Avodah Mailing List

Volume 33: Number 152

Fri, 27 Nov 2015

• 1. Re: conversion monitoring (Arie Folger)
• 2. Re: conversion monitoring (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Lisa Liel)
• 4. Re: Ahab (Saul Guberman)
• 5. Re: Ahab (Lisa Liel)
• 6. Re: Ahab (Akiva Miller)
• 7. Re: Ahab (Saul Guberman)
• 8. Re: Ahab (Lisa Liel)
• 9. The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr Somayach ()
• 10. Re: Ahab (Ben Waxman)
• 11. Re: Ahab (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Ben Waxman)
• 14. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Lisa Liel)
• 15. Re: Kosher Turkey and Women Rabbis and Mesorah (Micha Berger)
• 16. Re: A Simple Yes or No Question (Rich, Joel)

On Nov 26, 2015 9:07 PM, "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name> wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 02:55 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The Noda biYhudah (EH 1:23) sees both sides of that question, whether
>> the fetus would be a giyores qetanah, or a born Jew.

> I had a brief look at that teshuva and don't see any such question.

> See the Pischei Teshuvah 268:6.

> Indeed see there; he doesn't cite any opinion or possibility that such
> a child is able to object.

There are disagreemens in the matters both of you raise. Some say the
leidato bikdusha convert can never object. Some say that one who converted
with a parent can never object.

Others hold both can object (actually, if one holds with the side of the
NbY RMB cited, that a foetus convert can object, than one necessarily holds
that a convert can object even if converting with his mother, as perforce a
foetus always converts with his mother).

Then there is the question of what constitutes objecting. If the child
becomes bar/bat mitzva while purposefully driving a car on Shabbat on the
way to shul (let's ignore the fact the child is not likely to be actually
driving), is the child objecting?

--
Yours sincerely,
Mit freundlichen Gren,
Arie Folger
blogging at http://www.rabbifolger.net/

On 11/26/2015 9:30 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:
> On 11/26/2015 09:17 AM, Arie Folger via Avodah wrote:
>> Could it be that the mother was already pregnant, and the daughter is
>> thus considered an independent convert, so that at issue are
>> a) Whether the original Beit Din exercised due diligence in
>> establishing that it really was a zekhut for the child of such a
>> family to convert;
>> b) What standards should be applied to establish that a minor who
>> converted is considered not to have objected to the yoke of Judaism
>> upon reaching majority.
>
> Since when is such a child entitled to object and revoke her conversion?
> Who holds such a thing?

Everyone, as far as I'm aware.

Lisa

Yes.

On 11/26/2015 5:51 PM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
> Do you believe that HKB?H never gives one a test they can?t pass 
> without sinning (in the objective sense)?
> KT
> Joel Rich
>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net> wrote:

> On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah <
>> avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>     Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of
>>     marrying nonJewish women.
>>     see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism
>>
>>     Eli
>>
>>     So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?
>>
>>
>>
> Why do you think it was a switch?  It was always matrilineal descent.
> Ever since Sinai.
>
> Lisa
>

All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father.  Nothing
mentions the mother.  Therefore it seems that there is a switch at some
point.  Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish spouse.
He does not mention anything about the children.  So one might assume that
even in this instance the kids follow the father not the mother.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/8671b3f9/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/26/2015 5:21 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 4:27 AM, Eli Turkel via Avodah 
> <avo...@lists.aishdas.org <mailto:avo...@lists.aishdas.org>> wrote:
>
>
>     Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of
>     marrying nonJewish women.
>     see also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism
>
>     Eli
>
>     So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?
>
>

Why do you think it was a switch?  It was always matrilineal descent.  
Ever since Sinai.

Lisa

R' Eli Turkel wrote:

> Later in history Ezra fought against the prevelant custom of
> marrying nonJewish women. see also
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interfaith_marriage_in_Judaism

and Saul Guberman asked:

> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?

I don't see any connection between the two. It is true that "Ezra fought
against the prevelant custom of marrying nonJewish women", but I've never
seen any claims that these marriages were halachically valid. Nor have I
seen any claims (from a Torah viewpoint) that we've ever accepted
patrilineal descent - not before, during or after Ezra.

