Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 190

Sun, 17 Nov 2013

• 1. Halachicly Speaking - Thanksgiving and Eating Turkey (Prof. Levine)
• 2. Re: Halachicly Speaking - Thanksgiving and Eating Turkey (Zev Sero)
• 3. Rashbam and peshat (Prof. Levine)
• 4. "The Art of Compromise" (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: skiing controversy (Zev Sero)
• 6. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Rashbam and peshat (Prof. Levine)
• 9. AHAVA (cantorwolb...@cox.net)
• 10. Re: skiing controversy (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 11. Re: AHAVA (Lisa Liel)
• 12. Re: Kofin Oso (Chana Luntz)

 From  http://tinyurl.com/aest49f

    Historical Origin of Thanksgiving

    The first Thanksgiving Day dinner was held by the pilgrims to celebrate
    their survival of the particularly harsh winter of 1622-23. This
    celebration took place on July 30, 1623. It seems that the pilgrims called
    all wild fowl "turkey."...

    After a prolonged debate, President Washington issued the first National
    Thanksgiving Proclamation, setting November 26, 1789 as Thanksgiving
    and a national holiday. For the next fifty years, the holiday was mostly
    ignored. It was not until 1846...

    Conclusion

    There are some who felt that Thanksgiving dinner should be
    avoided. However, the custom of many people in Klal Yisroel is to eat
    turkey on Thanksgiving (see below regarding the kashrus of turkey). As
    mentioned above, one should not have a party.

    Davening Later on Thanksgiving

    Some poskim maintain that one should not change the regular time for
    davening to a later time even though it is a not a work day. However,
    making a later minyan is permitted if it is not at that time on a regular
    (non-holiday) day.22 Others maintain that since we all know that the
    reason for davening later is because everyone is home from work and
    they may wish to sleep later they do not focus on the cause of why they
    are off from work.23 Harav Yisroel Belsky Shlita says if one normally
    davens late when he has no work (i.e. Sunday) then he may do so on a
    legal holiday such as Thanksgiving as well.

    Attending a Thanksgiving Parade

    The question of observing or attending a Thanksgiving Day parade is an
    interesting one. It depends on the following definition: If Thanksgiving
    is a non-Jewish holiday, it would be prohibited to participate or benefit
    in any way from the parade honoring the day. If one concludes that
    Thanksgiving is a secular holiday, there would seem to be no problem in
    attending a parade, as a Thanksgiving Day parade is no different from
    an Independence Day parade. Although it may be permitted to go to a
    Thanksgiving parade it is not with the spirit of a Jew to attend such
    parades.24 One who has young children who insist on going to the parade
    do not have to refuse.

See the above URL for a discussion about the kashrus of turkey.

YL

On 15/11/2013 10:00 AM, Prof. Levine wrote:
>   It seems that the pilgrims called
>      all wild fowl "turkey."...

This is not true.  Turkey was a specific bird that they thought was native
to the Ottoman Empire; they had no idea that it had been imported there from
Mexico.  They brought turkeys with them on the Mayflower, though when they
arrived they found wild ones living in America.

> We don?t know whether it was wild turkey, duck, goose, or even
> eagles. They called it turkey, and roasted the birds on spits for
> their celebratory dinner.

There's no record of what birds they ate, and certainly not of what they
called them.  There was no connection at all between Thanksgiving and turkeys
until the 19th century, when it was common to roast a turkey for any large
meal with lots of people, simply because it provides a lot of meat.

Which puts paid to any teshuvah that's based on the idea that eating turkey
is somehow an integral part of the celebration, rooted in the holiday's
origins, whether this is treated as a positive factor or a negative one.
e.g. RMF's impression that the pilgrims were saved from starvation by eating
turkey, and the holiday is to celebrate their survival.


-- 
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

At 12:16 PM 11/15/2013, R. Micha wrote:
>But back to the topic of parshanut... On Sun, Nov 10, 9:16pm EST,
>Prof. Levine (a/k/a RYL) quoted RSRH on the thread "Yaakov's Dreams":
> > The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
> > of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories credibility.
>
>While this is true of Tanakh, it's not true of Chazal.

