Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 146

Mon, 12 Aug 2013

• 1. Re: Must we agree with the Torah? (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Re: on orthopraxy (Kenneth Miller)
• 3. Must We Agree With The Torah? (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 4. Re: Yom Kippur on Shabbos: Kiddush? (Zev Sero)
• 5. Re: synthetic meat (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Eishet Yefat Toar (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Must we agree with the Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: hakohanim halviim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Eishet Yefat Toar (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Must We Agree With The Torah? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Must we agree with the Torah? (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Must we agree with the Torah? (T6...@aol.com)
• 13. Re: Eishet Yefat Toar (Liron Kopinsky)

Cantor Wolberg wrote:
> That's the kind of comment that incites anti-Semitism.

R' Zev Sero responded:
> So?  It's the truth.

Not everything that is thought should be said.
Not everything that is said should be heard.
Not everything that is heard should be written.
Not everything that is written should be read.
Not everything that is read should be repeated.
(I forget who said that.)

RZS again:
> One cannot forget the truth just because other people might
> not like to hear it.  One needn't necessarily flaunt it in
> front of them, but one must remember that it remains true.

Well put. And oh how very difficult it is, to remember it but not flaunt it. And to avoid flaunting it, yet still remember it.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
New BlackBerry&#174 Z10
Discover the BlackBerry Z10, built to keep you moving. Get it today.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5208ef8d461fa6f8d69b3st03vuc

R Saul Newman wrote to Areivim:
> question--if one became convinced that tora was
> NOT mishamayim [r'l], would the proper response to
> become orthopraxic, or to drop everything?

(Perhaps I'm reading too much into the word "proper". I think that under
all circumstances, the *proper* response is always to do mitzvos, and that
RSN probably meant to ask about the *likely* response.)

I think this question is phrased to begin at a midpoint, and it cannot be
answered well unless we go to its beginning. In other words, if we set
aside a hypothetical future event, where are we holding *now*?

Are we talking about someone who is currently convinced that Torah *IS*
mishamayim, or one who is actively unsure, or one who doesn't really think
about the question? The reason I'm making these distinctions is because
each of these people could respond to RSN's scenario in very different
ways.

Personally, my own attraction to Torah has been very technical and logical.
I started with my own formulation of what I later learned to be called
"Pascal's Wager", and over several years (still ongoing, actually) my
emunah and practice became more and more solid.

But all along, I have been aware of those whose attraction to Torah was of
a totally different nature than my own. For example, those who were
attracted by purely social or emotional causes. No doubt about it: a
shabbaton can be a powerful experience, and there are many who choose
mitzvos over hedonism because they perceive it as beautiful or as fun, and
NOT necessarily as Truth.

On the one hand, I've tended to view such people as weak in their faith,
but it is very wrong to paint with such a broad brush. On the one hand,
such people *might* be more prone to drop their shmiras hamitzvos when
their social environment changes. But on the other hand, they might also be
more prone to develop into the sort of Erev Shabbos Jew" that R Micha has
described; certainly more prone to it than a technical logician such as
myself who finds Simchas Torah to be an emotional challenge.

So too, in R' Saul Newman's hypothetical: I suspect that those who are
attracted to Torah for emotional reasons will be much less likely to
abandon Torah simply because they've been convinced that it's not
mishamayim, because that wasn't part of their foundation to begin with. And
so they're more likely to remain orthoprax, while the one who had been
convinced of Torah's Truth and then flip-flopped would probably drop
everything.

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
30-second trick for a flat belly
This daily 30-second trick BOOSTS your body's #1 fat-burning hormone
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/5208fa42271d17a411a69st01vuc

As usual, R' Micha makes very valid and cogent points.

I think a more reasonable answer is that we are partnered with Him in a project they
aren't, and therefore need to be more careful and work beyond "merely"
being ideal people. 

This ties in, I believe, with the concept of l'or goyim. 

