Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 291

Friday, January 14 2000

• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Avodah V4 #289
• Re:
• Re: Mixed seating at weddings
• Re: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• Re:
• vending machines on shabbos
• addendum to issur
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Conservatives
• Re: Conservatives
• Tefillin Rashi vs Rabbeinu Tam
• Arutz-7 Editor : Arutz-7 News: Thursday, January 13, 2000
• RE: The Internet issur
• Separation of Religion and State in Israel
• Jail for Agunah Husbands
• Re: Separation of Religion and State in Israel
• RE: The Internet issur
• Mazel Tov
• Re: Avodah for Women
• Re: Avodah V4 #288
• Re: Tefillin Rashi vs Rabbeinu Tam

In message , Clark, Eli <clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM> writes
>Assuming I understand your suggestion, I find it theoretically possible
>but fairly dubious when applied to reality.  First, in the current
>generation, there are very few, if any, halakhists who have started in
>the Orthodox camp, then joined the Conservatives. 

I assumed that Janet was thinking of the current head of JTS in Israel.
I don't think she is the only one (if you are thinking of male
halachists, then you are probably right).  

> Second, the vast
>majority of defections that I am aware of -- from previous generations
>- -- were primarily motivated by mundane issues of employment or
>fundamental theological issues, especially Torah mi-Sinai, rather than
>specific practical halakhic rulings.  

This is her stated reason, do you think that it is not the real reason?

>
>Kol tuv,
>
>Eli Clark
>

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

Regarding the annulment accepted by the Bet Din of the Rabbanut
in Israel communicated in Avodah
 the Jerusalem Post may have confused a case which
actually involved a legitimate Heter Nisuin issued by the Bet Din of
America (based on a psak issued by Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz) and
attributed it in error to the Rackman Bet Din.

In a message dated 1/13/00 8:32:18 AM US Central Standard Time, 
gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:

<< Would one of them please inform me where exactly a semiHaredi person
 stands?
  >>

He doesn't. He sits in the cab while his helper loads the trailer.

David Finch

In a message dated 1/13/00 2:37:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< R. Yitzchok Zirkind cites Bet Shemuel, Even ha-Ezer 62:11 in support of
 the notion that men and women should not sit together at weddings.
 Having researched this issue thoroughly (and published an article on the
 subject in the Journal of Halacha and Contemporary Society), I would
 like to add the following.
  >>

Eli,
Which issue of the Journal?

Jordan 

> I've noted the same wrt weddings in frum communities - the greater the
> frequency of attendance, the more talking during the chuppah

Seems to be the case-  depends how far back you are!   On the other hand the
black ticheled ladies at any of the Meah Shearim chasenes we've attended are
absolutely silent- & they have attended a lot.  Moving over to quite a
different derech- I've attended a couple of R.Shlomo Carlebach chasenes over
the years.  Right before the Chupa RSC got everyone's attention and said,
"if you really think you are spiritual people, you will not talk during the
chuppah". He was perfectly serious and that was a quiet chuppah!  Mrs GA

--- Daniel Levine <daniel2121_99@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > My son once commented to me that the reason so
> many
> > Yeshiva Bachurim in Israel smoke Cigarettes is
> that
> > all other forms of pleasure have been taken away
> > from
> > them and that is the only vice they have left. 
> (!)
> > 
> > If this theory is correct, one would expect to see
> > an
> > equal amount of smoking among charedi women.  
> > 
> > Yet, it is my understanding that smoking among
> > orthodox women, for whatever reason, is almost
> > nonexistent (unless I have my facts wrong).  
> 
> >That's probably because amongst Charedim, cultural
> >taboos on women smoking are so strong that it's a
> >non-starter for them.
> 
> >HM
> 
> Does this taboo apply in American charedi and/or MO
> circles as well?

It probably applies less in the US only because there
is sort of a general societal taboo here. Hardly
anyone really smokes anymore.  Those who still do are
relegated to smoking "outside the building"
effectively making them feel somewhat ostracized. So,
for American Orthodoxy, it isn't much of an issue even
for men.  (My daughters would have never dated anyone
who smokes.)