I have to admit that I do not understand this statement.  Who are the 
Chazal who hide "from us the faults,  errors, and weaknesses of our 
great men."?

I have been reading Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz's from Nehemiah to the 
Present, and he certainly points out the faults, errors, and 
weaknesses of great people who are not in the Tanach and gives sources.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131115/24fcf987/attachment-0001.htm>

At 12:16 PM 11/15/2013, R. Micha wrote:
>On Wed, Nov 13, 2013 at 02:23:05PM -0800, Michael Orr wrote:
>:               Compromise of one's self interest often good, but would we
>: say that we must compromise our principles? The story of RSZA suggests
>: otherwise, and emphaisizes that we must often be willing to compromise
>: our "entitlements" in order to do this.
>
>Kol hamaavir al midosav
>maarivin lo al kol chatosav.
>
>Although I wonder how I'm supposed to weigh my "rights" against their
>offense. It's nice to spend time and money to avoid offending a woman,
>even in a context where I feel she's in the wrong but couldnt' know any
>better. (Doesn't that describe RSZA's stance vis-a-vis this woman sitting
>on his bench on the bus in non-tzanuah attire?) But how much loss is
>mandatory, how much is laudible, and when does it become bal tashchis?
>
>To put it another way:
>1- Kol hamaariv al midosav, vs
>2- Ours is not a religion that lauds willing victimhood.
>How do I make peace with both?

Compromise is possible and works when people are not heavily 
emotionally invested in an issue.  In other words,  if they can 
approach a situation primarily from an intellectual 
standpoint.  Emotionally charged situations do not lend themselves to 
compromise.

YL
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131115/7c0ea793/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/11/2013 5:12 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>
> I was once told in the name of RHS (I did not check it out) that skiing
> is forbidden even for men since it is a dangerous sport.

I don't understand this.  First of all, while one constantly hears of people
breaking arms and legs while skiing, one doesn't often hear of fatalities.
Is it really more dangerous than, say, football, or yachting?  Not to mention
just driving a car, or riding in one, which leads to fatalities all the time,
and yet we routinely assume that risk, not just for parnassah (for which the
Torah gives us permission to risk our lives) but for pleasure or convenience.

Consider that the most dangerous job in America is professional fishing.
Again, the Torah gives us permission for parnassah, but surely amateur fishing
from a boat can't be all that safe either; would one say that it's forbidden?

-- 
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 Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 01:10:31PM -0500, Prof. Levine wrote:
>> While this is true of Tanakh, it's not true of Chazal.

> I have to admit that I do not understand this statement.  Who are the  
> Chazal who hide "from us the faults,  errors, and weaknesses of our  
> great men."?

If you were maavir sedra with Rashi the week you asked this, you would
have encountered an example.

Reuvein's cheit according to peshat in the pasuq (35:22), is MUCH more
severe than the cheit described by R' Shmuel bar Nachmani on Shabbos 55b
(as quoted by Rashi).

The machloqes in the gemara is worth looking at. There is one opinion,
R' Yehoshua, that says Reuvein actually sinned, but the amoraim gravitate
toward minimizimg Ruvein's sin, then Eli's, Pinchas's, (56a) Shemu'el's,
David's, and (56b) Shelomo's.

> I have been reading Rabbi Chaim Dov Rabinowitz's...

When I said "Chazal" I meant the baalei mesorah from the zugos through
the savoraim. Anyone from the era of opinions recorded in the Mishnah,
Tosefta and the two Talmuds.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It's nice to be smart,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it's smarter to be nice.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - R' Lazer Brody
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 11/15/2013 12:10 PM, Prof. Levine wrote:
> At 12:16 PM 11/15/2013, R. Micha wrote:
>> But back to the topic of parshanut... On Sun, Nov 10, 9:16pm EST,
>> Prof. Levine (a/k/a RYL) quoted RSRH on the thread "Yaakov's Dreams":
>> > The Torah does not hide from us the faults, errors, and weaknesses
>> > of our great men, and this is precisely what gives its stories 
>> credibility.
>>
>> While this is true of Tanakh, it's not true of Chazal.
>
> I have to admit that I do not understand this statement.  Who are the 
> Chazal who hide "from us the faults,  errors, and weaknesses of our 
> great men."?

