Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 60

Tue, 12 Jun 2012

• 1. Re: A question of Yichus (Doron Beckerman)
• 2. Re: Abuse and halachah (Doron Beckerman)
• 3. Re: Abuse and halachah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: [Areivim] Asifa - Lose Olam Haba (Zev Sero)
• 5. Chillul Hashem and PR (Micha Berger)
• 6. on not fighting (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 7. Re: A question of Yichus (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: A question of Yichus (T6...@aol.com)
• 9. Re: A question of Yichus (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Abuse and halachah (Doron Beckerman)
• 11. lifne iver (Eli Turkel)
• 12. Re: Abuse and halachah (Micha Berger)
• 13. aveilus (Eli Turkel)
• 14. Re: aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 15. Taliban Women and More (Prof. Levine)
• 16. Re: end of Vayeira (L Albright)
• 17. Re: Taliban Women and More (Micha Berger)
• 18. Re: aveilus (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 19. Spouse vs. parent (Michael Feldstein)
• 20. Re: aveilus (Micha Berger)
• 21. Re: Spouse vs. parent (Micha Berger)
• 22. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in last week's parsha. (Micha Berger)
• 23. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in lastweek's parsha. (hankman)
• 24. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in last week's parsha. (Zev Sero)
• 25. Re: Taliban Women and More (Zev Sero)
• 26. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in lastweek's parsha. (Zev Sero)
• 27. Re: Spouse vs. parent (Rich, Joel)
• 28. Re: on not fighting (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 29. Re: Exchange of the Levi'im for the bechorim in lastweek's parsha. (Micha Berger)
• 30. Re: Taliban Women and More (Simon Montagu)
• 31. Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 32. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Micha Berger)
• 33. Re: Why Not: Yehoshua BEN Nun? (Lisa Liel)

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.

RZS writes in response:
>>  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. <<

I'm not sure it is that simple. If he indeed has his name on the ID and
legal papers, by affixing his signature on these documents (if
necessary) he will have established a chazakah that it is his child and he
cannot undo that via "yakir."  See Rema EH 4:28.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/33db3e88/attachment-0001.htm>

Looking into the matter some more. I discovered a key Or Sameach in Hilchos
Naarah Besulah. He defines the knasos in the Torah on  these issues as
imposed for stripping her of her dignity vis-a-vis losing her virginity to
someone other than her husband. The indignity affected by the oneiss in
that regard is considered less severe than the indignity affected by her
husband claiming she wasn't a virgin. So it is all about the besulim.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/3bc1739f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 10:10:59PM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: Looking into the matter some more. I discovered a key Or Sameach in Hilchos
: Naarah Besulah. He defines the knasos in the Torah on  these issues as
: imposed for stripping her of her dignity vis-a-vis losing her virginity to
: someone other than her husband. The indignity affected by the oneiss in
: that regard is considered less severe than the indignity affected by her
: husband claiming she wasn't a virgin. So it is all about the besulim.

It would be helpful if you said where the key OS actually is.

Based only on what you said, I don't see it. The section you're looking
are dinim specific to a naarah besulah, so of course the focus is on
besulim.

But even so, it's not "all about besulim" -- you report it as being all
about indignity. In which case, in a world where besulim are considered
cheap compared to loss of autonomy, who knows if the same theory would
generate the same pesaq. What you write actually supports IMHO my
notion of change of umdenah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Friendship is like stone. A stone has no value,
mi...@aishdas.org        but by rubbing one stone against another,
http://www.aishdas.org   sparks of fire emerge. 
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  - Rav Mordechai of Lechovitz

On 11/06/2012 3:08 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> 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.

AFAIK that's not correct.  The rav must not merely determine that the
proposed takanah is not against halacha; his consent is necessary for
it to be valid.  If he sees no halachic objection but thinks it bad
policy, he can still veto it.

-- 
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

Someone asked on Areivim when CH got associated with our actions being
bd PR to outsiders.

We discussed this a number of times in the past.

Look at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=C#CHILLUL%20HASHEM
Topics:
    Chillul Hashem
    Chillul HaShem & Goyim
    Chillul HaShem and Davening on Airplanes
    Chillul HaShem and Non-Jews
    Chillul HaShem when NJ are the observers

Abayei (Yuma 86a) on "ve'ahavta" -- that people will come to bless HQBH
because of your actions. In particular see Rashi ad loc.

