Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 59

Mon, 11 Jun 2012

• 1. Admin re: -C O N G R A T U L A T I O N S- (Micha Berger)
• 2. Obliged to Help Family First (Meir Rabi)
• 3. A question of Yichus (Shoshana L. Boublil)
• 4. Re: distilled fruit juice (Micha Berger)
• 5. Admin re: Abuse and halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Abuse and halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Abuse and Halakhah (Joseph C. Kaplan)
• 8. Re: Abuse and Halakhah (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: G-d remembers (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Psak she'ein hatzibbur yecholin laamod bo (Micha Berger)
• 11. Contrahalachic Weddings and Yibum (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: Abuse and Halakhah (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: A question of Yichus (Zev Sero)
• 14. on not fighting (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: on not fighting (Rich, Joel)
• 16. Re: on not fighting (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: A question of Yichus (harchinam)

In v20i58, "WORLD LOTTERY ASSOCIATION" <i...@kimo.com> posted on
Mon, 11 Jun 2012 07:58:06 +0800:
>  WORLD LOTTERY ASSOCIATION MALAYSIA PAY-OUT OFFICE: -C O N G...

I believe the technical term is "woops". Human error -- I hit the
wrong button.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

The Halacha is Hakorov Koreiv Kodem, one is obligated to help a person
closest to him first. You may know many people who have an illness, if
Chalila your sibling has an illness you are obligated to do more for her
more than for strangers.

Do More? That is not the plain meaning of HaKaRov KaRov KoDem. FIRST means
BEFORE. Does it also mean MORE THAN?

Best,

Meir G. Rabi
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/8f16eeb0/attachment-0001.htm>

I was asked to request assistance and comments from the members of this
group with regard to the following problem:

A man discovers a letter his wife wrote her lover (it was open, in plain
view) in which she states that she's quite sure the kid is his [the lover's]
b/c the husband was in the army when she became pregnant.

This is the first indication the husband had of the existence of a lover -
or that the kid is not his. He leaves the house before the birth and sues
for divorce in Israel.

The law in Israel recognizes the status of Mamzer and therefore has laws
following Jewish tradition to prevent and reduce the number of possible
mamzerim. Therefore, without eidim, the rule "Rov Be'ilot Achar HaBa'al" is
enforced and the husband is considered the child's father. The law also
prohibits any attempt at DNA testing to prove fatherhood in any case where
the result may make the child a mamzer.

The result is that the husband has to pay child support for the next 21
years for a child that everyone knows is not his.

The question is: Is there any way to remove the obligation to pay child
support for this child WITHOUT making the child a mamzer. The husband is
willing to have his name on the ID and legal papers of the child, he just
doesn't want to pay for someone else's kid. This is distinct from other
cases where the father had already raised the child for several years and
made a connection (like an adoptive father would), when the truth came to
light.

One point: In Israeli law, fatherhood has to be established to a level of
over 50% certainty to force someone to pay. A child is a mamzer only if it
is 100% established that his father was not his mother's husband. So,
theoretically, if we could prove to a level of 60% that the husband is NOT
the father, he would not be obligated for the child support, but the child
would not be considered a mamzer. 

Any suggestions are welcome.

Note: we are willing to pursue this issue as it may be a further step
against infidelity if the lover knows he may be sued for child support even
if the woman is married, and even if he has a family of his own.

Shoshana L. Boublil

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 04:39:20PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: The Sugya is Mei Chalav Kechalav (Machshirin 6:5). See also Chullin 114 and
: Aruch Hashulchan OC 168:27 and YD 81:16.

I think it's of the same worldview as that which lists mayim and tal as
different liquids. We care about where water comes from.

(And longtimers here know that I would attribute both to the idea that
halakhah cares more about how the world causes gut reactions than how
the universe actually is scientifically. But you don't need to buy into
that in order to agree with the above comparison.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Good decisions come from experience;
mi...@aishdas.org        Experience comes from bad decisions.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Djoha, from a Sepharadi fable
Fax: (270) 514-1507

My apologies to Chana Sassoon (a/k/a RnCL) for approving an Avodah post
on this thread that quotes her, by name no less, after she explicitly
wrote me (and Areivim, if the mods approve it) saying she didn't agree
with having this discussion on Avodah.

