Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 172

Fri, 09 May 2008

• 1. Re: When does mixed swimming mean? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Standing for Parshat Zachor (rebshrink@aol.com)
• 3. Re: Daas Torah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Moshe Feldman)
• 5. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Arie Folger)
• 7. Re: Who is the father redux - from R' Aviner (T613K@aol.com)
• 8. Olam Haba is static (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: Court retroactively revokes conversions (Richard Wolpoe)
• 10. Re: Sholom Aleichem [was: Tinok Shenishba] (Richard Wolpoe)

:

>
>
On Wed, Apr 30, 2008 at 5:32 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 07:16:45PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> : 1. At Marienbad did one take the waters in a communal pool, or in
> : individual baths?
> : 2. If a communal pool, was it mixed?  Surely not!
>
> My understanding is that these health spas had a communal bath without
> separate hours. That with 19th cent bathing suits (and care to avoid
> negi'ah), many of our greatgrandparents' role models had no problem
> mixed swimming.
>
> -Micha


Indeed it was my understanding that given the 19th century [Victorian?]
bathing suit, mixed swimming was not such a big deal. Even the MEN wore
tops.

So perhaps
Since it is not the issue of mixed swimming per se but the lack of tzinus at
the average beach
Therefore, this can be obviated in our day by having a family-run beach in
which tznius bathing suits prevailed.


RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080508/7058f04b/attachment-0001.htm>

I mentioned that we stand for Parshat Zachor because we are performing a
Mitzvah and that the default position for performing both Torah and
Rabbinic Mitzvot is to stand unless there is a reason to sit.?? Cantor
Wohlber agues that we sit for the Seder, Tachanun and Kriat Shemah.

By the Seder we should actually be reclining on couches as a sign of
Cherut.?? Though we limit this "reclining" requirement to the Kosot and
Achilat Matzah, we sit for the rest of the Seder?as we would at a meal,
which is what the Seder is, and as we would in a Shiur.

By Tachanun we sit for the "Vayomer David" as a sign of mourning (Nefilat
Apayim) and during the long Tachanun of Monday and Thursday we do stand
until Vayomer David.

By Kriat Shemah?we continue to sit according to the Rav because of
"Uvlechticha Baderech" which Rav Soloveitchik understands to mean that one
continues?to say Kriat Shemah as one is (in this case sitting while
praying?Shacharit or Maariv).???Furthermore, one should not stand?for Kriat
Shemah at Shacharit, if one is already sitting, lest it appear that one has
taken literally the term "Uvkumacha" to mean the position in which one
should recite Shacharit Shemah as oppposed to the time.

Once again I do believe that the default position for performing Mitvot is to stand unless there is a Halachik reason to sit.

By the way I do find these discussions great fun.?? For me it is a real example of how Torah learning produces Simchah.

Kov Tov,

Stu Grant? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080508/f7edb01a/attachment-0001.htm>

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
wrote:

> R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
> > Agreed. And contrary to the "politically Correct" idea that only
> > "tzaddikim" get  siyyata dishmaya, I have  seen some pretty mediocre
> > people and  several vanilla Gentiles get incredible siyyata dishmaya.
>
> page 123 in my sefer Daas Torah in section* *"Torah and Prophesy is
> Basis of all Knowledge"
>
> * The answer is that without this gemora we would have mistakenly
> thought that Divinely inspired wisdom only comes to Jews while if a
> non?Jew said something brilliant that seems to transcend his
> intellectual capabilities we would have thought it was just blind chance?.
>
> _
>

Yes it is obvious to me that the genius of lemashal a Moazart is a gift from
God but not necessarily because he "merited it" at least not in th current
gilgul...


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080508/d4f94e10/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 6:09 PM, Arie Folger <afolger@aishdas.org> wrote:
> R. Moshe Feldman replied:
>> As they should.  But they should do so respectfully, as a machlokes
>> l'shem shamayim.  After all, this is not just a shitas yachid, as Rav
>> Unterman held a similar view, not to mention many rabbanim nowadays.
>
> I concur. I thought that much was clear from my mention of some of Rav Goren's
> heroic achievements. But the part about respecting has little to do with the
> question of da'at ya'hid or not. It is generally our duty to respect each
> others, all the more so to respect talmidei 'hakhamim yerei shamayim.

