Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 077

Tuesday, July 4 2000

• Re: Limino -- keeping nature separate
• Re: Limino -- keeping nature separate
• Cherem d'Rabbeinu Gershom
• Re: minhag
• Re: Rabbi Berman and the wedding
• Re: Rabbi Berman and the wedding
• Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom
• Re: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom
• Re: Rabbi Berman and the wedding
• Re: Rabbi Saul Berman and the Woman's in Role in Judaism
• RE: Can we "like" a mitzvah?
• Re: Cherem D'Rabbenu Gershom
• Ran in Nedarim
• Re: Limino -- keeping nature separate
• Brisker Victory
• Re: Ran in Nedarim

RD Finch 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?
     
Are you assuming that being involved in the modern world is a synthesis?  
Perhaps having feet in both world is becoming part of the dialectic rather than 
finding a synthesis.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com

In a message dated 6/30/00 1:50:25 PM US Central Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:
> 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.

Do you really think so? To me, RYBS seems to be all about dialectic. There's 
his inner Chassidus (barely acknowledged, if at all) vs. his Brisker 
uber-rationalism. Then there's his use of the concept of halacha as a sort 
summa of Kantian idealism: halacha, not HaShem, is the ultimate reality, 
because halacha is knowable and HaShem is not. Knowable and therefore *not* 
symbolic (contra RSRH), which, at least emotionally, makes RYBS's halacha the 
dialectical pole of his personal kavannah. That's why his work is so 
compellingly tragic.

RYBS seemed to treat the outside world as a threat to one's intellectual 
equilibrium. Avodas Hashem meant one thing to him before he learned Kant, and 
another thereafter. He kept spinning back and forth between his pre-Kantian 
sense of religiosity and the one he had to rationalize in terms of idealistic 
philosophy. This also was a dialectic.

David Finch 

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

To which of his charamim are you referring?

-- 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 29 Jun 2000, at 0:56, Eli Turkel wrote:
> bringing in shabbat - fairly widely accepte to light candles early

Only among Ashkenazim. The Sfardim do not accept this minhag at all.

> various funeral practices - widely accepted but hard to tell since it is
>     enforced by the chevra kadisha

Some of these seem to have spread beyond Yerushalayim. I have seen funerals in
Beit Shemesh that adopted Yerushalmi practice, and I am told that Petach Tikva
also accepted Yerushalmi minhagim (the latter was founded by Yerushalmim).

> 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

I think you need to differentiate here - and it is somewhat inconsistent -
between accepting Otzar Beis Din (which is widely accepted in Yerushalayim,
at least from what I saw in the last shmitta) and accepting the Chazon Ish's
shita with respect to treating produce grown on Arab lands with Kdushas Shviis
(which as far as I can tell is not widely accepted in Yerushalayim).

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

I never realized that R. Chaim Naeh's shiurim were minhag Yerushalayim!

-- Carl

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.

From: Krischer, Ellen L (Ellen) <krischer@lucent.com>
> causitive effect on whether a woman could say them?  We have other contexts
> where women say brachas in a minyan (birchat hagomel) or where a woman could
> be motzei a minyan of men (krias megillah, kiddish).

YGB: I do not know.

> Boy is it hard to refrain from making visceral, nasty remarks about this!
> Instead I will resort to irony.  There are so many restrictions placed on
> women so that "bnot yisroel" won't be "hefker".  Now, when a woman want to
> take an active role in affirming the kedusha of her marriage, NOW we require
> that she be hefker!?

YGB: Even your "refraining" remarks are an inappropriate response, for a
participant in Arevim/Avodah. When confronted with a statement of a sage of the
Ran's stature that we might not like, we can, at best, say "tzarich iyun". But,
an emotional response is never the proper way with which to deal with an abstact
halachic position. We do not "like" or "dislike" it, cannot be tempted to be
nasty or visceral, even ironic, about it. Chazal call that "tiflus". We deal
with it analytically and dispassionately.

The Ran is in Nedarim 30a (not 40a as I mistakenly posted previously), d.h.
V'Isha, vz"l (although one must see the entire discussion): "Elah me'keivan
she'he maskemes l'kiddushei ha'ish he mevateles da'ata u'retzona u'mashvei
nafsha eitzel ha'ba'al k'davar shel hefker v'ha'ba'al machnisa l'reshuso."

KT,
YGB

On 3 Jul 2000, at 11:07, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:
> The Ran is in Nedarim 30a (not 40a as I mistakenly posted previously), d.h.
> V'Isha, vz"l (although one must see the entire discussion): "Elah me'keivan
> she'he maskemes l'kiddushei ha'ish he mevateles da'ata u'retzona u'mashvei
> nafsha eitzel ha'ba'al k'davar shel hefker v'ha'ba'al machnisa l'reshuso."

I understand the Ran as saying that she is mafkir herself. IOW, by accepting
the Kiddushin, she is affirmatively being mafkir herself so that the husband
can be koneh her. While I do not see the necessity (or advisability) of the
woman saying "Ani Mekabelet," I don't necessarily see it as conflicting
with the Ran. It doesn't strike me as being that different than a person
affirmatively being mafkir his chametz on Erev Pesach before Chatzos.

