Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 219

Tue, 03 Nov 2009

• 1. Hilchos Aveilus (was Children at a Wedding) (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: [Areivim] Children at a Wedding (Akiva Blum)
• 3. Re: The plot against the Nasi (Arie Folger)
• 4. Re: Hilchos Aveilus (was Children at a Wedding) (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: Hilchos Aveilus (was Children at a Wedding) (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Children at a Wedding (Akiva Blum)
• 7. Re: Children at a Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: so is she married? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 9. mei marom (Eli Turkel)
• 10. Re: dinosaurs (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 11. Re: The plot against the Nasi (David Riceman)
• 12. Children at a Wedding (SBA)
• 13. Re: dinosaurs (hankman)
• 14. Re: Children at a Wedding (Akiva Blum)
• 15. Re: dinosaurs (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

At 02:26 PM 11/2/2009, Micha wrote:
>Hilkhos Aveilus are wonderful that way. They remove from the aveil the
>decision of what is "enough" or "appropriate" to do for their parent's
>memory by giving him  standard to follow.

I have, unfortunately, sat shiva 4 times - once for each of my 
parents, once for a son, and once for my brother, so I have some 
experience with this issue.

If you look as the poskim when it comes to this topic, it seems that 
there is almost an opinion to back whatever you decide to do. For 
example, some say you can go to a Kiddush on Shabbos, others say you 
cannot, etc. There are different minhogim for virtually everything. 
Just have a look at Mourning in Halacha.

Everyone will tell you that you say kaddish for 11 months. Yet, IIRC, 
Mourning in Halacha says that a son of the Chasam Sofer said kaddish 
for him for 11 months and 3 weeks.

So I really do not see how,  "They remove from the aveil the decision 
of what is 'enough' or 'appropriate' to do for their parent's memory 
by giving him standard(s) to follow."

Yitzchok Levine 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/f261d11f/attachment-0001.htm>

 


  _____  

From: Joseph C. Kaplan [mailto:jkap...@tenzerlunin.com] 


why should there be any minhag at all?  There are so many differing factors that
are relevant in trying to do the best thing for both the children and the
marrying couple; 

 
RAB: On the contrary. Would you be able to tell your child "Sorry, you can't
come to my wedding. My new husband/wife doesn't like you/may not like you/feels
uncomfortable with you around/may feel uncomfortable with you around, etc."
 
Much better to have a fixed minhag. Sorry kid, you can't come, that's the
minhag!
 
Me: Sure it's easier.  But one part of being a parent is knowing when to say
"no" and that's not easy.  But that's why we get paid the big bucks.  And, of
course, what if we want to say "yes" which would be appropriate in many cases.
In such a case, how do we answer the kids question "but isn't the minhag not
to?"  Hey, let's take some responsibility and not rely on the crutch of
"minhag."
 
Joseph Kaplan 
 
Yes, the correct response is that "the minhag is not to". Why? Because, even
though in our particular case, it might be appropriate that you children do come
to the wedding, this minhag is to protect the feelings of those in far more
awkward circumstances. We will put ourselves out for the sake of others. That is
taking responsibility.
 
It seems that this is similar to a wealthy man deliberately curtailing the
expenses of his child's wedding, in consideration of all the other not so
wealthy folk.
 
Akiva

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091102/f9430d09/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB wrote:
> I still find it weird that we're told "yeish omerim" means
> R' Noson, but y"o isn't found in the Mishnah or Tosefta altogether.

Read on that gemara at the end of Horayot and you will see that soon
afterwards, R' Natan and R' Meir both dreamt that they should go and
ask R' Shim'on ben Gamliel for forgiveness. R'Natan went while R' Meir
made a rationalist argument that dreams are devarim beteilim orwas it
hevel, and did not apologize. Consequently, R' Natan was no longer
called yesh omerim. Since all that didn't last long, it didn't leave
any mark on the permanent record.

Rebbi initially referred to R' Meir as A'hreim, until his son prompted
him to reevaluate, which included recognizing that ultimately the
integrity of the office of the nassi was maintain - within the Gamliel
dynasty (which IIRC is the Hillel dynasty). Whereupon Rebbi began
referring to R' Meir by name.

So, it becomes readily apparent why your question isn't a cause for
concern. That said, it was a sharp observation.

Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger,
Latest blog posts on http://ariefolger.wordpress.com/
* UK Commander Challenges Goldstone Report
* On the Stereotypical Jew
* Wieso ?ruhte? G?tt?
* Wir sind f?r die Evolution!

