Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 100

Wed, 19 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 2. hirhurim ra'im (David Riceman)
• 3. Re: Halakhos that depend on LH? (Simon Montagu)
• 4. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (chana@kolsassoon.org.uk)
• 7. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: O attend R wedding = kosher eidim? (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Michael Makovi)
• 10. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 11. Re: Hot Cheese for Shabbat Lunch (Jacob Farkas)
• 12. time of Purim Seudah (Eli Turkel)
• 13. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 14. Re: time of Purim Seudah (Elazar M. Teitz)

>  Having read through Not in Heaven - in particular Chapter 4 -Halacha in
>  our Time - I am having difficulty understanding how R' Berkovitz differs
>  from Reform and Conservative Judaism. What does he do with Jews for
>  Jesus? The following is his lead in to his discussion of conversion.
>
>  For example he states on page 107

>  Daniel Eidensohn

I don't see the problem with what Rav Berkovits says. If I had to
summarize him on one foot, I'd say, "R and C are not apikorsim/minim
b'meizid; rather, they are sincere and honestly intend to improve
Judaism, however mistaken they are. They are simply mistaken (wrong)
and/or tinokim she'nishbu."

Does anyone here disagree? Would anyone characterize them as b'meizid
and NOT tinokim she'nishbu?

Similarly, in his article on gerut, Rav Berkovits says that while he
personally believes Orthodoxy, halacha, the Shulchan Aruch, etc. are
true/authoritative, he cannot prove it, and he has no more conviction
in this than the R and C do in their views, and so one cannot try to
trump them by claiming personal feeling of being correct. Therefore,
he says that we must approach them with candor and try to create some
sort of compromise; he suggests saying that the Orthodox standards are
the lowest-common denominator of everyone, and it is the others that
deviated from them, not Orthodoxy.

B'vadai, one can argue with Rav Berkovits on whether we can do away
with the law of kabbalat mitzvot in favor of the law of preservation
of the unity of Am Yisrael, as an eit la'asot lashem; b'vadai one can
argue with this. But the questions he raises (viz. that to be machmir
on kabbalat mitzvot is to be meikil on lo titgodedu, etc.), and the
approach that leads us to his conclusion (approach R/C with candor,
etc., and firmly state our approach but still give them the respect of
having their opinion listened to, don't declare them apikorsim
b'meizid, recognize their lishma intentions even if they are dead
wrong), is much less open to criticism IMHO, except from R' Toby Katz
;)

Mikha'el Makovi

I've been glancing through Rabbi Henkin's book "Understanding Tzniut".  
He spends quite a lot of time discussing men's prurient thoughts and how 
the Rabbis tried to regulate them, but he doesn't mention women's 
prurient thoughts and whether the Rabbis tried to regulate them.  Is 
that simply not the subject of the book, or did the Rabbis in fact not 
try to regulate women's prurient thoughts?

David Riceman

On Sun, Mar 16, 2008 at 3:23 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> I was asked in private email:
>  :                                      There are many _halachos_, some
>  : even d'Oraisa, that are _contigent_, apparently, on people speaking
>  : lashon hara. The phrase "mezoros b'lavanah" in Sotah, or "kol d'lo
>  : posak". I haven't gotten an answer yet.

Not surprising, since the writer (at least as quoted here) hasn't
asked a question yet ;-) What is the question?

According to the opinion, though, that a seeing witnesses, not only a
testifying witness, makes everyone's seeing pasul, (what has been
referred to in this conversation as the shittah of Tosafos), then
there are no _eidei kiyum_ as a result of the presence of the pasul,
and hence no kiddushin.
>
>  EMT

Okay, so question then: at an O wedding, why do the R people present
not disqualify it? Similarly, the relatives of the hatan and kalah...

Tosafot says that anyone in the vicinity is a witness and pasuls, so
Tosafot says to designate witnesses, and that way, everyone else is
segregated and doesn't count as eidim.

According to the rov, it is those eidim who actually testify, whether
or not they were designated, who can pasul. So as long as those who
actually testify are O and kosher etc., the kiddishin is kosher, and
at an R wedding, as long as the O does NOT testify, then it's unkosher
( = good). Designation per se is not necessary; rather, it is whoever
in fact testifies.

The major difference then, is that Tosafot calls for explicit
enumeration and declaration of who the eidim are, whereas the rov says
that it is whoever de facto testifies, not declaration necessary.

Have I understood? I still feel like there's something I'm not quite khopping...