It is important to note that Hebrew does not distinguish between "wife" and
"woman". The word "ishto" is usually translated as "his wife", but it could
just as easily mean "his woman", i.e., his girlfriend / roommate / POSSLQ /
common-law wife, or whatever term one might prefer.

Akiva Miller
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/b3293596/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name> wrote:

> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
>
>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?
>>
>
> There was no switch.  It's de'oraisa.


Please site a source.  All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos)
plus Moshe married non jews.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/f94373d3/attachment-0001.htm>

On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 3:55 PM, Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net 
> <mailto:l...@starways.net>> wrote:
>
>
>             So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana
>         Ezra or before?
>
>
>     Why do you think it was a switch?  It was always matrilineal
>     descent.  Ever since Sinai.
>
>     Lisa
>
> All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father.  Nothing 
> mentions the mother.  Therefore it seems that there is a switch at 
> some point.  Ezra is the first mention of getting rid of a non Jewish 
> spouse.  He does not mention anything about the children.  So one 
> might assume that even in this instance the kids follow the father not 
> the mother.

The Avot and Shevatim don't matter, because no one was born Jewish 
before Sinai.  It wasn't a think.  Everyone had to choose it themselves.

As for sources, Devarim 7:3-4.  "And do not marry with them.  Do not 
give your daughter to his son, and do not take his daughter for your 
son.  Because *he* will turn away your son from following Me..." The 
Gemara in Yevamot 23a learns from these pesukim that the reason it says 
"*he* will turn away your son" is that the gentile man who marries your 
daughter will turn away your (grand)son from following God.  Meaning 
that the offspring of a gentile father and a Jewish mother is Jewish.  
And there's no concern about the children coming from a gentile mother 
and a Jewish father, meaning that such a child isn't Jewish.

Lisa

_Click here:  The Gid Hanasheh Incongruity ? Insights into Halacha ? Ohr 
Somayach_ (http://ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/4966)  
 
I found this article of great historical interest -- it's about siyata  
dishmaya in arriving at halachic decisions 
 

--Toby Katz
t6...@aol.com
..
=============


-------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20151126/956e2b0c/attachment-0001.htm>

The Avot are a mixed bag. On one hand, the Am had to come via Sarah. 
Itzhiq had to marry Rivka and not (to quote the Ramban) one of cursed 
nations. OTOH, Yaacov and Yosef (and certainly Yosef's sons) had no 
problem marrying non-family.

Ben

On 11/26/2015 11:09 PM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:
> All of the Avos, Shefatim & Kehuna are through the father.  Nothing 
> mentions the mother.  T

On 11/26/2015 03:44 PM, Saul Guberman wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Zev Sero <z...@sero.name <mailto:z...@sero.name>> wrote:
>> On 11/26/2015 10:21 AM, Saul Guberman via Avodah wrote:

>>> So was the switch to matrilineal descent from a takana Ezra or before?

>>There was no switch.  It's de'oraisa.

> Please site a source.

Devarim 7:4, as explained in Yevamos 23a.  The pasuk warns that if your
children marry out, then your goyishe son-in-law will turn your
grandchildren to avoda zara.  But it says nothing about what your goyishe
daughter-in-law will teach her children, because that is none of your
concern; they aren't your grandchildren, and have nothing to do with you,
so there's no reason for you to care what she teaches them.


> All of the Avos (assuming they kept all the mitzvos) plus Moshe
> married non jews.

All of the Avos plus Moshe *were* non-Jews.  There weren't any Jews
for them to marry.

-- 
Zev Sero               All around myself I will wave the green willow
z...@sero.name          The myrtle and the palm and the citron for a week
                And if anyone should ask me the reason why I'm doing that
                I'll say "It's a Jewish thing; if you have a few minutes
                I'll explain it to you".

 Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass 
> without sinning (in the objective sense)?
> KT
> Joel Rich
-------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel [mailto:l...@starways.net] 

Yes.
=======================================
For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a gun is
put to their head be considered "sinning"?  What about one who has
Tourette's and continually curses?
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.

http://attemptsatjewishthought.com
/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-clergy<
/a>

But there?s a more telling, and Halakhically rich, irony at play, that 
isn?t about Jews setting themselves around a Thanksgiving table, but 
what they choose to set on it: a turkey. Because in the ?its new and 
that?s a problem? theory of Jewish values, turkeys aren?t kosher.