The achievements you mentioned were not halachic achievements.  My
point is that this is not a daas yachid but a shita held by a number
of senior poskim, not to mention much of the DL rabbinic
establishment.  As such, it should be difficult for a different beis
din to question the validity of a giyur by a beis din following Rav
Goren & Rav Unterman's shittos.

It is also my impression that the batei din l'giyur are not ignoring
the requirement of kabbalas ol mitzvos, just that they are more meikil
about it.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> On Thu, May 08, 2008 at 11:45:31AM +0300, Moshe Feldman wrote:
> : I understand that many RZ rabbis follow the view of Rav Goren zt"l
> : that in EY the rules of conversion are different than in Chu"l.
>
> R' Goren said it to? The usually cited source is Mishpetei Uziel 38.
>   

Rav Uziel said that there is no need to require acceptance of mitzvos - 
and he didn't limit this to Israel while Rav Goren did.
> Also related is R' ChO Gradzensky (Achiezer 3:26, already cited in this
> thread) which says a geir who converts with the intent of being a mumar
> letei'avon bedavar achas is bedi'eved mequbal as a geir.
>
>
>   
Achiezer however says that as a minimum the ger must keep Shabbos and 
kashrus

*Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski 
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/post-edit.g?blogID=7309929059139673041&a
mp;postID=9187525028486296007#_ftn1>**(**Achiezer 
3:26.4):? *Because of this reason it appears that Rav Posen is concerned 
about conversion these cases because they won?t observe the laws 
properly. However according to what I have explained there is no concern 
for this since they have accepted to observe all the mitzvos ? even 
though it is true that they have in mind to transgress certain mitzvos 
later out of lust. However this intention does not disqualify their 
acceptance of mitzvos. It is only where they specifically refused to 
accept mitzvos that their acceptance of the mitzvos is disqualified. 
However where is clear that after conversion they will definitely 
transgress the Torah prohibitions against violating Shabbos and eating 
improperly slaughtered meat and we know clearly that their conversion 
was only for appearance sake without inner sincerity ? it is an umdena 
demukach [a proven assessment] that this that he said he was accepting 
the mitzvos was totally meaningless. Consequently their acceptance of 
mitzvos is invalid [and they are not valid converts].


> Not sure what either have to do with a BD that doesn't sufficiently screen
> qabalas ol mitzvos for people who are simply *beshitah* "meqabeil ...
> chutz midavar echad" (to quote Bekhoros 30b).
>   
Don't understand why you insist that being certified by a kosher beis 
din gives a person a clean pass. It is not unknown that people lie to 
beis din. If it is clear that the person did in fact deceive beis din 
and it is clear that he did not plan to keep mitzvos when converted and 
it is clear that he has not kept mitzvos after conversion - he is still 
a non-Jew.

*Igros Moshe 
<http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2008/04/r-moshe-feinstein-ztl
-invalidating.html#_ftn1>(Even 
ha-Ezer 4:78): *Concerning a woman who was married by a Conservative 
rabbi - in Houston who is known to openly violate Shabbos - to a man who 
was born in San Salvador to a non?Jewish woman. The Conservative rabbi 
there claimed that he converted her together with two local men who were 
open Shabbos violators because he said that no one observes Shabbos in 
El Salvador. It is clear that the conversion is of no significance so 
that even if this couple were married by an Orthodox rabbi according to 
the halacha it still would have no significance because he is a full 
non?Jew for whom kiddushin has no halachic significance. Furthermore 
even if he were converted by a Torah observant beis din ? since he has 
not observed Torah mitzvos even for a moment he has not accepted the 
obligation of mitzvos - this is not considered conversion. However if he 
was a valid ger or was a Jew from birth, the marriage by a Conservative 
rabbi ? who is presumed to deny the foundation principles of Judaism 
even though we don?t actually know the person and surely here where it 
is known for certain that he openly violates Shabbos ?has no halachic 
significance. Consequently we have two clear factors why the marriage 
has no significance and therefore she is permitted to marry another man 
? but not a cohen since she has had sexual relations with a non?Jew 
which disqualifiers her from marrying a cohen.

