Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 161

Thursday, February 11 1999

• Re: Hair Covering with a Wig
• Re: Hair Covering with a Wig
• R. Moshe's teshvah on wigs -- Correction
• Re: Prenupt
• keruvim of Shlomo
• Re: Avodah V2 #160
• R. Lichtenstein and "synthesis"
• Re: synthesis
• Re: Hair Covering with a Wig
• Tur
• Re: Hair Covering with a Wig
• Saying Amido with Shatz & Kedusha
• Tips
• The second pair of kruvim
• Re: RCA Beis Din
• Re: missing data
• Compilation of discussions
• Re: Halachic Man
• Agunah
• Re: Agunah

On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> We should start with the obvious: the majority of posekim -- certainly
> in the Ashkenazic world -- permit wigs.
>

(much deleted)
 
> I think it indisputable that a heter exists for wigs.  But we live in an
> age where many people are encouraged to be yotze kol ha-de'ot.  This
> approach has swept the laws of Shabbat and kashrut.  I find it telling
> that it has made few inroads against the sheitel.  More, one finds in
> yeshivish circles that many women keep their hair covered at all times,
> even in the privacy of their own homes.  This humra has little halakhic
> basis (except according to Bah; see also Hatam Sofer), and is generally
> attributed to an aggadah about Kimhit (Yoma 47a).  [Footnote: My rebbe,
> R. Lichtenstein, holds that women have no obligation to cover their hair
> in the home.] In short, I find it striking that one hair covering humra
> has become an absolute norm, while another hair covering humra (which I
> think has a stronger halakhic basis) is virtually ignored.
>

Almost everything R' Eli wrote was with his usual erudition and acumen,
yeyasher kocho.

Re the last point, left intact above:

I believe this is a classic example of where the Avos d'R' Nosson about
Chava's "chumra" (seyag) leading l'yedei kulla would be applicable:

The halacha of covering hair is a great nisayon to our generation. Until
the 19th century married women of all religions covered their hair - but
those in Christian countries for the most part then stopped. It is awkward
for a Jewish woman to cover her hair in a society that does not adhere to
this practice. Were the "chumra" standard applied - I believe the nisayon
would be very great - and. perhaps even a significant obstacle for Ba'alos
Teshuva. It certainly would be a great obstacle to Kiruv!

Thus, this is an area in which "chumra" is strongly counter-indicated.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

Clark, Eli wrote:

> (I remain perplexed about the apparent setirah in R. Moshe.  Where is R.
> Eidensohn when we need him?)

I haven't had time to study the issue properly. Just want to toss out a few
contextual issues. 1) The term ervah is used in various ways. The Mishna
Berura 75 (1-2) notes that there is ervah mamosh and then there is  ervah.
There are further subdivisions for hair, voice, body parts normally covered
etc. Of importance is 75(2) where he states "face and hands which are
normally uncovered in those societies, the leg until the shok (i.e., the
knee) if it is normally not covered is permitted because it doesn't cause
arousal but in societies where they are covered - a tefach is prohibited
[apparently less than a tefach is permitted] but arms and thighs even if
they are normally uncovered by the immodest - are prohibited.

Therefore the calf according to the Mishna Berura is totally dependent upon
local practice. Rav Wosner [Shevet Levi #1] has some strong comments on
this. Rav Moshe [E.H. IV #100.6 page 176] defends the Mishna Berura and
states that calf - uncovered is dependent on local practice. The point of
interest is that Rav Wosner asserts that the Mishna Berura misread his
sources. This criticism makes sense only if you view the Mishna Berura as a
simple compilation. Rav Moshe seems to assume that the Mishna Berura is
generalizing from his sources rather than just reporting what they said. Rav
Moshe makes the interesting assertion that transparent stockings are
actually a full covering and that it is simply an illusion that you think
you are seeing the actual skin..

Regarding a  man Mishna Berura 2(1) states that a peson needs to conduct
himself with modesty and shame before G-d even when he is is his private
chambers... and similarly he needs to be always careful - unless absolutely
needed - not to reveal his arm until the elbow [no short sleeve shirts ] and
his shirt should not be opened at the neck to reveal his chest - feet should
not be uncovered either.