After the universal sentiment of "Yotzeir Or" or "HaMaariv Aravim",
the 2nd berakhah before Shema is "Oheiv Amo Yisrael". And this love
isn't a *consequence* of our keeping the Torah, but an unconditional
love that is the *cause* of our receiving it. 

So does it mean because He loves his People Israel that he doesn't 
love people outside of Judaism? And if you say that it means He loves
His people more than why didn't it say "Who loves His People Israel MORE
than the other nations?  Remember too, the midrash that says: "My creatures
are drowning and you're singing (rejoicing)!" 

Israel is dear because they were called children of the Omnipresent.

L'havdil, it's interesting that the xtians have applied this concept to their 
messiah and call him the son of G-d. 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130812/58909393/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/08/2013 9:06 PM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> I understand from Aruch Hashulchan 271:2 that accrding to Rashi and
> others, there is a Chiyuv d'Oraisa to say Kiddush Al Hakos. That is,
> if one merely says "Baruch... Mekadesh HaShabbos" in the Amidah, he
> has still not been yotzay the mitzvah of Zachor Es Yom HaShabbos
> L'Kadsho, and still needs to take a cup of wine and say kiddush over
> it.
>
> My question: How do these views deal with the situation when Yom
> Kippur falls on Shabbos? I can easily see how a takana d'rabanan would
> allow for exceptions for such situations. But in my experience,
> d'Oraisas are very straightforward, and do not allow for exceptions.
>
> What would Rashi have us do? Does he (or anyone else) address this? Is
> it a simple case of Lav Docheh Aseh (which I think is actually the
> reverse of the halacha), or is something else at work here?

There are many mitzvos de'oraisa where the Torah doesn't specify how the
mitzvah is to be done, and the chachamim prescribed a particular method;
mid'oraisa one could still do the mitzvah in some other way, but mid'rabanan
the mitzvah d'oraisa is to be done only in this way.

A common example is benching, where the Torah doesn't prescribe any
particular nusach, and the chachamim, starting with Moshe and concluding with
David & Shlomo, decreed a nusach one must use.  The later chachamim who added
the fourth bracha could have made it d'oraisa too, just as the earlier
chachamim had done with their brachos; I don't know why they chose not to.

Kiddush, according to many rishonim, is the same: the chachamim decreed that
one must fulfil ones d'oraisa obligation over wine.  If one said "mekadesh
hashabbos" with the specific kavanah of fulfilling ones chiyuv d'oraisa it
would still *work*, but one would be violating the chachamim's decree not to
do so.  On yom kippur they didn't make this rule, so it remains as it was
before they came along, and one is yotzei with a verbal mention.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 11/08/2013 3:35 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> Even kashrut agencies debate the status of synthetic meat and if it is parve
> see
>
> http://www.jpost.com/Jewish-Wor
> ld/Jewish-News/Orthodox-groups-debate-kashrut-of-lab-grown-meat-322642
> 


The journalist made up this "debate".  For one thing, chabad.org is not a
kashrus agency.  For another, the article was just one person's musings,
no different from a posting here on Avodah.  It certainly doesn't represent
in any way what "the Chabad movement, however, believes"!


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 12/08/2013 6:13 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
> A few questions:
>
> Are there any other examples of "Lo Dibra Torah Ela K'neged Yetzer Hara"? If not, why is this different from all other mitzvot?

I can't think right now of any other examples in the Torah, but there are
examples where the rabbanan relaxed their rules because human nature would
make people do something anyway, and if the chachamim didn't give us a
permitted way to do it we might end up violating Torah law.  I'm thinking
specifically of the heter, when ones house is on fire, to rescue ones
belongings into a karmelis, or into a courtyard with no eruv, because if
this was not permitted a person might decide to put out the fire instead.


> If someone were to use the Heter of Eishet Yefat Toar, which the
> Gemarra (Kiddushin 21b) analogies by saying "better you should eat
> Temutot Shechutot than Temutot Neveilot", should they then feel guilty
> and wish they were on a higher spiritual level where they didn't fall
> captive to their yetzer and need to use this Heter, or should they
> just say "mutar is mutar, end of story"?