Mikha'el Makovi

Michael Makovi wrote:
>>  Having read through Not in Heaven - in particular Chapter 4 -Halacha in
>>  our Time - I am having difficulty understanding how R' Berkovitz differs
>>  from Reform and Conservative Judaism. What does he do with Jews for
>>  Jesus? The following is his lead in to his discussion of conversion.
>>
>>  For example he states on page 107
>>     
>
>   
>>  Daniel Eidensohn
>>     
>
> I don't see the problem with what Rav Berkovits says. If I had to
> summarize him on one foot, I'd say, "R and C are not apikorsim/minim
> b'meizid; rather, they are sincere and honestly intend to improve
> Judaism, however mistaken they are. They are simply mistaken (wrong)
> and/or tinokim she'nishbu."
>
> Does anyone here disagree? Would anyone characterize them as b'meizid
> and NOT tinokim she'nishbu?
>
>   
Rav Moshe Feinstein (Igros Moshe O.C. 3:21 page 318) ( E.H. 4:80 page 
145) In fact I have  Rav Moshe's teshuvos concerning Reform and 
Conservative as subheadings under the major heading of kefirah pp 
151-155 in Yad Moshe.
He also did not consider their rabbis as tinok she'nishbu.

*Abarbanel**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Rosh Amana #12*): When considered carefully 
the view of the Raavad must be rejected. According to his view even one 
who unintentionally rejects every fundamental principle will still have 
a portion in the World to Come. For example, Christians who take the 
words of the Torah and prophecy literally and sincerely believe that 
their understanding is correct?would not be considered heretics?! 
Furthermore, it would be possible to find a person who does not believe 
any of the fundamental principles of faith and he still would not be 
considered a heretic?as long as his blind foolishness was the result of 
his failure to understand the Torah properly. This view is impossible to 
accept both from the Torah point of view and that of commonsense. That 
is because false understanding concerning a foundation principle of 
religion turns the soul from true spiritual success and prevents him 
from achieving the World to Come?even though he did not intentionally 
rebel. It is like a person who consumes a deadly poison?he will surely 
die even though he thought he was eating healthy food. Similarly, heresy 
and false fundamental beliefs alienate a person?s soul and without doubt 
prevent him from inheriting the World to Come.


------------------------------------------------------------------------


?????? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ????? ???. ??? ????? 
??????? ???? ??? ????? ?????? ????? ???????? ?????, ?????? ??????? ??? 
?? ????????, ???? ???? ????? ?? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ????? 
??????? ????? ???? ??? ??, ????? ??? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???????? ????? 
????? ??????? ????? ??? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ????? 
?????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ?????. ??????? ???? ???? ?? ????? ?????? 
??????? ????? ????. ??? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ??????, ??? ??? 
???? ??????? ??????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ??? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ???? 
?????? ?????. ?? ??? ??? ????? ??????? ??? ???? ???? ?????, ?????? ???? 
?????, ?? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ????? ???? ???? ???? ?????, ?? ?????? 
??????? ?????? ????? ????? ??? ????? ??? ???? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? 
??? ???.



To turn the question around - do _*you*_ know of any **recognized** 
Orthodox authority who characterized them as R' Berkovitz did?

RDE writes:

>If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the 
>Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated 
>because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have 
>Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish 
unity" 
>we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by 
saying 
>these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with 
>Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus 
are  
>also divisive laws. 

I think you are being a little unfair here.  You yourself have brought 
that there are two sides to the question vis a vis accepting gerim, and 
in particular brought what could be considered to be "public policy" 
reasons against taking the lenient view - including the bad experiences 
of poskim with products of such geirus (Rav Moshe et al).

It would seem entirely possible, within that framework, to see the 
situation in Israel as different from that in galus.  Advancing an eis 
l'asos argument to prefer one side of this machlokus over another would 
seem to be fundamentally different to advancing an eis l'asos argument 
where you are talking about overturning a d'orisa.

That, I confess, also seems to me to be one of the flaws of moving 
from R' Uzziel to R' Angel.  R'Uzziel was the Chief Rabbi of Israel, 
and was talking in the Israeli context.  R' Angel is not.  To the 
extent that issues of how well and often the geirus appears to "take" 
are important, the result may well be different in the different 
contexts.  That has been, I assume, one of the reasons that Betei Din 
in Israel are at least claimed to sometimes to attach to the conversion 
the stricture that the convert not leave Israel (I do not know the 
truth of the claims, but that claim is I gather made about at least one 
of the prominent cases here in the UK - prominent because the London 
Beis Din is alleged not to accept the conversion).  On another note, I 
have somewhat wondered about that claim.  What is the halachic status 
of it - is it a form of tnai?  And can you do a tnai on a conversion of 
this nature?  Or is it something the papers have made up?