In tomorrow's daf: Rabbi Yochanan says that anyone who says the sons of 
Eli sinned is nothing but mistaken.  We have the same thing about King 
David.

Lisa

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131116/149a0e80/attachment-0001.htm>

At 07:05 PM 11/16/2013, Lisa Liel wrote:
>In tomorrow's daf: Rabbi Yochanan says that anyone who says the sons 
>of Eli sinned is nothing but mistaken.  We have the same thing about 
>King David.

But in other places negative things are reported. In addition, there
is all of that history after the Gemara was written down with much
negative reported.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chazal

Chazal or Hazal is an acronym for the Hebrew "Hakhameinu Zikhronam
Liv'rakha" ("Our Sages, may their memory be blessed"), is a general term
that refers to all Jewish sages of the Mishna, Tosefta and Talmud era's,
essentially from the times of the final 300 years of the Second Temple
of Jerusalem until the 6th century CE.

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemara

There are two versions of the Gemara. One version was compiled by scholars
of Israel, primarily of the academies of Tiberias and Caesarea, which was
published between about 350-400 CE.("yirushalmi") The other version by
scholars of Babylonia, primarily of the academies of Sura, Pumbedita, and
Mata Mehasia, which was published about 500 CE.("Bavli") By convention,
a reference to the "Gemara" or "Talmud," without further qualification,
refers to the Babylonian version.

Over Shabbos, having the opportunity to think about what Joseph?s
brothers were going to do to him (in the near future), I thought a lot
about love?or the lack of it, thereof.

Interestingly we pray twice a day with a love theme.
In the morning we plead for ahavah rabbah, abundance of love,
for we feel that love must expand and grow with life. However,
in the evening we again pray for love but not in quantitative terms.
Instead we plead for ahavas olam ? everlasting and eternal love.
What is the difference? It is subtle but in the dark night, love does
not grow; it deepens. 
Rabbi Akiva appreciated the value of love in his life. His beloved wife,
Rachel, transformed him from an illiterate shepherd into a brilliant talmid 
chochom. Rabbi Akiva believed that ?Beloved is man, for he was created
b?tzelem Elokim. Many aren?t aware that R? Akiva felt that even the 
Amonites and Moabites should be received into the fold. He felt that the
term for the inspection of tefillin should be the same for rich and poor alike, 
that a suicide should be treated with compassion, and that sacrifices for the
Temple should also be received from non Jews. 
The remarkable Chief Rabbi, Abraham Isaac Kook, so moved by R? Akiva,
proclaimed that if Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed because of 
sinas chinam, the new Jewish Commonwealth would come alive by virtue
of ahavas chinam. 
Furthermore, R? Kook insisted upon the chassidic dictum that ?In order to
love one who is not completely wicked, it is enough if one is only an incomplete
tzaddik, but in order to love one who is wholly wicked, it is necessary to be a 
perfect tzaddik.? 
I?m sorry to say that I see very little ahavas chinam amongst our own people.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131116/32a6816e/attachment-0001.htm>

R' ZS:
I don't understand this.  First of all, while one constantly hears of people
breaking arms and legs while skiing, one doesn't often hear of fatalities.
----------------


it's not sakanas nefashos to break them. Here's an example from today's NYT:


On Friday, Mr. Pulga, 27, died - essentially of a broken leg.

Doctors said the father of two small children could have been saved.
Instead, he became a victim of the incompetence and inaction that have
plagued relief efforts here for the hundreds of thousands left injured, or
homeless or hungry, and sometimes all three, since the typhoon hit.

By the time Dr. Rodel Flores, a surgeon with a team of visiting doctors,
found Mr. Pulga on Thursday, he had received no antibiotics or antiseptic
and his leg was badly infected. The doctor ordered an emergency amputation
to try to save his life. But the surgery was too late, and death soon
followed.

"In short," Dr. Flores said, "it was preventable."