I'm apparently very error-full this morning.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Education is not the filling of a bucket,
mi...@aishdas.org        but the lighting of a fire.
http://www.aishdas.org                - W.B. Yeats
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Fri, Jun 08, 2012 at 12:46:13AM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: Not really. Pegam is the actual loss of value because she is not a
: besulah. According to the Rambam (Chovel Umazik 5:7), Raavad (ibid. 2;2),
: Shulchan Aruch (CM 420:7) and Rema (ibid. 8) Boshes is only paid if the
: act is done in front of others (or if it is a visible wound). So it isn't
: about the emotional devastation, it is about the shame of others knowing
: about it....

I'm claiming umdenah. There was a time when the greatest damage was that
no one would want to marry someone who was anusah. Today, the majority
of the damage lies elsewhere. (And again, I believe this is due to our
living among more civilized people, and not due to a change in awareness
alone.)

I think that we're only looking at one part of the issue -- the dinim of
oneis or mefateh. I would think (and if I were sure, I wouldn't have
pushed to have this thread launched) that the same more generic concept
of intangible hazeq that underlies hezeq re'iyah, would apply here too.

I also recommend chazering the exchange between RnCL and RDR in v26n61,
the first post at <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol26/v26n061.shtml#06>.
I haven't yet integrated it with the above.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
mi...@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

"Yes, but how do you understand the lack of aveilus for an infant who dies before 30 days? "

As long as we're asking, how do you understand only shloshim for a spouse?

Joseph
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/c0d8946c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 12:12:41PM -0400, Joseph C. Kaplan wrote:
: As long as we're asking, how do you understand only shloshim for a spouse?

I think that if we're only discussing aveilus, the maximum would be
sheloshim. Aveilus for a year is a kibud av va'eim thing more than an
about the aveilus as aveilus. Otherwise, aveilus for a child (perhaps
only after infancy) would certainly be longer than aveilus for an
elderly parent.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 08:20:23AM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: In Bechosai - 26:42 That G-d will remember the covenant with  Yaakov and
: even Yitzchak and even Avraham and the land will remember

: Oznain LeTorah explains the order that the highest level is Yaakov = the
: Jew that learns Torah, next is Yitzchak=Jew who does avodah, comes to shul
: if not than Avraham= chesed the Jew who does charitable works and if none
: of these apply than G-d will remember the land - even the Jew whose only
: merit is working the land in Israel will be remembered

If we combine "Avraham" and "Yitzchaq", we have MBLC and MBLM -- the
other 612 mitzvos.

This Oznaim leTorah would imply that learning Torah is on a higher plane
than implementing it. But WADR to RCVolozhiner and Nefesh haChaim cheileq
4, that's not what Chazel appear to me to be saying.

When they speak of torah lishmah, they debate whether we mean al menas
la'asos or al menas lelameid. And this is taken as peshat even in the
learning-centered culture of Litta, eg the Chayei Adam or Choshein
Mishpat, Devarim 26:51.

I blogged on the latter (including a full stranslation in 3 parts at
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/torah-sefer-torah.shtml -- less on this
    topic
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/learning-and-teaching-1.shtml - thesis
http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2012/04/learning-and-teaching-2.shtml - applying
    it as the basis of lomdus explaining maamarei Chazal, and further
    development.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I thank God for my handicaps, for, through them,
mi...@aishdas.org        I have found myself, my work, and my God.
http://www.aishdas.org                - Helen Keller
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 5/31/2012 4:54 AM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> Suppose someone would say that speaking Lashon Hara over the telephone
> is assur. Would anyone think that this is a new gezera? It is pretty
> straightforward to me that it is not a new gezera, but an old halacha.

But what's the "old halakhah" in our case? Is there a din that prohibits
something twice-removed from actual arayos?

