Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 165

Tuesday, February 16 1999

• Re: job of Beis Din
• Re: job of Beis Din
• Re: Avodah V2 #164
• Re: Avodah V2 #164
• Borchuni Lishalom
• Re: asmachta
• Re: Halakha vs. Aggada (was Haircovering in the House)
• Re: Halakha vs. Aggada (was Haircovering in the House)
• Re: Halakha vs. Aggada (was Haircovering in the House)
• Re: Sheitlach
• HM and his Yetzer Hara
• Agunot or Agunim?
• Objective or Advocates
• CH, Heicho kedusho etc.
• Beis Din L'agunot
• Mishenichnas Adar Marbim Torah
• Beis Din L'agunot
• Re: job of Beis Din

<<
 ===> In my understanding, the B"D has ALWAYS had a responsibility to
 ensure that all functioned properly and not simply "waiting for a
 Claimant" to show up....  Besides, if the "social wrong" is a halchic
 horror, it seems that the B"D would have the SAME responsibility as they
 would have to ensure suitable supervision for Kashruth.
>>

I'm not sure I agree with this.  It is not Beis Din's job to go out and right
the wrongs of the world.  A Beis Din is a court, a formal institution, and its
job is to wait for a claimant to come.

The job of speaking out against the wrongs of the world is in the hands of
Rabbanim, and nowadays also Roshei Yeshiva, for they are, de facto, the
rabbanim of their students.

And I don't know that a Beis Din was responsible necessarily for kashrus
either, that oo being the long-standing purview of rabbanim.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

In a message dated 2/15/99 1:24:59 PM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> I'm not sure I agree with this.  It is not Beis Din's job to go out and
right
>  the wrongs of the world.  A Beis Din is a court, a formal institution, and 
> its
>  job is to wait for a claimant to come.
>  
Please see Encyclopedia Taalmudis Erech Beis Din

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

> 
> 
> Date: Sun, 14 Feb 1999 23:56:43 -0600 (CST)
> From: "Shoshanah M. & Yosef G. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> Subject: Re: Sheitlach
> 
> On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> > I had promised RYGB a further comment on the background of sheitlach and
> > the question of their historical acceptance as a mode of hair covering. 
> > We presumably have no argument that in Oriental communities the wig was
> > never considered an acceptable mode of hair covering and was roundly
> > criticized in Poskim as a Western innovation.  In Ashkenazic communities
> > it is clear that throughout the Medieval period Jewish women covered
> > their hair with items of clothing.  Evidence of this is available in all
> > sources of illustrations and discussions of Jewish dress - see, for
> > example, Rubens' History of Jewish Costume, Castello and Kapon's The
> > Jews and Europe, the Metzger's Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, etc.  The
> > discussion of wigs in Chazal never address the question of hair covering
> > but other issues that are not directly relevant to this discussion. 
> >
> 
> I am sorry, but I do not accept the proof - which, to me, seems to be more
> anthropological than halachic. As I previously noted, the simple fact is
> that for much of recorded human history married women of all persuasions
> and religions covered their hair - with bonnets, hats, etc. We would,
> therefore, of course expect Jewish women to cover their hair in a similar
> fashion - not because the halacha necessarily required it, but because the
> practice was universal.
> 
> It was not until the time of the SG et al that R' Melech cites that the
> issue even arose, and not until the 19th century that women began to
> forsake en masse the ancient practice - throughout the Western world.
> 
> At these points, it first became apropos and relevant to objectively and
> dispassionately review the sheitel issue.
> 
> I believe this is similar to R' Dessler's (4th vol, I believe, I am still 
> in Detroit, sorry) fundamental discussion of Tefillin d'RT, where he says,
> true, minhag Yisroel Torah - but only Toras Minhag! Thus, a Posek - such
> as RT - is entitled to reopen an issue with evidence and proofs, even
> where there was an extant, hoary minhag (Rashi Tefillin). So much more so
> b'nidon didan, where the minhag, IMHO, was not halachically based, kana"l.
> 
> Thus, while I believe that a woman may display greater Yiras or Ahavas
> Hashem by wearing a hat, or a hat over a sheitel, I do not believe that
> objective Halacha requires or even advises this as a norm, and, it would
> seem to me, that such a standard may occasionally have a negative impact,
> as stated previously. I note, in this vein, that to the best of my limited
> knowledge, none of the major Poskim in the Lithuanian, German or Lubavitch
> schools have recommended hats over sheitlach etc. - although, as always, I
> am willing and eager to stand corrected if mistaken.
>   
> YGB
> 
> Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
> Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
> ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila
> 
A big issue IMNVHO is what is a custom of wearing a hat or other covering 
over a sheitel becomes accepted  in one or more communities.  What 
concerns me is the denigrating that will follow of those women who do not 
accept that particular chumra.  It has become to common  to accept a 
chumra  and denigrate those that do not accept it as avaryanim or worse.