>Daniel Eidensohn

Regards

Chana




__________________________________________________
Find the answer to your questions - www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/

Michael Makovi wrote:

> According to the rov, it is those eidim who actually testify[...]
> So as long as those who actually testify [...] Designation per se
> is not necessary; rather, it is whoever in fact testifies.

What is this "testify"?  This is where your mistake lies: there is no
"testify", only "exist".  When would they testify?  When have you ever
heard of a beis din holding a hearing into whether a marriage took place? 
Sometimes this can become an issue in a case, and then the BD would
indeed have to inquire into the matter and call witnesses, etc., but
in 99% of marriages that will never happen, and it's certainly not in
any way part of the process of marriage.

If no witnesses can be produced to prove that a marriage took place,
that doesn't make the parties unmarried, it just means that whoever
is demanding money on that basis can't prevail; but the lack of kosher
eidim at a wedding *does* invalidate it, regardless of whether there
is ever a hearing on the matter.

-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, March 17, 2008 8:54 pm, R Elazar M. Teitz wrote:
> :      I don't think R weddings have designated witnesses, certainly not
> : "to the exclusion of all others."


> To bring the story to its relevancy for this conversation, I would
> presume that if the American norm is to appoint witnesses, R would as
> well. [...] Reform and
>> Reconstructionist and some Conservative rabbis accept women as
>> witnesses, though most still prefer that the witness be Jewish.
> 
> So, they appoint witnesses, often nothing resembling eidus. They are
> pretty formally appointed, actually, I got the impression that there
> is usually one set of witnesses for the "kesuvah" and the ceremony.

I think this is a different meaning of "witnesses".  Despite the name,
what they're there for is not to actually see the marriage but to sign
the register.  The proper analogy here is not to eidei kiddushin, who
are eidei kiyum, but to the eidim on the tena'im and the ketuba, who
are eidei ra'ayah.  Signing the register is a kibbud, just as is signing
the tena'im or ketuba, but I don't think they have the concept of eidei
kiyum for the ceremony itself.


-- 
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

>  *Abarbanel**[i]* <#_edn1>*(Rosh Amana #12*): When considered carefully
>  the view of the Raavad must be rejected. According to his view even one
>  who unintentionally rejects every fundamental principle will still have
>  a portion in the World to Come. ... Furthermore, it would be possible to find a person who
> does not believe any of the fundamental principles of faith and he still would not be
>  considered a heretic?as long as his blind foolishness was the result of
>  his failure to understand the Torah properly. This view is impossible to
>  accept both from the Torah point of view and that of commonsense. That
>  is because false understanding concerning a foundation principle of
>  religion turns the soul from true spiritual success and prevents him
>  from achieving the World to Come?even though he did not intentionally
>  rebel. It is like a person who consumes a deadly poison?he will surely
>  die even though he thought he was eating healthy food. Similarly, heresy
>  and false fundamental beliefs alienate a person's soul and without doubt
>  prevent him from inheriting the World to Come.

Not that I'm any expert, and I'll say now that I haven't studied any
of the sources, and I'll say that I know most sources will disagree
with me except the Raavad and the minority that follows him (is there
one?), but I'll still say:

The Abarbanel could be challenged that receiving Olam haBa is not some
mechanistic thing that a cold machine does based on hard-wired
criteria. Rather, G-d evaluates each person one-by-one I assume. So
what would stop G-d from saying, "You didn't believe any of the 13,
but since you were 100% shogeg tinok she'nishba, I'll let you in".

Adarabba, it seems to me contrary to reason that G-d would NOT do
this! To a tinok she'nishba, we don't penalize him at all (obviously,
he can't be an eid, etc., but still, we don't villify him or punish
him by the beit din), and yet the beit din shel maala will be
*stricter* than shel mata? Since when is the shel maala stricter -
isn't it always that our courts have to go by what we see (he stole,
period) but shel maala will judge the conditions (he was poor, he was
hungry, he didn't know better...)? So why is here the opposite?

>  To turn the question around - do _*you*_ know of any **recognized**
>  Orthodox authority who characterized them as R' Berkovitz did?

Not so explicitly, no, but I've always seen R and C characterized as
tinokim she'nishbu, and never did I see the rabbis distinguished from
the lay. Now, b'vadai, sometimes you have to take practical measures
against the rabbis themselves because of the harm they'll do. But it's
never against them for their own sake - if an R/C rabbi sat and did
nothing, we'd do nothing to him, and if he does "kiruv", we'll stop
his efforts but only because of the efforts, not because of him
himself. This is all AFAIK.