As regards the Sheitel - I have been told by various sources that it was
always regarded as a major leniency - but one which was necessary to
preserve compliance of women with the concept of hair covering. I remember
one Rosh Yeshiva getting very upset when some of the Rebbetzin's students
started covering their sheitel with a tichel. He said simply that they had
no right implying that the sheitel - as worn by his wife - was not a valid
covering. [This is a major issue of when full compliance with the halacha is
viewed as a destabilizing factor]. I think Rav Moshe's responsa are to be
viewed in this line of preserving stability of a minimal standard rather
than encouraging a standard which the majority will not or can not subscribe
to - and thus undermine the whole concept..

Rav Moshe has a tshuva (O.H I.V. #112.4 page 204) concerning whether the
hair has to be totally covered. He notes the Chasam Sofer - but says that it
is chumrah. Assertions have been made in recent years that Rav Moshe
retracted his psak. A friend of mine asked Rav Dovid about this several
years ago. Rav Dovid smiled and replied "Isn't it interesting that on such a
major issue my father 'retracted' his opinion and didn't tell any of us
about it"

There has been a campaign of some - especially Bnai Brak  to make sheitel
more modest - short, no pony tail, not blond etc. Furthermore It is possible
to see posters in Jerusalem saying some very nasty things about women
wearing sheitel - and asserting that it would be better if they didn't cover
their hair at all!  BTW a similar campaign exists to denounce shaving -
which probably has a similar halachic dynamic. I was told that Rav Moshe
once uncharacteristically ejected someone from MTJ who came to him for a
haskoma on his sefer. It was a massive compilations of opinions of the many
gedolim who denounced shaving  Rav Moshe said simply you can't cast
aspersions on the previous generations who shaved.


                                      Daniel Eidensohn

A small correction to my previous post.  R. Moshe's teshuvah about wigs
was written in 1962.  He rejects the argument that there is a marit ayin
problem with sheitlach.  He compares the issue to the question of
shaving; since people know that you can shave with misparayim and the
quality of the shave is different from shaving with a ta'ar, there is no
marit ayin problem.

Interestingly, R. Moshe does address the fact that most women don't
cover their hair today, but he still insists there is no marit ayin.  He
writes that people who know the woman in question will know she is the
kind of person who wears a sheitel.  And those who don't know her will
think she walks around be-giluy rosh like most women -- which is not a
reason to create an issur where none exists.  (Hmmm...)

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

In message , Isaiah Beilin <ibeilin@draper.com> writes
>   Asmachta is defined as any "conditional" agreement in money matters.
>   If something happens I owe you-if not I don't owe you.
>   We assume that he is not gomer daas on the kinyon and does not
>   mean it. No one really expects to get divorced.

Remind me why the ketuba itself is not an asmachta? 

I don't believe that either I or my chosson really expect that I will
collect on the matayim zuz (and if you think about all the weddings
performed where neither the chosson nor the kala has a clue what is in
the ketuba, despite the fact that it is read out loud, for sure they
never expect, as they don't even know what is in it in the first place).


>There are 2 solutions 
>   (a) saying meachsav and (b) doing it in front of a bet din choshuv. 
>   The later means that a bes din of a certain quality execute the prenupt.


Not true for a ketuba either.

And how about the tosefes, especially where it does not maintain its
value?  For example, my father promised my mother, in addition to the
standard, a house "up to a value of 10,000 South African Rand"!  Now,
once upon a time, that may have been worth something, but 10,000 South
African Rand, these days, is what, about 1,500 US dollars, or so.  My
mother would hardly be able to put a roof over her head these days if
she collected on that.

And yet I notice that the Rabbanut approved ketubos all have a blank to
add in extra.

Does it make a difference if, over the course of a normal life together,
one would expect that the value of what is promised will be eroded by
inflation to the point of it being virtually worthless (as in the case
of my mother's 10,000 rand house)?

>   Shaya Beilin

Regards

Chana

PS The version of ketuba (Sephardi - but there are a variety of
nusachim, depending on where precisely in the middle east you came from)
we are looking at has a section which says that Robert can take another
wife, but *only with my consent*.

