Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 076

Monday, July 3 2000

• Cherem Derabeinu Gershom
• Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershon
• Limino -- keeping nature separate
• minhag
• custom
• cherem de-rabbenu gershon
• Re: Limino -- keeping nature separate
• Re: Limino -- keeping nature separate
• Re: custom

Prof. Avraham Grossman of Hebrew University, who is a leading expert on
Rabenu Gershom and his talmidim (I highly recommend his books) offers
the following theory.
Polygamy was very rare already in Talmudic times, so why did RGMH bother
to ban it?  The reason is that merchants were traveling great distances
to the Middle East and North Africa.  Indeed, Arabic words relating to
business were part of the vocabulary of German Jews.  On long trips,
some German merchants would marry in North Africa without telling the
Rabbis there that they had left a wife in Europe  (Grossman says the
Rambam faced this issue.  Also, the very long trips, which could reflect
or cause shalom bayit problems, were later limited and regulated by a
takana of Rabbeinu Tam.) Sometimes the first wife (in Europe) found out,
so he would divorce her against her will.  The prohibition against
reading other people's mail was promulgated because letters to merchants
often contained trade secrets.
This theory is fascinating even if it cannot be proven definitively.

Daniel

From: "Daniel B. Schwartz" <SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET> 
> Can any one provide some information on the reasons for the Cherem d'Rabbeinu 
> Gershon?

My understanding is that R. Gersom himself hadd 2 wives and as result of
the jealousy between them he issued thee cherem. I am fuzzy as to WHY he
took a 2nd wife, iirc it was because his first was childless.

In my Yeshvia days we were told that one wife was ALWAYS the ideal in the
torah, and that a 2nd wife as only taken due to extenuating circusmnatnces
such as being childless.

No doubt afaik that Ashkenazim were pressured by their Xtian neighbors to
adhere to monogamy.

AIUI the cherem exempts yibbum - and that yibbum is in disuse amongst
Ashkenazim.

There are indeed socio-economic considerations wrt to monogamy vs. polygamy.
I have no information that this influcenced R. Gershom's cherem one way or
the other.

Rich Wolpoe

On Mon, Jun 26, 2000 at 10:46:15AM -0500, acl100@juno.com posted a paraphrase
of RYBS which said, in part:
: The concepts and ideas represented by the prohibition against Klayim
: (grafting) are far greater than what the abstract Halacha presents. The
: abstract presents : Klaay Kerem, Klaay Begadim, Klaay Zeraim, Klaay Behayma.
: Everything in Maasey Breishis has its own unique morphological identity. Be
: it fruit, animal, plant kingdom. Klayim is a synthetic creation. ...
: [He] combines them into something synthetic. The resulting product exhibits
: characteristics of both contributors.

Hirsch discusses this topic in chapter 57 of Horeb. In it he lists these four
and basar vichalav. R' Aryeh Carmel's "Masterplan", which draws very heavily
from Horeb doesn't include basar vichalav.

Both RSRH (sec 408) and RAC cite the constant refrain of ma'aseh bereishis
"lemino" to stress the importance of seperating kinds. In addition, RSRH
notes that /k-l-a/ means "closed up", that one is mixing things that only
combine through an external compulsion. Both also note that there's a
connection between respecting Hashem's moral law and respecting His natural
law (Horeb sec 409,410). And, RSRH (409) discusses the impact of surroundings
on the self, and therefore need for separations within the self implies a
similar need in ones surroundings.

Note that RSRH considers kilayim to be "synthetic". I wonder, given the
source, whether this word was chosen not only to mean artificial, but also
a particular kind of artifice -- a Hegellian synthesis. He cseems to
say as much when he speak of the result exhibiting characteristics of
both.

If this really was his intent than an important statement being made is
that the separation of species derives from the need to preserve and
develop our internal, Kantian, unresolvable dialectics. As I hope to show
later, this is RSRH's approach as well, mapping issur to dialectic using
his principle of symbolism.