The issur of geneivas aqu"m involves discussion of chillel hasheim where
it is clearly meant in this sense. Similarly hashavas aveidah.

The Rambam tells us to be no less machmir on sheim Hashem lashav as
the Moslems are, because to not do so would be chillul hasheim.

All the rules about a TC who is a slob, or who doesn't know astronomy,
because it's a chilul hasheim imply that one definition of CH is "bad
PR".

Yechezqeil 36 implies that our looking militarily weak is a CH.

Etc...

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Every army and every state is bound by halacha.

---- i think it can be stipulated that   Medinat Yisrael  [ aka the 
zionist  entity]  makes no  claim  to be a halachic state 
----   same stipulation  that  the  armed  forces  of  that  state  [aka 
IDF]    makes  no claim to be  a halachic  army

r ZS   is correct  that  even a meshumad priest is  'halacha  bound'  , 
but  no one  would calll   him  in any sense  halachically compliant .
therefore  ,  it would  follow  that  if  one  holds that duty to serve 
only follows  in a   halachically mandated  [and following ] entity ,
one should be  able  to argue  against  serving based on this halachic 
basis.

one could  likewise argue, that a frum  Yehudi  [ from mamlechet Yehuda] 
who  moved to  territory of one of the other 10 tribes 
should be able to contend  the  division from  the Kingdom of DAvid  was 
invalid, and claim army exemtion  from the Yisrael armies  on tha 
tbasis....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120611/0baecdb0/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/06/2012 3:20 PM, harchinam wrote:
> 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.

If he doesn't *want* to disown the child, the case wouldn't come up in
the first place.  The question can only come up when the husband has
no such feelings, and is looking for a legal way to relieve himself
of the unjust burden that has been placed on him.  In such a case,
what difference does it make how many years he was deceived, and how
much he bonded with the cuckoo's child in his nest?


On 11/06/2012 4:02 PM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
> I'm not sure it is that simple. If he indeed has his name on the ID and
> legal papers, by affixing his signature on these documents (if necessary)
> he will have established a chazakah that it is his child and he cannot
> undo that via "yakir." See Rema EH 4:28.

Who said anything about his signing the papers?  Why is that necessary?
He can refuse to sign the papers if he likes; what will they do to him?
All he has to do is not object when the mother registers the child, and
allow people to make the natural (and halachic) assumption that it's his.
Thus he preserves his power to declare the child a mamzer, and he can
hold that in reserve as a weapon to prevent the mother from unjustly
extorting money from him.

-- 
Zev Sero
z...@sero.name

 
 
From: "Shoshana L. Boublil"  <toram...@bezeqint.net>
>


>> 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. ...
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







>>>>>
 
 
I don't have any halachic answers for you but to clarify the issue, you  
should make it clear that there are several separate issues -- they are not  
one issue:
 
[1] you want to relieve the [possibly] cuckolded father of the necessity of 
 paying child support for the child that is [possibly] not his
 
[2] you want the woman's lover, who is believed to be the actual biological 
 father (though there is no proof), to be forced to pay child support
 
[3] you want the first husband to be considered the father because you  
don't want to make the child a mamzer
 
I submit that you can NOT accomplish both [2] and [3].  You have to  choose 
one or the other.  For the child's sake, you need to let go of [2]  even 
though it means letting an adulterer off scot-free. 
 
As for [1] I would say by deliberately leaving that letter lying around in  
the open, that woman inflicted intentional pain on her husband, and forced 
an  end to her marriage.  You can show that she is probably guilty of 
adultery  without having to say that her husband isn't the father of her child.   
There should be something here to relieve the husband of any financial  
obligation.  Perhaps you can force the wife to pay her former husband for  the 
pain and suffering she has inflicted on him -- make the amount she has to  
pay him exactly equal to the amount he has to pay in child support, so it's a  
wash.
 
 
 

--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/ecfa6824/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jun 11, 2012 at 08:18:05PM -0400, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: [2] you want the woman's lover, who is believed to be the actual biological 
:  father (though there is no proof), to be forced to pay child support
:  
: [3] you want the first husband to be considered the father because you  
: don't want to make the child a mamzer
:  
: I submit that you can NOT accomplish both [2] and [3]...