Anybody know about the effectiveness of such a clause?  Is it in fact
stronger than the Ashkenazi ketuba plus Rabbanu Gershom?  (I mean, heter
mea rabbonim is a din in takanas Rabbanu Gershom - ie the takana can be
overridden in certain cases (the classic case being if the woman r'l
becomes mentally incapacitated and can no longer give her consent).
WHat happens in the case of this ketuba if the woman becomes mentally
incapacitated and hence unable to give consent?  Is there an equivalent
to the heter mea rabbonim to get around the clause?


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

<< Rashi (shmos, perek 20 pasuk 20) quotes a Mechilta which says that it is
 Assur to add to the two cherubim that HAshem commanded Moshe/Betzalel to
 make. If so how did Shlomo make two additional cherubim in the Beis
 Hamikdash >>

See Malbim - the heter for Shlomo was because it was done al pi navi.  No
problem of overriding the pasuk becasue the issur is adding to the # of
keruvim *which you have been commanded to make* - if the navi tells us the
Mikdah requires more keruvin, that is a giluy milsa that the original heter
allowed for it, not a new din.

Your suggestion that this was a specific din in the construction of the
mishkan is not impossible - see for example Ramban in Sefer HaMitzvot Lav #3
forgotten by the Rambam - not to change the order of setting up the kelim.  R'
Soloveitchik (see chid. HaGR"M VhaGRI"D) explained the Rambam understood it
was a specific din in the construction of Mishkan; in Mikdash there is just a
kiyum of the kelim being in their proper place, but no dinim that relate to
how they get there.  However, the context of the Mechilta poses a difficulty:
it sounds like a general din in Hil. A"Z, not a din in building the mishkan
(which we don't get to for another two parshiot), no?
    
-Chaim  

I am requesting that we consider opeing a thread as to the current
situation with Agunot.
On the one hand, despite the various Pre-Nuptial Agreements (e.g., R.
Willig and R. N. Goldberg), there are some hesitations as to their
validity or "correctness to use".  In one case, I know that a prominent
Rosh Yeshiva told a Chasan NOT to use the agreement.  As I was not present
at the time and am unable to quiz this Rosh Yeshiva, I am not revelaing
who this was.  It seems to me that the failure to encourage the use of
this
agreement (or a suitable substitute) even as we are in an environment that
does NOT lend itself to suitable pressure upon a recalcitrant husband
*appears* to indicate a lack of serious concern for the women who can end
up "caught" in an impossible situation.

Similarly, the allegation that a prominent Rav has been willing to use the
"Heter 100 Rabbonim" *without* setting up a "Trusteed Get" indicates a
similar lack of sympathy or concern for the woman.

As we know, if a woman refuses to accept a Get, *at worse* the man will
end up a [halachic] Bigamist.  However, there will be no problem or stigma
on his children and if the fact of the Bigamy is concealed, there will
probably be no "fallout".  In addition, in some cases, we can do "Get al
y'dei Zikui" (where it is actually a *zechus* for the woman to receive a
Get).

When a man refuses to deliver a Get, however, the consequences are
catastrophic for the woman.  In addition, I would like to point out that
those who support the man in such a case because the woman is "getting
more than she is allowed" because of Secular Laws of support and alimony
are -- in effect (despite whatever pious remarks that they may make) --
condemning a woman who seeks a divorce to a life of utter poverty and
misery.  After hearing the story of Agunot (or divorced women) forced to
accept welfare form Tomchei Shabbos and other organizations because of
their abject poverty, I can only conclude that anyone who claims that
women are not "entitled" to such support are (a) living in a fantasy world
or (b) have a subconscious hatred of any woman who seeks a divorce or (c)
think that a woman who seeks a divorce should be punished for such
"arrogance".

In this light, I would raise the following questions:
A. What realistic options are available that can be mobilized to alleviate
the problems described?
B. How can Poskim be better "sensitized" so that we will see more forceful
pronouncements that BOTH sides must behave properly?
C. Since there are some "bad" Batei Dinim, how can the aggreived party be
protected?  Is protection possible?
D. How can we develop an *effective* pre-nupt that ALL will accept which
will also be valid under secular Law?
E. How can we most effectively presuade the legislature(s) to change laws
meant to protect the woman -- but which actually engender halachic
problems (e.g., the "later" NY Get Law)?