In general approach, then, RSRH and RYBS appear to be in agreement.



I wonder, if all these issurim are expressions of the same underlying principle,
why are some assur bihana'ah bidi'eved (basar vichalav, kila'ay kerem);
sha'atnez is only assur to wear, but not hana'ah in general; and the others
one may use the results of the mixture?



Now, on to a couple of particulars. I already mentioned that it's unclear
whether basar vichalav should be in this set. When discussing "lo sivasheil
g'di bachleiv imo" in his commentary on Chumash, RSRH addresses the need
to separate the power to create (chaleiv imo -- eim in particular) from
one's animal instincts (g'di -- as in the name Gad, it's essential force).
RAC considers basar vichalav as related to shiluach hakein in a chapter on
respect for motherhood and parenting. Unrelated to our topic.


Another mitzvah that I would have questioned being on this list had all three
not placed it there is kla'ei beheimah. I could understand this mitzvah to be
about rachmanus on the slower of the two species. If the two work unequally,
one animal may be suffering by the pull on the yoke of the other. RSRH would
also support the inclusion on his "limino" list because of the name "kilayim"



Interestingly, RSRH's explanation for basar vichalav parallels RAC on
sha'atnez. RAC sees plants as symbols of bare survival, whereas animals also
deal in perceptions, feelings and locomotion. Therefore mixing the two means
that one is acting only to serve one's survival. OTOH, for a d'var mitzvah --
such as bigdei kehunah and techeiles -- mixing the two implies that one is
surviving for the sake of kedushah. RAC then refers you to his section on
kiddushin vs arayos.

RAC's symbolism for sha'atnez would show he is choleik with RSRH. RSRH sees
plants and the color green as symbols of growth, of progress. Which is why
the tzitz and tzitzis have the names they do - much like RAC's notion that
wool represents locomotion and feeling. We also speak of tzemach David. And,
as we saw, he views the body of an animal to be animalistic drives -- closer
to RAC's shitah on flax.

Hirsch, touched on in Horeb but more in his comments on Cayin and Hevel (4:1),
understands sha'atnaz also to be about the keeping the farmer and the
shepherd, Cain and Abel, distinct within our personalities. Which is why these
two species in particular are assured. Cain and Abel suffered because before
man mastered these two elements, they were more distinct, and caused a greater
impact on personality and outlook. Sha'atnez involves clothing in particular
because clothing represents personality as we let others perceive us.

As opposed to RAC's shitah, that the symbol of sha'atnez lies in the cheftzah,
RSRH places the meaning in the ones who produce the materials.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 29-Jun-00: Chamishi, Sh'lach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 29a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> bringing in shabbat - fairly widely accepte to light candles early

> various funeral practices - widely accepted but hard to tell since it is
...

> wedding music - limited to one musician at charedi weddings
>    many MO orthodox weddings have a full band.
....

vekan haben sho'el,

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
: If someone is a bar hachi, as many in Yerushalayim are, should they not be 
: allowed to follow their own psak, at least privately?

	The above examples given by RET (we have three members with these
initials, n'est ce pas?) are in fact minhagim. As such, the answer to
RGS's question is no, you must follow minhag hamakom, particularly in a
place such as Yerushalayim which has well founded and accepted minhagim for
a minimum of several doros. They also fit the criterion of being minhag
shenisyasda al pi chachamim, not just something that happened.

	In this context I would question whether the distinction between old
yishuv and new has any validity. Who instituted the minhagim which are
NOT associated with the old yishuv? Are there such minhagim or is this
another name for NOT following the existing minhagim of the old yishuv?
I am not trying to be political; I think the question is a valid one.

> shemitta - minhag yerushalayim is that food grown on Arab land is not subject
>    to the laws of shemitta. On the other hand the edah hacharedit does not
>    accept the kulah of CI with respect to Otzar Bet din.

