Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 319

Sat, 06 Sep 2008

• 1. HaShem as God's Name (Cantor Wolberg)
• 2. Re: Geirut (Chana Luntz)
• 3. Re: Geirut (Meir Shinnar)
• 4. L'Dovid HaShem Ori (Prof. Levine)
• 5. Re: L'Dovid Hashen Ori (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: L'Dovid Hashen Ori (Rich, Joel)
• 7. Re: L'Dovid Hashen Ori (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Moshe Shulman)
• 9. What Happened to following the Rov (Meir Rabi)
• 10. Re: Reciting l'Dovid Hashem Ori (Rich, Joel)
• 11. Re: Geirut (Chana Luntz)

R' Moshe Gluck wrote: I'm not sure why you think that this is recent  
or limited to English
speakers, but Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (6:3) already says to say Hashem.

With all due respect to R' Moshe (who is totally correct), I fully  
concur with R' Yonatan Kaganoff regarding its usage. As a child in  
50's I NEVER heard HaShem used other than Boruch ata HaShem so as not  
to make a b'rocho l'vatala. But when referring to God in conversation,  
we always said God. This was in Yeshiva circles, etc. etc.
The fact that the Shulchan Aruch says to say HaShem may be referring  
to the context I just indicated but for general usage (even if the  
shulchan aruch meant that) in practice, I never heard it. It seems to  
have become popular later on.

ri


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/f77d5062/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK writes:

>As I wrote in another letter, trying to become a ger without keeping
the mitzvos would be like to trying to become an American so you can be
an American 
>gangster.  To me KOM seems to be so intrinsic to being a Jew that it
just would not have occurred to any generation before the Reform
movement that there >could even be such a concept as "a Jew who does not
keep mitzvos."  There could be such a thing as a Jew who is porek ol, a
rasha, a sinner, a bad person, >but there couldn't be such a thing as a
Jewish identity DEFINED other than "the ones who are beholden by the
bris, the ones who are subject to the 
>Torah."  I think that the earlier generations didn't list KOM as a
requirement for gerus because it literally did not occur to them that
somebody who was >not born a Jew would approach a court and say, "I am
not presently a Jew but I want to become one, al me-nas  to be a porek
ol, a rasha, a sinner, or a tinok shenishba." 

But your premise is falses - because there are cases, discussed cases in
the gemora, about somebody coming to the court without necessarily any
intention to keep all the mitzvos - such as the case of the fellow who
came to Hillel and said he wanted to convert on condition he could be
Kohen Gadol.  And the Rishonim use that as a basis for discussing
somebody who does not want to accept all the mitzvos.

And then there is the case being discussed between RMB and RMS in the
Rambam, about the wives of Shimshon and Shlomo HaMelech.  However you
want to hold on that discussion, you cannot say in the light of that
discussion that it never occurred to the rishonim that such a case could
occur, because that is precisely what they are discussing.

And then there is the case of the Kusim whose conversions were very
dubious and debated.

And there the discussions of Tosphos which is the basis for the
requirement for KOM for adults in the Shulchan Aruch.  

> If you had said any such thing to a bais din before the 19th century,
they would have said, "This--does--not--compute."  If you had said to
them, "I want >to convert al me-nas to be a Tzedoki, or a Karaite" I do
not believe that any court would have accepted such a ger (unless it was
a Tzedoki or a Karaite 
>court).

No of course they wouldn't have.  Nor for that matter would any court
today.  And of course, it still doesn't compute.  The person cannot
become a Jew and not be bound to keep the mitzvos, whatever they say (or
think).  The question is, bideved, is such a person a Jew and bound to
keep the mitzvos, or are they not Jewish at all and nothing at all every
happened.

I think your analogy with becoming an American in order to become a
gangster does shed light on the issue.  If somebody fronts up and
insists they want citizenship because they want to be a gangster, they
are unlikely to get it.  If they do get citizenship, and then they
become a gangster nobody says they did not have citizenship (and it does
not matter whether that person wanted to become a gangster at the time
he applied for citizenship and hid it from the authorities, or only
decided to do it later).  What the American law allows for, however, is
for citizenship to be revoked - which is what then happens - if they get
caught they get stripped of citizenship and thrown out.  However, this
is only allowed because American law specifically provides for this.
You need to show something similar in halacha.  In halacha, however, it
is clear there is no method of revocation.  Hence the only question is
whether the halacha allows for a mechanism whereby the whole thing is
uprooted retrospectively (unlike the American scenario).  This is
proposing something more similar to the Catholic concept of annulment of
a marriage or perhaps mekach taus in a kiddushin.  But in every legal
system, you have to understand what the mechanism is for achieving the
legal end achieved.  The American law says that we can strip you of your
citizenship if you violate our laws.  The Catholic system says [well I
don't really know, as far as I am aware, it is more - anything the Pope
says goes, including that there was never a marriage, but there is
probably more to it than that].  In halacha, too, we have a lot of
discussion about what exactly is involved in mekach taus and when that
means there never was a marriage.  You need a similar analysis here.
You can't just waive your magic wand and say - well it seems to me that
person should never have been allowed into the system, so poof, he
disappears.  There are loads of marriages that I am sure we all agree
should never have happened, that does not mean that they simply
disappear (unless perhaps if you have a Pope or King who can indeed
waive a magic wand and say they do - and even here you need a legal
system that vests such power in such an individual)