In a message dated 2/15/99 2:23:37 PM EST, hjweiss@netcom.com writes:

> A big issue IMNVHO is what is a custom of wearing a hat or other covering 
>  over a sheitel becomes accepted  in one or more communities

AFAIK there are communities that do so now!

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The Netziv on last week's parashah (Mishpatim) suggested to me justification
for saying "borchuni lishalom" on Friday night. (The Gr"a considers it a
violation of the Rambam's 5th Ikar Emunah.)

On Hashem's statement that a mal'ach, not He Himself directly, will lead K'lal
Yisrael into Eretz Yisrael, he comments that this has a positive side. Once
the mal'ach is sent on his mission, they can ask him for tovos. The Netziv
holds that while on sh'lichus, a mal'ach may be asked for assistance.

I don't see why this wouldn't include the sh'lichus of coming to each home
on Friday night. If so, the Netziv would consider "borchuni lishalom" akin
to asking a favor of anyone, and not prayer to an angel.

I wonder if this is connected to a comment R' YGB made a while back. According
the the Ohr Samei'ach, mal'achim have the potential for bechirah chafshi
(unlike the Rambam's opinion) but lack any opportunity to exercise it. R'
YGB questioned whether this would apply to a mal'ach who is sent on a mission,
since that mal'ach is not "standing before" Hashem.

Such a concept, that mal'achim do have bechirah while on sh'lichus /could/
underly the Netziv's position.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287    Help free Yehuda Katz, held by Syria 6091 days!
micha@aishdas.org                         (11-Jun-82 - 15-Feb-99)
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
http://www.aishdas.org -- Orthodox Judaism: Torah, Avodah, Chessed

In message , EDTeitz@aol.com writes
><<
>I don't believe that either I or my chosson really expect that I will
>collect on the matayim zuz
>>>
>
>Not to upset you, but there is a greater than 50% chance that you will collect
>the 200 zuz, just not necessarily because of divorce.  

I think not (I suspect I know too much).  In fact, I think my chances of
collecting the 200 zuz are pretty close to zero.

Firstly, in the case of divorce, it is almost universal practice these
days for the woman to waive her right to the ketuba in exchange for
getting the get (in the same way that the woman usually and
historyically has paid for the court/scribe time for the get, despite
the fact that technically that is his responsibility).

Secondly, most people hold that the value of 200 zuz is in the vicinity
of at most a couple of hundred dollars. (I know that some, such as Rav
Tendler disagree - but even Rav Tendler's value is not enough to collect
out of karka, which was what was usually assumed in the time of the
gemorra would happen).   At that rate, I am unlikely to even be able to
pay the beis din fees out of the collected ketuba.

It is partly for this reason that it is almost unheard of for a woman to
collect her ketuba on death of her husband.  More commonly, to the
extent that she relies on halachic rights at all, she is likely to
continue to collect mezonos (which would be ended by the final
collection of the ketuba). Only if she then decides to remarry, does it
usually come into question, and then again, it is not regarded as being
worth the hassle.