On Thursday, 8. May 2008 18.06:09 Moshe Feldman wrote:
> The achievements you mentioned were not halachic achievements.

That's true. I am making a point of stressing the respect we owe for them, and 
that nonetheless, that does not make his pessaqim in these matters accepted 
or valid.

> My point is that this is not a daas yachid but a shita held by a number
> of senior poskim, not to mention much of the DL rabbinic
> establishment.

And others, along with the MO top rabbinic leadership, mostly disagree. In 
fact, having tagged along for a day with some leading DL dayyanim, I can tell 
you that they were squeezing the kishkes out of the cadidates if they felt 
these weren't being serious enough. But, they did the squeezing of kishkes in 
a most humane way (and still turned down 50% for further study or 
evaluation).

> As such, it should be difficult for a different beis 
> din to question the validity of a giyur by a beis din following Rav
> Goren & Rav Unterman's shittos.

On the contrary; it is being done!

> It is also my impression that the batei din l'giyur are not ignoring
> the requirement of kabbalas ol mitzvos, just that they are more meikil
> about it.

That is correct. Rav Druckman does require qabalat hamitzvot, but the level of 
certitude he requires seems lower. But, he does not rely on either Rav 'Uziel 
or Rav Goren in these matters.


Kol tuv,
-- 
Arie Folger
http://www.ariefolger.googlepages.com

 
 
From: "Chana Luntz" _Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk_ 
(mailto:Chana@kolsassoon.org.uk) 

RJR  writes quoting R' Aviner:

> A: It is forbidden to perform such an act  from a deceased man.  First of
> all, a deceased man is not obligated  in the mitzvah to be fruitful and
> multiply.  A deceased man is not  obligated in the mitzvot at all.  He is
> free.  Secondly, it is  forbidden to cause a child (or anyone for that
> matter) sorrow.   

R'nCL: I confess I find this position difficult....  

....And what about the position found in Yevamos 65b and accepted by  the 
Amoraim
there that a woman makes a valid claim against her husband if he  fails to
provide her with children (giving her the right to a divorce and her  kesuba)
because she needs to have children to support her old age? 
 
>>>>>
If a widow became pregnant with the sperm of her deceased husband (and they  
had never had children before), would she now be allowed to remarry without  
yibum?




--Toby  Katz
=============





**************Wondering what's for Dinner Tonight? Get new twists on family 
favorites at AOL Food.      
(http://food.aol.com/dinner-tonight?NCID=aolfod00030000000001)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080508/179c2250/attachment-0001.htm>

A tangent from Areivim of the same title. The question was whether a
meit in Olam haBa can raise his own level, or whether he needs the
living to elevate him; I took the following tangent. The current title
doesn't fit my tangent, but I can't think of a better one, so I'll
stick with it.

I was glancing at the Daat Mikra Tehillim the other day, and in Psalm
16 or 33, I think, on one of those lo ha-meitim yehalelu kah types of
pesukim scattered throughout Tehillim, Daat Mikra noted that this
gives many meforshim difficulties - how can this possibly be the case
in Olam haBa??!!

In the introduction to the Soncino Tehillim, it is simply said,
something to the effect that Torah teaches that this life is valuable,
as the only place one can do mitzvot and serve G-d. Therefore,
Tehillim rarely if ever mentions the afterlife (according to the
commentaries to individual Psalms; references to being saved from Sheol and
such, are interpreted as being saved from early death and such).

