explicit, furthermore according to you in the part of the
Nvuoh that is meant for conveyence (which is the most important) there is no
difference by the fact that he sees thru Eina Meiroh, I understand the
Rambam saying that in the (main part) of the Nvuoh there is difference
between Moshe and others, and not that others see things that are
irrelevent.
In addition why should HKBH show in a nvuoh useless information? Just to
show that they are not like Moshe?
And of course I agree and it is Muchrach as part of the Yesod of Nvuoh, that
the message gets thru.
>
> In your opinion how in fact do you account for the aspaklaria sh'eina
> meira? Why is that not an automatic lack of complete pisron with every
> nevuoh but those of Moshe? And then in fact the taane of RDR and RRW (I
> think) makes sense - how do you differentiate between them (Moshe and other
> neviim) in this detail.
>
While I never experianced Nevuoh <g> the Rambam defines that the Eina Meira
is in the fact that it is thru a Moshol.
>
> Consider: Chazal tell us that a shifcha at krias Yam Suf saw more the
> Yechezkel ben Buzi saw in his mareh. It can not mean they saw different
> maros, because then the comparison would be meaningless - of course they saw
> different things - its comparing apples to oranges. But, this must mean they
> saw the same (or similar) mareh but the clarity (the aspaklaria) was clearer
> at the Yam. Yet if they saw the same mareh (and as you claim) the pisron for
> the entire mareh is understood fully then they should have both seen the
> same pisron!
>
Where does it say that it was Nvuoh with a Pisron? It was Gilui Shchina
(Rashi Shmos 15:2) there are different levels in that.
>
> RYZ wrote:
> So if a Novi has to relate even a Moshol w/o a Pisron, so what does define
> what the Novi relates
>
> CM responds:
> The simple answer is that it must be part and parcel of the message the
> novi receives. Just as the intended recipient of the nevuoh must be part of
> the nevuoh, so to is which part/s should be transmitted.
>
My question in Higoyon is: if Eino Meira indicates that there is non
understood parts in the Cholom, and (that fact itself indicates that) those
parts he doesn't need to say, then how can there be an entire Cholom w/o
understanding and yet he has to say it. of course If HKBH would tell him
that he should say it anyway he would have to, but it would be a Stira in
Higoyon.
> Even according to you, the novi can only understand which part to repeat
> if somehow this was a part of the message he "understood on his own." (He
> doesn't make this up on his own.)
>
Correct! but it isn't a Stira in Higoyon.
>
> RYZ wrote:
> Again nowhere does the Rambam say that at times he doesn't understand it
> or
> a part of it.
> CM responds:
> Although you are right - nowhere does the Rambam state this explicitly.
>
While we can argue if there is or there is not Mashmous to it. LAND such a
MAJOR difference should say explicity, (as an exemple see how he defines the
difference between Nvuoh and M'o'nein in 10:3)
> Nevertheless I think it is muchrach to be so, otherwise how to
> differentiate between what the shifcha at kriasYam Suf and Yecheskel ben
> Buzi saw (understood) of the Massei Merkava. I think he (Rambam) took this
> as a given.
>
As I wrote earlier that LAND Gilui Shchina is a different issue. Also as a
literalist I can't build on external Rayos to understand what is written
here.
> But if you press me, I could read it into YT 7:6 where the Rambam in
> differentiating nevuas Moshe states: "... roeh hadovor al buryov belo chida
> ubelo moshol..." IE. It is the lack of clarity due to the aspaklaria that
> leave the part of the pisron shrouded from the other neviim.
>
LAN"D Moshol does not mean not understanding.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/e38247a6/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Yitzchok Levine <Larry.Lev...@stevens.edu>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 17:47:41 -0400
Subject: [Avodah] Calling a Woman by Her First Name
The following is from Volume 5, Issue 11 of Halachically Speaking by
rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits
Calling a Woman by Her First Name
In bungalow colonies men tend to be in the presence of women more
frequently than during the rest of the year. One should not call other peoples
wives by their first name. One can be lenient in regard to relatives
such as his
aunts or cousins. Unfortunately, many people are not careful with
this and it leads
to an excess of familiarity. Tznius is something that is learned, and
the best way
to promote an elevated level of tznius is to be extra stringent in a
summer related
setting such as bungalow colonies etc. One should use chuchmah and seichel to
avoid putting himself into potentially harmful situations. Tiny
breaches, if not
controlled, can be openings for dangerous situations. Therefore, one
should talk
in a manner that reflects tznius and self control. [83]
[83.] Horav Yisroel Belsky Shlita, see Bach E.H. 21, Taz 21:1, Ben
Yehuyoda Sotah 2a:page 109 (new), Divrei
Chachumim page 256, Rivevos Ephraim 6:402:page 440, Sharei Halacha
U'minhag E.H. page 147, Teharas
Hamisphacha page 240. The custom is to be lenient in regard to
calling a non-Jewish woman by her first name (Horav
Yisroel Belsky Shlita). Refer to Yisroel Kedoshim pages 165-169.