Since these days it is not common to have children by different wives at
the same time, it is unlikely that my children would be seeking
specifically to collect in preference to the children of the other wife
(and in any event, the same issue of valuelessness applies).

Assuming Moshiach comes soon, I assume that there is not going to be a
need to collect ketubos bichlal.

In fact, the only scenario I can see where I am likely ever to collect
my ketuba is if a nuclear war or millenium bug or some such returns us
all to an agrarian society in which silver returns to a value with which
one could realistically collect out of karka.  Call me naive, but I
don't regard such a scenario as likely.

>
>Eliyahu Teitz
>Jewish Educational Center
>Elizabeth, NJ
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:
> Those who are well-versed in Halakha know that R. Avraham Gombiner
> routinely introduces the Zohar into his perush; this is perhaps the most
> distinctive aspect of the Magen Avraham.  In this respect, he is very
> much the exception, rather than the rule.  Consider, for example, how
> often the Mehabber -- a life-long mekkubal -- introduces a Zoharic rule
> into his Shulhan Arukh.
> 
> Moreover, I think we have a slightly different view of what happens when
> the MA quotes the Zohar.  In my mind, the source remains the Zohar.  For
> Elie, it apparently is transformed by citation into a halakhic source.
> Forgive me, but I disagree.
> 
> Kol tuv and Shabbat shalom,
> 
> Eli Clark
> 
I was hesitent about discussing the role Kabbala has in Halacha, but After
a discussion I have had off line with a member of the list I have decided
to bring up a few points. Eli Clark gives the impression that the
introduction of Zohar into halacha is the exception and not the rule, and
is something unique to the MA. He also gives the impression that the Zohar
isn't a halachik text at all, but is too be considered Aggadita in the
same context asthe Maase with Kimchis. In fact the Chofetz Chaim brings
down the ruling of the kabbala on many occaions. In the Sefer Yad Yisroel
(index to the chofetz Chaim) he cites over 300 places where the C.C.
introduces Kabbala into HAlacha. So much so that he allows a practice
involving closing the eyes on a dead body based on a zohar even though it
is contradicted by a MIshna (see o.c. 311:22). It might be that The C.C.
is also an exception, but that wouldn't matter because of the general
acceptance of the Mishna Brurah. Furthermore, Eli's implication that Zohar
is treated like aggadita and not Halacha is challenged by dozens if not
hundreds of Misna brurah's. Finally, I believ that teh Beis Yosef does
make reference to the Zohar a number of times, but I don't have a working
CD-rom to check. Can someone run a simple search with the word Zohar on a
cd-rom and see how many times the word is used by the Bais Yosef in his
commentary to the Tur.
Elie Ginsparg

In a message dated 2/15/99 7:17:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, C-
Maryles@neiu.edu writes:

<< Can someone run a simple search with the word Zohar on a
 cd-rom and see how many times the word is used by the Bais Yosef in his
 commentary to the Tur.
 Elie Ginsparg
  >>
Dear Elie,
   I knew I had some purpose in life :-).
The answer is...................57 (actually its usually Hazohar)

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 Joelirich@aol.com wrote:
 Dear Elie,
>    I knew I had some purpose in life :-).
> The answer is...................57 (actually its usually Hazohar)
> 
> Kol Tuv,
> Joel Rich
> 
Thank you for your time and help, this would further my point that the
Zohar does play a role in halacha, 57 times by the Beit Yosef, dozens if
not hundreds by the C.C., I'm not sure we can dismiss these as mere
exceptions.
Elie Ginsparg