As for invoking lifnei iveir, I find that problematic:

1- First (and most weakly), lifnei iveir isn't limited to halachic
michsholim. It would mean that a rav could pasqen that going to a stock
broker is assur if he believed it too likely led to bad investements.
Invoking LI would mean that a rav's opinion on any topic could be
turned into pesaq -- preventing people from making mistakes.

2- Lifnei iveir is BALC. Who said there is the same issur against
fooling yourself?

3- The argument is too powerful. There would be no gezeiros left -- only
pesaqim in lifnei iveir. Every gezeirah avoids a potential mikhshol,
a habit or mistake that would make sin all too likely. If you say that
there is a "pesaq in lifnei iveir", then there are no gezeiros.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Y-mi Yavamos 1:2 6b discusses the case of a qetanah who is married to a
man who then grows up -- whether it's 2 sa'aros or further is part of
the sugya.

The question is whether mi'un is effective if niv'alah mishevi'ah shenei
sa'aros. R' Zeira says yes, Chevrayah (the Chakhamim) say no. R' Shimon
explains "al taanei qidushei rishon ba'al".

It would therefore seem to me that this is the same machloqes as we had
in the 20th cent between RMF and R' Henkin about whether a contrahalachic
wedding required a get. (Eg wedding by a rabbi who doesn't follow halakhah,
or a civil ceremony.)

RMF is holding like R' Shimon's explanation, that "al taanei qidushei
rishon" means that later bi'ah doesn't create a qiddushin -- R' Zeira's
shitah. And just as it doesn't create qiddushin after 2 sa'aros in the
gemara's case, it doesn't create qiddushin when the couple already think
of themselves as married because of a contrahalachic ceremony. R' Henkin
would be following the Chevrayah.

In his favor, RYH is following the rabim. OTOH, RMF is following what
may be the masqanah of the gemara, where R' Yitzhaq says that R' Zeira
is essentially correct, but since we don't want peritzus, we artificially
limit the maximum age for mi'un.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             If a person does not recognize one's own worth,
mi...@aishdas.org        how can he appreciate the worth of another?
http://www.aishdas.org             - Rabbi Yaakov Yosef of Polnoye,
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  author of Toldos Yaakov Yosef

 
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com"  <kennethgmil...@juno.com>

>> Yes, but how do you understand  the lack of aveilus for an infant who 
dies before 30 days? I cannot understand  it in any way other than to say that 
the family's pain was not as great in such  cases, similar to how even 
nowadays a stillborn causes less pain than when a  living baby passes on.<<

Akiva Miller

 
>>>>>
 
A baby might be born in the sixth or seventh month and live for a few  
minutes, the exact boundary between "miscarriage," "stillbirth," "premature  
birth," and "neonatal death" is not so absolute.  (One of the reasons that  the 
US /seems/ to have worse infant mortality statistics than some other  
countries is that we routinely save very premature infants who are counted as  
"miscarriages" in other countries -- but if that preemie dies despite the best 
 medical efforts, in the US it now becomes "infant mortality" rather than  
"miscarriage.")  Given that these mishaps occurred frequently in the old  
days and even nowadays, it would be a hardship to require parents and siblings 
 to sit shiva and follow all the laws of aveilus for each such loss.  Of  
course there is nothing to forbid the bereaved mother and father from 
grieving  in their own way and at their own pace.
 
 



--Toby Katz
=============
Romney -- good  values, good family, good  hair


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

 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/90c5e486/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/06/2012 7:32 AM, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:
> The question is: Is there any way to remove the obligation to pay child
> support for this child WITHOUT making the child a mamzer. The husband is
> willing to have his name on the ID and legal papers of the child, he just
> doesn't want to pay for someone else's kid.

If that's all he wants, there is a very simple solution: let him tell the
mother that if she ever makes any financial demands of him for the child's
support, he will exercise his halachic power to declare the child a mamzer.
If he were to do so the child would be a mamzer, and there is nothing any
rabbi could do to prevent it.  It's entirely in his hands.  He doesn't
*want* to do this to an innocent child, so as long as no demands are made
of him he will remain silent and all will be well.



> This is distinct from other
> cases where the father had already raised the child for several years and
> made a connection (like an adoptive father would), when the truth came to
> light.