I am not sure. We have weirder examples than this of palginan dibura
to avoid accepting the part of the eidus that would imply mamzeirus in
the gemara.

Not that I have an answer; I'm just saying your logic may not apply.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

>> It would be helpful if you said where the key OS actually is. <<

Naarah Besulah 1:9

>> Based only on what you said, I don't see it. The section you're looking
are dinim specific to a naarah besulah, so of course the focus is on
besulim. <<

Well, yes, that is what the Mishnah in Arachin is talking about.

Although, interestingly, the Chafetz Chaim in Chovas Hashemirah
(Introduction, 6)  says:
"The main thing is that a person should realize that the negative and
positive commandments which are linked to speech, are equivalent in ther
level with the negative and positive commandments which are linked to
action, and even more so. For instance, if one's Yetzer would tempt
someone, due to his wrath against another, to go and defame him in front of
other people and slander him, he should contemplate: Had the Yetzer tempted
him to go to a brothel, would he listen? He would certainly scold it, "Go
away from me! Stop tempting me with an Aveirah for which I would be
despised in Hashem's Eyes!" You should now, my brother, that the sin of
Hotzaas Shem Ra is worse, as it says in Arachin that one who speaks with
his mouth is worse than he who commits an act [since an Oneiss and Mefateh
need to give 50 Shekel, and a Motzee Shem Ra must give 100 besides the
lashes he incurs.]

>> But even so, it's not "all about besulim" -- you report it as being all
about indignity. In which case, in a world where besulim are considered
cheap compared to loss of autonomy, who knows if the same theory would
generate the same pesaq. What you write actually supports IMHO my
notion of change of umdenah. <<

I think that crosses the line from, to use the terminology of the
Bircas Avraham in Gittin, "Geder Hadin" - which provides clarity in
ramifications of said Din, and is valid, versus "Darshinan Taama Dikra"
which goes beyond, or limits, what the Passuk actually says, based on
Sevara, which lehalachah we may not do unless the reason is explicit in the
Passuk.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/b0ec4992/attachment-0001.htm>

<< 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. >>

The Minchat Chinuch argues that one causing another to violate a rabbinic
prohibition violates lifne iver from the Torah, since it is no worse than
giving bad advice.

On a different topic the CC once (allegedly) said loshan ha-Rah about
himself to avoid getting kavod from a stranger who didnt recognize him. I
once heard from RYBS that he didnt believe the story since it is obvious
that one violates the prohibition of Lashon ha-rah even about oneself.

Also there is the famous psak of RSZA that lifne iver doesnt apply if it
would cause the other person to hate him since that also would be lifne
iver. Hence, he allowed in modern society giving food to someone to doesnt
make a bracha if not doing so would cause hatred of religion.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/961353ac/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 10:32:00AM +0300, Doron Beckerman wrote:
: I think that crosses the line from, to use the terminology of the
: Bircas Avraham in Gittin, "Geder Hadin" - which provides clarity in
: ramifications of said Din, and is valid, versus "Darshinan Taama Dikra"
: which goes beyond, or limits, what the Passuk actually says, based on
: Sevara, which lehalachah we may not do unless the reason is explicit in the
: Passuk.

But I'm arguing that the event in question violates multiple issurim,
and midinei nezeq he would have to pay. I only invokved taamei deqera
to show that the pasuq cares about psychological damage, the moral point.

And if one accepts that the deOraisa would require addressing
psychological damage, than the regular rules of hezeq would apply to
someone who is emotionally scarred. Whether through terror or through
abuse, it would make no difference -- except that in the latter case,
there is a 2nd deOraisa (oneis or mefateh) in addition.

You are assuming that this issur is instead of hezeq, whereas I'm arguing
it's a second law in addition to hezeq.

