Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 63

Thu, 11 Apr 2013

• 1. Proper Attire for Shabbos (Sholom Simon)
• 2. Re: proper attire for shabbat (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Re: (Areivim) Two Income Families and the halacha (was Short Shabbat Hagadol Drasha) (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (hankman)
• 7. Re: Chazakah vs Plausibility (Micha Berger)
• 8. Proper Attire For Shabbos (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 9. Proper Attire for Shabbos (Prof. Levine)
• 10. proper attire for shabbat (Joseph Kaplan)
• 11. Re: Proper Attire for Shabbos (Daas Books)
• 12. Pidyon Haben (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: Pidyon Haben (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: Pidyon Haben (????? ???)
• 15. Davening: Is a Hat & Jacket Required? (Prof. Levine)

> Many people (especially non Chasidic Charedim) wear a suit, white shirt
> and a tie every day of the week. It is very difficult if not impossible to
> distinguish between their weekday dress (white shirt, suit, tie) and their
> shabbos dress (white shirt, suit, tie). I understand that these people
> generally designate specific suits, shirts, and ties for shabbos
> but the fact is that to the outside observer they look no different on
> Shabbos then they do during the week. Just by looking at them I would have
> no idea if it is Shabbos or a weekday. They don't look anymore dressed up
> on Shabbos then they do during the week which is a lack of Kavod Shabbos.

You are making a presumption that I'm not sure is true (or, at the least,
you need to back it up): is kavod shabbos solely determined by whether or
not someone else can tell you are dressed differently.

In other words: if my _best_ suit, which I designate, and save, for
shabbos, looks to everyone else just like any other suit I wear -- is that
really a lack of kavod shabbos?

And what if most of the people I see on shabbos have no idea what I wear
during the week?  What if during the week I don't wear a jacket and on
shabbos I do -- how would most other people know that anyway?  Since I
have a beard and a hat, won't people just think I'm like any other
chareidi guy who wears a white shirt and dark suit?

-- Sholom

R' Eli Turkel asked:
> What does someone, eg a lawyer, do when he wears a fancy
> suit all week long

I will add a similar point: If we wear our best on Shabbos, how do we
comply with Orach Chayim 529:1, which says that on Yom Tov, our clothes
should be even better than our Shabbos clothes?

It seems to me that we need to establish several levels of quality within
our wardrobes: work clothes, weekday davening clothes, Shabbos clothes, and
Yom Tov clothes. This is, of course, subject to whatever limitations our
finances allow, and Chazal were quite aware of that. But to whatever extent
that we're able, we do need make these distinctions.

I remember, as a child, resenting the whole idea of dress codes in school
and such. I did not agree with the idea that how one dresses affects him in
any way. That ended the moment I first wore a tuxedo.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
1 Odd spice that FIGHTS diabetes
Can this unusual "super spice" control your blood sugar and fight diabetes&#63
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5165d0ff59d0450ff22b8st02vuc

RMB asks:

>In a two-income family where husband and wife keep their money in joint
accounts, which of the two models of nechasim applies?

I am not sure I am understanding your question.  Or rather, this is where it
seems to me that dina d'malchusa dina has to come into play - and this would
have to be operating to overrule the halacha.  Because the government
recognises her income as hers and his income as his, and the joint account
as owned jointly.  It may, on the dissolution of the marriage, reallocate
some of those funds based on alimony, or contributions to the marriage, or
however the divorce division of the assets of the marriage is understood,
but that is part of the process of the dissolution of the marriage - should
one spouse die, without a will, the division of the property according to
the rules of intestacy is based on the dead spouse's property as determined
by the secular law, and with a will, the only property that can be divided
is that deemed by the secular government to belong to the dead spouse.  A
beis din may be granted the power under an arbitration agreement to
reallocate some of that property in the case of a death or divorce, and
there may be trusts fixed to the property to prevent their dissolution, but
fundamentally, the actual ba'alus of the property would seem to source from
dina d'malchusa dina.  A husband has no legal power in a country like the UK
or the US (or even Israel) to deal with the property in the manner
contemplated by the halacha without the consent of the wife, he just
physically cannot do it, everything requires a signature of the owner of the
property as deemed by the secular law. And similarly a beis din, might, in
the event of a husband's death, be able to distribute the husband's property
(as deemed by the state) in accordance with halachic principles, but it will
have no power over the property that the state deems to be the wife's
property, regardless of how the halacha views that property.  And how can
one apply the principle of yada k'yado in a society where any such z'chiya
is meaningless because he cannot act in relation the property without her
consent (at the very least he would need a full Power of Attorney executed
by the wife before witnesses, and I don't know any woman who signs such a
thing).