On 02/14/99 23:56:43 my friend RYGB wrote:
>
>On Sun, 14 Feb 1999 mpress@ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>> I had promised RYGB a further comment on the background of sheitlach and
>> the question of their historical acceptance as a mode of hair covering. 
>> In Ashkenazic communities
>> it is clear that throughout the Medieval period Jewish women covered
>> their hair with items of clothing.  Evidence of this is available in all
>> sources of illustrations and discussions of Jewish dress - see, for
>> example, Rubens' History of Jewish Costume, Castello and Kapon's The
>> Jews and Europe, the Metzger's Jewish Life in the Middle Ages, etc.  The
>> discussion of wigs in Chazal never address the question of hair covering
>> but other issues that are not directly relevant to this discussion. 
>>
>
>I am sorry, but I do not accept the proof - which, to me, seems to be more
>anthropological than halachic. As I previously noted, the simple fact is
>that for much of recorded human history married women of all persuasions
>and religions covered their hair - with bonnets, hats, etc. We would,
>therefore, of course expect Jewish women to cover their hair in a similar
>fashion - not because the halacha necessarily required it, but because the
>practice was universal.

Yes, my proof is anthropological, since that is the way to demonstrate what
Das Yehudis, at least, is.  It is not the case that all women covered hair in similar
fashion, as is evident from paintings and drawings of non-Jewish women from same 
periods.

>Thus, while I believe that a woman may display greater Yiras or Ahavas
>Hashem by wearing a hat, or a hat over a sheitel, I do not believe that
>objective Halacha requires or even advises this as a norm, and, it would
>seem to me, that such a standard may occasionally have a negative impact,
>as stated previously. I note, in this vein, that to the best of my limited
>knowledge, none of the major Poskim in the Lithuanian, German or Lubavitch
>schools have recommended hats over sheitlach etc. - although, as always, I
>am willing and eager to stand corrected if mistaken.
>  

I shall cite poskim of the various schools who disagree with the permissibility of
sheitlach.  Let me make clear that my point is not to argue that women may not
wear these today but only to indicate that Gedolei Yisroel of all schools and
venues indeed felt that it was prohibited to wear them, that some poskim held
it to be a violation of issurei Torah and that therefore it is a reasonable position
to argue that the wearing of sheitlach today represents the widespread acceptance
of a major kula.  Conversely, those who are medakdek not to wear uncovered
sheitlach are surely not engaged simply in a display of greater yiras shomayim
but in a genuine effort to avoid a safek issur.  I shall not quote any Oriental
poskim, since it seems clear that RYGB agrees that they prohibit en masse.

Osrim (a limited selection, and excluding later Hungarians):

Be'er Sheva - a talmid of the Levush and Sma, prominent Polish rov.

Rav Yaakov EMDEN, in Sheilas Yavetz, 1/9.

Rav Pinchos Horowitz, ROV OF FRANKFURT and his son, Rav Zvi Hirsh
rov of the same city, quoted in the son's work Lachmei Todah.

Rav Noach Chaim Zvi, rav of HAMBURG, in the Atzei Arazim on Even Hoezer,
states that "it therefore seems clear to me that it is prohibited for a married
woman to beautify herself with a wig and those who permit chadoshim mikarov
ba'u v'asidim liten es hadin."

Rav Eliezer Flekles of Prague in Tshuva Me'ahava,1/48, discusses at length
and concludes that it is at best permissible things that others have treated
as prohibited.

Pri Megadim, OC 303 Mishbetzos Zahav 9 considers it a safek d'rabonon to
say krias shma in presence of women wearing sheitel and possibly sofek
d'oraisa.

Rav Yaakov Orenstein, author of Yeshuos Yaakov, concludes that may be issur
Torah.

Chsam Sofer, of FRANKFURT and Pressburg, in notes on Orach Chaim 75
agrees with Be'er Sheva.

Tiferes Yisroel on mishna Shabbos 6/5.

Rav Zvi Hirsh Chayos, Shu"t, 53.

Rav Menachem Mendel of LUBAVITCH in comments on mishna Brachos 
ch. 3 " but a wig even on weekdays is permitted only in the courtyard."

GR"A Shnos Eliyahu Shabbos 6/5 " if she lacks hair she takes (wig) and
puts it under her kerchief" and notes there.

