Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 171

Tuesday, February 23 1999

• Re: Canonization of Esther; ain navi rashai l'chadesh
• Zohar
• Re: Oh no, not again (was Zohar)
• Re: lo shanu malbusham
• The Edah Conference and the massive gathering in Jerusalem
• Sheki'ah and Ma'ariv
• Re: Avodah V2 #170
• Re: Oh no, not again (was Zohar)
• The Zohar ha_kadosh
• Re: job of Beis Din
• Re: Job of Beis Din
• Re: Agunot
• Re: Authenticity of Zohar
• [none]
• reverse aguna syndrome
• repeating psukim in the megilla
• Re: your mail
• Re: job of Beis Din

In a message dated 2/21/99 9:26:30 AM EST, C1A1Brown@aol.com writes:

> On the sugya debating whether Esther has the din of kitvei kodesh (Meg. 7) 
> the
>  Maharasha cites a kashe of the Yerushalmi not brought in the Bavli - "ain 
> navi
>  rashai l'chadesh davar".  I'm perplexed - by that token no sifrei Nach 
> should
>  exist as they were all chiddushim of the respective nevi'im who authored 
> them!
>  (B'dochak perhaps the sugya is discussing the status of megilla viz. a 
> chalos
>  d'orayata like as a text usable for a kiyum of zecher amalek, but see Ritva
>  there).
>  
Even according to Rashi IMHO it is a Dochak as if so after they found a source
one should be Yotzee Midoreisoh by reading the Megila.

According to Ramaban Hil. Sedoei Hatorah 9, a Novee can just come to be Mazhir
about existing mitzvohs with the exception of Horaas Sh'a, in the Megillah
there is mention of Mitzvohs of purim which should be "Lo Yosuf Mizaro'om"
(see Hemshech Hayerushalmi Megila 1:5, and Rambam end of Hil. Megilah, also
Loshon Habavli Al Asar Kisvunee *Ldoros*, and see Megila 14a Nvuoh Shnitzracho
Ldoros) hence if this would be added to N'vi'im it would violate Ein Novee
Rashoee Lchadeish Dovor (otherwise it could be considered Takonas Chachomim
and see Makos 24b)

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

I'd like to add some comments to expand and clarify the
distinctions that Rabbi Clark has presented.
How can we prove the validity of a text? If we take the academic
approach -that the text is the information. Any perceived errors
and anachronisms or inconsistencies would be accepted as proof
that the text is not accurate or valid. On the other hand - if we
accept the premise that most information  - especially
kabbalistic information  - is oral. There is a totally different
standard of validity available. What do the  masters of the oral
esoteric traditions  think of this text. Do they recognize it as
being consonant with what has been their privileged secrets. Does
it clarify and deepen their understanding. It seems that
historically - the Zohar was readily accepted amongst talmidei
chachomim and especially those steeped in kabbalistic lore - with
very little opposition. We thus have the conflict of two
procedures of validation. The question comes down to  - does the
Zohar faithfully express the esoteric information of ancient
Kabbala? If it does - the question of its precise historical
origin is a question - but not of great concern or relevant in
terms of its use. We saw this concerning the validity of the
Mishna and Gemora. No one knows the actual history of how the
Mishna and gemora were created. The validity seems to come from
their acceptance -  by those who were transmitters of the mesora
- that these documents are accurate carriers of the Oral Law. The
academic, however, would argue that recognition is too subjective
and influenced by psychological and sociological factors. Thus it
is a hashkofic-halachic approach versus a secular academic
approach. Which one should you bet your Olam Habah on?