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/16/world/asia/dead-of-a-failed-reli
ef-effort-
as-much-as-typhoons-winds.html?smid=fb-nytimes&WT.z_sma=WO_DOA_20131115&_r=0

I'm no doctor (or posek), but it seems clear that you're allowed to be
mechalel Shabbos for someone with a broken arm or leg.

KT,
MYG

With all due respect to Rav Kook, I don't think the Torah wants us to do 
*anything* "chinam".

Lisa

On 11/16/2013 10:43 PM, cantorwolb...@cox.net wrote:
> The remarkable Chief Rabbi, Abraham Isaac Kook, so moved by R? Akiva,
> proclaimed that if Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed because of
> /sinas chinam/, the new Jewish Commonwealth would come alive by virtue
> of /ahavas chinam. /
> Furthermore, R? Kook insisted upon the chassidic dictum that ?In order to
> love one who is not completely wicked, it is enough if one is only an 
> incomplete
> /tzaddik/, but in order to love one who is wholly wicked, it is 
> necessary to be a
> perfect /tzaddik/.?
> I?m sorry to say that I see very little /ahavas chinam /amongst our 
> own people.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20131117/508382ba/attachment-0001.htm>

RMB writes:
> (The ability to reply to something after two weeks of thinking about it and
> still having some chance of resuming the conversation is one of the reasons
> why I think email lists still cover a niche blog comment >chains and FB
> cannot.)

Yes indeed. Along with the fact that there is, IMHO genuine dialogue
and debate, rather than a soapbox with commentary.

> Tangential:
> I am not sure about this translation of the Rama. I think an ish sheragil
> is more a man who is in the habit (hergel, not regilus) and there is a
> "ule-" on "ulehotzi ishto mibeiso tamid, implying that we mean a man who is
> in the in the habit of getting angry and then constntly sending her out of
> the house.

Regarding translations, I am very happy for you to have a better go at
them - and indeed, that is precisely why when I publish the Hebrew, I
do so, because the Hebrew is the ikar and my translation is just there
at best as a rough and ready guide. If this list were all completely
literate in Hebrew (and could all read the Hebrew posted), I am not sure
that, much of the time, I would bother to translate - certainly not in
the cases where I actually bring the Hebrew as well. But the reality is
that there are numbers of people on this list who would not be able to
follow the discussion were I solely to post Hebrew, so I feel duty bound
to at least have a go at translation (and the quality varies dependent
on how much time I have to spend on it - I am very busy at the moment,
as I am back working full time, as well as looking after the kids etc).
In this particular case, I seriously debated whether I should take the
time to summarise an entire siman, because there was too much Hebrew to
bring, and the best I could do was a short form translation that took
time that I didn't really have. But the problem I find so often with
these kinds of articles, is that references are made to sources which
can sound really impressive for people who are unable to access them
themselves (and which kind of scare them into submission), but say a lot
less than they claim - I therefore compromised here by trying to give
people who could not read the original a flavour of what was going on.

In the case in question, while I agree that a man who is in the habit of
getting angry is a better translation than one who is regularly angry
(although I am not sure what the difference is between your "and then
constantly sending her out of his house" and my "and sends her out of
his house constantly") - I am not sure I see a nafka mina in terms of
the halacha - do you?

>: In short both ...

> the Rosh and the Rashba

>:           ... appear to hold bideved such a get is kosher.  

> As I believe the Rama implies this as well, in se'if 21:
>    Since there is a machloqes of the rabbis it is ra'ui lehachmir
>   shelo lakhuf beshotin....

> "`Ra'ui lehachmir". It's an appropriate chumerah, not iqar hadin.

I agree with that.

I think the source for the one who definitely holds it is posel even
bideved is the Radvaz, as RDR so kindly posted a link to:
http://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1375&;st=&pgnum=97

(as a tangent of my own, I don't know why I struggle to find things
on Hebrew Books, I did look on there, and somehow couldn't manage to
extract it).