Micha:
> Hilkhos Aveilus are wonderful that way. They remove from the aveil
> thedecision of what is "enough" or "appropriate" to do for their
> parent'smemory by giving him? standard to follow.

I have to concur with Micha

When my Dad obm was niftar I did not know what to do
Out of sense of shock

But realizing that halachah dictated many parameters gave me a sense
of solace. I surrendered to the halachos and just did them out of sense
of filial duty w/o having to weigh the pros and cons

I was very grateful for halachah p'suqah taking over during a time of
crisis and confusion

You see that my father was niftar motzo'ei Shabbos erev Sukkos; I was in
NYC, he in Hartford, CT there were many considerations for logisitics.
Too many to list completely. One is that despite being Shat"z, no way
could I return from the levaya before YT.

And this could have deferred the levayah, [among another bunch of reasons]
but we did not.

So I got a substitute Shatz and sailed to Hartford and followed the
halachah and the minhaggim - usually in consultation with a Rov.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Nov 02, 2009 at 10:37:42PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: But realizing that halachah dictated many parameters gave me a sense
: of solace. I surrendered to the halachos and just did them out of sense
: of filial duty w/o having to weigh the pros and cons
: I was very grateful for halachah p'suqah taking over during a time of
: crisis and confusion

One doesn't need halakhah pesuqah for that. And I am saying this mostly
to assress R Prof YL's comment... Just having a halachic mechanism and
punting to a poseiq rather than going by feel is enough to take the load
off.

At least, in my experience. Aveilus for an infant daughter is different;
it's more about "why me?" than feeling one's debt to a parent or the
loss of everything a brother or older child gave to you. And anyway,
every person is different, of course.

In any case, I just rejected a number of posts that take things further
and further from Avodah, many of which were reiterating previous points.
As mod, it's hard to know when and where to cut a thread. So, at least
check that you're not just reiterating. Of course there will be debate,
as parenting styles (of those children who has to deal with a remarriage)
and emotional responses will differ. But im kein, ein ladavar sof.

I just think enough people find that casting things into the halachic
or minhagic realm is helpful to justify these things. Even if it is not
everyone.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One doesn't learn mussar to be a tzaddik,
mi...@aishdas.org        but to become a tzaddik.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

From: Joseph C. Kaplan
        
Me: On the contrary. Would you be able to tell your child "Sorry, you can't come
to my wedding. My new husband/wife doesn't like you/may not like you/feels
uncomfortable with you around/may feel uncomfortable with you around, etc."

                                         
Much better to have a fixed minhag. Sorry kid, you can't come, that's the
minhag!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                                         
RJK :  And is it the minhag that wealthy people curtail wedding expenses?  Some
do and some don't; they're grown-ups and they use their judgment and make
decisions. And we don't tell them what to do. 
                                         
Me: Just because we don't have a minhag, doesn't mean we wouldn't be better off
with one.
                                         
Anyway, the point is that forgoing your own enjoyment in favor of consideration
of others tzar is well understood.
                                         
RJK: If there was a clear halacha about this, that's one thing.  but minhag?
Times change and some minhagim outlive their usefulness. 
                                         
Me: Where do you see that times have changed in these matters. 
                                         
Akiva

On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:48:51AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
: RJK: If there was a clear halacha about this, that's one thing.  but minhag?
: Times change and some minhagim outlive their usefulness. 

: Me: Where do you see that times have changed in these matters. 

The ban on qitniyos outlived its usefulness. Who is going to repeal it?
I question the other half of RJK's argument.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres Hakodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

I wrote:
> When teenagers play around, and stage a pretend wedding, everyone
> knows that they were just playing, and did not intend to actually get
> married. But they *did* go through the motions...

R' Micha Berger responded:
> As did someone who said "Will you marry me?", gives her a ring,
> there are eidim, and both of them even have every intent to spend
> the rest of their lives as a couple. No?

It depends on what you mean by of "the rest of their lives" and "as a
couple". The whole idea of engagement is that, yes, they are agreeing to be
a couple of "rayim ahuvim" henceforth and forever, but they are NOT
agreeing to be a *married* couple until some future point.

"Engagement" is not a new institution. Halacha does not stop a man from
going up to a Jewish woman he never saw before, and offering her kiddushin.
But even though that would be valid, it is simply never done. Not in our
culture, not in any culture, Jewish or not, present or past. As far back as
Yitzchak and Rivka, there was first an agreement to be married (Bereshis
24:51), and only after that (no earlier than 24:53, it seems to me, and
possibly only much later) did she actually become his wife.