1) Prof Joseph Dan wrote the following Introduction to Scholems
lectures "On the Mystical Shape of the G-dhead. "It may sound
paradoxical, but an essentially Jungian approach and a
Kabbalistic approach to the subjects presented by Scholem in this
book may converge and present a united front against the
historical analysis written by the scholar. This is a struggle
that Scholem fought throughout his life, and in which he achieved
only partial success...The obviousness of these examples which
differentiate between the historical-philogical approach and the
archetypical-Kabbalistic one, should not deceive us as to the
difficulties involved in achieving and maintaining the
methodology of the history of ideas. Scholem himself did not make
this distinction clearly in the first decade of his scholarly
work...The young Scholem (27 years old) ...presented his views
concerning the authorship and origins of the Zohar, and concluded
that though medieval authors contributed to the work as we have
it, much of the material, ideas and symbols assembled in it
originated in antiquity. In fact, according to Scholem at that
time, the Kabbalah was essentially an ancient phenomenon, surface
in the works of the medieval mystics rather than being their own
original creation....It took Scholem another decade to
distinguish between the two aspects of Graetz's critical attitude
to the Kabbla:his enmity toward it, which Scholem completely
rejected, and his historical-philogical approach ...Although this
question has been conclusively answered from a scholarly point of
view, it is erroneous to think that by this major scholarly
achievement, the historical-philogical view of the medieval
origins of the Kabbalah has been universally accepted or that
Scholem's scholarly approach has prevailed completely...Professor
Moshe Idel tries to prove that Kabbalistic concepts found in
medieval texts can be "reconstructed" in talmudic and midrashic
literature...."

Professor Moshe Idel writes in Kabbalah:New Perspectives  page 11
"Scholem began his scholarly activity by attempting to disclose
the metaphysical substratum of Kabbalistic thought. Although he
never explicitly acknowledged it, he assumed that, on a deeper
level, Kabbala expresses a metaphysical reality that can be
grasped by a proper hermeneutics, using historical, philological,
and philosophical tools....However, he gave explicitly expression
to his fear of death - that is, spiritual death - as the result
of academic preoccupations. Early in his life, he engaged in
practical exercises based upon Abulafia's mystical
techniques...Extradordinarily successful as Scholem was as a
historian of mystical texts and ideas, he was in his own eyes
rather a failure qua mystic, yet one who longed for mystical
experience.

[page 20] When we attempt to reconstruct the various concepts of
the different kabbalistic schools, we must remind ourselves that
these ideas were meant, from the beginning, to be limited to a
small intellectual elite. The main medium of transmission
was...oral teaching........This example illustrates the need to
distinguish carefully between what was understood as kabbalah
according to Kabbalistic masters, who revealed it only
fragmentarily, and what contemporary scholars, who assumed that
the discipline was disclosed in written documents, believed to be
kabbala...As far as I know, consciousness of this methodological
question is absent in modern research of Kabbala; rather, this
lore is described and analyzed on the implicit assumption that
all major Kabbalistic views are presented as such in documents in
an articulate manner...


                                Daniel Eidensohn

On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> I think that previous experience indicates that Avodah is a singularly
> poor forum for debating historical questions.  It is clear that list
> members operate under a variety of different assumptions; and I am
> certain that people who have made up their minds on the issue issue will
> not be convinced otherwise.  Not to put too fine a point on it, those
> who cite the Ari, the Hida, and the Gra as the historical experts upon
> whom they rely are clearly of a different mindset than those who are
> following Prof. Gershom Scholem (and latterly R. Yaakov Emden).
>

Oh no, not at all. Like many matters, the historicity of the Zohar is one
in which I am no expert. So, I have to look to other authorities for
guidance. I know nothing of the methodology of any of them, so I must
trust reputation and numbers - weighted together.
 
This is contradistinction to issues such as, say, zmanei hyom in halacha,
or chassidus vs. misnagdus, where I feel quallified - having analyzed the
issues and come to some understanding - to make personal judgments.

This has, of course, nothing to do with Da'as Torah. The same approach
applies to, say, auto mechanics. I know next to nothing about what is
under the hood of my car, so I must rely on a preponderance of mechanics,
weighted by reputation.

If you have knowledge of Scholem's methods, can contrast them with those
of the GRA and educate us - why don't you? See below.

> This latter question demonstrates how "Da'as Torah" relates to our
> topic.  RYGB writes "Nevertheless, I find it illogical to rely on
> Scholem et al, when towering figures over them say distinctly
> differently."  In various ways, the same point is made by R. Eidensohn
> and Elie Ginsparg.  If the Gedolim have considered the issue and drawn a
> conclusion, who are we to question them? 
> 
> But I think one can argue that modern critical analysis is a tool that
> we enjoy, no less than the telephone or computer, whose recent vintage
> deprives it of the sanction of tradition.  Like any tool we can use it
> for good or ill.  For theological reasons, we will not apply such
> analysis to Torah she-bikhtav.  And we will be skeptical of its use in

Here is the crux of the issue. Why?

