Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 25

Fri, 18 Feb 2011

• 1. geirut for marriage (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (SBA)
• 3. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Geirut for marriage (Poppers, Michael)
• 5. Re: NishmaBlog: Pardon my French! "Bon Matin" and "Franglais" (T613K@aol.com)
• 6. Re: kosher stores, rechovi (T6...@aol.com)
• 7. Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach On Sitting Next To A Lady On a Bus (Prof. Levine)
• 8. Re: geirut for marriage (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach On Sitting Next To A Lady On a Bus (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: geirut for marriage (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 13. Keil Maaleh (Rich, Joel)
• 14. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Non-Jews Begin to Embrace Ketubah Wedding (Micha Berger)

<<It also says that it is a responsibility of Beis Din to check and see if
the
person is sincere about what they say, and if they believe he is lying not
to accept the candidate.>>

Is there anything about the motives of the ger? I know of several cases in
which a person (usually the woman) befcomes a ger for marriage but
once converting keeps the mitzvot frequently more than the husband.

So the person is sincere in what they say only that the original motivation
was for exterior reasons.
A similar situation would occur in Israel were a person converts to be
part of mainstream Israeli but once going through the process keeps the
mitzvot

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110216/76c659a4/attachment-0001.htm>

From: Zev Sero [on Areivim -micha]
> SBA wrote:
>> While locally we are getting reports that some of Melbourne's
>> orthodox rabbis are permitting deviations from traditional Chuppah
>> ceremonies, it seems that non-Jews, davka, are adopting some of our
>> minhagim!

> Guide me through the logic here. Because some goyim are diversifying
> and adding customs to make things more interesting, therefore adding
> anything under the chupah has become chukos hagoy?!

> Now hang on a minute, what exactly are you talking about? An actual
> double-ring kidushin, where he gives her a ring and says she's thereby
> mekudeshes, and she gives him a ring and says he's thereby mekudash?!
> Are you *sure* an Orthodox rabbi allowed this? ... I can't believe
> any O rabbi would agree to a double-ring ceremony, but I can very easily
> believe that one would agree to a couple's demand that the bride give
> the groom a ring. Indeed, I've been an eid at just such a chupah, and
> everything was done in accordance with the halacha.

The blog has a new post from a Sydney rabbi showing that RMF indeed
assered the choson receiving a ring under the Chuppah (even if there is
no issue of chukkas hagoy).

They have reproduced the teshuva there, ayen sham:
http://tinyurl.com/4bbbzfz [link to an ajnwatch.blogspot.com entry -micha]

> The halacha actually demands that she give him an object of value, in
> return for his assuming the obligations of the ketubah. This is usually
> done in private before the chupah, and usually one of the eidim gives
> the object on her behalf, since zachin le'adam shelo befanav, and she
> never even finds out about it. And the eid usually gets his object back
> afterwards, as a gift from the chatan.

Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of this?

SBA

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 01:14:41AM +1100, SBA wrote:
:> The halacha actually demands that she give him an object of value, in
:> return for his assuming the obligations of the ketubah. This is usually
:> done in private before the chupah, and usually one of the eidim gives
:> the object on her behalf, since zachin le'adam shelo befanav, and she
:> never even finds out about it. And the eid usually gets his object back
:> afterwards, as a gift from the chatan.

: Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of this?

I think RZS is referring to the the closing words of the kesevah, right
after saying the deal is real and no asmachta:
    veqinyana min ... ben ... chasan denan
    lemaras ... bas ... desulta
    de'aal kol mah dekasuv umfurash le'eil
    bemana dekasher lemiqnaya bei,
    vehakol sharir veqayam.
    Ne'um...

But that's not payment, that's qinyan sudar. The *iqqar* is the chasan
giving it, not the other way around.

That said, among those O rabbis I know who preside over weddings where the
man gets a ring, all of my contacts require the ring be given elsewhere.
If her ring is given as part of an exchange, it risks requiring the net
value increase for the bride to be shaveh perutah. Men's fingers generally
being wider, and thus their rings heavier / more valuable, that's not
likely anyway. Typically they would tell the kallah to give the ring in
the yichud room, so as to separate the qinyanim on the respective rings.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In Avodah V28n24#1, RnCL noted:
>
>> RMB writes:
>>
<< RDE put on his blog a letter by R' Amar with agreement by ROY, which talks
   about the requirement of qabbalas ol mitzvos le'iquva. Including attributing
   this position to the Rambam.

   See the image at
   http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2011/02/army-geirus-psak-of
   -rav-amar-with_10.html >>
>>
> Sorry?  I am struggling to read the hand written bit.... <
Translation available at http://kolharav.blogspot.com/2011/02/ruling-of-rav-ovadia-yosef-an
d-rav.html (or http://tinyurl.com/5sao6wf ).