Yet by R. Kluger?s time, and certainly in our own, the majority of 
Orthodox Jews eat turkey.  How? Because Rabbinic leadership is entirely 
capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and innovation. 
Numerous Teshuvos were issued that acknowledged the newness of the 
turkey, nodded at the Rema?s need for a Mesorah, and found a way to 
resolve the two.

The strategies taken in these Teshuvos are relevant to today?s RCA 
controversy over Mesorah.  Not because they offer one-sided support for 
ordaining female clergy (they do not) but because these Teshuvos remind 
us that reference to Mesorah ought inspire a conversation, not a 
proclamation. Let us turn to the Teshuvos.
___________________________________

I personally like the approach of the Netziv (given in the article): Go 
slow, don't jump at every innovation. But at a certain point, if there 
is no clear halachic prohibition, one has to deal with a reality created 
by Am Yisrael's actual practice.

Ben

PS: I am not attempting to claim that there's no actual prohibition 
involved here. That question is above my pay grade.

On 11/27/2015 10:57 AM, Rich, Joel via Avodah wrote:
>   Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass
>> without sinning (in the objective sense)?
>> KT
>> Joel Rich
> -------------------------------
> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:l...@starways.net]
>
> Yes.
> =======================================
> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because a
> gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"?	What about one who
> has Tourette's and continually curses?
>
No, and no.  In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is put 
to their head is *obligated* to do so.  One who has Tourettes would 
presumably have a din of oness.

Lisa

On Fri, Nov 27, 2015 at 11:23:06AM +0200, Ben Waxman via Avodah wrote:
: http://attemptsatjewishthought
: .com/home/if-you-eat-kosher-turkey-you-probably-support-female-orthodox-c
: lergy
: 
...
: Yet by R. Kluger's time, and certainly in our own, the majority of
: Orthodox Jews eat turkey.  How? Because Rabbinic leadership is
: entirely capable of resolving a seeming gap between tradition and
: innovation...

When it's the right kind of gap. This kind of specious reasoning is only
possbible if you ignore the legal details of each case.

Kind of like the old: If they could put a person on the moon, why
haven't they cured cancer yet?

The bigger problem is that they have not listened to what RYBS and RHS
mean when they use the word mesorah. It does not equal "chadash assur min
haTorah". In fact, it's a little strange to think people would believe
RYBS promoted a policy of non-change; it doesn't fit the basics of his
biography and CV. So why twould someone feel a need to prove that
change is possible by pointing to another one.

And if you realy want to point to change, there is a close parallel.
In Chazal's day, woment weren't allowed in shul, except perhaps long
enough to say qaddish or bench gomel. Or if needed for leining.
Mechitzah is a feminist innovation from the geonic era.

But I presume RHS would argue it came from the big names of the day.
Those who know halachic grammar intuitively enough to know when to take
poetic license. To the extent that you only know the rule of grammar as
rules, you are forced into a certain rigidty -- or risk saying things
that sound unacceptable to the native speaker.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It isn't what you have, or who you are, or where
mi...@aishdas.org        you are,  or what you are doing,  that makes you
http://www.aishdas.org   happy or unhappy. It's what you think about.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Dale Carnegie

>>  Do you believe that HKB"H never gives one a test they can't pass
>>> without sinning (in the objective sense)?
>>> KT
>>> Joel Rich
>> -------------------------------
>> From: Lisa Liel [mailto:l...@starways.net]
>> 
>> Yes.
>> =======================================
>> For clarification purposes - would someone who eats treif because
>> a gun is put to their head be considered "sinning"?  What about
>> one who has Tourette's and continually curses?
> No, and no.  In the first place, one who eats treyf because a gun is
> put to their head is *obligated* to do so.  One who has Tourettes
> would presumably have a din of oness.
> 
> Lisa
> 
----------------
Which solves the problem but yields a slippery slope. A pure determinist
would go so far as to say that no one who commits a crime should be
considered blameworthy as they were in essence an onnes.  Society may need
to protect themselves but the offender is not to be blamed for his actions.
Somewhere in between are those who would say that some schizophrenics and
other forms of mental illness,	  homosexuals etc. are all oness to the
extent that they cannot control their biological Destinies.  Who draws the
line and where was the question that I was trying to get at   (other than
hkbh in the ultimate sense)
Kol tuv 
Joel
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.


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



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


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


***************************************

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.)