-- Carl

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.

Did Rabbenu Gershom have more than one wife?  There is no proof for the
story that R. Richard Wolpoe tells (that RGMH actually had two wives and
the jealousy between them was so great that he issued the cherem).  That
doesn't mean we know it's false.
Prof. Avraham Grossman (Chachmei Ashkenaz Harishonim, p. 111) mentions
that a ketuba written for Rabbenu Gershom has survived.  It was written
in 4773 (1013) to replace the first ketuba, which had been lost.  His
wife's name was Bonna bat R. David, and she was a widow when he married
her.  It is probable, but not definite, that Bonna was his second wife
(that is, he was a widower when he married her).
Incidentally, it is nearly certain that RGMH passed away in 1028, 12
years before Rashi's birth.  The notion that RGMH passed away in 1040,
when Rashi was born, is not true, although many of us learned it in high
school (and it is quoted in Shut Maharshal Siman 29).

Daniel

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Daniel A. Schiffman wrote:
> Did Rabbenu Gershom have more than one wife?  There is no proof for the
> story that R. Richard Wolpoe tells (that RGMH actually had two wives and
> the jealousy between them was so great that he issued the cherem).  That
> doesn't mean we know it's false. 

The story, I believe, originates in the Marcus Lehman novel about RGMH. I
believed everything I read in all those novels for many years, and still
have difficulty sorting fact from fiction.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

[Moderator's note: I'm going to shunt further speculation to Areivim. -mi]

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Carl M. Sherer wrote:
>                   While I do not see the necessity (or advisability) of the
> woman saying "Ani Mekabelet," I don't necessarily see it as conflicting
> with the Ran. It doesn't strike me as being that different than a person
> affirmatively being mafkir his chametz on Erev Pesach before Chatzos.

Check the Ran inside. You will see that his logic negates practically any
amirah on the woman's behalf. In Shulchan Aruch EH 27-28 I believe the only
amira allowable on the woman's part is "Hen" ("Yes"). Otherwise we run into
"Nasan Hu v'Amra He" problems. When I have a moment I need to look up the
Acharonim on Kiddushin 5b - anyone have some spare time to see what R'
Shimon Shkop says there?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000 Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
>                                                            I don't think
> the Ran can be taken at face value ...        If anything, this is
> similar to the case on 5b where he gave her kesef kiddushin and she said
> "harei ani miskadeshes lecha" which we hold is safek mekuddeshes. 
> 

Hmmm...

Are we interested in setting up l'chatchila ceremonies that result only in
safek kiddushin?

I agree that it is a safek - that makes us happier?

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Krischer, Ellen L (Ellen) wrote:
> I find it difficult to believe that we are forbidden to have emotional
> reactions to halachic positions or that it is somehow improper for us to
> have favorites that we "like" or others that for various reasons we
> "dislike".  Consider the fact that we are at times commanded to have
> emotions: be happy on chagim, be sad on T'isha B'av.  Does this imply we
> are not to have emotions the rest of the time? 

We may have reactions to mitzvos that the mitzva requires - we may not say
dislike the mitzva. There is difference between disliking TbA and being
sad on TbA.

(While I think this is going too far, in Chabad they say: "Me'shenichnas
Av me'ma'atin - but we must do so - b'simcha."

As to Torah however, we may not say "shemu'ah zu na'ah" vs. "shemu'ah zu
eina na'ah" (the mareh makom escapes me right now) - at best we can say
"*I* enjoy learning this" and "*I* do not enjoy learning that".

> Also, I would ask you to differentiate between ridiculing a halachic
> position or authority (which was not my intention) and noticing how
> halacha sometimes plays out with real people and situations (which is
> what I was attempting to do.) 

The distinction was certainly not clear. I can accept that you were not
sufficiently clear, if that is your position, but it did not seem from
your use of "irony" that your statement was purely objective.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

"Daniel A. Schiffman" wrote:
> Incidentally, it is nearly certain that RGMH passed away in 1028, 12
> years before Rashi's birth.  The notion that RGMH passed away in 1040,
> when Rashi was born, is not true, although many of us learned it in high
> school (and it is quoted in Shut Maharshal Siman 29).

From where is it nearly certain?

ari

R' Sh. Shkop discusses the Ran in Sharei Yosher 7:12.  I wrote that the Ran 
just meant to exclude the need for da'as makneh on the part of the woman in 
kiddushin, not to literally define her as hefker, v'hara'aya kiddushin 
requires ratzon, also the gemara in Kid. 7 has the case of adam chashuv where 
the women gives the money and does the amira and that is acceptable, as long 
as it is the man upon whose da'as the kiddushin depends.  R' Shimon goes even 
further: he argues that a woman's role in kiddushin is far from passive, but 
requires da'as makneh like any other kinyan.  The chiddush of kiddushin (and 
he reads this as the Ran's position as well) is that while other kinyanim can 
take effect without any explicit da'as koneh, e.g. a katan can be koneh as 
long as there is a gadol being makneh to him, because our only concern is 
with the makneh, not with the da'as koneh, kiddushin is different.  Here the 
gezeiras hakasuv demands that we concern ourselves not only with the woman's 
da'as as a makneh, but also with her husband's da'as koneh.