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

Aryeh E. Stein wrote:

> 1) to be makneh the item to the person before shabbos; and

how can you be makne an item to an unspecified person who may not even
materialise if there are no punters? Will it depend on the sugye of
breyre?:-)

> not to be koneh the money that is deposited in the machine until
> after Shabbos

With on-line ordering if the customer pays by credit cards it may not be
processed on shabbos. Even if it is processed on the same day it is
still complicated with regard to kinyonim. When is the kinyen when you
swipe the card, when the money is credited to your account, when it
appears on the customer's statement? If the customer calls a number to
give his or her card details this will happen after shabbos.

But Carl's question of schar shabbos (and shvisas keylim?) still remains
outstanding however you arrange the transaction. With the kinyen trick
it would seem that you could trade on Shabbos so long that money or
other muktse items don't change hands.



Dovid Herskovic

In my shtibel there's a notice quoting no less a figure than R' Avigdor
Miller that parents who 'have' Internet should be locked up in prison.
Does that mean that da'as Torah is opposed to the electric chair? At
least I can agree with them on something.

Another signatory the rosh yeshive of some kabalistic place wrote that
even Dovid Hamelekh after saying 'libi kholal b'kirbi' sinned when put
to the test so 'anan ma ne'ene abasrey?'

The third signatory whose name escapes me assures us that had bolok had
the internet at his disposal he would have offered the bney yisroeyl
free log on. Ok I'm putting words into his mouth but at least this third
one came up with something approaching originality. Just imagine
buki_ben_yogli@midbor.com.

BTW can anyone explain why some of the signatories who are there for no
other reason that their great great grandfather may have been a
colourful, charismatic dyslexic need be taken notice of, let alone
heeded?

Dovid Herskovic

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:22:00PM -0500, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Note too that R. Eliezer Berkovits, whose practical
> approach to various issues was viewed by many as far too liberal -- and
> in practice no different from Conservatives -- never defected.

He was one of the ones I was thinking about;  I was told that he joined 
Masorti in the last years of his life.  (The person who told me was
very disappointed in R Berkovits's move, and so I definitely trust he
verified the issue.  I would love to hear otherwise, though.)

Also R Zalman Schachter-Shlomi (sp?) --- he had strange ideas well 
after he left, but I think he originally split after making some
too-flexible allowances involving mechitza for kiruv, no?

On the younger side, I can count two young O rabbis and maybe half 
a dozen JTS students/rabbis who only differed on issues like women and 
were marginalized or didn't want to risk marginalization, which 
unfortunately seems like a rational fear.

> I wonder if we are looking at the same evidence.  From the 1960's on,
> there has been a general trend toward egalitarianism, 

I think we're reading it differently.
"Egalitarianism" to me means an axiomatic belief that women and men are
the same and should a priori be treated the same in the eyes of halacha.
The reason why I brought the examples of tefillin, tallis, kipah is because 
I think that shows that they're not concerned with sameness in the eyes
of halacha.  If they were looking for public symbolic equality, these
would be very easy actions to take, and yet few have done these.

One might raise objections to their arguments, but I do think it would be
unfair to question their motivations.  I don't think that they're looking 
for sameness, and I definitely think most of them are intellectually 
sincere and not just looking for sweeping symbolic acts or looking to
prove their preconceptions.

Janet

I'm not familiar with the details of these responsa, but I did have 
a question which is perhaps basic.

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 02:22:00PM -0500, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Joel Roth's famous teshuvah is premised on the
> dubious notion that a woman who takes a neder to keep mitzvot aseh
> she-ha-zeman geramah has the same level of obligation as a man.  

What is the level of obligation of a neder?

Janet

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:35:09PM -0500, j e rosenbaum wrote:
:> Joel Roth's famous teshuvah is premised on the
:> dubious notion that a woman who takes a neder to keep mitzvot aseh
:> she-ha-zeman geramah has the same level of obligation as a man.  

: What is the level of obligation of a neder?

I don't think it's relevent. First, because Avodah is a list for discussing
frumkeit. Second, because it's not a question of magnitude, but of kind.