I think I have made the point that representative gedolim of various areas
were not happy with uncovered sheitlach (or sheitlach at all).  It is not
unreasonable for women who choose not to rely on wigs to believe that
they are not fanatics or unreasonable machmirim, whether they are
of German, Lithuanian or any other origin.

Melech Press







M. Press, Ph.D. Professor of Psychology and Deputy Chair
Touro College, 1602 Avenue J, Brooklyn, NY 11230
Phone: 718-252-7800, x275  Fax: 718-645-1816

Dear Micha (may I call you that?),

   My intial post was an attempt to respond to a question posed by my
friend Steve Katz. I'm no longer on the Avodah-list, but, knowing
my interest in Rabbi Soloveitchik, Steve cc'd his query to me, hoping 
to elicit some comment on the Rav's claim that "HM does not struggle with
his evil impulses."(p. 65) He sent me your response on the List to my
post (which, by the way, was posted privately to Steve, not to the List),
so I'm taking the liberty of addressing your concern directly with you.
Feel free to circulate the substantive comments, if you wish.
   I'm familiar with the sugya you cite in Succah, as well as some of the
rich literature found in our gedolei ha-Machshava on the theme of the
enhanced Yetzer of tzadikim, talmidei chachamim, etc. (here I'm especially
thinking of the pregnant comments of R. Tzadok in his Peri Tzaddik on this
week's parsha(p. 152)-- Chaim Eisen has collected many of theses
sources in his excellect article ""You Will Be Like G-d": Chazal's
conception of the Yetzer Hara." But two points are worth noting
with regrd to your comment that the Yetzer of tzadikim is greater, not
less, than that of ordinary people. First, nothing which I wrote re: HM
ignores this fact. Remember, the pasage in HM which I was commenting on is
specifically concerned with sketching a typology of the Ish ha-Halakha,
not with the "Tzadik" simpliciter. Indeed, in the passage in question, the
Rav distinguishes HM from the homo religiosus with regard to the
temptations of the evil urge. I think it would be a mistake to identify HM
with the more generic term "Tzaddik," whose characteristics, in certain
respects, seem more akin to homo religiosus (but, of course, see the
opening paragraphs of HM, where HM is said to embody aspects of both
homo religiosus and Cognitive man). Reb Chaim was a "Tzadik," but of a
very specific sort. Second, and more importantly, the passage in question
simply says that "HM does not STRUGGLE with his evil impulses." It says
nothing about the strength or concentration of the creative forces which
the Yetzer is identified with in our traditional literature (in
contrasting HM with homo religiosus and the "Christian saints"(p. 65),
the Rav is using the "evil impulse" in its more popularly understood
sense, the way it would be employed by someone laboring under
a Platonic-Christian metaphysic). The main point, at least as I see it, is
that there is symmetry, not conflict, between HM's passions, desires, and
natural impulses and his normative duties. This is in stark contrast to
the religious personality who is always struggling to overcome his "evil
impulses." Again, I think the Aristotelian (and Hegelian) pedigree is hard
to miss. I also think this entire passage is indebted to the
Rambam's discussion of the "Tzaddik Gamur" and the "Kovesh et Yitzro" in
his Shemoneh Perakim.

   At any rate, I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my initial
comments, and prodding me to think more about these interesting issues.
Thank you.

					all the best,
					    Mark

RYGB: >>Besides, our correspondent, Mrs. Boutbil (sp?) wrote that the problems 
are about evenly split and they help out men as well - not partial-sounding to
me!<<

Touche,  Several people commented to me privately on this, and I will concede 
that this is/has been done.  I still like the haskofo that we should be 
objective as possible.  (Aside to Mr. Arnie Lustiger this is a cool analysitcal 
side has advantages over passionate advocates).  Al tehi k'orchie hadayonim.  I 
humbly submit, that EMES overrides otehr considerations particularly in Beis 
Din.  