The Radvaz, as R' Yair Hoffman correctly identified, does understand
the basis on which the Chachamim in the Mishna and gemora allowed for
forcing in the case of a man who has boils or the like as being based
on the principle of Afkinhu Rabanan l'kidushin minei, although he just
assumes it, rather than justifies it. As I mentioned in my previous
post, I think that is a very difficult reading of the various gemoros -
because of the link between korbanos and gitten which are both based on
a pasuk specifying rotzono and both stated as nevertheless allowing the
Chachamim to force. Claiming afkinu rabbanan as the basis vis a vis
get destroys this link.

But where I disagree with R' Hoffman is that I don't think the Radvaz goes
as far as to claim that the Rosh holds that the basis is afkinu rabbanan
- indeed the Radvaz's statement vis a vis the Rosh (after he brings
the Rashba as stating that we don't force except where the Chachamim
specifically permitted) was merely "and so writes the Rosh that we do not
force with sticks" - which if anything seeming to suggest that one can
never in any circumstance force with sticks. And both these authorities
while brought in support of the Radvaz's position that one cannot force a
man who is regularly beating his wife (this is the subject matter of the
teshuva) are many lines away from his assumption in the beginning that
the basis for forcing in the Mishna is afkinu rabanan. It may be that
he holds this is the reasoning of the Rosh and the Rashba, on the grounds
that he cannot see any other reason why anybody could allow such a thing,
but it is not a claim that he makes in the teshuva and he certainly does
not analyse the Rosh to derive it. And so to assume that he jumps to
this assertion based on the teshuva as written is something of a stretch.

Of course, to the extent that the Radvaz is claiming that the Rosh held
that one can never force with sticks, he is in direct disagreement with
the reading of the Shulchan Aruch regarding epilepsy, where, as mentioned,
the Rosh is cited as the authority for allowing the forcing with sticks
in the case of an epileptic (and I confess the Shulchan Aruch's reading
of the Rosh seems much more the pshat - even if the case the Rosh was
actually dealing with was one of a woman's epilepsy, since the Rosh,
in justifying the forcing of the divorce on the woman, states flatly
that if this were a case of a man, they would force him with sticks to
divorce, and so a woman should not be in a better position based on the
takana of Rabbanu Gershom than a man is under the halacha).

It is also noteworthy that given the actual case the Radvaz was writing
about, he appears to be in direct disagreement with to the Rema, who
appears to agree that a regular and consistent wife beater (which the
Radvaz acknowledges was the case in question) should be forced.

One other thing I did want to add about the Rosh's position is the bit
that I think has been sending people off onto a mistaken understanding,
namely his use (quoting Rabbanu Tam) of the expression - "multiplying
mamzerim in Israel". I think the problem is that when people read
that expression in connection with a get, they immediately jump to the
conclusion that the Rosh (and Rabbanu Tam) are therefore asserting that
in the case in question, if you did force the get, you are allowing a
woman who is actually still married to go off and marry somebody else,
thereby directly creating a mamzer. Therefore when he then adds that
well, bideved, if you relied on the Rambam, the get is kosher, there
seems to be an inherent contradiction.

 But I think it can be demonstrated that the Rosh (and indeed Rabbanu Tam)
when using the expression multiplying mazerim in Israel did not in fact
necessarily mean that the particular case was one of creating a mamzer,
but rather that the overall societal effect would increase the number of
mamzerim - and this is from the use of the phrase in a Tosphos HaRosh
in Kesuvos 3a. The case there is in fact discussing one of the known
situations of afkinu rabbanan, where the Rabbis uprooted the kiddushin -
which is where a man sent a get to a woman, and then nullified it before
the shaliach could reach the woman. If a man was to do this (and of
course it is assur for him to so do, but if he did it) technically under
Torah law, the woman would not be divorced, even though she would assume
she was, as she held a get in her hand, and the rabbis then said that if
a man did this, they kiddushin would be uprooted. And Rabbanu Shmuel
asked a series of questions on this case, one of which was that surely
we could eliminate a whole lot of real mamzerim this way - because if a
woman had a mamzer, just get her original husband to send her a get via
a shaliach, and then get him to nullify the get, and then the principle
of afkinu rabbanan would come into play, and she would never have been
married in the first place - ergo, her son the mamzer wasn't a mamzer.
And in answer to this question, the Rosh quotes Rabbanu Tam as saying:

??? ????? ???? ???????? ??? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ?????
???? ????? ?????? ??????.