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ, USA

In Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 24 dated 2/16/2011 


From: Ben Waxman  <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
T
 

From  another line:

Problem is, the shulchan aruch and other primary sources  have very
little to say about how a woman should dress.


[BW] So  what do you do when there is very little material with which to  
work?

Ben


>>>>>
 
You have a dressmaker add some more material, so that everything  that 
needs to be covered can be covered!
 
I mean this both literally and metaphorically.
 

--Toby  Katz
==========

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




-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110216/bfbfc301/attachment-0001.htm>

 
From: menucha <m...@inter.net.il>
T
 
>> Is the restriction against long skirts found anywhere in  psak? I seem
to be finding the opposite.

Meshane Halachot 12,316. In  response to a specific question about
wearing long skirts which are in "moda"  the answer is "halevai veyelchu
kulam besmalot arucot"

Also, shu"t  Shevet Halevi 5,75,2 is quite clear in his opinion that
shok is till the  ankle - even exempting them from wearing garbayim!!!!
So where does this  "rechovi" bit come in?

menucha

rechovi = something you see worn on  the streets, in other words what's
"in" in the non-frum/non-Jewish world but  not acceptable in chareidi
society, even if it is not tehnically un-tznius,  such as when long,
long skirts sweeping the streets were "in".

***  Rena

 
>>>>>
 
 
If the choice is mini-skirts or floor-length then yes, halavai they should  
all wear long skirts.  But.
 
When nobody wears skirts to the floor, that style is too eye-catching to be 
 modest.    It may be that in Israel it has become so common  among the DL 
in recent years that it is no longer attention-getting, but  that is 
certainly not the case in the US.  And obviously that  style is still considered 
too eye-catching to be modest in charedi  neighborhoods in Israel.  I would 
add that the women whom my mother  calls the "Shmatta Ladies" -- the ones who 
ostentatiously shroud themselves in  black from head to foot -- are immodest 
in the most profound sense of the  word.  Tznius means when you walk down 
the street you look normal and  nobody gives you a second glance.
 

--Toby Katz
==========



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



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110216/51bdacf6/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://revach.net/article.php?id=451

Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was once sitting with someone on a crowded 
city bus when a woman got onto the bus and couldn't find a place to 
sit. Rav Shlomo Zalman turned to the younger person sitting next to 
him and told him that either he should get up and give her his seat, 
or Rav Shlomo Zalman will give up his seat. The younger fellow got up 
and Rav Shlomo Zalman sat next to the women without any hesitation.

Interestingly Rav Shlomo Zalman once commented to someone (in 
accordance with the gemara Eruvin 18b) that it is far better to sit 
next to a woman that sit behind a women. (V'Aleihu Lo Yibol 2:EH:9)

Important Note: We bring this tshuvah as a starting point for 
discussion and not to convey any halacha. We try to convey the Tshuva 
to the best of our ability. We admit that our understanding may not 
be accurate. One should learn the tshuva to verify the accuracy of 
our interpretation. Please understand that this Tshuva may not be the 
final word on this topic. One should consult a Rav before drawing any 
conclusion.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110216/397be286/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 02:17:30PM +0200, Eli Turkel wrote:
: Is there anything about the motives of the ger? I know of several cases in
: which a person (usually the woman) befcomes a ger for marriage but
: once converting keeps the mitzvot frequently more than the husband.

A geir needs QOM -- according to nearly all shitos, even bedi'eved. To
the extent that he has an ulterior motive, BD has reason to doubt the
reality of his accepting observance. And thus, lekhatchilah, he shouldn't
be accepted, just as batei din didn't accept geirim during the hayday of
malkhus David uShelomo. And bedi'eved we hold him in doubt pending further
observation -- at least that's how I understand Issurei Bi'ah 13:17.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@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

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 01:58:58PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
> From http://revach.net/article.php?id=451
> Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach was once sitting with someone on a crowded  
> city bus when a woman got onto the bus and couldn't find a place to sit. 
> Rav Shlomo Zalman turned to the younger person sitting next to him and 
> told him that either he should get up and give her his seat, or Rav 
> Shlomo Zalman will give up his seat...

But this doesn't imply there was a chiyuv to do so alst tzeni'us. I would
think RSZA would accomodate the woman's discomfort with complying with
standards even if they are not halachic.

This story stands in contrast to RMF's teshuvah on riding the subway during
rush hour.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@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

On 16/02/2011 7:17 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> It also says that it is a responsibility of Beis Din to check and see
>> if the person is sincere about what they say, and if they believe he
>> is lying not to accept the candidate.