I really do nto have any answers for the above but feel that the
discussion may be useful.
--Zvi 

On R. Lichtenstein's dissatisfaction with the term "synthesis," with its
Hegelian associations (i.e. the synthesis is higher than its components),
see R. JJ Schacter in Torah uMadda Journal 1, in one of the footnotes.

The title of R. Lichtenstein's article "A Consideration of Synthesis from
a Torah Viewpoint" was not his. When I reprinted the article in "Torah
uMadda Reader" I informed him that, in view of his reservations about the
title, I would like to change the word "synthesis" to "general studies."

In v2n157, Chaim Brown <C1A1Brown@aol.com> quotes me and asks:
: >>>I'm not sure the Rav, though, who was precise in terminology
: (and who probably couldn't hear the word synthesis without connotations of
: Kant vs Hegel) would ever have been comfortable standing behind the
: expression.<<<

: (1) Can you please elaborate on why Kant brings to mind the notion of
: synthesis?

Kant, IIRC, believed that the basic existential dialectics have no resolution,
man lives in an unresolvable tension.

:             (2) Why do you assume the Rav was a Hegelian - I cannot recall
: offhand any explicit references to Hegel.

No! L'hefech! Since the Rav was /not/ a Hegelian, but agreed with Kant that
no synthesis exists in this case, that I can't picture he'd call Torah uMadah
a "synthesis".

:                                            (3) The word synthesis has meaning
: even to those who have never read Hegel.  Is there any evidence you have that
: the Rav was uncomfortable using the word because of its specific meaning
: within Hegelian jargon?

No, I don't. However, even in non-jargon -- the Rav doesn't think the human
condition is resolvable.

Also, I don't think the Rav didn't speak on the subject. He just did so in
his own terminology. As I see it, it's a major element of the Rav's discussion
of the religious value of Adam I, and of his contrast between homo religiosus
and homo halachicus (aka Halachic Man).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6086 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 10-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

> On Wed, 10 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
  More, one finds in
> > yeshivish circles that many women keep their hair covered at all times,
> > even in the privacy of their own homes.  This humra has little halakhic
> > basis (except according to Bah; see also Hatam Sofer), and is generally
> > attributed to an aggadah about Kimhit (Yoma 47a).  [Footnote: My rebbe,
> > R. Lichtenstein, holds that women have no obligation to cover their hair
> > in the home.] In short, I find it striking that one hair covering humra
> > has become an absolute norm, while another hair covering humra (which I
> > think has a stronger halakhic basis) is virtually ignored.
I would like to disagree that this chumra has no Halachic basis. Although
it is true that ikur hadin says a women can have her hair uncovered in the
house , there are plenty of reasons to be machmir. 1. If hair is ervah
it's not proper to have ervah showing even in one's own private room (see
begining of Shulchan Aruch) 2. It is forbidden for a man to say berachos,
or Daven in front of such a women (unless you rely on the kulla of the
Aruch Hashulchan) so awomen who doesn't cover her hair in the home is a
stumbling block for her husband and sons as they can't learn or say
berachos while facing her. 3. It is likely that someone may come to the
door and it is possible the women will forget to put a head covering on.
4. One may not Daven if they aren't dressed like they would be if they
were to go outside (ie you can't daven in a bath robe) many opions say
that this would apply to women who don't have there hair covered as well
as they clearly aren't dressed to go outside. So a women who doesn't cover
her hair at home would have to remember to put on a head covering before
davening. 5. The Gemara of kimchis does indicate there is a benefit to
covering the hair in the house. 6. The Zohar is very strong in its
language about how a women should cover her hair even in the house. I
therefroe believe that it's misleading to say there is no basis for the
chumra. Furthermore, I think is misleading to quote ARv Lichtenstein and
say there is No obligation---without at least saying in the same sentance
that the men of the house shouldn't look at the women while learning and
that she should remember to cover her head if anyone come to the door. 
Elie Ginsparg

I hereby publicly apologize to the Tur.
Rich Wolpoe

In a message dated 2/10/99 6:29:51 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< Furthermore, I think is misleading to quote ARv Lichtenstein and
 say there is No obligation---without at least saying in the same sentance
 that the men of the house shouldn't look at the women while learning and
 that she should remember to cover her head if anyone come to the door. 
 Elie Ginsparg >>

It is my understanding that if one holds that hair is not ervah, even if an
outsider is in the house, the womans hair need not be covered.