Are we not required to quest truth? If such analysis is truth-yielding,
then intellectual honesty mandates that you forge ahead with it boldly and
corageously, come what may. There can be no holds barred. Distinctions in
application are then no more reasonable than the ostrich sticking head in
sand.

So, again, by all means, educate us. Has such analysis been proven
accurate and reliable in a manner similar to  double blind studies in the
"hard" sciences? Has literary analysis, say of Shakespeare, "proven" by
independent corroboration that Bacon wrote his plays? What are Scholem et
al's methods and how have these methods been shown to be accurate by
verification?

YGB

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

Many are familiar with the famous medrash that the Jews in Egypt retained
their identity due to  not changing lshonam, shmam and malbusham. While I
thought I knew this was a combination of different aggadic statements, I am
unable to find one that mentions malbusham.  Any hints?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

An observation.

Levi Reisman reported to the list of his attendance at the Edah 
conference.  He indicated that he was pleasantly surprised to find that 
"there was much to be optimistic about"  and "A good deal of Rabbi 
Berman's opening speech would not have been out of place at an Agudah 
convention."  

This is good.

About 10 days ago there was a mass gathering in Jerusalem of virtually 
every stripe of orthodox Jew, from Mizrachi/Bnei Akiva/Dati  to  
Chasidic/Yeshivah/Charedi.  The unified purpose of the gathering was to 
say tehilim and protest the the Barak Court's unfair rulings affecting 
adversly, the Religious community.

Imagine that!  

I must admit that I remain skeptical in spite of this universally 
praised event.  Indeed, The very idea that people who normally bash each 
other with name calling phrases like "Sonei HaShem" or "usurpers of the 
public dole" forgot about all that enmity, and combined in one great 
Kiddush Hashem. But is it possible for a Rosh Hayeshiva to consider as a 
partner in a holy task one who is an enemy of G-D, or one who violates a 
"YeHoreg VeAL Yavor" by serving in the army?  Yet this is exactly what 
happened. Is all forgiven?  Have mistakes made in the past been forgiven 
by the Left?  Has there been an implied admission of such mistakes by 
the Right?  Or is it just a cynical use by the Right of the Left's 
sincere desire to right the injustice of tose"Justices" to further your 
own end?  I don't know but I would love to believe that it is the former 
and not the latter. One thing is for sure, the left wing of Jewry in 
Israel that participated must have come in all sincerety, and totally 
L'Shma because this was a right wing event and added to the prestige of 
the right so that the left could have no political gain by showing up.

With these two events occuring almost simultaneously, is it possible 
that there will be a raproachmont between all the factions within 
orthodox Judaism?  

It is my fervent hope that we have taken a positive turn against the 
devisiveness between us and seen that we have more in common with all 
our brothers than we have "not in common".

HM

Question: It seems from R Moshe in IM 2:60 that he holds that the
prevalent custom of davening Mincha shortly before Sheki'ah and Ma'arriv
shortly thereafter is a manifestation of tartei d'sasrei, and the only
ways to avoid the problem are by davening Mincha just before plag and
Ma'ariv thereafter, or Mincha just before tzeis ha'kochavim and Ma'ariv
shortly thereafter. The SA and Poskim in OC 235 seem, at first glance
little help in justifying the common practice. Anyone have any information
on sources that state that common practice does not constitute tartei
d'sasrei?

YGB

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

>YBG Writes.......
>I don't know if this is true if the seller receives an advantage form
his
>usage, i.e., more people come to buy in his store because he has a
>liberal return policy. He is actually gaining from the usage and return
by
>establishing a reputation, etc.

I agree personally with this logic but when I asked around the accepted
opinion seemed to be that once the Poskim declared it Ribis it is
difficult to rely on such logic and as such a Rav should be consulted.  I
do plan to research it further.

>Furthermore, if he sells the item at the same cost to someone else, your
>hana'ah is not monetary, is it?

This I would not agree with.  The right that I had to use his object is
indeed monetary.  The fact that there was no cost out of pocket to him
does not change the fact that I received value.  Furthermore the store
did lose value as they could have rented out the object to someone else. 
The use of an object always has a market value.  In addition, even if the
borrower does not lose, but if the lender gains ("Tarbis belo neshech")
it would still be Asur MiDirabanan.

>Finally, since this is a case that was relevant at the time of the
Gemoro,
>is it alluded to somewhere?