> R' Daniel Eidensohn
Mikha'el Makovi

chana@kolsassoon.org.uk wrote:
> RDE writes:
>
>   
>> If I understand you properly, R' Berkovitz argues that whenever the 
>> Torah laws become difficult to keep they should be simply abrogated 
>> because of ais la'asos. According to this if we are prepared to have 
>> Israel populated by "make believe" Jews for the sake of "Jewish 
>>     
> unity" 
>   
>> we should also do away with the problem of aguna and mamzerim by 
>>     
> saying 
>   
>> these halachos are no longer of concern because it interferes with 
>> Jewish unity. Shabbos is also a problem. Hilchos nidda and kashrus 
>>     
> are  
>   
>> also divisive laws. 
>>     
>
> I think you are being a little unfair here.  You yourself have brought 
> that there are two sides to the question vis a vis accepting gerim, and 
> in particular brought what could be considered to be "public policy" 
> reasons against taking the lenient view - including the bad experiences 
> of poskim with products of such geirus (Rav Moshe et al).
>   
This is perhaps the first time I don't really understand what your point 
is. Could you elaborate on what do you mean that I am "being a little 
unfair here"? Do you agree with R' Berkovitz's approach?  I don't and 
therefore don't feel a need for finding circumstances where it might be 
more legitimate to apply.

The well known fact that many issues can have a variety of solutions - 
doesn't change the fact that not every solution is acceptable. R' 
Berkovitz's solutions seem unacceptable. I still don't see how R' 
Berkowitz's approach differs from Reform or Conservative.

Bottom line - do you find R' Berkovitz's understanding of halacha to be  
acceptable?

Daniel Eidensohn

> On Fri, Mar 07, 2008 at 10:58:46AM -0500, R' Moshe Y. Gluck wrote:
> : If I'm interpreting the Gemara correctly, it seems to indicate that for
> : health reasons one should eat meat once a week (based on one's particular
> : circumstances - Ayin Sham), and that because of Kavod Shabbos one 
> should eat
> : that meat on Shabbos. So yes, the Gemara is saying that we should eat 
> meat
> : on Shabbos.

The Gemara is talking about budgeting and expenses. Meat being the most 
expensive item (At that time... fish is far more expensive nowadays. 
Apparently in the days of Rashi and Tosfos too, as they make a point of 
mentioning that meat was more expensive "bimkomam" of Hazal)

All the Gemara is saying is that you should live within your means, and 
allow the more expensive purchases for Shabbos. Kavod Shabbos is never 
explicitly mentioned, it can be implied from the narrative though. The 
narrative is also quite explicit against consumption of meat in general, 
preferring that it remain a specialty food rather than a staple.


R' Micha Berger:
> OT1H, kevod Shabbos is a concept that lends itself for absolute or
> communal definition, as opposed to the individual's preference.
> 
> OTOH, it's possible the gemara means that "because of kevod Shabbos, one
> choose it eat their treat that they can't afford to have daily" using
> meat as the overwhelmingly common example.

I think that the latter is most accurate in understanding the Gemara.

> Kind of like a statement of Beis Shammai's understanding of daving
> the best of each week's food for Shabbos. (Whereas in Chai H' we ask
> for a berakhah "keHillel velo keShammai" -- a glorious Shabbos without
> needing rationing.)

Absolutely. This way it flows with the earlier stanza, Yemalei sova 
asamai, that we should merit to afford the best for Shabbos.

--Jacob Farkas

from halachah yomit

"This year, because Purim (outside Yerushalayim) is on Erev Shabbos,
one should begin the Seudah before Chatzos (1:03 pm NYC).
Bi'dieved one may begin the Seudah anytime before the 10th hour of the day.
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 695:2, Yad Efraim citing the Maharil,
Piskei Tshuvos 695:6"

I spoke with people from Teaneck, NJ and was surprised to hear that
(for this group) the women were getting together
for bagels and the men would grab something at work. They come home
the last minute before shabbat and so it
is too late according to the above quote.