Not it were turly even why not Beis Din l'Augnot and l'Agunim?  <smile>

Rich Wolpoe 

Zvi Weiss:>>
===> I strongly reject that logic.  The point of a B"D to free Agunot" is
NOT to say that the woman is "right".  It is to assert that keeping a
woman as an Aguna is NOT a halachically *acceptable* way in which to
operate.  As far as I am concerned, ANY "Rov" who states that this is an
acceptable tactic is so incredibly lacking in sensitivity and
menschlichkeit that one should not consider this "Rov" to be a posek. <<

My point exactly.  As the baal walks into the Beis din Zvi Weiss's talmididm 
will be subjectively pre-disposed to consider the baal as fostetering an avlo 
without regard to the facts of the case.  it's like 2 ballei dinim coming in and
we anounce here is Reuven Rav, etc. and here is Shim'on and he is ochel bsar 
chazir...

The passion with which you contradicted my points speask more to the emotional 
subjectivity than anything I could have written.  Had I made the same comments 
WRT to kashrus you would not have felt that YOUR ox had been gored, but someone 
elses...

Let's say my ox was to make all synogogues accesible to the handicapped. Then 
substitute all the comments vis-a-vis agunot re: senstivity etc. I could stir a 
very passionate case to lay claim that shuls are insensitve etc. to parapeligics
and that we should drop everythinge we;re doing and right this wrong.  do you 
feel the same about that?

There are a lot of "single" issue people.  some are about Moshiach.  some are 
about miexed swimming etc.  Ok.  But in Beis Din, the whole idea of being sinlge
issue oriented samcks of an agenda to me.

I'll concede the Aguna case following the shoaa as a horoas sho'o. And their the
perpetrator was AH YS.

And although Beis Din should promote justice at the expense of injustice, 
picking Dayonim on the basis of being kanoim against X is IMHO not juidicious, 
it's advocacy.

Rich Wolpoe  

Dear list,
     I was at a chasuno with Dr. Avi Feldblum and Rabbi D. Ephraim Kanarfogel at
my table.  some he'oros:

1) The Heicho kedusho was advocated by the Rambam in order to address the 
widespread problem of taling during CH.  He used Model #2, i.e. unison with the 
shatz thru Hokel hakodosh.

2) The Meharsho states that Limud Torah creates a sha'as hadechak.  Not only is 
this the source for Yeshivos saying Hiehco dkeudsho at Mincho, but it ws used at
YU/Riets when there was a sofek re: kohanim going into a building whre a 
nochri's skeleton was present...

I spoke to Rabbi Joel Stern vis-a-vis R Schwab's minyon omitting Mogen Avos.  He
said he Aske R.:  He asked that how can this be Aro'i after so many years? After
all Bungalow's have minyoninm during the summer that are NOT aor'i? R. Schwab 
answered, that since it was conducted ONLY when he was in town and NOT when he 
was away, therefore it was aro'i and Mogen Avos should be omitted.

>>Besides, if the "social wrong" is a halchic
horror, it seems that the B"D would have the SAME responsibility as they
would have to ensure suitable supervision for Kashruth.<<

Kashrus is essentially a bein odom lamokom problem (yes corrupt supervision does
encroach bein odom lachaveiro)

Marital issues are essentially bein odom lachaveiro or more properly bein odom 
l'ishto (I doubt if chaver is appropos in thoes cases.. <smile>)

Now re: pre-nups etc. It seems that the minhog in the time of Dovid hamelech 
-that soldiers to give a get al tnai - is a takkono that made sense to prevent 
Aguo'ism.  I am all for similar takkonos or other halachic devices to prevent or
ameliorate the aguna's plight, and I hold that legistlative process is THE place
to start.  However, re: beis din, I passionately advocate judicial objectivity! 
(how's that for a an oxymoron!? <smile>)

Rich Wolpoe

 The following outline lists some of the parallels, primarily liturgical, 
between Purim and the 9th of Av.