The Gemara discusses a case where I sell you a field on condition that if
I get money I can buy it back.  The gemara says that the fruit that the
purchaser eats in between is Ribis.  See BMb at the 2 dots "Machar Lo
Bayis, Machar Lo Sadeh.....)

Ben


___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

In a message dated 2/22/99 2:00:49 PM Eastern Standard Time,
clarke@HUGHESHUBBARD.COM writes:

<< One answer to this may be that they never really considered the issue.
 Jordan suggests that, for most Gedolim, the authorship of the Zohar was
 never in question and, once RYE suggested otherwise, they rejected his
 analysis because of "preconceived notions."  A different way to put it >>

Actually, that wasn't me, although I don't necessarily disagree.

Jordan 

 I rfecenntly (in the last couple of months) had an opportunity to ask Rav
Lichtenstein about the authorship of the Zohar haKadosh in a press
conference here at the Gruss Kollel in Jerusalem.

Rav Lichtenstein had written elsewhere about the cognitive dissonance we
experience between the critical literary tools that we would use on any
other ancient text in order to understand it better, and tour refusal to
use such tools on Tanakh, and to a lesser extenet, on Gemara. He
suggestested that it is our a priori belief in such texts as sacred, and
as Devar Hashem, sui generis, that makes us reluctant to use those tools,
without having to deny the fact that we do in general accept them as
valuble. I asked him if he felt that this  status should also be extended
to the Zohar ha-Kadosh, wch does seem to bear tyhe amrks of 13th century
Castile.
(Remember, Scholem was not out to prove the Zohar a forgery, r'l. He
himself writes that he originally was looking for eviudence of its
antiquity, but foiund himself swayed by his own investigation.)
Rav Lichtenstein felt that while he was not an expert on the topic, he did
not feel that the Zohar should neccesarily be excluded, a priori, from
historical analysis. However he did state that due to the centrality of
Kabbalah to the machshava of so many rishonim and ahcaronim, and the
allusions in the Gemara to the fact that there  is a vbody of espteric
wisdom as part of the Torah, that we as maamiinim shouldbe very wary of
attempts to locate the sources of Kaabbalah in gnosticism, neo-platonism
and other foreign ideologies, rather than as part and parcel of ouyr
mesorah.
With love from Tzion, on this Hilula de-Moshe Ra'aya Mehemna,
Daniel

<<
As I posted that there are actual Halochos in S"O and in our times of the
obligation of Beis Din regarding Tznius on Yom Tov, making sure no gouging,
etc., they are mentioned in the Encyclopedia Taalmudis under Beis Din.
>>

I looked at the Encyclopedia and did not find that it was at all clear that
these were the jobs of Beis Din presently.  As I wrote elsewhere, the fact
that there does not exist a Beis Din that can enforce its own rulings, unless
both parties agree to abide by the decision which is hardly enforcing their
will on the community, many of these halachos do not apply, as the
Encyclopedia itself mentions.  That being the case, we are left with an
arbitration panel, whose decision is binding only on those who willingly
accept their decision.  As such, their role in communal life is severely
limited, and they are left to wait for people to come to them for judgement.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
Ein hochi nami.  I hazard a guess that in EY during the BHM, BD would send out
shotrim to enforce psak.  I would also guess that Sorei Asoros might have
acted 
more as shotrim than as shoftim, i.e. more into enforecment than into decision
making. 
>>

This is an important distinction, as pointed out in the article in the
Encyclopedia Talmudis.  The shot'rim were responsible for enforcement.  The
shof'tim were responsible for appointing shot'rim.  The obligation, though,
might be on the tzibbur in general.  This means that technically it is not
Beis Din's job to right wrongs, it is the shot'rim's job.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

A general comment on the discussion concering agunot and husbands who refuse
to give gittin.

Whenever I deal with a get, I tell both parties that in all divorces there is
the husband's story, and the wife's story, and the truth which lies somewhere
in between.  Anything being claimed by either party has to be viewed with
suspicion.  Verification of information is crucial to seeing the truth.  For
anyone, dayan or person in the street, to judge a situation based on what one
has heard third hand is ludicrous.