> I mean, the gemara says giving her a ring while discussing
> inyanei qiddushin is enough, or "will you be buried next to me?"

Yes, I'll concede that it says that. But it isn't a magic formula. IIRC, it
is cited specifically to point out that there *is* *no* magic formula, that
the text of "Haray at" is not m'akev, that all we need is a giluy daas,
which (in the absence of sufficient evidence to the contrary) reveals that
the intention of the couple was that this act would effect the marriage.

I maintain that in the video cited at the start of this thread, they made
no such giluy daas. Everything the man did in that video was typical of how
people in that culture get *engaged*. The ring was not a plain band typical
(even among non-Jews) of a wedding ring, but it had a jewel in it, typical
of engagement rings. He knelt down (though I couldn't tell if it was on one
knee or both), which is also traditional among many when proposing to get
engaged. Most important, however, was his use of the *future* tense, when
he asked "Will you marry me?", rather than "Do you marry me?" which I
concede would have been problematic.

I think that we have each explained our views adequately. I suggest that we
take a time-out until such time as we can cite some sources who explore the
limits of the gemara which
> ... says giving her a ring while discussing
> inyanei qiddushin is enough, or "will you be buried next to me?"

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Top Bathroom Remodelers
Get up to 4 free bathroom remodel estimates today. No obligation!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2131/c?cp=OM22gOsi_0A8Tal_Ntkm2wAAJ
z3zeK-F0bLcqGb51B0rOTOKAAQAAAAFAAAAAJGUND8AAAMlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIYGAAAAAA=

I found the following in sefer HaIkkarim maamar 3 perek 29

One can achieve Olam Haba with one action even if it is not a mitzvah
if he is doing it for
the honor of heaven or the Torah.
Examples he brings the launderer in the neighborhood of Rebbe who got
Olam Haba because he was upset that
he didn't give proper respect to Rebbe and died with that sorrow.
Similarly the executioner of R. Chaninah ben Tradyon that got Olam
Haba because he made sure that RChbTr didn't
suffer too much.and so deserved Olam Haba. Similarly in Mesechet
Taanait brings many stories that Eliyahu said that are
people of Olam aba even though they only did good deeds but not
mitzvot like the prison guard who separated the
men from the ?women

Rather everyone has a share in the world to come at their level. Even
though some rabbis say one needs mor mitzvot then sins
it is not true rather an increase of mitzvot leads to a higher level
in olam haba but with one mitzvah one achieve some minimum level

The Hebrew is from the BarIlabn responsa CD. I can send it to anyone
interested.
copy and paste doesnt seem to be readable on avodah

--
Eli Turkel

RMB: Usually eilu va'eilu isn't about a question of truth, but of law.

And what we are discussing here is the trickiest case - a machloket about
the halachot of what is considered kefirah. The boundaries of what is
acceptable (even if incorrect) belief, vs. what is heresy are not
unanimously agreed upon. So does elu v'elu break down in this area of
halacha? ANY machloket about what is or isn't kefirah raises this question.

Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both are true
on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted as practice) apply
to every single machloket? Up to what point? The gemara? The rishonim?
Nowadays? Or are there some opinions that are just not true at all? The
posek made a mistake - and perhaps eventually realizes this himself and
retracts his opinion. Would we say elu v'elu before the retraction, but not
after? Or would we say that this is beyond the bounds of elu v'elu?

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/9d3b8328/attachment-0001.htm>

Micha Berger wrote:
> Why? The kelal could be made about "yeish omerim" as much as about R'
> Noson. And if stam mishnah keR' Meir, do I even need "R' Meir omer" or
> "Acheirim omerim" to apply the kelal?
See Sotah 7b about "Yehi Reuvein ...."  Admittedly it doesn't mention 
mentioning his name in the yeshiva, but it implies that forceful 
advocacy is important in deciding halacha.  Not mentioning the opinion's 
source is a means of denigrating the opinion.  Otherwise what function 
does it serve?

David Riceman

From: "Joseph C. Kaplan" 
I was somewhat behind on my Avodah reading and thus had the opportunity to
read the entire thread (to date) about children at a parent's wedding, and
my reaction, after reading all the posts was, in typical Jewish fashion, a
question: why should there be any minhag at all?
>>

The sefer Minhag Yisroel Torah quotes "Minhogei Worm" 235 that the children
of a widow or widower do not attend the chuppah or seuda - but the following
day they go to their father/mother and have a meal there.

SBA

RMB wrote:

Usually eilu va'eilu isn't about a question of truth, but of law. You
could have two valid rulings that contradict, each flowing from TSBP
following the proper rules of pesaq.