Now it may be that people have written on this question, and I would be
interested to know if anybody has.  Because this isn't a case of a husband
and wife reaching an agreement (whether before marriage or after) of aini
nizonit v'aini osah.  It is much more fundamental than that, and extends to
all property, whether brought into the marriage or earned during the
marriage.  I am not saying that it would not be theoretically possible, by
the use of powers of attorney and contractual agreements, to bring the
marital property to the same place as the halacha deems it to be (although
such contracts are likely to be struck out as executed under duress if they
ever got challenged in a secular court), but nobody does this.  

So I can't see anybody actually saying today, if they have thought the
matter through, that the husband has ba'alus over the wife's property,
because with ba'alus has to come the bundle of property rights which the
secular state has vested in, and solely in, the wife, unless and until she
gives her consent otherwise (and not just as part of consenting to
marriage).  But what does that do to all of the Chazalic agreements where
this was given in exchange for that (not that pidyon comes up that often,
but still).  I know one of the big issues for the Shach vis a vis dina
d'malchusa dina was objecting to the overriding by the State of Torah
halachos such as those of yerusha (this being a case where the State law
said the father inherited, and the halacha said the husband inherited), but
in that case it was physically possible for the property to end up with the
husband (all the father would have to do is a once off waiver of his claim,
or a transfer to the husband under secular law, under the instruction of
beis din).  Here it is not possible - a power of attorney as broad as this
one would need to be is always going to be revocable, leaving the wife in
ultimate control, and as mentioned, it would probably be struck down under
secular law anyway. So it would seem to me that it has major halachic
ramifications, at least theoretically, but possibly also practically.

Note of course this is all very new (in halachic terms) - as mentioned the
UK Property Act was an act of 1870, but many countries did this much latter.
Indeed, when my parents married in South Africa in 1965, it was still the
law in South Africa that a husband had control over all of his wife's
property, unless various documents were signed pre-marriage to ensure that
was not the case.  But it does seem a bit odd to be reading teshuvos of
modern rabbonim like Rav Shternbach who completely ignore the issue and
appear to assume a level of ba'alus that may not exist in the (not uncommon)
dual income family (where in fact the woman may be the higher earner) even
though a family where only the husband works and the wife is a homemaker
would still seem to fit the old model.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

On 10/04/2013 5:15 PM, hankman wrote:

> I know that oceans of ink have been spilt on the lomdus of ruba vechazaka.
> If you agree that a 200 year old man is indeed rare, why would the rov not
> govern.

What is the rov here? Most men born 200 years ago are dead?! In those
days most men born 75 years ago were also dead.

What is the class of which we are taking a rov? You seem to assume the
class should be "men born in the same year as our subject", but why?
Let's consider the class "men": since most men are dead, we should
consider any given man dead unless we see him walking around in front of
us at this very moment! That's obviously ridiculous, so that must not
be the class to consider. And yet why is it less valid than the class
"men born in the same year as our subject"? What about "men born in the
same decade as our subject", or "in the same calendar month (regardless
of year)", or any other of an infinite possible classes? It seems to
me that choosing the class because it will produce the result we already
feel to be right is circular and invalid. So how should we choose one?
I submit that we can't and shouldn't, and that rov is inapplicable here.