I'm also suggesting (notice the shift in verb: I'm arguing that
hezeq would apply in addition to paying an anusah, but I'm only
suggesting...) that the size of the damage is situational, and thus
may be far more crippling today than in a more brutal society with far
higher victim rates. (Such as the Roman or Sassanid empires or living
among Notzrim in the Yemei haBeinayim.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

<<"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?
 >>

The usual explanation is that aveilus for parents is 1 year because of
kibud av ve-em, not because the
loss is greater than that of a spouse or a child. Similarly a baby under 30
days is considered a still-born
and thus no aveilus, it has nothing to do with the pain involved.

There was a case recently in my community of a couple who had triplets and
one died I believe after more than 30 days and the parents were told not to
sit shiva. However, I dont have all the facts, but obviously all the
infants were born early and in danger from birth.

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/d589207f/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 12:09:43PM +0300, Eli Turkel wrote:
: There was a case recently in my community of a couple who had triplets and
: one died I believe after more than 30 days and the parents were told not to
: sit shiva. However, I dont have all the facts, but obviously all the
: infants were born early and in danger from birth.

Why are people in these cases -- lo aleinu -- told not to sit, rather
than being told they aren't mechuyavim to sit?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

 From http://tinyurl.com/8x9ztb3

Taliban Women and More

Marc B. Shapiro

A long time ago I was asked to deal with the so-called Jewish Taliban 
women, who completely cover their faces when they go out. I know that 
everyone has downplayed their significance and referred to them as 
crazy. I think that this is too optimistic an assumption. Although I 
am not predicting it, I would not be surprised if this turned into a 
real phenomenon.

<Snip>

The real difference today is that while with the other groups we have 
men telling women how to behave for reasons of tzeniut, the Taliban 
group is completely female driven and led.

The truth of the matter is that the Taliban women make a certain 
amount of sense. They are part of a community that forbids women's 
(and even little girl's) pictures to appear in printed matter because 
seeing this might arouse sexual thoughts in men.[7] Even though these 
women never studied Talmud, we know that one doesn't need to be 
talmid hakham to derive a basic kal va-homer. Even these uneducated 
women can conclude that if men's souls can be destroyed by seeing a 
picture of a woman or a little girl, how much more so can they be 
driven to sexual frenzy by seeing a live woman or girl? As such, it 
makes perfect sense that when they go out on the street they are 
completely covered and only their husband and children are permitted 
see their faces. It is their opponents in the haredi word who have to 
explain why it is permitted to see the faces of real live women but 
forbidden to see their pictures. It doesn't make a lot of sense, as 
the Taliban women have rightly concluded.

I am sure that any rabbinic authorities that come to support the 
Taliban women will be able to find relevant sources to defend this 
lifestyle. I know this will surprise readers, especially as many 
rabbis have declared that the Taliban women are completely distorting 
Jewish rules of modesty. These rabbis have claimed that unlike Arabs, 
Jewish women have never dressed this way (unless they were forced to) 
as the face is not ervah. Therefore, these rabbis have asserted, 
Jewish tzeniut has never, has ve-shalom, seen it as a value for women 
to completely cover their faces.

Lines like this are good for applause in a Modern Orthodox (and even 
a haredi) shul, among people anxious to be reassured that these 
Taliban women couldn't possibly have any sources in our tradition for 
their actions. The truth of the matter is that, whether we like it or 
not, there are sources that are strong supports for the Taliban 
women, and there is no reason to deny that they exist. Sotah 10b is 
clearly praising Tamar when it mentions that she was so modest that 
she covered her face in her father-in-law's house. R. Joseph Messas 
(Mayim Hayyim, vol. 2, Orah Hayyim no. 140) points out that Shabbat 
6:6 refers to Arabian Jewish women going out veiled, which means that 
their entire face was covered except for their eyes. He also points 
to Shabbat 8:3: , which as explained in the Talmud refers to those 
women who were so modest that they were completely veiled, with only 
one eye showing in order for them to see (see Rashi, ad loc. See also 
Rashi to Isaiah 3:19.) Messas tells us that in his youth he 
personally saw Jewish women who dressed like this.  R. Meir Mazuz's 
mother testified that brides in Djerba would only show one eye, also 
for reasons of modesty.

See the above URL for more.  YL

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120612/af35488b/attachment.htm>

From: Sholom Simon [mailto:sho...@aishdas.org] 
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 11:11 PM
> At the end of Vayeira, Rashi says that H" told Avraham about Rivkah.  So,
> then, why do Avraham and Eliezer have to go through all that they did in
> order to find Rivkah later?