There are times when a man comes to Bais Din and does not want to give a get,
prefering to try and resolve the marital collapse.  Often this is a ploy not
to give a get.  However, there are times when the husband is sincere in his
attempt, and the wife is being the unreasonable party, not wanting to make
good faith efforts at resolution.  As usually happens, after a while, a
realization sets in that the wife will not consider any reconciliation, and
the husband is advised to cut his losses and move on.  But that is difficult
to recommend to a person, especially since he is acting in accordance with
what we want and expect.  Some organizations quickly brand such a man a
m'agen, and start campaigns to shame him, when in fact he is being honorable.
As I said earlier, often a man will use this argument as a ploy and he is also
not sincere, but that is up to the dayanim to decide, from as objective a
perspective as they can manage.

We, sitting on the outside, can not judge the matter.  And we can also not
issue blanket statements that there is never a situation when a man is
justified in not giving a get immediately.

Eliyahu Teitz
Jewish Educational Center
Elizabeth, NJ

<<
As he himself testifies  [page 16] that
he had written these comments 40 years prior to publication and he had not
wanted
to publish them except for the renewed manifestation of Sabbateans and
therefore he
was forced to reveals his claims against the Zohar in order to weaken their
foundations.  This is a answer to the question of how all the sages prior to
the
Yaavetz over a period of hundreds of years apparently didn't notice these
claims.
They obviously were aware of these issues but felt there was no compelling
reason
to make public comment on them and they obviously resolved them to their own
satisfaction."
>>

I think this comment by the publisher is the crux of the matter.  Not knowing
who the publisher was I cannot make any claims as to his claim that others
were "aware of these issues..." which to me seems to show that others felt the
same way, that the Zohar was not entirely tanaitic, they just kept quiet for
other reasons.  If these others were indeed people of stature then the
publishers claim is that many had serious doubts as to the authenticity of the
Zohar as presented.  But again, I don't know who the publisher was, nor on
what he was basing his claim.

EDT

subject: reliance on chachamim

<<
 Nevertheless, I find it illogical to rely on Scholem et al, when towering
 figures over them say distinctly differently.

 I have a similar problem with the separate issue of the discrepancy in
 chronologies between our Talmudic tradition of a 420 year Bayis Sheni vs.
 the secular chronology...

 YGB >>

My problem with this is that the defense usually is of the form
" it is true because some gadol or some gemara says so"
There is little attempt to actually show what is wrong with the
logic of the objections.

Some examples:

There was a few years ago a discussion whether a manuscript was from
Rav Yehuda hachassid. Rav Moshe essentially said it couldn't be because
of what it said. I have heard from other talmidei chachamim that the
evidence is overwhelming that it is from him.

Tosaphot claims that Elizer haKalir was a Tanna. I doubt that any modern
historian would go along with that. The language used in the piyuttim
simply doesn't fit.

Sefer hakabbala from Raavad I brings the story of the 4 captives from
Bavel that established communities around the world. There is
evidence from the genizah that contradicts this.

I personally find the evidence against the 429 year bayis Sheni
overwehlming, including Persian enscriptions, contemporary Greek
historians, and even astronomical observations. If one reads Ezra
in a straightforward way it clearly conforms with the secular view
of the Persian kings. The names of these kings exactly agree with
Greek names. Instead chazal were required to say that different names
refer to the same king. I find it strange that tanach would use different
names and the Greeks who lived then and Persian carvings all refer to
these different names and in reality they are all the same.
There is a recent book on this subject that brings down all the opinions.
Basically the defense of Chazal is chazal have to be right and therefore
all proofs to the contrary are a priori wrong and there is no reason
to try and discuss the problem.
I have seen several attempts at a chronology that is consistent with
chazal and all them have trouble with some other gemara e.g. fitting
in the nasi of the bet din hagadol from the begiining of Avot and
that Alexander Yanna was a brother-in-law of Shimon ben shetach etc.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

the jewish press had an article last week on the reverse aguna, defined as
follows:  in the communities where bais yakov girls are looking for
'learning guys',  the current going rate is five free-and-clear years of
support, plus the wedding financed by the girl's side exclusively.  the
kalla maidel's fate  is thus tied to the ~$150000 this encumbers.  many
girls with great spiritual/physical midot [ the latter apparantly is an
issue as well- we hear in our town of bochrim who want to know the dress
size before they consider the shidduch [and usually refuse if it's greater
than 6]] are thus in trouble before the game starts. I'd heard rumours of
melamdim being asked to cough up that kind of gelt, but didn't really
believe it.     From around the country, do you all think this is a bube
mase, only a boro park phenomenon, or wide spread?