 From the fact that David took advantage of it, it seems to me that once the
Torah permitted it, it's permitted to everyone, even one who has no particular
yetzer hara for it, or who could easily have resisted the yetzer hara.


> At what point in the process does the Eishet Yefat Toar become Jewish?

Presumably she needs to go through a proper giyur before a beis din.  The
Torah doesn't say so because it's obvious.  But that would be when she
becomes Jewish; how *else* could it be?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

In an email of 9 Aug 2013 at 4:11pm EDT, RAM responded to something I wrote:
:> But it's unclear to me that malkhus Shamayim necessarily means a blind
:> "ana avda deQBH" or if it also includes agreeing with what we understand
:> of His Reasons for making that gezeira.

: For a long time I was bothered by the idea that a Metzuveh V'Oseh gets
: more sechar than an Aino Metzuveh. It seemed to me that the volunteer is
: more praiseworthy than the employee or the slave...

Before I get to RAM's point...

I since offered a third type of obedience, but didn't spell out the contrast.
In that paragraph I listed:
1- blind slave-like obedience (ani avdekha ben amasekha)
2- obeying out of agreement with whatever I can understand of His Reasons

But there is also:
3- obeying out of trust that He has His Reasons which I would agree to in
principle, if I could understand them (whether I could, and whether I tried,
aside) and if I were more idealistic.

I focused on the fact that my theology necesssitates my trust that this
is true; AISI, the alternative is believing in a god who could be capricious.

I suggested that "ee ifshi" refered to convincing oneself pork is "ewww"
and not tasty. As RAL was later quoted as saying (barukh shekivanti) an
aesthetic judgment.

But I'm thinking now that requiring #2 (that I like what I see of the
taamei hamitzvos) rather than #3 (trusting that in principle and in the
ideal I would) is also problematic, even if it's not necessarily what
REBA was talking about. My notion in that paragraph quoted in the top
of the email was put poorly, kindly replace it with:
    But it's unclear to me that REBA's reference to malkhus Shamayim
    necessarily means a blind "ana avda deQBH" or if it also includes
    obeying out of trust Hashem has some Reason for making that gezeirah
    that if I were more able to live up to my ideals, and if I had
    opportunity and ability to learn some of the taamei hamitzvah,
    I would agree with.

Anyway, back to what RAM wrote about...

:      Whatever those reasons might be, he would most likely not be doing
: the mitzvah if he didn't see some value in it. As such, there is less
: of a Kiddush Hashem in his actions, as compared to when a Metzuveh does
: the mitzvah, whether he wants to or not. Similarly here: If someone
: does not want to eat pork -- even if that lack of desire results from
: learning taamei hamitzvos -- then his refraining does not demonstrate
: any subservience. The one who does want it but refrains anyway -- he is
: doing a Kiddush Hashem.

I'm not sure I agree with the association of the concept of qiddush
hasheim here. It's a bit more complicated. According to Rashi on "qedoshim
tihyu", qedushah comes from obeying halakhah, in particular the hilkhos
arayos that just preceded it. According to Chazal, though (the Sifra /
Toras Kohanim is older than the mishnah), it's to be separate from things
He permits us. As most people know via the oft-quoted Ramban ad loc
about avoiding being a menuval birshus haTorah. Not by avoiding pork,
but by avoiding that third piece of kugel at the shul qiddush. By the
approach of the Sifra and the Ramban, qeddushah is bedavqa generated by
the eino metzuveh ve'oseh!

Personally, I would flip the whole thing on its head and say the metzuveh
ve'oseh is metzuveh because it's something his soul needs more desperately
than the eino metzuveh does. IOW, he doesn't get more sekhar because
he's metzuveh, he's metzuveh because for him this activity generates
more sekhar!

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 Sun, Aug 11, 2013 at 10:17:16AM -0700, saul newman wrote:
: if someone could help me with an ibn ezra-- in shoftim on the above pasuk
: he comments that there are kohanim that are not leviim as he wrote
: elsewhere.  i dont know where the elsewhere is that explains the comment...