Given the above scenario I was wondering whether it would not be
preferable to instead adopt the Sefardi custom
of starting clode to shabbat and having the seudah go into shabbat and
lighting candles and kabbalat shabbat
as part of the meal with Maariv afterwards.
Being an academic and living in Israel I have always been able to take
Purim off from work. However, given that
so many work a full day even on friday Purim as a non-posek it seems
to me the minhag backed by many
sefardi poskim is preferable to even the bideved of the Mishnah Brurah

Purim Sameach

-- 
Eli Turkel

R' Michael Makovi wrote:
>
>>  To turn the question around - do _*you*_ know of any **recognized**
>>  Orthodox authority who characterized them as R' Berkovitz did?
>>     
>
> Not so explicitly, no, but I've always seen R and C characterized as
> tinokim she'nishbu, and never did I see the rabbis distinguished from
> the lay. Now, b'vadai, sometimes you have to take practical measures
> against the rabbis themselves because of the harm they'll do. But it's
> never against them for their own sake - if an R/C rabbi sat and did
> nothing, we'd do nothing to him, and if he does "kiruv", we'll stop
> his efforts but only because of the efforts, not because of him
> himself. This is all AFAIK.
>
>   
We obviously travel in different circles.

Regarding the issue of tinok shenishba - there is much material 
available in the archives I wrote the following

The above concern seems reflected in the Igros Moshe. O.H V 28.22  page 103
Concerning making an eruv with the intent of saving the irreligious from sin
since they were tinok shenisba He says "...and also today the majority of
those who profane Shabbos are kofrin in the entire Torah so that perhaps
everybody would agree that there is no obligation and even no mitzva to strive
to create an eruv for them. But perhaps for the sake of those that don't know
anything -  for those whose sinfulness and even their kefira comes from their
being raised by sinners and therefore there would be a benefit or even mitzva
to save them from sin by making the eruv since they are shogeg? They are,
however, not really shogeg. Even though they were educated by their parents to
sin and be heretics - NEVERTHELESS THEY SEE AND KNOW SHOMREI TORAH AND MITZVOS
and they know that there are gedolim and more intelligent and rational people
than their parents - THEREFORE IT IS MORE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE IS NO
OBLIGATION TO SAVE THEM FROM SIN...

Daniel Eidensohn

R.Eli Turkel wrote:

<from halachah yomit

"This year, because Purim (outside Yerushalayim) is on Erev Shabbos,
one should begin the Seudah before Chatzos (1:03 pm NYC).
Bi'dieved one may begin the Seudah anytime before the 10th hour of the day.
Shulchan Aruch w/Mishnah Brurah 695:2, Yad Efraim citing the Maharil,
Piskei Tshuvos 695:6"

I spoke with people from Teaneck, NJ and was surprised to hear that
(for this group) the women were getting together for bagels and the men
would grab something at work. They come home the last minute before shabbat
and so it is too late according to the above quote.

Given the above scenario I was wondering whether it would not be
preferable to instead adopt the Sefardi custom of starting clode to shabbat
and having the seudah go into shabbat and lighting candles and kabbalat
shabbat as part of the meal with Maariv afterwards.>
 
    I agree that it's a better alternative than gulping down a bagel or a
    sandwich, which certainly violates the spirit, if not the letter, of
    the din of s'udas Purim.  Until this year, implementing the S'faradi
    custom was also difficult for working people, since candle-lighting was
    before 6:00, necessitating a very early start to be into the s'udah
    before Shabbos, but this year, with the US on daylight savings already,
    it is much more feasible.

     It has the further advantage of allowing the meal to end at night, as
     we do every other year (outside of mukafos choma), the reason for
     which (I think) is to have Al Hanisim said on the 15th as well as the
     14th.

     However, there are drawbacks. One is the risk that being involved in a
     meal, a family may lose track of the time, and neglect to light the
     candles on time -- a problem which will be exacerbated if the family
     is mehader in ad d'lo yada.  Another is that it requires going to shul
     immediately after the s'udah for ma'ariv (assuming that there _is_ a
     late minyan available), which many will probably not do, but will opt
     for davening biychidus at home, since being full (and perhaps a bit in
     one's cups) is not conducive to dressing for shul and taking the walk,
     especially for those who find the singing of Shir Hama'alos on Friday
     night the most effective sleeping pill.  A more mundane problem is
     that it renders it difficult to invite guests for the s'udah who must
     travel to get home.  Indeed, I suspect that these drawbacks are
     largely responsible for the poreis mappah approach falling into disuse
     by Ashk'nazim in the first place.

EMT

 
_____________________________________________________________
Click for top financial advice. Reduce debt &amp; save for retirement.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/REAK6aAXf6GDvAuh7NCMqUnPX4IAarzc3LBTWGJkEgLBFARRvYsT6y/




------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 100
***************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."