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

On 4/10/2013 4:15 PM, hankman wrote:
> I know that oceans of ink have been spilt on the lomdus of ruba 
> vechazaka. If you agree that a 200 year old man is indeed rare, why 
> would the rov not govern. In dinai momonus, we paskin like shemuel 
> that you can not be motsi momoin with a rov against the cheskas balim. 
> Some explain because by momoin you must have a tanas bori but a claim 
> even based on a rov is still only a (stronger) tanas shema. what 
> reason would you give in the case of our 200 year old man for not 
> following the rov over the chazaka?

A rov may be strong enough to create a chazaka in some circumstances.  
It's not enough to break a chazaka that's already there.

Lisa

RZS wrote:
> Halacha does not recognise that a 200-year-old man is impossible. On the
> contrary, it takes for granted that there have actually been such rare people,
> so we can't be sure it won't happen to any given person. If it really were
> impossible, then the chazakah would indeed be overridden

I know that oceans of ink have been spilt on the lomdus of ruba
vechazaka. If you agree that a 200 year old man is indeed rare, why
would the rov not govern. In dinai momonus, we paskin like shemuel that
you can not be motsi momoin with a rov against the cheskas balim. Some
explain because by momoin you must have a tanas bori but a claim even
based on a rov is still only a (stronger) tanas shema. what reason would
you give in the case of our 200 year old man for not following the rov
over the chazaka?

(I vaguely recall the sevara smoch miuta achazaka that is used in some
cases -- not sure why we would apply that here). The most common sevara
that I recall for the result that ruba adif, is that chazaka only governs
where there is a safeik, but if you have a rov that is mevarer the safek
then the chazaka can no longer govern since we no longer have a safeik.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 05:15:17PM -0400, hankman wrote:
:> Halacha does not recognise that a 200-year-old man is impossible. On the
:> contrary, it takes for granted that there have actually been such rare people,
:> so we can't be sure it won't happen to any given person. If it really were
:> impossible, then the chazakah would indeed be overridden

: I know that oceans of ink have been spilt on the lomdus of ruba
: vechazaka. If you agree that a 200 year old man is indeed rare, why
: would the rov not govern...

It's beyond mi'ut, it's a mi'ut delo shekhichah. The whole question of
ruba vechazaqa doesn't come up, since the mi'ut is ignorable.

And that's assuming we're willing to risk the Rambam's ridicule
and the buck vast majority of rishonim and early acharonim who
comment on the subject of fantastic aggadic stories, and insist that
narratives about later figures who lived extraoridinarily long live are
historical. Otherwise, we don't even have proof they believed it was
even a mi'ut delo shechichah.

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 04:31:13PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
: A rov may be strong enough to create a chazaka in some circumstances.
: It's not enough to break a chazaka that's already there.

There is a slight issue of apples and oranges: the kind of chazaqah
you're referring to in the first sentence isn't the kind of chazakah
that is trumped by rov.

A rov plus a law of nature or human nature may be strong enough to be
a chazaqa disvara.

Ruba vechazaqa [demei'iqara] ruba adif. That's the kind of chazaqah
where we assign something the same halachic state it had last time we
checked it. But when it's a rov vs a chazaqa disvara, the chazaqa wins.

OTOH, a chazaqa demi'iqara has weight in a case of terei uterei, but a
chazqa disvara and a rov do not. (For that matter, we might say terei
kemei'ah is an instance of rov having no weight in the face of terei
uterei.)

Part of my whole reality-as-experienced thing is based on this chiluq.
Chazaqa demei'iqara, eidus (including terei uterei, migo, etc...), and
kol qavua are cases where the halachic state was once established. If he
has a question, it's because we don't know what it was. Kol deparish,
ruba deleisa leqaman and chazaqa disvara are ways of deciding halakhah
when we don't know the metzi'us because it was never experienced.

R' Aqiva Eiger makes the chiluq between birur halakhah and birur metzi'us
WRT kol qavua vs kol deparish. Kol deparish means that it once had a
halachic state, and WRT birur halakhah, there is no rov. Only when it comes
to birur metzi'us.