You might ask the same thing on Targum Yonasan, "kahanya demeisheivet
Levi" and Rashi "hakohanim sheyatz'u misheivet Leivi". In contrast to
those who aren't? They too are apparently invoking the same idea as IE
to explain the seeming redundancy.

As for the IE's reference to his "kaasher peirashti", Bar Ilan and I
couldn't find an obvious candidate.

The Sifri (ad loc, pisqa 153) says that it's a mitzvah (lekhat-chilah,
not me'aqev) that BD have kohanim and levi'im on it. Which is the exact
opposite of their point -- the Sifri takes the pasuq to mean "kohanim
and leviim" as two groups of people, not "kohanim who are the leviim".

But from the perspective of the mitzvah, TY and Rashi could be saying
that the obligation to have kohanim derives from their being from the
leviim. Doesn't help us with the IE, though...

While I'm tossing ideas around just to get some brainstorming going:
Maybe "meyichus levi" is in distinction to Pinechas's line who aren't
kohanim because of that yichus (or less directly because of it).

Those two suggestions don't combine, as it would imply exclusdng
Pinechas's children from the mitzvah of having kohanim on BD.

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

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 01:13:37PM +0300, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: Are there any other examples of "Lo Dibra Torah Ela K'neged Yetzer Hara"?

Lo dibrah Torah... appears here in the Yalqut Shim'oni. I assume that's
Rashi's source.

I found two other usages, but neither were about negotiating with the
yh"r rather than prohibiting something unrealistically.

The YS also has it in parashas Qedoshim (247:615), on the mitzvah of
orlah, in the name of R' Aqiva. And again not in the context of giving
license in an unrealistic nisayon, but telling the farmer that he won't
lose by keeping the mitzvos of orlah and revai.

The phrase "keneged yh"r hakasuv medaber" appears in Medrash Tanaim
on the mussar to someone freeing an eved nitzra at yovel. "Lo yiqsheh
be'einekha" (Bamidbar 15:18). Like the Yalqut on orlah, it's a message
of telling the yh"r it won't miss out on what it wants, and not about
a heter that only exists because a full prohibition couldn't be adhered
to.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Man can aspire to spiritual-moral greatness
mi...@aishdas.org        which is seldom fully achieved and easily lost
http://www.aishdas.org   again. Fulfillment lies not in a final goal,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but in an eternal striving for perfection. -RSRH

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:41:49AM -0400, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
: So does it mean because He loves his People Israel that he doesn't 
: love people outside of Judaism? And if you say that it means He loves
: His people more than why didn't it say "Who loves His People Israel MORE
: than the other nations? ...

That's the idiom. Just as Yaaqov's less-loved wife is called "hasenu'ah"
even though she wasn't actually hated. These terms are used in a relative
way in general.

And if it didn't mean He loves us more, what's it doing in "Atah
vechartanu"? What would be the tie between "ahavas olam" and "Torah
umitzvos... osanu limadta"? (Notice that here too, the love is listed
first -- as cause, not effect, of matan Torah.) In both cases, the love
is being itemized as part of our uniqueness.

:                    Remember too, the midrash that says: "My creatures
: are drowning and you're singing (rejoicing)!" 

Which means what? That "less" is still far from zero.

:> Israel is dear because they were called children of the Omnipresent.

: L'havdil, it's interesting that the xtians have applied this concept to their 
: messiah and call him the son of G-d. 

It's also interesting that most rishonim explain Yeshaiah 53's suffering
servant to refer to BY in galus, and they steal that for their guy too.
Yahadus teaches that we have the power to bring redemption ourselves. They
have to take all those concepts and assign them to their savior.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 12/08/2013 10:21 AM, Kenneth Miller wrote:
> RZS again:
>> >One cannot forget the truth just because other people might
>> >not like to hear it.  One needn't necessarily flaunt it in
>> >front of them, but one must remember that it remains true.