in the phrases that are repeated in the megilla [ lifneihem/bifneihem ,
laharog/velaharog}   most places i think just repeat the phrase, not the
whole pasuk. am i wrong or was it minhag YU  to repeat the whole pasuk, and
what is the source?

thanx

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Eli Turkel wrote:

> My problem with this is that the defense usually is of the form " it is
> true because some gadol or some gemara says so"  There is little attempt
> to actually show what is wrong with the logic of the objections. 
> 

You are using a classic debating tool that is not applicable here. I have
not made reference to "some gadol or gemara" (why so disparaing, R' Eli -
are Gedolim or Gemoros less than Scholem - but that was not my point) but
rather invited proof. You do not prove, but proffer.

> There was a few years ago a discussion whether a manuscript was from Rav
> Yehuda hachassid. Rav Moshe essentially said it couldn't be because of
> what it said. I have heard from other talmidei chachamim that the
> evidence is overwhelming that it is from him. 
> 

This may well be true, but no relevant to our discussion. I do not see a
need to be mechalek, as the chilukim are obvious, but let me know.

> Tosaphot claims that Elizer haKalir was a Tanna. I doubt that any modern
> historian would go along with that. The language used in the piyuttim
> simply doesn't fit. 
> 

Indeed. Why do you not give us some concrete examples, instead of "some
modern historians."

> Sefer hakabbala from Raavad I brings the story of the 4 captives from
> Bavel that established communities around the world. There is evidence
> from the genizah that contradicts this. 
> 

By all means, present us with the ecidence, instead of "some documents."

> I personally find the evidence against the 429 year bayis Sheni
> overwehlming, including Persian enscriptions, contemporary Greek
> historians, and even astronomical observations. If one reads Ezra in a
> straightforward way it clearly conforms with the secular view of the
> Persian kings. The names of these kings exactly agree with Greek names.
> Instead chazal were required to say that different names refer to the
> same king. I find it strange that tanach would use different names and
> the Greeks who lived then and Persian carvings all refer to these
> different names and in reality they are all the same.  There is a recent
> book on this subject that brings down all the opinions.  Basically the
> defense of Chazal is chazal have to be right and therefore all proofs to
> the contrary are a priori wrong and there is no reason to try and
> discuss the problem.  I have seen several attempts at a chronology that
> is consistent with chazal and all them have trouble with some other
> gemara e.g. fitting in the nasi of the bet din hagadol from the
> begiining of Avot and that Alexander Yanna was a brother-in-law of
> Shimon ben shetach etc. 
>

I find the evidence against 429 overwhelming as well. It was 420 :-).

I have perused much material on this subject, even though it really does
not interest me and I must stifle yawns when doing so. In brief, I find no
compelling evidence, especially in light of Immanuel Velikovsky's - no
great ma'amin - refutation of Herodotus in the "The Sea Peoples." It boils
down to Chazal versus Herodotus, and why give Herodotus the benefit of the
doubt? There is much more to it, and you really have to sort through a lot
of material, but just as R' Eli assures us of one side after his research,
I may assure you of the other after mine! 

YGB

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

In a message dated 2/23/99 9:59:54 AM EST, EDTeitz@aol.com writes:

> I looked at the Encyclopedia and did not find that it was at all clear that
>  these were the jobs of Beis Din presently.  As I wrote elsewhere, the fact
>  that there does not exist a Beis Din that can enforce its own rulings, 
> unless
>  both parties agree to abide by the decision which is hardly enforcing their
>  will on the community, many of these halachos do not apply, as the
>  Encyclopedia itself mentions. 

While there is issue to the extent of Minui Dayonim Bizman Hazeh, (big Arichus
on Klei Nosi'im of S"O C"M 1:1 and see the Loshon of the title to that Simon),
since the S"O brings the obligation of B"D in Hil. Yom Tov, and it's
obligation WRT weights and prices, it does seem to be an obligation now too,
further there are the famous Taakonos of the Vaad Arba Arotzos (Ben if you
read this being that you are much into the laws of Ribbis, much is written on
this by the Baal HaSME on C"M it is printed in the back of the Kol Boi),
perhaps the migration of many communities to one place is at the root of
today's lack of a central Beis Din (rather an orbitrary one).

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

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


[ 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 ]