Agav: nasan hu v'amra hi while asukin b'oso inyan (which is the whole point 
of a marraige ceremony) is kiddushei vaday (E.H. 27).  I'm wondering if any 
Rishon would pasel kiddushin where the husband is the ba'al nesina and amira 
and the wife just acknowledges that fact with a statement of kabbalah.  But 
that discussion is really irrelevant to the Ran.

-CB

RSRH, if you noticed, actually drew from two thoughts. I wasn't clear on that
point in my previous email because it just dawned on me. First, he speaks
of respect for nature as part of our general respect for Hashem's law. This
phrases the mitzvah in terms of its literal effects. Second, he writes
about the elements as symbols, and the prohibition to mix them because of
the lesson it teaches about not mixing the things they represent. It is in
this way that we can speak of klayim in terms of preserving a dialectic.

I looked at our five mitzvos (kla'ei kerem, kela'ei zera'im, kela'ei
beheimah, sha'atnez and basar vichalav) in the Chinuch. Thre Chinuch
focusses on the first element -- the "limino" aspect of beri'ah.

Kla'ei kerem (548) and kela'ei zera'im (245) have references to kela'ei
beheimah (244, yoking the two together 550). The Chinuch does add that kerem
merits its own din because of its chashivus -- which is also why the pasuk
mentions grains in this regard. As we are about to see, chashivus is at the
root of kila'im.

The Chinuch in a few places (e.g. 548) plays on the similarity between kila'im
and klum. The problem with kila'im (as he writes in 244) is that you create
a thing which is a little of each, lacking the grandeur of HKBH's creation
that is inherent in the original. I therefore do not take this word play-to
be merely alliterative, but the Chinuch's derivation of the word kila'im.

The Chinuch adds that kerem merits its own din because of its chashivus --
which is also why the pasuk mentions grains in this regard. Again, because
kela'im reduces the chashivus of beri'ah.

He really addresses the key notion of kelai'im when discussing kela'ei behemah.
Interestingly, he refers us to his comments on machasheifah lo sichyeh (62).
The point in common is that kishuf to is a subversion of the natural order.
Sha'atnez (551) is cited as a fabric often worn by machasheifos -- for this
reason.

This brings to mind the Rambam in the Moreh on basar vichalav. The Rambam
ties it to a Canaanite pagan sacrifice, much like the Chinuch on sha'atnez
-- assur-ing something presumably because it was used in an issur. And in
both cases we could object that it gives the mitzvah a time-limited meaning.
Machasheifos no longer wear sha'atnez, and Kinaanim no longer sacrifice
a g'di bachaleiv imo.

It also suggests an explanation applicabloe to both. The machsheifah wore
sha'atnez for a reason -- kila'im is a subversion of nature, an integral
part of her prohibited art. Perhaps the Rambam was saying the same. It's
not assur merely because that was what the Kina'anim did, but rather it's
assur for the reasons the Kina'anim wanted to do it.

-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.         

The Rambam was vague regarding his opinion whether
shemitas karka'os bizman hazeh is de'oraisa or
derabbanan.  However, there seemed to be a consensus
of heavy-weights (led by the Kessef Mishnah) that he
held it is de'oraisa.  The Beis HaLevi and Reb Chaim,
however, insisted that the Rambam held it is
derabbanan.

I was just looking through the Frankel Rambam and in
hilchos shemitah veyovel 10:9 they have the Rambam
saying outright that it is derabbanan.  In the back
they say that all kisvei yad have it that way and only
printings have it vague.

Just proves how far a good Brisker sevara can go.

Gil Student

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Kick off your party with Yahoo! Invites.
http://invites.yahoo.com/

On Mon, 3 Jul 2000 C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
> Agav: nasan hu v'amra hi while asukin b'oso inyan (which is the whole
> point of a marraige ceremony) is kiddushei vaday (E.H. 27).  I'm
> wondering if any Rishon would pasel kiddushin where the husband is the
> ba'al nesina and amira and the wife just acknowledges that fact with a
> statement of kabbalah.  But that discussion is really irrelevant to the
> Ran. 

I am unconvinced. 

Nasan hu v'amra he b'asukin b'oso inyan may work if her amirah does not
change the nature of the ma'aseh kiddushin, i.e., she says "harei ani
mekkudeshes lach b'taba'as zu KMvY." But not if she is "mekkabeles" the
kiddushin. According to the Ran, she can only manifest da'as makneh to be
mafkir and allow him to then take possesion - this is different than
receiving consideration to effect a sale.

Interestingly, the Ba'al Ha'Tanya in his siddur says that al pi kabbalah
the woman should remain silent during the ma'aseh kiddushin - cited in the
sefer Minhag Yisroel Torah as well.

KT,
YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

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


[ 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         ]