Why is this distinction significant?  He could do the same at any time
that he discovered how he'd been deceived.


> One point: In Israeli law, fatherhood has to be established to a level
> of over 50% certainty to force someone to pay.

In much of the USA a husband is responsible for his wife's chidren even
if he can prove with 100% certainty that they are *not* his.   Also,
even if he's not married to the mother, if he has acknowledged the child
he remains responsible even if he can prove that it is not his.  This is
truly a case of "haratzachta vegam yarashta".


-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/the-
tal-law-and-jewish-law-in-conflict/2012/06/11/ 

what  about the argument  that  these laws  only apply to  a 
halachically-run army in a halachically run state?

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/f1a51cca/attachment-0001.htm>

http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/analysis/the-
tal-law-and-jewish-law-in-conflict/2012/06/11/
what  about the argument  that  these laws  only apply to  a halachically-run army in a halachically run state?
========================================================================
So they didn't apply in the time of the neviim	(as far as I can tell there
seem to have been quite a few periods where neither the state nor the army
sounded to be under halachic auspices)
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/20120611/d9cdde1a/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/06/2012 12:33 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> _http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/an
> alysis/the-tal-law-and-jewish-law-in-conflict/2012/06/11/_
> what about the argument that these laws only apply to a halachically-run army in a halachically run state?

What does that even mean?  Every army and every state is bound by halacha.
Some comply more than others.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:48:02AM +0100, Chana Luntz wrote:
:> I don't see in this a template for pesaq, but a rule about taxation and
:> semi-random surveys. How would someone apply it to a ruling (if it was
:> such) about EhE?
: 
: Well but one of the "halachic" requirements, as set out in the Chatam
: Sofer's teshuva, was that the Rav of the town needs to be consulted and give
: his consent to whatever the proposal is.  That is not just executive branch,
: but a halachic requirement for the executive branch to seek out the
: Judicial/legislative part.  Now if this Rav gives his consent, what would
: you call it?  I don't know that we have another name for it other than psak.
...

But that's no longer what we're discussing. We're talking about a
representative sample of a population being able to commit the entirety
to something. I argued that while there are cases in sampling a city
in order to make taxation or expenditure decisions for that city, it
doesn't work for pesaq.

What you are now pointing out is that after the representative sample
of the city agree that some tax or expenditure is appropriate, a rav is
consulted to make sure halakhah was not violated. So yes, he pasqens. But
not that his pesaq creates the binding nature of the law, it appears to
validate, not create. Nor do I see that we can deduce from there that
a rav can bind with a pesaq people who never accepted his authority --
this is the policy being applied across /his/ city on something that must
be consistent for the city.

It's the same difference between the the Moetzes deciding what the Agudah
would do, even though that touches many people, to deciding what members
of the Agudah should do, even when they might have posqim who do not
belong to the Moetzes, to their deciding what should be done even by
people with no fealty to the Agudah. City taxation is organizational
policy, being validated as mutar by the organization's rav.

(For that matter, persumably, we're speaking of the rav ha'ir setting
policy for that ir, not a rav being called upon to pasqen for people
unrelated to his authority.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             In the days of our sages, man didn't sin unless
mi...@aishdas.org        he was overcome with a spirit of foolishness.
http://www.aishdas.org   Today, we don't do a mitzvah unless we receive
Fax: (270) 514-1507      a spirit of purity.      - Rav Yisrael Salanter

>
> This is distinct from other
>> cases where the father had already raised the child for several years and
>> made a connection (like an adoptive father would), when the truth came to
>> light.
>>
>
> Why is this distinction significant?  He could do the same at any time
> that he discovered how he'd been deceived.


This distinction is significant because once a man has raised a child for a
number of years the child and he are bonded and the father presumably loves
the child and so just dumping the child and disappearing from his/her life
is not so simple. The child is dependent on the person who they have known
as their father both physically and emotionally. As RSB says above, it is
comparable to the situation with an adoptive father, who also has no
biological ties to the child but loves them anyway.

*** Rena
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120611/745ff1a3/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 59
**************************************

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..."