Well, it's not Rashi that says that ... the Chumash itself seems to
say that.

HOWEVER, the question in my mind is just how much of the announcement
was actually conveyed to Avraham, and how much is the continuation of
the Mikrah.

I'd say that the posek that includes the specific announcement re Rivkah
was NOT conveyed to Avraham, and that the end of that posek proves it
... as it says (in full: Bereshit 22:23) "And Bethuel birthed Rivkah;
these eight birthed Milcah to Nachor the brother of Abraham." Note "the
brother of Abraham" and not "your brother" ...

From: Sholom Simon [mailto:sho...@aishdas.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:21 AM
> Right -- the Chumash _seems_ to say it.

> But Rashi quotes a Medrash about how Avraham wished he had married off
> Yitzchak, and H" says: don't worry, Rivkah has been born.

> (Major paraphrase).

> If that's the case, why go through that whole thing with Eliezer?

Well remember that, as a result of the information conveyed in this
instance, Eliezer was in fact told to go to Avraham's family to find a
wife for Yitzchak. And Avraham had to be informed of the formation of
Nachor's family because, when he last saw Nachor, he was as childless
as himself. Eliezer was well aware that he would find a wife for
Yitzchak where he was going and that she would be from Nachor's family.
He just may not have known any specifics.

I'd point out that Rashi seems to be taking a liberty with the Midrash
(perhaps for the reader's sake) as Bereshit Rabbah 57:3 doesn't mention
the name of Rivkah at all (at least in my version) ... it only says
that Avraham was informed that Yitzchak's "zugo (viz.: wife)" was born
to Nachor's family.

Contrast the end of verse 23 with the end of verse 20, which identifies
Nachor as "your brother". I'd say that that's where the information
conveyed to Avraham ends. The remainder is the Mikrah's continuation.

L Albright
Albright IP
http://www.albrightip.com

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 07:45:11AM -0400, Prof. Levine wrote:
> A long time ago I was asked to deal with the so-called Jewish Taliban  
> women, who completely cover their faces when they go out. I know that  
> everyone has downplayed their significance and referred to them as  
> crazy. I think that this is too optimistic an assumption. Although I am 
> not predicting it, I would not be surprised if this turned into a real 
> phenomenon.

I would. Because "everyone had downplayed"... The same "everyone" he
expects it to catch on to.

>                                             Sotah 10b is clearly praising 
> Tamar when it mentions that she was so modest that she covered her face 
> in her father-in-law's house. R. Joseph Messas (Mayim Hayyim, vol. 2, 
> Orah Hayyim no. 140) points out that Shabbat 6:6 refers to Arabian Jewish 
> women going out veiled, which means that their entire face was covered 
> except for their eyes. He also points to Shabbat 8:3: , which as 
> explained in the Talmud refers to those women who were so modest that 
> they were completely veiled, with only one eye showing in order for them 
> to see (see Rashi, ad loc. See also Rashi to Isaiah 3:19.) Messas tells 
> us that in his youth he personally saw Jewish women who dressed like 
> this.  R. Meir Mazuz's mother testified that brides in Djerba would only 
> show one eye, also for reasons of modesty.

And ROY mentions that in most Edot haMizrach, before forced to flee their
countries of origin, girls covered their hair. While R' Ovadia uses this
point as a side-support to his pesaq that sei'ar be'ervah ishah applies
to single girls too, it hasn't caught on even among people who recall
this norm from life in "the old country". Why should I think burkas
would be any different?

It also points to the weakness of these cited supports on a theoretical
level. Das Yehudis depends on social norm. Citing social norms from
cultures that are barely surviving in their own countries (and the
holdouts are murderously angry at the West over that assimilation),
never mind how remote they are from life where Jews today actually live.

So, I think on pragmatic and on ideological reasons, these fears are
ungrounded.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Micha Berger asked:

> Why are people in these cases -- lo aleinu -- told not to sit,
> rather than being told they aren't mechuyavim to sit?

Just a wild guess: Could it be so that the men don't skip tefillin during aninus? And for both men and women: Mitzvos aseh during aninus in general.