I just used my philosophy (which I know you object to) as a way to
generalize to the other cases. It fit what I saw in the Sheiv Shemaatsa
and Shaarei Yosher quite well (as above). So while the whole thing is
speculative, my theory does fit a wide assorment of "data".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 15th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Tifferes: What is the Chesed in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            harmony?

Many people (especially non Chasidic Charedim) wear a suit, white shirt and
a tie every day of the week. It is very difficult if not impossible to
distinguish between their weekday dress (white shirt, suit, tie) and their
shabbos dress (white shirt, suit, tie). I understand that these people
generally designate specific suits, shirts, and ties for shabbos
but the fact is that to the outside observer they look no different on
Shabbos then they do during the week.

What does someone, eg a lawyer, do when he wears a fancy suit all week long?

I will attempt to address the above concerns with the following analogy. Other than
erev Pesach, one could eat everything Kosher L'Pesach the entire year with chametz
all over the house, otherwise. Then Pesach arrives. You can say there has been no
distinction between the rest of the year and Pesach. But the fact is that it is Pesach by
the calendar and that's what makes it holy. The fact that you ate no chametz the entire
year doesn't take away from the kedusha of Pesach. Likewise, if a professional wears a
suit all week long and comes Shabbos, and he wears another suit, that doesn't take away
the Kedusha of Shabbos. It is STILL Shabbos irrespective of what he wears. As you can't
eat matza erev Pesach, so that it will be fresh for the actual Seder, so you can say that
instead of wearing his brown suit that he wore all week, he can wear his black suit and that
would show a distinction.

At 03:46 PM 4/10/2013, R. Eli Turkel wrote:

><<As I see it, the important thing is that the Shabbos clothes be nicer
>than the weekday clothes. If the main difference is that the weekday
>clothes are colored and wrinkly, while the Shabbos clothes are white and
>pressed -- and that this is the norm for that society -- I can't imagine
>what the objection might be>>
>
>What does someone, eg a lawyer, do when he wears a fancy suit all week long

Let him wear a homburg on Shabbos and Yom Tov.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130410/c919fb0c/attachment-0001.htm>

"What does someone, eg a lawyer, do when he wears a fancy suit all week long?"

Until about 10-12 years ago, I wore a suit (don't know about fancy) every
day at work (as a lawyer).  So I Shabbat I wore a sport jacket.  Now dress
is much more casual (no suit, no jacket, no tie).  So I still wear a sport
jacket & tie on Shabbat.  But that's just me and I think it would be
much better if we were less judgmental about how others dressed on Shabbat
(or not Shabbat, for that matter).

Joseph 

In my humble opinion, you're making an error.
Why should it matter whether you and I can tell the difference between Ploni's suits?
What matters is that Ploni be aware that this is his Shabbos suit.
According to your logic, it shouldn't matter what underclothes Ploni wears
on Shabbos because we can't tell. According to my logic, it does matter,
because Ploni can presumably tell. 
("What, you have special underclothes for Shabbos?"
"What, you don't?")
(;-)>
Alexander Seinfeld

>  I understand that these people
> generally designate specific suits, shirts, and ties for shabbos
> but the fact is that to the outside observer they look no different on
> Shabbos then they do during the week. Just by looking at them I would have
> no idea if it is Shabbos or a weekday. They don't look anymore dressed up
> on Shabbos then they do during the week which is a lack of Kavod Shabbos.
> On the other hand, for the Israeli who dresses casually during the week
> with colored shirts (maybe not even  button down) the white shirt on
> Shabbos is very clearly visible and a distinct indication of kavod shabbos.
> His dress on shabbos is clearly different and nicer then his dress during
> the week. You can immediately tell that he is dressed up for shabbos.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130410/bf10d2b1/attachment-0001.htm>

I just got a piece of spam advertising pidyon haben coins for $235.  
http://www.pidyonhaben.org/

I've included the URL not because I want to advertise this, but in case 
anyone wants to take a look to see what they're talking about.

Is this in any way for real?