Refer to Sdei Chemed chof:120:page 203, Darchei
Chaim V'sholom page 372:1063, Minchas Elazar 3:13, Bais Avi 2:121,
Betzel Hachuchma 4:70 Yismach Lev 1:pages
255-256, if a man can call his wife by her name.
______________________________________________________
I am sure that last the few words in this footnote should read, "if a
man should call his wife by her first name." Certainly he can call
his wife by her first name. The question is "Should he do it?"
Any thoughts on this? Virtually everyone I know calls their wife by
her first name.
For those interested, I have placed the entire issue at
http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/volume_5_issue_11.pdf
Yitzchok Levine
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/3d5b731e/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:09:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:52 PM, <rabbirichwol...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hashem asei lecha saraph. Moshe wayas moshe nechash nechoshes.
> Q how did Moshe know to add on and alter saraph to nechash so that it
> would constitute lashon nofeil al lashon.
>
> See Sifsei Chachomim on Rashi Bamidbar 21:9.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/1845c317/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 20:25:20 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates
Chana Luntz wrote:
> Now I confess that my instincts are that we should rather "have" the sort of
> person who would put her father's needs over her own and take time out to
> nurse her father, than the sort of person who would ignore those needs in
> order to continue with her conversion, but then, I am not the beis din, and
> it would seem you would also disagree with me.
I agree, and I'm astonished at the LBD's attitude. If anything I'd
have called it a test which she passed, like that of Dama ben Netina.
But it seems from your story that this was all hashgacha pratit, since
as a result of the BD's intransigent attitude when she met her basherter
she was able to marry him. What a tragedy it would have been had she
gone through with the giyur, only to find that she had left her "other
half" behind! I assume that he is not interested in Judaism, so there's
no hope of their converting together.
I know someone with not quite so dramatic a story. She was on track to
convert, and it was taking a long time but she was fine with that, a bit
impatient but also appreciating that this was a serious and irreversible
step and that she had to be absolutely sure she wanted it. While this
was dragging on, she met a wonderful man who was not at all interested
in Judaism, so she put her conversion "on indefinite hold" to marry him.
He agreed to live as a ben noach and keep a kosher home, and they were
married by an Orthodox rabbi. As time went on and he got used to her
ways, he started to go to shul with her, but couldn't feel comfortable
in the O shul, so they started to go to a C place, where he felt more
comfortable; eventually he felt ready for a C conversion, so she took
that as better than nothing, and they both converted to C (and were
married again; they may be the only couple in the world to have had a
C wedding *after* an O one!) I think she still harbours a hope that
eventually he will be ready for O, and they can convert properly; but
either way, she's happier being a bat noach and married to him than she
would be Jewish and without him. Had her giyur gone quicker, and she'd
met him after it was over, it would have been too late.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: T6...@aol.com
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2009 23:33:49 EDT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] can a navi make a mistake
From: hankman <sal...@videotron.ca>
>>See Rambam Yesodei HaTorah 10:1-3 when the nevuoh must come to pass and
10-4 where the nevuoh does not necessarily need to come to pass. The
latter was obviously the case for Yona.<<
Kol Tuv
Chaim Manaster
>>>>
Nevertheless a true nevuah must come true on some level. The nevuah was
"Od arba'im yom veNinveh nehepaches" which would mean either that after
forty days, Nineveh will be overturned and destroyed, OR within forty days
there will be a revolution and an upheaval, and the old sinful way of behaving
will be overturned as people turn to teshuva. In the latter sense,
Nineveh really was "overturned," as the people turned over a new leaf and turned
the whole situation around. "Revolution" literally means "turning over"
BTW and "nehepaches" really means "make a revolution."
--Toby Katz
==========
_____________________
**************Download the AOL Classifieds Toolbar for local deals at your
fingertips.
(http://toolbar.aol.com/aolclassifieds/download.html?ncid=emlcntu
sdown00000004)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/37bb7432/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Michael Kopinsky <mkopin...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 03:16:43 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Jew Or Not?