Jordan Hirsch

>> Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:48:49 -0500
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject: Re: t'filla b'tzibbur and chazoras ha'SHaTZ

WRT to those who say silently with a chazzan - such as late comers, etc.
- we recently discussed in shul whether (Nusach Ashkenaz) the private
davenrers should say ledor vodor or v'ato kadosh.  I don't think it's
me'akeiv either way, but I am not clear which way to go.  I am noteh to
say v'ato kadosh even though the shatz is saying ledor vodor.  Comments
welcome.
<<

The MB in 109:11 says to say ldor vodor.  In the Tefilah Khilchosah (TK)
he also says to say ledor vodor (chap 13 item 11); however in note 24 TK
quotes the Shut Or Dovid that says, saying ledor vodor will be a change
in the nusach.  There is also a citation to the Tzitza Eliezer (vol II
49) but it is not clear what he holds, from the footnote. 

>>There is a minhag when one has come late to daven one's private Amido along with the Shatz.  Question: What is the origin of this minhog?  IOW which poseik FIRTS suggested it?

Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
<<

See Rambam Hilchos Tefilah Chap 10 hal. 15 and Hagaos Maimoni 300 who
cites Rabbeinu Yoel who quotes it from Rav Hai Gaon

Does anyone know if there is a comparison to be made between "hanek
tanik lo" and the practice of tipping today?  

Kol Tov
Ezriel

>>Rashi (shmos, perek 20 pasuk 20) quotes a Mechilta which says that it is
Assur to add to the two cherubim that HAshem commanded Moshe/Betzalel to
make. If so how did Shlomo make two additional cherubim in the Beis
Hamikdash. Even if this was done al pi Nevuah,  can it overide an issur
in the Torah?? Does anyone know how to explain the MEchilta to avoid
this
problem. The only answer I've been able to come up with is that the
Issur
only applied to the Mishkan and not The BEis Hamikdash, but I have no
proof for that. In fact the end of this Rashi seems to refute this
answer. 
Elie Ginsparg
<<

see the Malbim there who says it was al pi nevuah.  I saw another quote
to the same effect that Shlomo got it from Dovid Hamelech ( I believe
the quote source is Shut Rdb"z shnei alaphim 289).

Kol Tov 
Ezriel

<<
Maybe R. Beilin
(with all due respect) should spend some time talking to FRUM women
involved in organizations aiding agunot and/or talking to members of the
Beth Din of America (RCA/OU) that work hard to secure gittin for these
women so that he could see the real horror of a "heter me'ah rabbanan --
where the wife has no access to her get".
>>

As a member of the aforementioned Beis Din, I will gladly discuss the plight
of agunos with anyone who wishes to.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

I just want to point out that in v1n1 (i.e. the pre-BaisTefila catch-all
"digest" in the web archive) we discussed the Malbim's position that the
Torah, plus a fixed set of rules of s'varah and d'rashah, can generate
the entire Torah. One point I played with was whether this meant that
the Torah was a formal system subject to Goedelian contraints -- ie that
it must be inconsistant or incomplete.

Now, the possibility that the Torah is inconsistant is no problem to us
halachic pluralists, since divrei Elokim is /supposed/ to include conflicting
piskei halachah... <grin>

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6087 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Dear List Participants:

Some discussions on this list have, to my pleasant surprise, been of the
sort where some thought should be given to the creation of an
easily-accessible compilation of the material. For instance, the kissui rosh
discussion has some very useful sources and good Torah discussions once we
get past--as a recent writer put it--trying to win an argument. (I wish
fewer of you erudite writers were not so hellbent on scoring points; that's
what it looks like from where I sit.) Anyway, you (pl.) have good thoughts
and useful mar-ay mekomos. Will I have to cut and paste your missives and
make my own article or are some of you going to put this stuff in some more
permanent form? Kindly advise.