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


Shabbat Shalom

Chana

>
> RTK
>
>
>>>>>>>
> As I wrote in another letter, trying to become a ger without  
> keeping the
> mitzvos would be like to trying to become an American so you can be  
> an American
> gangster.  To me KOM seems to be so intrinsic to being a Jew that  
> it just
> would not have occurred to any generation before the Reform  
> movement that there
> could even be such a concept as "a Jew who does not keep mitzvos."

a) Poskim do discuss the notion of non observant Jews - and Reform  
aren't the first to be not shomer mitzvot...


b) You misuunderstand the debate.  Everyone agrees that once the  
gerut occurs, the ger is responsible for keeping mitzvot.
However, there are two distinct models

a)  KOM is part of the gerut process - before he becomes a ger, he  
has to accept KOM

b) KOM is not part of the gerut process, but is a consequence - he  
wants to become a Jew, he becomes a Jew, once a Jew - he is  
responsible for the mitzvot.

In both models, the responsibility for keeping mitzvot is an  
intrinsic part of being a Jew - the question is the stage and process  
by which it occurs.
Meir Shinnar

At 12:11 PM 9/5/2008, Rn TK wrote:
>You can stop but don't set yourself up as a
>greater authority  than all the poskim based on what you believe is 
>your superior
>understanding.

Minhag Frankfurt does not say L'Dovid. (However, they do blow shofar 
during Elul at both Shachris and mincha.)  Klausenberg/Sanz does not say it.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/72439242/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Dov Kay:
I disagree.? First, as has been pointed out, the source for reciting L'Dovid
in Elul/Tishrei is the book Chemdat Yamim.? R. Yaakov Emdem attributed this
work to Nathan of Gaza, who is a Sabbatean ideologue, and modern scholars
have generally confirmed this attribution.? So, by not saying this perek, I
am following one set of poskim?against others.? 
<SNIP>
-------------


itself has been vetted by generations of Gedolim U'kedoshim who thought it
not only unproblematic, but extremely positive. So from an objective POV it
doesn't seem that there is anything wrong with saying it. So we have a
Minhag Yisroel that is good - I don't see that its questionable source is a
reason to stop the Minhag.

KT,
MYG

 


Just one point - even if the source of this Minhag is tainted, the
Minhag itself has been vetted by generations of Gedolim U'kedoshim who
thought it not only unproblematic, but extremely positive. So from an
objective POV it doesn't seem that there is anything wrong with saying
it. So we have a Minhag Yisroel that is good - I don't see that its
questionable source is a reason to stop the Minhag.

KT,
MYG

_______________________________________________
Hmmmm - do we say that by chukat hagoyim?
KT
Joel Rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

At 01:37pm EDT (in the post just before this one), Rich, R Joel wrote:
: Hmmmm - do we say that by chukat hagoyim?

The SA didn't.

OTOH, most of us do kaparos despite his objections, and rely on the
vetting process to assume that there must be something wrong with the
analysis, somewhere.

My son had a principal who stopped a league basketball game and refused
to let it resume until one of the boys FROM THE OTHER SCHOOL took off his
"roite bindele". Anyone who wouldn't do the same makes a similar assumption.

:-)BBii!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
micha@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org         - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

At 05:36 AM 9/5/2008, you wrote:
>From: T613K@aol.com
>From: Dov Kay <dov_kay@hotmail.co.uk>
> >>I stopped saying l'Dovid when I was alerted to the  Sabbatean origins of
>the custom to say it at this time of  year. <<
> >>>>>
>Just because one person finds some indications that  the custom may have been
>of Sabbatean origin doesn't mean that he's right, or  that you should stop a
>custom that by now is so widespread in Klal  Yisrael.  An individual should
>not set himself up as a higher authority or  bigger tzaddik than 
>everybody else,
>unless he hears that some of the biggest  gedolim and poskim stopped saying
>l'Dovid Hashem Ori for that reason,  or  he really is a big posek 
>himself,  or
>has been told to do so by his own  posek or rav.