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130410/b82bb01c/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:26:05PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> I just got a piece of spam advertising pidyon haben coins for $235.   
...
> Is this in any way for real?

They are seling them as hiddur mitzvah, not iqar hadin. And as such,
I think there is a point. Purity of minted coins rarely matches their
face value, something I believe the CI warned about. These are worth a
sheqel by dint of their weight alone. And, two of their options do have
face value (for those who hold it needs one).

A sheqel is 11.76 (Rashi) to 14.16 (Rif) gm. Their smallest coin is 20.
So you're overbuying. Also, their cheapest option is $235 / 26gm, which
is well above the $23.09 silver value.

I would go with finding your own pretty coin.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?

I've seen them for sale priced according to the price of silver that day



?-Apr 11, 2013, ???? 13:06, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> ???/?:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 10:26:05PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> I just got a piece of spam advertising pidyon haben coins for $235.   
> ...
>> Is this in any way for real?
> 
> They are seling them as hiddur mitzvah, not iqar hadin. And as such,
> I think there is a point. Purity of minted coins rarely matches their
> face value, something I believe the CI warned about. These are worth a
> sheqel by dint of their weight alone. And, two of their options do have
> face value (for those who hold it needs one).
> 
> A sheqel is 11.76 (Rashi) to 14.16 (Rif) gm. Their smallest coin is 20.
> So you're overbuying. Also, their cheapest option is $235 / 26gm, which
> is well above the $23.09 silver value.
> 
> I would go with finding your own pretty coin.
> 
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
> 
> -- 
> Micha Berger             Today is the 16th day, which is
> mi...@aishdas.org        2 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
> http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Tifferes: What type of discipline
> Fax: (270) 514-1507                             does harmony promote?
> _______________________________________________
> 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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130411/0a26c99b/attachment-0001.htm>

 From http://tinyurl.com/c237ex9

One will readily notice that wearing a hat and jacket during prayer 
is standard dress in many orthodox circles. It is generally assumed 
that the reason for this is to comply with the requirement to be 
dressed "appropriately" when standing before God in prayer.[1] In 
fact, it is especially meritorious to have a garment reserved 
exclusively to be worn during prayer and a hat can often conveniently 
fill that role.[2]

In earlier times, wearing a hat and jacket was standard dignified 
dress for both Jews and Gentiles. In some locales it was considered 
virtually inappropriate to appear in public without them. As such, 
the halachic authorities who lived in such places ruled that one must 
wear a hat and jacket when praying in order to conform to the 
requirement to wear standard dignified clothing when praying. It was 
reasoned that if one is particular to wear a hat and jacket when 
appearing before important people, then one should wear such clothes 
when appearing before God, as well.[3] Further support for wearing a 
hat was taken from the example of the Kohen Gadol who was required to 
wear a hat when officiating in the Beit Hamikdash.

More recent halachic authorities, however, recognize that wearing a 
hat and jacket is not necessarily the normative style of dress today. 
In our day, most people are not particular to be dressed with a hat 
and jacket when leaving their home, nor is such attire required when 
meeting important people. In fact, in some countries, appearing 
before figures of authority while wearing a hat is actually frowned 
upon.[6]  As such, any former requirement to be dressed in a hat and 
jacket when praying has simply fallen dormant in most orthodox 
circles.  [What has happened to mesorah and tradition? YL]

Some authorities argue that although wearing a hat is no longer the 
common manner of dressing today, one should still consider doing so 
for purposes of added modesty.[7] Wearing a hat is also considered by 
many as complying with the recommendation that one's head should be 
completely covered during prayer[8] especially when reciting the 
Birkat Hamazon,[9] though a large kippa would satisfy this view, as 
well. It is also interesting to note, however, that today's 
definition of formal or dignified attire certainly calls for the 
wearing of a tie and yet there is no demand from contemporary 
halachic authorities to do so for prayer. As such, it can be derived 
from here that the criterion of how one must dress for prayer is not 
necessarily related to conventional or even ceremonial protocol.

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/20130411/d4366668/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 63
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)