  
> Is there anything about the motives of the ger? I know of several cases
> in which a person (usually the woman) befcomes a ger for marriage but
> once converting keeps the mitzvot frequently more than the husband.
>
> So the person is sincere in what they say only that the original motivation
> was for exterior reasons.  A similar situation would occur in Israel were
> a person converts to be part of mainstream Israeli but once going through
> the process keeps the mitzvot


In principle such candidates should not be accepted for giyur, because
we're afraid that if the marriage breaks up ch"v they'll go back to their
old ways.  Kol ahava shehi teluya bedavar, batel davar betela ahava; and
the same applies to this person's kabalat ol mitzvot.   But if a BD did
convert the person the giyur is valid.

In practise, there is a contrary consideration. If the couple plans to
get married whether or not there's a giyur, then there's an important
reason to perform the conversion: in order to save the Jewish partner
from the sin of intermarriage.  In addition, if the convert partner is
going to keep mitzvot, then the Jewish partner will perforce also be at
least somewhat observant, e.g. the home will be kosher, the bedroom will
be kosher, there will be shabbat in the home, etc.  Therefore so long as
the BD feels it can trust the goy's commitment, no matter what motivated
it, there's a strong reason to convert him/her.

RMF writes in IM that balancing these contrary considerations is up to
each BD's discretion.   A BD may take a strict approach and refuse all
such giyurim, or it may treat each case on its merits and accept those
it feels are likely to be a net positive.



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On 16/02/2011 11:49 AM, Micha Berger wrote:

> But that's not payment, that's qinyan sudar. The *iqqar* is the chasan
> giving it, not the other way around.

What is a kinyan sudar?  It's consideration for a contract.  A contract
without consideration is not binding, so if a contract benefits only one
party, the other party must give something in return.  In civil law this
is usually "one dollar and other valuable consideration", or some similar
formula; in halacha it's a physical object, classically a handkerchief,
and nowadays often a pen or a gartel.  There's no reason it can't be a
ring.


> That said, among those O rabbis I know who preside over weddings where
> the man gets a ring, all of my contacts require the ring be given
> elsewhere.  If her ring is given as part of an exchange, it risks
> requiring the net value increase for the bride to be shaveh perutah.

That's only if both rings are given during the kidushin ceremony, or
could be mistaken as being so given.  If it's made clear to all that
this is not the case then there shouldn't be a problem.  After all,
if you add up everything he gives her and everything she gives him
you may very often find that she's giving more, but that isn't a
problem because all those gifts are not for kidushin.


> Typically they would tell the kallah to give the ring in
> the yichud room, so as to separate the qinyanim on the respective rings.

The one such ceremony I witnessed (in both senses of the word) went
like this:  After he gave her the ring and said "harei at" the rabbi
announced "mazel tov, the couple are now finally engaged", and gave
a little explanation of the difference between kiddushin and nisu'in,
announcing that the nisu'in would take place in 10 minutes or so.
Then he announced that the couple would be exchanging ketubot (yes,
that was another whole story, but a formula was found which passed
halachic muster), and the groom gave the kallah her (real) ketuba,
and then she gave him the ring, saying something like "harei ata
mechuyav li, betabaat zu, al kol ma shekatuv bishtar zeh".  (Actually
the kinyan had already been made with that ring before the ketuba was
signed, but it was returned to the bride so she could formally give
it to him under the chupah.)



-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Areivim, RSBA wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>> The AJN Watch blog wrote:

>>> A little bird told us that at the recent meeting of the RCV [Rabbinical
>>> Council of Victoria] the majority of attendees, despite agreeing that it is
>>> unacceptable, couldn't bring themselves to officially condemn one of their
>>> members who has incorporated a 'double-ring' ceremony under the Chuppah.

>> Now hang on a minute, what exactly are you talking about?  An actual
>> double-ring kidushin, where he gives her a ring and says she's thereby
>> mekudeshes, and she gives him a ring and says he's thereby mekudash?!
>> Are you *sure* an Orthodox rabbi allowed this?  ... I can't believe
>> any O rabbi would agree to a double-ring ceremony, but I can very easily
>> believe that one would agree to a couple's demand that the bride give
>> the groom a ring.  Indeed, I've been an eid at just such a chupah, and
>> everything was done in accordance with the halacha.

> The blog has a new post from a Sydney rabbi showing that RMF indeed
> assered the choson receiving a ring under the Chuppah
> They have reproduced the teshuva there, ayen sham:
> http://tinyurl.com/4bbbzfz

This "Sydney rabbi" seriously misrepresents the teshuvah. Normally we
say "harotze leshaker yarchik eduto", but nowadays it seems that one
can hand out a teshuvah and misstate what it says, and be confident that
most or all of the audience won't bother checking.

>> The halacha actually demands that she give him an object of value, in
>> return for his assuming the obligations of the ketubah.  This is usually
>> done in private before the chupah, and usually one of the eidim gives
>> the object on her behalf, since zachin le'adam shelo befanav, and she
>> never even finds out about it.  And the eid usually gets his object back
>> afterwards, as a gift from the chatan.

> Am I the only one who has NEVER heard of this?