On the other hand, a great deal would hinge on exactly how it is phrased.
If the posek would say, "You are not mechuyav to sit shiva; it is
optional", then I can easily see how many would choose to optionally sit
shiva, and make the error of skipping mitzvos aseh in aninus. But if the
posek would say, "Avelus does not apply, but mourn in your own way," then
there would be no such danger.

Akiva Miller


____________________________________________________________
Fast, Secure, NetZero 4G Mobile Broadband. Try it.
http://www.netzero.net/?refcd=NZINTISP0512T4GOUT2

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

The usual explanation is that aveilus for parents is 1 year because of
kibud av ve-em, not because the
loss is greater than that of a spouse or a child.
---------------------------------------
I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that
can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).

-- 
Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/39460758/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:24:10PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: On the other hand, a great deal would hinge on exactly how it is
: phrased. If the posek would say, "You are not mechuyav to sit shiva; it
: is optional", then I can easily see how many would choose to optionally
: sit shiva, and make the error of skipping mitzvos aseh in aninus. But if
: the posek would say, "Avelus does not apply, but mourn in your own way,"
: then there would be no such danger.

Or simply "there is no aninus, but you may sit shiv'ah if you need to."

Just as for a rebbe muvhaq.

This doesn't just come up for a neifel, it also comes up for someone who
had a step-parent who felt just like a parent to them, or an adoptee
(or ch"v adoptive parents), etc... And not quite the same thing --
a geir for their parents. And in those cases, the person generally IS
told something like my suggestion above.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 01:07:29PM -0400, Michael Feldstein wrote:
: I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that
: can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).

WADR to the author of Iyov, no they can't.

The role can be filled again, but the person could never be replaced.

Which is something I don't understand about seifer Iyov. It's easier
to swallow if one considers Iyov to be fictional. But even so, is the
notion that everything is made up for Iyuv when he is able to rebuild
another family and another fortune something the author really thinkgs
the audience would swallow as plausible?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Our greatest fear is not that we're inadequate,
mi...@aishdas.org        Our greatest fear is that we're powerful
http://www.aishdas.org   beyond measure
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Anonymous

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59:48PM -0400, hankman wrote:
: I have a similar problem with the first korban Pesach of the 2nd year
: bamidbar. You have approx. 3,000,000 people who were mechuyav in the
: korban divided by however many you assume per chabura, will still leave
: you with an number in 5 or 6 digits for the number of korbanos Pesach
: plus all the Chagigos etc. But you only had 3 kohanim to do all this...

There were no qorbanos Pesach in the midbar. By the time kehunah was
taken away from the bechorim, the next time the qorban is performed is
in the days of Yehoshua at Giv'as haAralos / Gilgal (Yehoshua 5). It's
still impossible to imagine there were that many kohanim in the 2nd and
3rd generations, so that the 90,000 or so sheep would still mean many
thousands per kohein.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, Jun 10, 2012 at 12:59:48PM -0400, hankman wrote:
: I have a similar problem with the first korban Pesach of the 2nd year
: bamidbar. You have approx. 3,000,000 people who were mechuyav in the
: korban divided by however many you assume per chabura, will still leave
: you with an number in 5 or 6 digits for the number of korbanos Pesach
: plus all the Chagigos etc. But you only had 3 kohanim to do all this...

RMB wrote:
There were no qorbanos Pesach in the midbar. By the time kehunah was
taken away from the bechorim, the next time the qorban is performed is
in the days of Yehoshua at Giv'as haAralos / Gilgal (Yehoshua 5). It's
still impossible to imagine there were that many kohanim in the 2nd and
3rd generations, so that the 90,000 or so sheep would still mean many
thousands per kohein.

CM responds:
You misunderstood me. I agree there was no korban Pesach in the Midbar. But
there was one exception, that was the first anniversary of yetzias
Mitzraim, ie., the beginning of the second year in the Midbar, two weeks
after the hakomas haMishkon. This was the Pesach that those who were tamei
lemeis complained ?lama nigora? and were then informed of Pesach Sheini.
This was the Pesach I was referring to in my post ? there were but three
kohanim at that time.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120612/cc473387/attachment-0001.htm>

On 12/06/2012 3:36 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> : I have a similar problem with the first korban Pesach of the 2nd year
> : bamidbar.