Nevertheless there has been an increasing use of the psak of CI in Yerushalayim
in spite of the fact that it is against the local minhag. Groups that insist
on following the local minhag for music are willing to go against the minhag
on shemitta

> size of shiurim - again minhag yerushalayim is that of R. Chaim Naeh.
>     Nevertheless, many people in Yerushalayim are machmir like CI.

	Here I am unsure. The underlying issue is a halacha-what size is a
kazayis, is there a kinyan lehafkia, is otzar bes din a valid procedure.
As such, I am not sure whether they fall under the category of minhag.
Is there such a thing as a "minhag" to follow a particular posek's piskei
halacha, or is that in turn because of the authority of the marah de'asra.
OTOH if it is the latter, how long if at all after the petira of a marah
de'asra does his authority extend; does it depend on if/who replaces him?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Gershon Dubin writes
> Here I am unsure. The underlying issue is a halacha-what size is a
> kazayis, is there a kinyan lehafkia, is otzar bes din a valid procedure.
> As such, I am not sure whether they fall under the category of minhag.
> Is there such a thing as a "minhag" to follow a particular posek's piskei
> halacha, or is that in turn because of the authority of the marah de'asra.
> OTOH if it is the latter, how long if at all after the petira of a marah
> de'asra does his authority extend; does it depend on if/who replaces him?

Most minghim are based on differences between poskim.
For examples many of the differences between ashkenaz and sefard depend
on whether one paskens like tosaphot or Rambam or Ramban. Hence, I don't
understand the difference between minhag and psak.

If a certain town accepts the shiurim of a certain posek for many generations
does one have the right to be machmir like other poskim?

As to the length a psak holds YOY paskens that everyone in EY must hold
like R. Yosef Karo since he was morah de-asra. Others say that everyone in
Bnei Brak must pasken like CI. In real life I doubt if anyone follows this
approach other than those would do it anyway!

> In this context I would question whether the distinction between old
> yishuv and new has any validity.  Who instituted the minhagim which are
> NOT associated with the old yishuv?  Are there such minhagim or is this
> another name for NOT following the existing minhagim of the old yishuv?

The question is what happens to a city that has a small population and then
expands. Is the city required to keep the original minhagim?

Does New York have to keep the customs of the original spanish-portugese
community? (Is there a Maharshdam on this).

In addition there is the question of what is Jerusalem. The old yishuv lived
in the old city. Does every neighborhood included politically have to follow
the minhagim.

There is a kibbutz immediately outside the borders of Jerusalem that has
weddings with bands. If the city council extends the border of jerusalem do
they have to stop these weddings with bands?

Finally, since for many years many people do have weddings in Jerusalem with
bands is that a minhag or does only the old yishuv minhag count since it
was first?

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel

> d'Rabbeinu Gershon?  I was having a conversation about this, and I recall
> that R. Bleich once said that it was based entirely on economic
> considerations.  Does anyone have any information?  Thanks

There is no way to determine the original reason from contemporary
sources since indeed there is no historical proof that there was any such
cherem. Finkelstein brings down many versions of the cherem derabbenu Gershon
in various early rishonim and other sources. Just about no 2 sources have
the same zezerot listed and very few of them list the gezer concerning 2
wives and not divorcing against her will and some don't list them. Many of
the other gezerot listed concern financial matters which is why some guess
that there is a connection.

Eli Turkel

In a message dated 6/30/00 9:53:18 AM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> Note that RSRH considers kilayim to be "synthetic". I wonder, given the
> source, whether this word was chosen not only to mean artificial, but also
> a particular kind of artifice -- a Hegellian synthesis. He cseems to
> say as much when he speak of the result exhibiting characteristics of
> both.
 
> If this really was his intent than an important statement being made is
> that the separation of species derives from the need to preserve and
> develop our internal, Kantian, unresolvable dialectics. As I hope to show
> later, this is RSRH's approach as well, mapping issur to dialectic using
> his principle of symbolism.

Excellent drasha!