Even if a woman would take a neder, she still isn't a metzuvah vi'osah. Or,
to put it another way, "bar shiyuvah" speaks of sharing the same chiyuv,
not two different chiyuvim that have the same pe'ulah.

If you've been following my discussion with MGA, you'll understand why I
think the distinction is critical from a machshavah point of view as well.

Third, minyan isn't only about one person being motzi another, it's also
about the definition of "eidah" in "vinikdashti bisoch Adas Yisrael".

On a tangent, when RYBS wrote about joining the SCA he discussed the difference
between the Jewish community of fate, "Am Yisrael" and the community of
mission "Adas Yisrael". (I can dig up my scj notes on this if you'd like.)
He excluded R&C from the eidah as they no longer give *eidus* to ma'amud Har
Sinai (where we got the Luchos ha'Eidus). So joining in a religious venture
is assur. However, RYBS permitted joining a communal venture like the SCA
because for as to break away would be a violation of that other element
of kedushas Yisrael, that of Am. The Rav speaks very specifically of his
terminology: We are first called an "am" at Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, but the
first time we are called an "eidah" is at ma'amud Har Sinai.

Note here that the pasuk about minyan speaks of Adas Yisrael. It would
support Chazal's conclusion that a kofer may not be counted toward a minyan.
But would this mean that the Rav didn't count C&R Jews, despite their possibly
being tinokos shenishbi'u, because he doesn't count them toward Adas Yisrael?

Getting back to C, I've noted ad nauseum on scj the similarities and
differences between RYBS's "Adas Yisrael" and Shechter's "Catholic Israel".
(If you don't know what that is, ask me in private email. As I said at the
top of the post, discussions of C that don't touch O issues are off topic
for this list.)


-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Jan-00: Chamishi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 98b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I just wanted to start a new thread on the inyan of the machlokes
Rashi/Rabbeinu Tam regarding the seder haparshiyos of tefillin.
Specifically, I am looking for sources as to different opinions about what
the mesorah was, and how there came to be a doubt about the mesorah, and etc.
Just to start the thread, the Michtav Meliyahu (somewhere in vol. 4 - I
don't have it with me) seems to learn that the mesorah was like Rashi, but
Rabbeinu Tam was so convinced that he was correct that he was willing to
pasken against the mesorah.
The Arukh Hashulkhan, however in siman 34 seif 7 learns pshat in the Migdal
Oz that really the minhag was like Rabbeinu Tam, but then because of a
"medrash Neelam" (which the arukh hashulchan identifies as the zohar) they
were forced to change to the minhag of Rashi.
I am looking for more souirces on this subject, if anyone has any please
contribute to this conversation
Shaul weinreb

6. A YEAR IN JAIL FOR AGUNAH-HUSBANDS
The Knesset voted last night in favor of a preliminary reading of an
Agunah
(literally, a "chained woman") law.  The bill, proposed by Meretz MK Anat
Maor, states that a man who leaves his wife and refuses to grant her a
proper Jewish divorce - thus preventing her from re-marrying - will be
sentenced to a year in prison. 

 Can anyone make sense of this why would Meretz propose a bill helping
the religous public.Does anyone know a catch.

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

> representing the three major Lithuanian yeshivos: Chevron,
> Mir, Ponvitch
> (although perhaps R' Steiman serves for that purpose).

He does. He's not called "The Rosh Yeshiva" for no reason -- he's taken over
R' Shach's position in the Yeshiva world.

Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 17:58:07 EST
> From: DFinchPC@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Politics. Money. Power. Control. (was: Conservative/Reform/Orthodox/Whate...
> 
> In a message dated 1/13/00 1:35:45 PM US Central Standard Time, 
> kennethgmiller@juno.com writes:
> 
> << This patronage business bothers me whenever I see it in the headlines. It
>  seems that whenever any of the religious parties makes any kind of political
>  deal, part of the deal is that the party gets more money for their schools.
>  The part that bothers me is that they fight for their own schools, not
>  anyone else's.
>   >>
> 
> Yet another excellent argument for separation of church and state, even in 
> Israel -- especially in Israel. 