> Well put. And oh how very difficult it is, to remember it but not flaunt it. And to avoid flaunting it, yet still remember it.

The simplest and most important step is not to avoid saying it among ourselves.
The trouble begins when we start telling ourselves and our children the lies
that we have to tell those outside, and they -- not knowing any better - come
to believe them.  The lies become "toras imecha", and when someone tells them
the truth they're shocked.  And eventually the same thing even happens to we
who invented the lies in the first place.

Everything that is true *must* be said, but in the right time and place.
And it should never be gratuitously denied.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

From: cantorwolb...@cox.net


On Aug 9, 2013, at 1:43 PM,  avodah-requ...@lists.aishdas.org wrote:

> one could also suppose that  He warned us off it and not them, because He 
loves us more.

>>  That's the kind of comment that incites anti-Semitism.
It's also the type of  statement that fundamentalists of other religions 
articulate.
To say He loves  us more is an insult to all non Jews.
One has to be careful about comments  that initiate negativity.<<
ri






>>>>>
 
You may be saying:
 
[1] Don't say "G-d loves us more," because it's not true.
 
 
Or you may be saying:
 
[2] Don't say "G-d loves us more" in public because it makes other people  
hate us, so let's keep it quiet, just among ourselves.
 
If your issue is [1] then you are just wrong.  Hashem tells us over  and 
over in the Torah that He loves us more.  It also says in Pirkei Avos  that 
Hashem loves us more. "Ratzah Hakodosh Baruch Hu LEZAKOS ES YISRAEL  lefichach 
hirbah lahem Torah umitzvos."  Also, "Hu (R' Akiva) haya omer,  Chavivin 
Yisrael shenikra'u vanim laMakom....shene'emar 'Banim atem laShem  
Elokeichem.'"  (Although I must point out that Hashem loves all of mankind,  as it also 
says in Pirkei Avos "chaviv Adam shenivra beTzelem.")
 
If your issue is [2] then the answer is, there is no reason to hate us (and 
 btw anti-Semites need no excuse, they hate us for breathing, for occupying 
space  on Planet Earth).  Anyone who wants to can join the Jewish people, 
if he is  willing to accept all the extra mitzvos he will have to keep and if 
he is  willing to share our fate, which may c'v include wars, terror 
attacks,  pogroms, expulsions, massacres, fulminating New York Times editorials 
and  UN anti-Israel votes -- which have been aptly characterized as  "Seventy 
wolves voting on the fate of one sheep."  If he is willing to  be the sheep 
and not one of the wolves, we not only welcome  the convert but we teach our 
children that the Torah says many, many  times that we must love converts, 
must not oppress them with even mild words  that might hurt their feelings, 
etc etc.
 
As for the claim of other nations, "G-d loves us and has rejected you" --  
why yes, of course they make that claim.  Does that mean our claim is  
false?  Remember the two women who came to Shlomo Hamelech and each said,  "The 
living baby is mine, the dead baby is hers."  Does the fact that they  both 
laid claim to the same baby somehow prove that they were /both/  wrong?!
 
There is a beautiful Shabbos zemer, "Tzama nafshi" (with the refrain "libi  
uvesari yeranenu leKel chai") which poetically interweaves the story of the 
two  mothers claiming the same baby with the story of the shifcha (Hagar,  
mother of the Arabs but here also metaphorically the mother of Christendom)  
who claims she's the real wife and her children are the true heirs of  
Avraham.  "'Re'eh ligeveres emes, shifcha no'emes, lo ki venech hameis  uveni 
hachai."
 
"Look at us, Hashem, see us and show us favor, we who are the true Wife to  
You -- see how the concubine mocks us and says, 'No, your son is dead and 
mine  is alive.'  See how our enemies claim that our religion is dead and 
theirs  is alive, and answer them."
 