> There were no qorbanos Pesach in the midbar.

Huh?  We just read about it last Shabbos!


-- 
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

In this article he claims (in footnote 7) that the charedi press's
"prohibition" on  women's pictures has a basis, and R Yosef Hayim
"writes quite strongly against women?s pictures, because men will
come to look at them".  He reproduces a page from _Rav Berachot_
in support of this claim, but if you go through the page you find
that it doesn't even mention this subject, let alone "write strongly"
against them, or give a reason.
  


-- 
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 12/06/2012 4:35 PM, hankman wrote:
> the first anniversary of yetzias Mitzraim, ie., the beginning of
> the second year in the Midbar, two weeks after the hakomas haMishkon.

Or one week, if the Yom Hashmini was the 8th of Nissan, and the temei'im
were Misha'el and Eltzafan.


-- 
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

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

The usual explanation is that aveilus for parents is 1 year because of
kibud av ve-em, not because the
loss is greater than that of a spouse or a child.
---------------------------------------
I have heard that the reason is that a parent is the only individual that can never be replaced (whereas a spouse or a child can be).
------------------------------------------------
I think R'YBS gave the loss of the link in the mesorah chain.
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/20120612/14fc5689/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Saul Newman wrote:

> i think it can be stipulated that Medinat Yisrael [aka the
> zionist entity] makes no claim to be a halachic state

Does the halacha care whether an entity claims to be a halachic state or not? Does the halacha care whether an entity *is* a halachic state or not?

I have long wondered this question(*), and in a later paragraph, RSN gives an example of what I mean:

> one could likewise argue, that a frum Yehudi [from mamlechet
> Yehuda] who  moved to  territory of one of the other 10 tribes
> should be able to contend the division from the Kingdom of
> David was invalid, and claim army exemption from the Yisrael
> armies on that basis....

There is a certain appeal to this argument, but it would not work at all in
practice: The army of Yisrael would either reject the foreigner as a
traitor, or they would deny the exemption on the basis that Yisrael is the
legitimate heir to the Kingdom of David.

Here is a more practical version of the same question: A few generations
later, when Yehuda was being run by non-frum Yehudim, or worse, by (lo
aleinu) avoda-zara-nik Yehudim, was that a "halachic state"?

Do we, or do we not, owe allegiance to such a king?

Does such a king have the halachic status of a melech?

My knowledge of Tanach is extremely weak, but I don't recall even hearing
of a case where a shomer mitzvos (for example, a navi) considered the king
to be pasul. Rather, regardless of how ignorant or evil the king was, they
*did* give him the honor and obedience due to his office.

But the stories do not really answer my question. It is possible that the
halacha does give full status to a state or government, simply because it
*is* in power, regardless of whether it is "halachic" or not. But it is
also possible that the halacha does *not* accord this status to such states
and kings, and that the neviim acted respectfully purely for practical
(read: political) reasons.

(*) It is usually around Chayei Sarah that I wonder these questions, and
occasionally I asked them here. Take a look at that haftara. Was Adoniyahu
the melech or not? It seems that Nasan Hanavi and Bas Sheva accepted it as
a fait accompli. By what procedure did he acquire this kingship?

These questions, I believe, are NOT a tangent to this thread, but are very
central to it. As I asked in the beginning, Does the halacha care whether
an entity is a halachic state or not?

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
53 Year Old Mom Looks 33
The Stunning Results of Her Wrinkle Trick Has Botox Doctors Worried
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4fd79477115ab2e2ebest01vuc

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 04:35:39PM -0400, hankman wrote:
:> There were no qorbanos Pesach in the midbar. By the time kehunah was
:> taken away from the bechorim...

: You misunderstood me. I agree there was no korban Pesach in the
: Midbar. But there was one exception, that was the first anniversary of
: yetzias Mitzraim, ie., the beginning of the second year in the Midbar...

As Zev mentioned, last week we read about Pesach Sheini, because of
those who felt they would miss out, that year.

But I think it was I, not you, who was unclear.

When did the kehunah go to Aharon's line? Was that the Rosh Chodesh
before /that/ Pesach, or the following one? For some reason I thought
the latter, but now that I try to work it out, I don't see how I got
to that notion.