Let it be noted that RDF and Toldos Aharon now agree on 
something :-) 

In a bit more serious light, I think that the Charedi parties would 
have agreed with you too - until 1977 when they started taking 
money from the State. Philosophically, they may still agree with 
you. It's DL whose philosophy includes a connection between the 
Rabbanut (and religious activities in general) and the State.

But to tie this in with a discussion we had earlier this week, those 
who are opposed to the registry of yichus should keep in mind that 
a separation of religion from the State of Israel would likely make 
the registry a certainty, at least here.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 13 Jan 00, at 22:44, moti silberstein wrote:

> 
> 6. A YEAR IN JAIL FOR AGUNAH-HUSBANDS

[snip]

>  Can anyone make sense of this why would Meretz propose a bill helping
> the religous public.Does anyone know a catch.

There isn't one because it isn't Meretz's agenda - it's Anat Maor's.

There is a feminist lobby in the Knesset that cuts across party 
lines and only deals with women's issues. It includes Anat Maor, 
Limor Livnat (Likud), and two or three others whose names slip my 
mind at present.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 1/14/00 12:20:24 AM US Central Standard Time, 
sherer@actcom.co.il writes:

<< I think that the Charedi parties would 
 have agreed with you too - until 1977 when they started taking 
 money from the State. Philosophically, they may still agree with 
 you. It's DL whose philosophy includes a connection between the 
 Rabbanut (and religious activities in general) and the State.
  >>

Isn't that a big part of the problem? The Charedi parties, as representatives 
of the RW rabbinical leadership, cannot "philosophically" think one thing and 
then do the exact opposite -- unless they give up the moral imperative that 
is supposed to come from true frumdom. How can the rabbis condemn the filthy 
Internet in the one hand and provide political support to the various 
low-lifes who frequently have exercised serious influence in Likud and Shas 
on the other? Might one quietly murmer the word "hypocrisy"? 

The answer is political money and political power, which come to play only to 
the extent the state co-ops and corrupts the religious leadership. We're all 
human, even the Gedolim. Israeli politics proves it. Separate the two, and 
everyone will be better off.

David Finch

Throwing more fuel on the fire --

1) It appears that R' Eliyasiv (I was informed by a neighbor whose chavrusa
asked him yesterday) did not see and did not sign the letter with his
signature. I understand that a few other names (the more well known ones)
likewise didn't sign the letter as written.

2) the article posted from the US Yated (warning about the dangers, but not
asuring) is probably a more accurate reflection of the Gedolim's feelings.
(I want to ask the author later today)


Akiva


A reality check a day keeps
the delusions at bay (Gila Atwood)

===========================
Akiva Atwood, POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

I'm happy to inform the Chevra that my daughter Tova
got engaged  to Neal Kirschner of Chicago last night.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

----- Original Message -----

> Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:22:57 EST
> From: Tobrr111@aol.com
> Subject: Re: Avodah for Women

I apologize, but the author of this post _completely_
misunderstood the original request!!!

error no. 1:
> The original post asked for ways that women can come close
to Hashem, in
> other words perform Avodat Hashem like a man.

First, why is wanting to "come closer to Hashem" equal
"perform Avodat Hasehm like a man"?  Are only men allowed to
be "close to Hashem"?

I truly doubt this.

Judaism differentiates between men and women in many
spheres.   Each is supposed to compliment the other and
complete the other.  Therefore, women are _not_ seeking
Avodat Hashem like a man but rather Avodat Hashem as women.

error no. 2:

> However, the original post had
> errors with regards to what a women is chayiv, and for
some reason rejected
> the mitsvos that all agree are geared to her,

There is no rejection of the mitzvot "geared to women" but
rather a request that the community realize that Chalah, Ner
and Taharat HaMishpacha are _not_  daily activities
(K'fshutam, though if you go into the philosophy behind
them, things do look different -- and that is what I'm
looking for), and
that just as people understand that men wish to become close
to Hashem on a daily basis -- so do women, and on one hand
davening (also time-limited) is not enough and on the other
hand, we wish to experience Shiviti Hashem through all the
mundain housework we do daily and which no one really
respects.  We think (and I am not alone) that the most
simple action can be a way of becoming close to Hashem, and
as we are not able to sit in a Yeshivah and search and
learn -- we are requesting that the men set aside some time
to help us here.

and therefore felt the need to
> look towards such activities as sweeping the floor to
fulfill her avodat
> hashem.