"That the Rabbis did not uproot the kiddushin except in a case where it
involved fixing [ie improving the situation] and not as a stumbling block
*to multiply mamzerim in Israel* since it would cause the daughters of
Israel to be wanton in immorality."

But note here that it is quite clear that this was not a specific
situation of multiplying mamzerim but of diminishing them. Any single
case where this method was employed would diminish (at least by one)
the number of mamzerim there were in Israel. BUT nevertheless, Rabbanu
Tam (as quoted by the Rosh) held that if such a mechanism were allowed,
the knowledge that this method could be employed would take away a lot of
the disincentive for women in having illicit relations, and so despite the
fact that in the specific case it would diminish the number of mamzerim,
in the overall society it would increase the number because it would
increase the number of women having illicit relations.

And I think the same idea is at play in our case. The Rosh lived in a
world where there were very few singles. Everybody married young (we
know from Tosphos that Jewish girls were generally married off before bas
mitzvah) and the non Jewish world forbad divorce totally. There would
be the odd few due to the death of a spouse, and possibly the odd few
in the cases where the Rosh was prepared to sanction divorce, or where
there was mutual agreement, but overall there was no pool of singles
to draw on and to create alternate possibilities. Allowing widespread
cases of maus alai would create such a pool, and the risks were of
creating a society very much like the one we live in today, with large
swathes of society not in stable monogamous relationships, with a lot
of consequent social problems. In my view it was the creation of such
a society that the Rosh understood would multiply mamzerim in Israel -
and I think he is unquestionably right.

BUT today, where even if we were to take all of the Jewish singles
out of the equation, there is a non Jewish society which is by and
large unmarried, and even more so where there is a large group of never
married Jewish singles, I do not believe that the situation could be made
any worse by having a few more divorcees on the scene. Releasing such
divorcees into the general singles world would just not have the same
societal effect as the Rosh was facing. If anything, as I mentioned,
given the nature of the general society, it is hard to see how creating
a pool of divorcees would make the general society more licentious
than it already is, and so, in contrast to the societal conditions of
the Rosh, leaving this disaffected group still married is the option
that will operate to multiply mamzerim in Israel, because some of this
disaffected group are, inevitably, going to succumb to the temptations
that are readily available. It therefore seems quite arguable that the
Rosh, if faced with our society, would in fact take a very different
view on the need to force, based on what his ultimate priorities were,
which was the diminishing of illicit relations within Israel

...
: But in the cases we are discussing perhaps you can argue we already have
: enough proof. The Shulchan Aruch rules (Choshen Mishpat siman 420 si'if 1)
: that anybody who lifts his hand to hit his fellow is considered a rasha.
: How about paying $100,000 to beat somebody up? Is that not ra'ah b'daoteha?
: So if you hold that the payments were lo k'din and were a means to try and
: ensure he gets beaten up, then, even though ain shaliach b'davar averah, you
: would seem to have defined her as an isha ra'ah, -- whom it would therefore
: be a mitzvah to divorce, even if you have to force the husband to do it.

> Paying $100,000 might be morally justified to get rid of an abusive
> husband, but still restrict his bechirah enough to qualify as a gett
> me'usah.

My discussion that you quote above was entirely in relation to the
position (which is only one of a number of positions mentioned - R'
Hoffman brought this in the name of Tosphos) that the case where one
is entitled to force a get is (and only is) where it is a mitzvah to
divorce the woman in question due to moral failings on her part. Ie it
is not that it is a morally justified position to pay this kind of money-
it is rather an argument that it is never morally justified to set thugs
on people (regardless of the situation) which is what demonstrates that
this woman is a "bad woman". But once you can define the woman as a bad
woman, then one of the definitions of where it is a mitzvah to divorce
is where the woman in question can be defined to be a bad woman, when
then makes the forcing as one which in fact creates a valid get.

Regards
Chana



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


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 190
***************************************

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.)