In any case, this is a tangent off the original question, because 3 men
couldn't produce in 2 generations enough men to offer 90,000 lambs in
one afternoon for the Pesach in Gilgal, either.

We would have to clone the neis of appointing the leviim either way.
I'm just uncomfortable with this multiplying of nissim that no classical
source bothers mentioning. It's too facile.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I have great faith in optimism as a philosophy,
mi...@aishdas.org        if only because it offers us the opportunity of
http://www.aishdas.org   self-fulfilling prophecy.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Arthur C. Clarke

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 11:50 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> In this article he claims (in footnote 7) that the charedi press's
> "prohibition" on ?women's pictures has a basis, and R Yosef Hayim
> "writes quite strongly against women?s pictures, because men will
> come to look at them". ?He reproduces a page from _Rav Berachot_
> in support of this claim, but if you go through the page you find
> that it doesn't even mention this subject, let alone "write strongly"
> against them, or give a reason.

Try the next page:
http://www.hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1759&;st=&pgnum=150

Has anyone ever wondered why in the Torah Joshua is referred to as "BIN Nun" as opposed to Ben Nun?
I have seen the attempted explanations, none of which are satisfactory (to me).
All of the other spies are referred to as ploni BEN ploni and Joshua is the only one referred to as Yehoshua BIN Nun.     
Why is a chirik used instead of a segol.
One explanation by the Ramban (In his commentary to Sh'mos 33:11) is that the two words should be read as one: "binnun."
He says it relates to the word "binah" because of Joshua's sharp intelligence.
After reading that explanation, it seems obvious to me that nobody knows why and perhaps it is an error.

On Tue, Jun 12, 2012 at 06:18:29PM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: Has anyone ever wondered why in the Torah Joshua is referred to as
: "BIN Nun" as opposed to Ben Nun?

I know there are lost of medrashic explanations.

He isn't alone, Mishlei (30:1) has Agur bin Yaqah hamasa.

The Radaq (Yehoshua 1:1) says it's because the father's name is both
short, and tightly coupled trop-wise.

: All of the other spies are referred to as ploni BEN ploni and Joshua
: is the only one referred to as Yehoshua BIN Nun.

Like "Binyamin" rather than "Ben Yemin".

This is also implied by the Tankhuma that says that Yehoshua lost a year
of his life for each word in the pasuq in which the youth (assumed to be
Yehoshua) reports the words of Eldad and Meidad. 10 words - 10 years. But
there are 11 words! Unless "Bin-Nun" counts as one.

So, the question isn't why "bin" but why the implied hyphen. There the
medrash about wanting an annagram for navon in order to complement him
might fill in the gap.

So, I'm convinced there is some obscure diqduq rule, and someone will
correct my description of the Radaq to tell you what it is, and everything
else is meant on a midrashic level.

Here's one you didn't list, from MiShulchan Gavohah: The yud added to
Yehoshua's name is "well known" to have been borrowed from the one
dropped out of "Sarai" when she became "Sarah". But where did the two
dots for the sheva under the yud come from? The segol from "ben"!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Someday I will do it." - is self-deceptive. 
mi...@aishdas.org        "I want to do it." - is weak. 
http://www.aishdas.org   "I am doing it." - that is the right way.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                   - Reb Menachem Mendel of Kotzk

http://onthemainline.blogspot.com/2007/05/joshua-bin-nun-al
so-paul-kahle-quran.html

On 6/12/2012 5:18 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> Has anyone ever wondered why in the Torah Joshua is referred to as "BIN Nun" as opposed to Ben Nun?
> I have seen the attempted explanations, none of which are satisfactory (to me).
> All of the other spies are referred to as ploni BEN ploni and Joshua is the only one referred to as Yehoshua BIN Nun.
> Why is a chirik used instead of a segol.
> One explanation by the Ramban (In his commentary to Sh'mos 33:11) is that the two words should be read as one: "binnun."
> He says it relates to the word "binah" because of Joshua's sharp intelligence.
> After reading that explanation, it seems obvious to me that nobody knows why and perhaps it is an error.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120612/f06d7fa6/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 60
**************************************
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..."