On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:
> Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require miqvah and
> qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD. Reaffirming a return to the
> Jewish faith, even if already born into the Jewish people.
>
To corroborate R' Micha's claim that this is common practice, see
http://www.amazon.com/Play-Fire-Womans-Remarkable-Odyssey/dp/9
657108357/aishdas,
the story of a woman whose parents converted to Christianity, and who grew
up in the church, on the path to become a priest or something, became
disillusioned, and eventually returned to Judaism. Although she was
indisputably Jewish, the London Beth Din required her to tovel. This is not
necessarily a proof for what would be the halacha in the case where the
parents did not necessarily convert to Christianity but just married out or
otherwise became "unJewish" while remaining Jewish.
KT,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090612/d53cc12c/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:51:16 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] hardest question on SA
I heard a shiur today where the abbi claimed this was the hardest
question on a psak of the SA
The is a disagreement of Rambam and Rosh about the definition of a
parsha petucha and a parsha stumah.
The psak of the SA is that one should only uses the 1 possibility of a
petucha and the one of the stumah
that is common to both shitot
The question from R Natan Adler (rebbe of CS). Rambam lists all the
parshiot petuchot
and stumot in the Torah based on the Torah of R. Asher. However, given
that sefer Torah one can decide
what is stuma or petucha only using the shitot of Rambam or Rosh.
Hence, what the Rambam call a parsha petucha might according to Rosh
be really a stuma
and now writing it as a petucha according to all shitot doesnt help
since according to Rosh
it is a stumah
Note: mixing up a parsha petucah with a stumah is pasul bideved
Note: We now have keter Aram Tzovah and can see that he used
possibilities for parshiyot
that would indeed be an argument between Rosh and Rambam and so cant
answer that the original
version only used posibilities that was agreed by everyone
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:59:04 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] lo tachmod according to Slobodka
There is the famous question of how the Torah can order us Lo Tachmod
which is a natural instinct
Ibn Ezra answers but giving a parble that a person from a village would never
covet the daughter of the king
R. Hirsch head of the Slobodka yeshiva quoted his grandfather as disagreeing
and saying that Jews can't be compared to villagers. Rather the parable is the
opposite that the king looking for a shidduch for his daughter would
never consider
a villager and similarly a prince would never covet the wife of a commoner.
--
Eli Turkel
ps
based on modern day Hollywood I am not sure these paravles are still appropriate
see the movie Alladin
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:19:51 +0300
Subject: [Avodah] lo tachmod according to Slobodka
There is the famous question of how the Torah can order us Lo Tachmod
which is a natural instinct
Ibn Ezra answers but giving a parble that a person from a village would never
covet the daughter of the king
R. Hirsch head of the Slobodka yeshiva quoted his grandfather as disagreeing
and saying that Jews can't be compared to villagers. Rather the parable is the
opposite that the king looking for a shidduch for his daughter would
never consider
a villager and similarly a prince would never covet the wife of a commoner.
--
Eli Turkel
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:05:57 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] lo tachmod according to Slobodka
Eli Turkel wrote:
> There is the famous question of how the Torah can order us Lo Tachmod
> which is a natural instinct
>
> Ibn Ezra answers but giving a parble that a person from a village would never
> covet the daughter of the king
>
> R. Hirsch head of the Slobodka yeshiva quoted his grandfather as
> disagreeing and saying that Jews can't be compared to villagers. Rather
> the parable is the opposite that the king looking for a shidduch for his
> daughter would never consider a villager and similarly a prince would
> never covet the wife of a commoner.
So instead of regarding ourselves as villagers and all other Jews as
kings, we should do the opposite? What has he achieved here?
In any case, this mashal is obviously false. We all know that kings
and princes covet commoners all the time -- and being kings and princes
they often act on that covetousness. They may not often consider
marrying them and elevating them to royalty, though that happens too,
but lo tachmod isn't about that.
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:05:06 GMT
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Jew Or Not?
Regarding that we "require" a mumar to be tovel upon doing teshuva, R' Micha Berger wrote:
> (The relevent SA is YD 268:12, c.f. Rama and Pischei Teshuvah.)
That Rama writes "ayno tzarich litbol rak miderabanan yesh lo litbol - He
doesn't have to be tovel, but d'rabanan he should be tovel." It sounds to
me (from the words "yesh lo") that this is merely a strong recommendation,
not an actual Takana D'Rabanan.
That Pischei Teshuva quotes Magen Avraham 326:8 that this mumar can do this
tevilah even on Shabbos "since it's not d'Oraisa". This too gives me the
impression that it's actually not even a real chiyuv. I would compare it to
tevilas keilim on glass -- I've never seen that we can tovel it on Shabbos
"since it's not d'Oraisa".
Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Hit it out of the park with a new bat. Click now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsL78rr14I5lNA3ukxPAlUDGP1TvgRhYJfsuCKS6Jrcx2lw2h8jiOM/
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:58:15 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Jew Or Not?
Michael Kopinsky wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:13 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org
>> Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require miqvah and
>> qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD. Reaffirming a return to the
>> Jewish faith, even if already born into the Jewish people.
> To corroborate R' Micha's claim that this is common practice, see
> http://www.amazon.com/Play-Fire-Womans-Remarkable-Od
> yssey/dp/9657108357/aishdas,
> the story of a woman whose parents converted to Christianity, and who
> grew up in the church, on the path to become a priest or something,
> became disillusioned, and eventually returned to Judaism. Although she
> was indisputably Jewish, the London Beth Din required her to tovel. This
> is not necessarily a proof for what would be the halacha in the case
> where the parents did not necessarily convert to Christianity but just
> married out or otherwise became "unJewish" while remaining Jewish.
It's also not necessarily a proof that this was a halachic requirement
with rigid parameters, subject to logical analysis and deduction,
rather than just a minhag which is applied when it "feels right",
which would tend to be in cases that match the dayan's previous
experience or prejudices.
Think of kitniyos, where there are those who say that there aren't
any rules; when it first arose it applied to those plants to which
our ancestors applied it, and when new plants came from America our
ancestors at the time decided on an ad hoc basis whether to apply it
to them, based on whether they "felt" like kitniyos, and that when
we come across new plants that they never considered we have the same
right to decide whether to apply it or not.
An approach like that might explain the metzius that RMB reports,
that dayanim are applying this minhag Ashkenaz to mumrim who come
back from Xianity, and perhaps also from other religions, especially
those who serve AZ, but not to BTs from non-O or secular backgrounds
or to formerly O who are returning. Perhaps it's simply that they're
not used to thinking of such people with the term "mumar", even
though in halacha the term is used for any baal avera; in their
minds it's a synonym for "meshumad", so that's how they apply the
minhag. It's interesting that they *don't* require shaving, though,
which is the one thing that *does* seem to be related to AZ (since
AZ is compared to tzaraat, and a recovered metzora shaves).
--
Zev Sero The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name eventually run out of other people?s money
- Margaret Thatcher
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:48:01 -0400
Subject: Re: [Avodah] The MB, Minhagei Lita, and Temimos
Still catching up on old posts...
On Mon, May 25, 2009 at 9:30pm GMT, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: Years ago I posted that the Litvisher rabbanim I knew said that the AhS
: was the prevailing poseiq in Lita no the MB. FWIW One of these rabbanim
: lived in Hartford and his father-in-law was a rav in Baltimore.
: The last 3 doros of Gdolei Psaq in Lita went more or less like this
: R Yitzchok Elchanan Spektor
: AhS
: Rav Chaim Ozer. Grodzinsky
: However the yeshivisher world has since lionized other G'dolim instead.
Because the yeshiva thrives on lomdus, without which learning would be a
lot less structured and less interesting. Therefore, they lean toward
textualists.
Fill in the usual about textualists vs mimeticists vs idealists.
This plays itself out in which Litvisher RY supported the MB vs which
supported the AhS. It's not coincidence that R' Hutner (the Pachad
Yitzchaq), R' SY Weinberg and my own rebbe, RDL were among those who
recommended their talmidim lean on the AhS. Whereas, in those yeshivos
where Brisker derekh took over (including the current version of NIRC),
it's the MB.
The AhS, while giving weight to mimeticism, halakhah as it was actually
practiced in Litta, shouldn't be confused with mimetics. The fact that
it itself is a code, a text, means that following the AhS
On Tue, May 26, 2009 at 03:13:45PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: Ein hachi nami. So what? This is not the first time that the
: less-popular in one generation, has become the more-popular just a few
: generations later. If I'm not mistaken, it happened with Beis Shammai
: and Beis Hillel too.
I don't think so. I think Beis Shammai was always smaller. The point
of the story about Hillel freezing on the roof is that Hillel broke the
trend and allowed the masses into his school. Beis Shammai was brighter
because it was more elitist -- and therefore it was also smaller.
The bas qol that said halakhah kebeis Hillel was followed because halachic
process favored following the majority anyway. It confirmed process,
not overridden it.
:-)BBii!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (270) 514-1507
------------------------------
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 113
***************************************
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..."