I'm inclined to agree with Soncino, but Daat Mikra had a very
interesting solution, similar to Soncino's but a step further: ditto
the line about this life being valuable as the only place you can
practically serve G-d, but an addition: surely the dead DO praise G-d,
but in a different, perhaps inferior way: we say that the
natural world praises G-d, but surely the praises from man are
superior to the praises from rocks and trees! Similarly, the dead may
very well praise G-d, but not as competently as the living do, in
their deeds and mitzvot in this world.

(As an aside, my personal favorite explanation of techiat ha-meitim is
that of Rav Berkovits in the end of G-d Man and History, viz.: techiat
ha-meitim is simply the resurrection of all the dead into Olam haZe,
period. The Messianic Era comes, and everyone is resurrected to live
in it for all eternity, plain and simple. If so, Olam haBa would
simply be a temporary layover on the way to techiat ha-meitim; being
death and resurrection, someone has to go *somewhere*, after all, but
this somewhere would have little intrinsic significance.

Rabbi Isidore Epstein in Faith of Judaism takes a Ramban-ish
perspective on techiat ha-meitim:
For the first half of his analysis, he goes on about how important
Judaism sees Olam haZe as, and therefore we have techiat ha-meitim
(i.e. because the physical world is so great and valuable, we aren't
dead forever). This whole section of his analysis I am thrilled with,
up to the point when he (very abruptly IMHO) says that however,
techiat ha-meitim is largely (maybe 50%) spiritual and not
truly/completely in Olam haZe/physical.

I'm not even really sure I understand Rabbi Epstein, because the shift
is truly so abrupt and perplexing. But if I understand him, then it
seems too complex; everything he said until this point leads to the
conclusion that techiat ha-meitim ought to be resurrection into Olam
haZe, Messianic Era, end of discussion. I'm inclined to accept
everything Rabbi Epstein says up to this point, but then tack on Rav
Berkovits's fantastically simple idea that techiat ha-meitim is simply
resurrection into THIS world, plain and simple, and discard the second
half of Rabbi Epstein's analysis, viz. his explanation of why techiat
ha-meitim is half spiritual if logically, according to the foregoing
words of his, it ought to be wholly physical.

My doing this preserves Rabbi Epstein's ta'am for techiat ha-meitim
(viz. physical is great) in the first half, but eliminates the need
for his complex justification/defence in the second half (viz. techiat
ha-meitim is only half physical, despite physical being so great as
himself has just spent several pages explaining). With Rav Berkovits,
I can say "physical is great, and so techiat ha-meitim is wholly
physical", end of discussion; very simple.)

Mikha'el Makovi

On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> Also related is R' ChO Gradzensky (Achiezer 3:26, already cited in this
> thread) which says a geir who converts with the intent of being a mumar
> letei'avon bedavar achas is bedi'eved mequbal as a geir.
>


>
>
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>


In support of Micha's quote from R. Chaim ozer......

When I learned the sugya of Giyyur with R. Parness one summer [circa 1973]
he concluded that a prospective ger who is mekabel "ol mitzovs" - despite
admitting that he might give in to temptation - is acceptable.  IOW he did
not have to plege absolute compliance, just sincere acceptance.

What more can one ask from any normal human?  can perfection ever be
considered a prerequesite?



-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080508/18f9080c/attachment.htm>

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 4:04 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 02:54:03PM -0600, Daniel Israel wrote:
> : Your mother can say no.
>
> : Mi manafsach.  Making the request is either implying bechira, which
> : is AZ, or making a request from something incapable of being
> : effected by your request, which seems like shtus.
>
> Why is assuming that mal'akhim have bechirah more AZ than assuming
> people do and asking them?Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
>
The premise aiui is that believing that mal'achim have independent power is
a form of kefira itself even if ou do NOT avail yourself of their
attributed powers!  Almost like saying someone accepts "shituf" but goes to
the Top of the Pantheon.  Lemashal a Greek who davens ONLY to Zeus but
acknolwedges that Mercury as messenger has independence.

OTOH it would seem to be to be kosher afaik if one were to daven to HKBH and
ask:
"Please send Repha'el to heal me."


Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080508/c1420074/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 172
***************************************

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..."