This is quite true. If the shul or Kehilah to which you belong says 
it, then you should also, if not , then don't. I follow minhag Tzanz, 
and so I don't say it. But if I am in another shul where it is the 
custom to say it and I am the baal tephilah, then I do also so as not 
to violate the minhag hamokom. If you have no minhag, then do what it 
says in Shulchan Aruch.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moshe Shulman   outreach@judaismsanswer.com 718-436-7705
Judaism's Answer:  http://www.judaismsanswer.com/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/0f7b9a95/attachment-0001.htm>

Rashi explains DivRey RiVos BishO'Recha, Devarim 17:8, matters subject to
dispute as a dispute between the Sages some saying permitted and others
prohibited etc. Since the matter is unresolved it is taken to Ym for
resolution at the Sanhedrin. Why is it not resolved through the regular
system of voting and following the majority?

This is how the Siforno explains the Passuk and this seems to be far closer
to the Poshet Peshat.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080906/7ad40c49/attachment-0001.htm>

 

This is quite true. If the shul or Kehilah to which you belong says it,
then you should also, if not , then don't. I follow minhag Tzanz, and so
I don't say it. But if I am in another shul where it is the custom to
say it and I am the baal tephilah, then I do also so as not to violate
the minhag hamokom. If you have no minhag, then do what it says in
Shulchan Aruch. 

 
Moshe Shulman    
===========================
And if you are not the baal tfilla?
KT
Joel Rich 
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20080905/d91110c6/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK writes:

>  RCL thinks of this as a case where somebody makes a vow, violates his
vow and then gets off scot-free, released from his vow with no
consequences.  To 
>my mind, this person faces heavy consequences, since his intention was
to be considered a Jew and he simply cannot achieve that.  He just can't
get what 
>he wants, as long as he refuses to do the main thing a convert must do
-- keep the Torah.  His attempt to achieve Jewish status just won't
work.

I just wanted to comment on this statement of RTK's.  Because there is
an assumption here - which is that the person seeking to convert wants
to become a Jew.  Now in Israel that is likely to be pretty much true
(as they want everything that comes with being a Jew in Israel).
However in Chutz L'aretz, surprisingly often I suspect that it is
actually not true.  What the person seeking conversion wants in
actuality, is to marry X or Y, who is a Jew.  And X or Y says to them
(or X or Y's parents says to them) you cannot marry X or Y, unless you
become a Jew. 

In one case I know of, the woman was, in fact, pretty open (although I
don't know whether she was with Beis Din) that her ideal scenario would
have involved Y converting to Roman Catholicism, or at the very least,
agreeing to the children being brought up Catholic.  However, there was
no way he was going to do that.  So the second best option in her
opinion was her converting to Judaism and them having chuppah kiddushin
(she was too "frum" a Catholic to contemplate no marriage - or in fact
in her case, no religious marriage - although I think in many cases to
snare their Mr or Miss Right, the person would have quite happily
settled for a registry marriage, if the Jewish partner had been prepared
to contemplate this). 

In many of these cases, BTW, the person is quite willing to observe
mitzvos - *to the extent that the Jewish spouse in the equation wants
them to* - at least for the duration of such a marriage (of course if
the marriage falls apart, that it another story).  But very often the
Jewish spouse, while they do not want to marry out, and want desperately
for their spouse to convert, also do not want to be, or their spouse to
be, a meshuggne frummer either - and miss eg the family bar mitzvah at
the treif seafood resturant on Shabbas announced in shul but not at
walking distance from the shul (to use RAF's example).  The Jew in the
equation may, in order to get their partner through beis din, be
prepared to go along with all this frumkeit (and similarly the parents
in law to be may well be persuaded to tolerate it), but once converted,
the ger or giyores will be expected to conform to the family standards
of lack of frumkeit (and I suspect they generally know this).

So in order to get mitzva observance, the real people to get to, if you
like, are the Jewish family involved (but often if you do involve them,
the real people lying to Beis Din are the Jewish side of the equation).
That is why - leaving aside the questions of halachic validity which we
have been discussing, in terms of public policy, if you like, what the
beis din needs to do if it wants to maximise mitzva observance is to
somehow get through to the Jewish part of the equation and their family.
This is why, as a matter of public policy, the attitude taken by RAF,
especially vis a vis minors, makes a lot of sense (even if it is not
strictly speaking halachically necessary in order to effectuate a
conversion).  Because if you tell the family that this minor is not
going to be converted unless the family becomes observant and stays
observant, then in many many cases, because the family is desperate to
have the child be Jewish, they will comply, and over a significant
period of time it will become part of their life, and part of the life
of their other children, etc etc.  The Bamboo Cradle type scenario is
not that an uncommon one.  And if the Beis Din does not require that in
the first place, the families are far less likely to try and comply, and
we will end up with far less mitzvah observance in total.  And if there
are Beitei Din that are known to be around who are not as strict, then
people seeking an easy way out are more likely to gravitate to them.
That is why it seems to me that this is, as a public policy approach,
the correct approach for Beis Din in Chutz L'Aretz to take.  However,
that is a different question from the question as to whether in fact, as
a matter of pure halacha, the conversion "works", if in fact this
approach was not taken.

--Toby Katz

Shavuah tov

Chana





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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 319
***************************************

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..."