Noach Witty

Mark E Gottlieb <megottli@midway.uchicago.edu> wrote:
: Notice that "HM does not struggle with his evil impulses," implying, one
: could easily argue, that he has a yetzer hara, but that he has either
: vanquished it so thoroughly that it no longer presents a viable threat to
: his spirituality, or that his natural intellectual temperment ... is so
: aligned and congruous with the normative truths of the cosmos, that
: there is no gulf between HM's duties and his desires.

How would you understand this quote in light of Succah 52a:
  In a time yet to come, Hashem will bring the yeitzer hara and slaughter
  it before all of humanity. To the righteous, it will look like a tall
  mountain. To the evil, it will look like a strand of hair.
  Both will cry.
  The righteous will cry and say, "How were we able to overcome so tall a
  mountain?"
  The evil will cry and say, "How were we not able to overcome this strand
  of hair?"

A tzadik's yeitzer hara is greater, not lesser than that of the rest of us.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6087 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 11-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

Please post
_____________________________________________________________________-
  Folks,

   At this point I am not receiving any of the avodah mail. Someone
who felt I would be interested sent me Ztvi Weiss and R. Teitz's
postings. Let me make a few remarks. The problem of agunah has 
been on the books for 100 years.I have studied the debates of Rabbi
Louis Epstein and Rav Henkin about a certain suggestion. Rav Henkin
suggested tennai benesuin but retracted when he found out that it was
rejected about 100 years ago. Rav Berkowitz suggested a variation of
tenaai and even his good suggestion was rebutted by Rav Kasher 
brought in "Noam". I do not believe that this issue should be discussed
by the avodah mailing list. This is not a women's lib movement or 
whatever. This problem has to be worked out by Rabonim. The prenupt
is an excellent idea, but R. Bleich and R. Breitowitz have pointed out 
their shortcomings. R. Bleich wrote in Hebrew and you can all study it.

   I do not believe that this group can do anything. What halachic board 
do you have. Go down learn and join the RCA etc. and 
make an accepted proposal. Any other approach will lead to a waste of all
our time.

  I am only writing this to tell you again, that I have not voiced an opinion.
All I have done is state that the Rov attacked has solid halachic reasons.
I have privately explained to 3 people the rationale and the case that he 
is doing it. (so I was told) That case is a moredes who went to court
and received unkosher
money. A moredes of this type "al pi halacha" is made penniless and thrown
out with a divorce. Now, she bypasses phase 1 of becoming penniless 
and expects the get. This is a case not mentioned in halacha. That Rov
is paskening what he feels is daas torah. If the RCA disagrees tell him not
me. If he is wrong al pi halacha discuss it with him. But, but don't talk
behind his
back and judge him when you most you do not know 2 halochot in gittin
and kesuvot. This is only creating a riot.

   Again, I am not defending him. It is none of the groups business. If R.
Teitz wants to have a private dialogue let him write me. We have before.
But, keep me out of your politics. I, also, suggest that if any of you have a
problem call the Rov up and make an appointment. I am not involved. It is
too big for little me. I will leave it to you experts. But, I am surprised
that
R. Teitz is asking for "your" support. Also, why mention me. All I said is

(a) He is a halachist who knows what he is saying
(b) Mind your own business

I  removed myself from the mailing list because for me it is a waste of time. 

Rabbi Beilin

On Thu, 11 Feb 1999, Isaiah Beilin wrote:

>   I am only writing this to tell you again, that I have not voiced an
> opinion.  All I have done is state that the Rov attacked has solid
> halachic reasons.  I have privately explained to 3 people the rationale
> and the case that he is doing it. (so I was told) That case is a moredes
> who went to court and received unkosher money. A moredes of this type
> "al pi halacha" is made penniless and thrown out with a divorce. Now,
> she bypasses phase 1 of becoming penniless and expects the get. This is
> a case not mentioned in halacha. That Rov is paskening what he feels is
> daas torah. If the RCA disagrees tell him not me. If he is wrong al pi

Please define Moredes.

What about a woman who is abused by her husband and goes for a court order
of protection.

Is she a Moredes?

> (a) He is a halachist who knows what he is saying
> (b) Mind your own business
>

(a) We also think we know what we are saying.

(b) Klal Yisroel's business is *my*/*our*/*your* business.
 
> I  removed myself from the mailing list because for me it is a waste of time. 
> 
> Rabbi Beilin
> 

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]