           
1 Maariv - Nighttime 
     1.1 Only Megillos that are read at night.
          1.1.1 Eicho
          1.1.2 Esther
     1.2 Similar Structure with Kaddish Tiskabel and v'Ato Kodosh

2 Shacharis - Omissions
     2.1  Purim - A "miracle" Holiday , no Hallel (Megillo instead)
     2.2  9th of Av -  A Fast Day  without   
          2.2.1  Selichos (Kinnos instead)
          2.2.2  Tachanun & Ovinu Malkeinu

3 Shacharis - Chazoros Hashatz
     3.1 Only weekday repetitions of the Amido with Krovos/Krovatz

4 Preceding Shabbos 
     4.1 Purim preceded by Zachor
     4.2 9 Av preceded by Chazon

5 Tanach  Pattern - Special Torah and Haftoro readings are read the Shabbos 
before the event, with the corresponding Megilloh on the day of the event.
     5.1 Purim - The Amalek Connection
          5.1.1  Torah- Zachor 
          5.1.2  Navi - Haftoro of Zachor (Shaul's War with Amalek in Shmuel)
          5.1.3  Kesuvim Esther
     5.2 9 Av - The  Eicho Connection
          5.2.1  Torah - Eicho in Devorim
          5.2.2  Navi - Eicho in the Haftoro of Chazon (Yeshaya)
     5.2.3  Kesuvim - Eicho

6 Month-wide 
     6.1 Mishenichnos Adar Marbin b'Simcho
     6.2 Mishenichnos Av M'maatin b'Simcho

7 Miscellaneous
     7.1 Some Pesukim in Esther are read to Eicho melody (in particular Asher 
Heglo_)
     7.2 Chiyuv S'eudo vs. Chiyuv Taanis
     7.3 Similar Minhogim not to work

Shoshana L. Boublil  wrote:>>I probably want' clear, if you could reach such a 
conclusion from my post:

A. The Beit Din Agunot deals with both men and women who are actually Mesoravei 
Get - and doesn't pre-judge which side is right, and I don't know how you could 
reach such a conclusion.  The only "pre-judgement" that exists is the intention 
of the Beit Din to reach a speedy resolution, which actually is very much 
according to Halacha with regard to the issue of Tzedek etc.<<

Let me tell you a story.  A landlord in a certain community told me the 
REPUTATION (lav davko the reality) of the local Beis Din was to favor tennats in
their litigations with landlords.

Question:  do you think THAT landlord - based upon THAT perception - was 
motivated to use the local besi din in a dispute with his tenants?

Concclusion: if a Beis din is PERCEIVED to have an agenda, then guess what?  One
side will be probably be mesoreiv!  

So my conclusion is based the perception; i.e. when you set up a beis din to 
right the wrong of agunot,  I'll bet it will succeed in intimidating their 
recalcitrant husbands based upon the name alone!? IMHO hardly a desirable 
result! 

Now if you set up a Beis Din L'inyonei Even Ho'ezer, or some other neutral name,
that perception would probably not exist.  Think about it.

Rich Wolpoe

See, however, Shut HaRosh 107:6, that dayanim are responsible for Shalom
in the world, and eiin lecha Shalom ba'Olam yosier mizeh.

I think, also, that the distinction between Rabbonim and Dayyanim is
artificial.

In sum, a BD l'inyanei Agunos is a wonderful thing, halevai we could have
one al pi Halacha here in the USA.

On Mon, 15 Feb 1999 EDTeitz@aol.com wrote:

> I'm not sure I agree with this.  It is not Beis Din's job to go out and
> right the wrongs of the world.  A Beis Din is a court, a formal
> institution, and its job is to wait for a claimant to come. 
> 
> The job of speaking out against the wrongs of the world is in the hands
> of Rabbanim, and nowadays also Roshei Yeshiva, for they are, de facto,
> the rabbanim of their students. 
> 

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 ]