If you've never been an eid for a ketuba, and never learned the laws of
ketuba, then you may very well not have heard of it.  I found out about
it when preparing for that role for the first time.  But if you listen
to the ketuba and pay attention to what is said, you will hear the final
operative phrase: "and we have acquired [ukenina] from....our groom,
for Mrs....this virgin, as all that is written and explained above, with
an object that is fit to be used for acquisitions [bemana dechasher
lemiknaya beih".   That means the witnesses, acting in the bride's name
and on her behalf, gave the groom something of value in return for his
commitments in the ketuba.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

I was recently talking to a rav who told me he remembers learning (but
couldn't identify the source) that "there is an inyan" to say a keil maalei
on the shabbat before a yahrtzeit as well as on the (closest) Torah reading
day before (M or TH).
Does anyone know of a source? (granted the whole thing seems fairly late on the scene etc.)
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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110217/4c487c20/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:31:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> On Areivim, RSBA wrote:
>> The blog has a new post from a Sydney rabbi showing that RMF indeed
>> assered the choson receiving a ring under the Chuppah
>> They have reproduced the teshuva there, ayen sham:
>> http://tinyurl.com/4bbbzfz
>
> This "Sydney rabbi" seriously misrepresents the teshuvah. Normally we
> say "harotze leshaker yarchik eduto", but nowadays it seems that one
> can hand out a teshuvah and misstate what it says, and be confident that
> most or all of the audience won't bother checking.

So I went to IM EH 3:18 to check, and I can reassure you that they
reproduced the first paragraph of that teshuvah accurately. At least,
any differences were more subtle than my ability to notice.

The next words are "Ube'etzem nir'eh LAD [sic] shehu issur gadol
sheharei al yedei zeh..."

Rav Moshe prohibites. Grounds:
- Choq hanakhrim
- one can't do it at the chupah even without a declaration, because
  one misrepesents the Torah that a woman can be meqadeshes a man.

Then RMF goes on to tell you how bad of an issur shinui hadin is.

I think they got the pesaq correct, and don't know how RZS makes
this accusation.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
mi...@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

On 17/02/2011 7:12 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 16, 2011 at 09:31:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On Areivim, RSBA wrote:
>>> The blog has a new post from a Sydney rabbi showing that RMF indeed
>>> assered the choson receiving a ring under the Chuppah
>>> They have reproduced the teshuva there, ayen sham:
>>> http://tinyurl.com/4bbbzfz
>>
>> This "Sydney rabbi" seriously misrepresents the teshuvah. Normally we
>> say "harotze leshaker yarchik eduto", but nowadays it seems that one
>> can hand out a teshuvah and misstate what it says, and be confident that
>> most or all of the audience won't bother checking.
>
> So I went to IM EH 3:18 to check, and I can reassure you that they
> reproduced the first paragraph of that teshuvah accurately. At least,
> any differences were more subtle than my ability to notice.

I didn't deny that they reproduced the text accurately.  But the
commenter, and the blog owner, seriously misrepresented what it says.
The proverb says harotze leshaker yarchik eduso, but apparently this
doesn't always apply.  One can present the Hebrew text that will
rebut ones claims, and rely on people not to check.



> The next words are "Ube'etzem nir'eh LAD [sic] shehu issur gadol
> sheharei al yedei zeh..."

And what is this "shehu"?   *Not* what they claim it is.


> Rav Moshe prohibites.

Prohibits *what*?  He's very clear about this.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                      - Margaret Thatcher

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:04:03PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> So I went to IM EH 3:18 to check, and I can reassure you that they
>> reproduced the first paragraph of that teshuvah accurately. At least,
>> any differences were more subtle than my ability to notice.

> I didn't deny that they reproduced the text accurately.  But the
> commenter, and the blog owner, seriously misrepresented what it says.
> The proverb says harotze leshaker yarchik eduso, but apparently this
> doesn't always apply.  One can present the Hebrew text that will
> rebut ones claims, and rely on people not to check.

I don't know what you mean. The article says that RMF "clearly and
unambiguously writes that it is assur for the bride to give the groom
a ring under the Chuppah."

The teshuvah opens
    Bedevar eilu she'achar shehachasan qideish betabaas es hakalah
    nasnah gam hakalah lehachasan tabaas
    ve'amrah "Hareini mequdeshes lakh" o "atah mequdah li"...

So it starts out talking about giving the groom a ring with some
delcaration. But in the section I refered to, RMF continues
    Nami nir'eh
    de'asur la'asos kein beshe'as hachupah belo amirah

Is that not clearelu prohibiting the bride giving the groom a ring under
the chuppah?

So stop with the vague accusations, and actually speak to what you're
accusing him of.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man is a drop of intellect drowning in a sea
mi...@aishdas.org        of instincts.
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
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 28, Issue 25
**************************************

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..."