Frankly, I feel more comfortable with Micha's approach than with pre-scientific
literalism, which frankly puts all of us in a box. All genetic science
is a form of grafting, and no amount of pilpul will draw a useful halachic
distinction between a nectarine and an ear of corn designed by Archer Daniels
Midland to smell sweet three weeks after it's been picked. (Question:
Can an Orthodox Jew work at ADM?)

Another question: If, as Micha argues, kilayim equals "synthetic" equals
Hegelian synthesis equals the need to preserve the internal Kantian dialectic,
isn't he really arguing the need for psychosocial separatism as an inducement
to keeps one's thoughts properly tracked on the relationship between HaShem
and His creations? Isn't Micha really proposing a sophisticated rationale
for Black Hattism?

David Finch

On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 12:41:17PM -0400, DFinchPC@aol.com wrote:
: Another question: If, as Micha argues, kilayim equals "synthetic" equals
: Hegelian synthesis equals the need to preserve the internal Kantian dialectic,
: isn't he really arguing the need for psychosocial separatism as an inducement
: to keeps one's thoughts properly tracked on the relationship between HaShem
: and His creations? Isn't Micha really proposing a sophisticated rationale
: for Black Hattism?

RYBS, in the original article, explains the distinction between yinukah --
gaining nurishment from the outside, and kilayim.

To me the real question is determining which elements of the outside world
are actually an different pole than avodas Hashem. RYBS would not see these
two as poles of a dialectic.

-mi

On 30 Jun 2000, at 17:03, Eli Turkel wrote:

> The question is what happens to a city that has a small population and then
> expands. Is the city required to keep the original minhagim?

I believe that Rav Moshe has a tshuva that says that Yerushalayim 
and the US have no fixed minhagim because they were populated 
by people from many different places. Being in the office now, I do 
not have the cite with me....

> In addition there is the question of what is Jerusalem. The old yishuv lived
> in the old city. Does every neighborhood included politically have to follow
> the minhagim.

Much of the Charedi world does not have bands within the city 
borders of Yerushalayim. Some people will have full bands in 
outlying communities such as Bayit veGan, which, although within 
Yerushalayim's municipal boundaries, is relatively new (founded in 
the mid-60's IIRC). Others will not. I assume not having bands is 
based on the foregoing minhag.

> There is a kibbutz immediately outside the borders of Jerusalem that has
> weddings with bands. If the city council extends the border of jerusalem do
> they have to stop these weddings with bands?

I assume you are referring to Moshav Ora. The Jerusalem City 
Council cannot do that unilaterally, but that's beside the point.

I know that RSZA took the position that anyplace which was 
generally regarded as part of the city could hold Shushan Purim, 
i.e. it was halachically part of Yerushalayim. He therefore held that 
in Ein Karem (particularly at Hadassah Hospital in Ein Karem), 
they should read the Megilla on the 15th of Adar. This despite the 
fact that you cannot see the Old City from Hadassah, and despite 
the fact that it is some distance from the nearest part of 
Yerushalayim (Kiryat Menachem). To put this in perspective for 
those who are not familiar with Jerusalem geography - the turn off 
to Moshav Ora is on the way from Kiryat Menachem to Hadassah, 
and I would guess that Hadassah and Moshav Ora are probably 
about equidistant from the edge of Kiryat Menachem.

OTOH, shortly before his ptira, RSZA paskened that my 
neighborhood (Ramat Shlomo - between Ramot and Ramat Eshkol) 
was part of Yerushalayim for purposes of Shushan Purim. During 
the first year we were in the neighborhood, someone posted on a 
shul bulletin board a lengthy article from Yated justifying that 
position based on all kinds of measures of distance, and someone 
scrawled across the article "kvar horah zakein Purim b'Tes Vav." 
Yet I believe there is at least one Megillah reading in my 
neighborhood on the 14th, and I know there is at least one in Har 
Nof and several in Ramot.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

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


[ 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         ]