Our disagreement here is simple:  why shouldn't a daily
activity, which takes up much of our  time act as a method
and/or catalysis in our spiritual advancement and connection
to Hashem.  If, as we are taught, Torah encompasses
everything -- then it should also encompass sweeping, and
such actions that women do daily shouldn't be left out in
the cold.  I doubt Hashem considers them minor or just a
"waste of important time".

In any case, thanks for the sources, but you misunderstood
the request.  My original post was, I suppose, a bit
sarcastic, but I'm sick of the disrespect of men to what
they consider "women's work".

As one rabbi said when asked the question (to paraphrase the
answer):  she has to take
time off from Avodat  Hashem (learning) b/c of the Tircha of
her house.
It should be that the housework is incorporated in Avodat
Hashem!!!


Shoshana L. Boublil.

> Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2000 12:34:02 -0500
> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Subject: From Arutz-7
>
>  A YEAR IN JAIL FOR AGUNAH-HUSBANDS
> The Knesset voted last night in favor of a preliminary
reading of an
> Agunah
> (literally, a "chained woman") law.  The bill, proposed by
Meretz MK Anat
> Maor, states that a man who leaves his wife and refuses to
grant her a
> proper Jewish divorce - thus preventing her from
re-marrying - will be
> sentenced to a year in prison.
>
> Gershon

This is r-e-a-l-l-y interesting...

The law has been on the books for over 5 years <g>.

The law states that a case where even just a
"recommendation" to divorce has been rendered gives the
Dayanim the permission to send a recaltrant (sp?) husband to
jail
until he gives a Get.

Practically, it is rarely used by the Dayanim, and only in
cases of Kfiyat Get -- unfortunately even in those cases the
law is rarely utilized.

BTW, there are additional penalities that can be imposed --
although they rarely are.

From my husband's experience in the field usually a few days
in jail is sufficient to make most husbands rethink the
issue (thought you need a lawyer on hand to catch him at
that first moment of regret when he says that he is willing
to give a Get).


Shoshana

On Thu, Jan 13, 2000 at 08:29:51PM -0600, Saul Weinreb wrote:
: I just wanted to start a new thread on the inyan of the machlokes
: Rashi/Rabbeinu Tam regarding the seder haparshiyos of tefillin.

Check the archives, although with all the new faces we're bound to have
new opinions as well.

: Specifically, I am looking for sources as to different opinions about what
: the mesorah was, and how there came to be a doubt about the mesorah, and etc.

Both orders (along with a third) were found in Qumron. I posited that
something like tephillin could not have a doubt in mesorah, since you
could always check an old pair. It's not a rarely implemented din. I
therefore believe that this machlokes, is one of the many that are as
old as Sinai -- they are a product of shiv'im panim, eilu va'eilu, and
all the other quotes raised in Avodah's first real debate which was about
halachic pluralism.

More recently this was challenged WRT tefillin because galus Bavel does
provide a period in which old tefillin could have been unavailable. To
add a ra'ayah to this opinion, if they were available, we wouldn't have
needed Ezra's Beis Din to restore the notion of sofios, or even possibly
k'sav Ashuris (depending on how you learn that inyan in Megillah, and which
Talmud, Bavli or Yerushalmi, you learn it from.)

Both of the sources you bring also seem to assume otherwise. Or, perhaps,
R' Dessler and the AH"Sh were talking about breaking what was then precedent.
IOW, both opinions are miSinai, but one had already become halachah pesukah
by the 11th cent. And then the question becomes how did the Rishon who held
against the pesak do so. This interpretation better fits the archeological
evidence, while still being loyal to the acharonim in question.

Sorry I can't help you find sources, not my forte.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 14-Jan-00: Shishi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 99a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]