I would like to add that in some huge cosmic sense, the very universality,  
irrationality and persistence of anti-Semitism shows that the whole world  
believes, deep-down, that the Jews really are the most important people in 
the  world and Israel really is the most important country in the world.  Why 
 else would the 70 wolves be so incredibly obsessed with the lone sheep?   
Every time the UN votes yet again to condemn Israel, it is all the  
countries in the world getting together to declare, once again, that Israel  is the 
most important country in the world.
 
 


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





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





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130812/32667eed/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 2:58 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 12/08/2013 6:13 AM, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
>
>> A few questions:
>>
>> Are there any other examples of "Lo Dibra Torah Ela K'neged Yetzer Hara"?
>> If not, why is this different from all other mitzvot?
>>
>
> I can't think right now of any other examples in the Torah, but there are
> examples where the rabbanan relaxed their rules because human nature would
> make people do something anyway, and if the chachamim didn't give us a
> permitted way to do it we might end up violating Torah law.  I'm thinking
> specifically of the heter, when ones house is on fire, to rescue ones
> belongings into a karmelis, or into a courtyard with no eruv, because if
> this was not permitted a person might decide to put out the fire instead.
>
> I did a search on Orayta (
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.Orayta&;hl=en) and the
only place Lo Dibra Torah Ela K'neged Yetzer Hara shows up is WRT Eishet
Yefat Toar. It is interesting that there are Gzerot D'rabannan which are
mitigated by human nature, but why not any other Mitzvot D'Orayta? My one
thought on this was that for most mitzvot, if someone has a tayva they can
avoid the situation, but in this situation, one can't choose not to go to
battle "just in case".

>
>
>  If someone were to use the Heter of Eishet Yefat Toar, which the Gemarra
>> (Kiddushin 21b) analogies by saying "better you should eat Temutot
>> Shechutot than Temutot Neveilot", should they then feel guilty and wish
>> they were on a higher spiritual level where they didn't fall captive to
>> their yetzer and need to use this Heter, or should they just say "mutar is
>> mutar, end of story"?
>>
>
> From the fact that David took advantage of it, it seems to me that once the
> Torah permitted it, it's permitted to everyone, even one who has no
> particular
> yetzer hara for it, or who could easily have resisted the yetzer hara.
>
> Why would it seem that way to you? Maybe David HaMelech had a much higher
level of Yetzer Hara for this than the average person? Maybe he was davka
the person the halacha was made for, but in general, we would say that one
should really try and avoid it?
Also, from
http://jwa.org/encyclopedia/article/maacah-wife-of-david-midrash-a
nd-aggadah
:

"The Rabbis severely criticize David for taking to himself an eshet yefat
to?ar. Deut. 21 speaks of three topic in succession: theeshet yefat
to?ar (21:10?14);
the instance of a man who has two wives, one loved and the other unloved
(vv. 15?17); and the ?wayward and defiant son? (vv. 18?21; for the meaning
of this term, see below). The Rabbis derive from this juxtaposition that
one transgression leads to another. If a person brings an eshet yefat
to?ar into
his home, he introduces dissension. The eshet yefat to?ar with shaven head
is not desirable to him, and so he becomes the husband of two wives, only
one of whom he loves. This complicated family situation with two wives, one
of whom he hates, leads to his child being a ?wayward and defiant son.? The
Rabbis exemplify such a process with the marriage of David and Maacah..."


>
>  At what point in the process does the Eishet Yefat Toar become Jewish?
>>
>
> Presumably she needs to go through a proper giyur before a beis din.  The
> Torah doesn't say so because it's obvious.  But that would be when she
> becomes Jewish; how *else* could it be?

 The Giyur of an Eshet Yefat Toar is fundamentally different than regular
Giyur, I think. From what I understood from Rashi, the Giyur is "Ba'al
korchah". See Rashi on 22A Likuchin Yesh Lecha Bah. "Kiddushin Tofsin, Af
Al Pi SheHayta Ovedet Kochavim, Sheharei Eina MitGayeret MiDa'atah."

Kol Tuv,
Liron

-- 
Liron Kopinsky
liron.kopin...@gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20130812/0dd6edb2/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 146
***************************************

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