CM:

You seem to take solace in the fact that the rules of TSBP can lead to
inconsistent pesak (but not inconsistent truth) under EvE. (BTW this seems
to contradict your previous position vs R'nTK). Shifting the paradox from
ultimate truth to Halacha does not put me any more at ease with the problem
of understanding EvE. Halacha reflects the underlying truth so in principle
nothing has really changed with inconsistent pesak (in cases with no middle
ground such tamei or tahor, mamzer or not etc)

RMB wrote:

Someone who can only see shadows could see two very different
shadows of the same object. Both shadows accurately represent a mapping
of G-d's supernal truth to the limitations of human experience, even
though they contradict.

CM:

This does not help me much in understanding EvE either (with all due
respect to the Maharal). First of all, you have now introduced a case that
DOES have a middle ground, which here is the whole that neither A or B sees
in its entirety. (eg. think f(x,y,z), but A only sees f(x,y,k) while B sees
f(x,k',z)). But more to the point, EvE still leads to paradox because you
now need to explain the reason for different perspective, why A saw only
points "a" while B chose to see only points "b." If EvE tells us both are
right in their choice of perspective, you have not answered anything.

RMB  wrote:

R' Tzadoq (Resisei Lailah #17) writes about how the law of contradiction
only exists bepo'al. When dealing in machashavah, a thought always
invites contemplation of its opposite. People believe contradictory
things all the time. 

CM:

Again, I am left without an answer I can be happy with. Shifting the
discussion to the realm of machashava doesn't help. It still must be
rationally consistent. 2+2=5 isn't OK just because it is in machashava. It
is not just false when bepoal I try to stuff five pigeons into four
cubbyholes, but false even in the abstract thought in my mind. Just because
people sometimes have irrational thoughts doesn't make the thought any more
correct. I may contemplate 2+2=5 but I will conclude (if I am rational)
that 2+2=4.

RMB wrote:

Why invoke arcane physics when we can discuss halakhah in terms of the
roshem on people?

CM:

Sorry, it was just a metaphor. I liked R'nTK's expression "Schrodinger's Mamzer."

RMB wrote:

dialectics and antinomies ....  Kantian or Hegelian dialectics 

CM:

Now we are above my pay grade	I try to restrict myself to the 10,000 most
common words in the dictionary and stay away from Hegel (I once sat in on
the first few lectures in a course on Hegel and  understood nothing as I
thought none (very little) of it made any sense to me.

RMB wrote:

That way, we can blame eilu va'eilu on the human
ability to entertain conflicting thoughts, to be ambivalent, to hold
dialectics and antinomies.

CM:

So you are saying EvE is not a sublime truth in Torah, but rather a reflection of human failing?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/e28a7589/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Emoticon1.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20091103/e28a7589/attachment-0001.gif>

 

> -----Original Message-----
 On Behalf Of Micha Berger
> 
> On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 07:48:51AM +0200, Akiva Blum wrote:
> : RJK: If there was a clear halacha about this, that's one 
> thing.  but minhag?
> : Times change and some minhagim outlive their usefulness. 
> 
> : Me: Where do you see that times have changed in these matters. 
> 
> The ban on qitniyos outlived its usefulness. Who is going to 
> repeal it?


I was referring specifically to the minhag of children by their parents
weddings. I don't see anywhere that times have changed WRT this specific minhag.

Akiva

Ilana:
> Even in straight halacha - does elu v'elu (in the sense that both are true
> on a deeper level, but only one can actually be accepted as practice)
> apply to every single machloket? Up to what point? The gemara? The
> rishonim? Nowadays? Or are there some opinions that are just not true
> at all? The posek made a mistake - and perhaps eventually realizes
> this himself and retracts his opinion. Would we say elu v'elu before
> the retraction, but not after? Or would we say that this is beyond the
> bounds of elu v'elu?

Most Posqim assert that Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam Tefillin are mutually
exclusive.

In this week's Ben Ish Chai, the author quotes the Arizal stating they
are BOTH valid! [Not really as alternatives, rather al pi sod - one
NEEDS both]

This is beyond plain vanilla EvE.

The case of BH and BH re: EvE is AISI more about Talmud Torah than
practice, but see below

Halachically we follow only ONE derech - viz. BH. Rather learning the
opinion of BS is of equal value - which seems to contradict learning
Torah ONLY for Halachah lema'aseh

Yet here too is a paradox. Even though
BS is lav aliba dehilchesa, a through analysis of their sheeta may yield
theoretical constructs useful in the same or in other contexts.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 219
***************************************

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..."