Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 41

Sun, 13 May 2012

• 1. Re: Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 3. Re: forcing a GET (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 4. question on the Mei Shiloach (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: forcing a GET (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: forcing a GET (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: forcing a GET (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: forcing a GET (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: forcing a GET (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 10. Re: Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom (Doron Beckerman)
• 11. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)
• 12. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 13. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (hankman)

Even if there is a heter for a TC to not report to bakum, that can't 
include every 19 year old in any yeshiva. Even the aggadita/plays being 
quoted are using Avraham, the Gra, et al as their examples.

Ben

R?nLL wrote:

Salt is permissible for a very simple reason. It was never forbidden.

CM responds:
Sorry, I overlooked making this response in my prior post. I agree with you
that ?it was never forbidden.? It was immediately taken out of the default
for Adam so it was never asur as was the case with vegetation that was
never actually asur.

Kol tuv
Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120511/868f71ac/attachment-0001.htm>

On 5/9/2012 10:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
> divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
> ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara*does*  require a divorce, which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
> against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
> reasons.
  The above paragraph is a serious misreading of  the Shulchan Aruch and 
Rema.

It says *nowhere* in the Shulchan Aruch or Rema that they hold like the 
Rambam in the case of where the wife claims Ma'us Alei (he disgusts me) 
- the case under discussion  Furthermore contrary to your  reading - the 
Shulchan Aruch And Rema do not say that kefiya can be used when the 
gemora doesn't explicity requre a divorce.  What they do say is that: 
"Where the gemora says that a get must be given it means beating with 
sticks. While some say that that beating can only be used where the 
gemora said to force the husband to give a get but where it only says a 
divorce should be given - no beating is allowed." It does not address 
the issue of "where the gemora doesn't explictly require a divorce" It 
is talking about cases where the gemora explicity says to either force a 
get or give a get. The case of ma'us alei is neither because no get is 
required at all as is clearly spelled out in the teshuva of Rav 
Eliashiv, Rav Sternbuch, Minchas Yitzchok etc that I have translated.

The issue of using force in a case of ma'us alei is addressed EH 77:2 - 
there the Shulchan Aruch says - "*If* the husband wants to divorce his 
wife." As the Otzer haposkim points out the Shulchan Aruch uses the 
Rambam's language  except it makes one major change - Ramam says in 
ma'us alei he is forced to give a get but Shulchan Aruch says "if the 
husband wants  to divorce"  Thus clearly the Shulchan Aurch does not 
hold like the Rambam! The Otzer haPoskim has a major kuntres on the use 
of force in ma'us alei for simon 77. It does not cite a single source 
that agrees with your assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and Rema agree 
with the Rambam!

*Shulchan Aruch (**E. H. 154:21): *All those cases which the gemora says 
that the wife should be given a divorce -- that means that the husband 
can be forced by being beaten with sticks. However some say that all 
those cases in which the gemora does not explcitly say the husband is 
forced to give a getbut only says the wife should be divorced -- the 
husband is not to be forced with sticks, but is only told ,"The sages 
require you to divorce your wife" and if he does not divorce his wife 
then it is permitted to call him an avaryan. Rema: Since this is a 
dispute of the sages [whether all cases where the sages say to divorce 
one's wife the husband may be forcing by a beating] it is appropirate to 
be machmir and not beat him in order to avoid making a get me'usa 
(invalid get because of coercion). But if the marriage constitutes a sin 
then everyone agrees that the husband can be forced to divorce with a 
beating. As a general rule all cases where beating is not permitted we 
also do not use nidoiNevertheless in these cases [where beating and 
nidoi are not permitted]it is possible to decree on all Jews not to do 
any favor for him or do business with him or to circumcize his sons or 
to bury him -- until he divorces his wife. Any chumra that beis din 
wants to do they can do -- as long as it doesn't consitute nidoi. 
However one who doesn't fulfill his sexual obligations to his wife it is 
possible to place him in nidoi or cherem until he fulfils his obligation 
or divorces his wife. This is not force except to motivate him to fufill 
his obligation...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/ddca5b36/attachment-0001.htm>

In parshat Behar, the Mei Shiloach writes that we learn from Shabbat 
(the small oat (sign)) that God is the "poel" of everything and that 
nothing will come of the actions of people. Shmitta (the large oat) 
teaches us there is no power besides God.

When he says that nothing will come out of the actions of people, what 
does he mean by that?  Would anyone disagree?

Ben

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:52:56AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> On 5/9/2012 10:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and
>> we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
>> divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds
>> the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
>> ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara*does* require a divorce,
>> which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
>> against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just
>> prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
>> reasons.

>  The above paragraph is a serious misreading of  the Shulchan Aruch and  
> Rema.
>
> It says *nowhere* in the Shulchan Aruch or Rema that they hold like the  
> Rambam in the case of where the wife claims Ma'us Alei (he disgusts me)  
> - the case under discussion...

In fact, it doesn't limit itself to any particular subset of divorces.
If you think the SA isn't referring to all divorces, show where he
says so or at least any of the nosei keilim do.

> Shulchan Aruch And Rema do not say that kefiya can be used when the  
> gemora doesn't explicity requre a divorce....

From your own translation:
> *Shulchan Aruch (**E. H. 154:21): *All those cases which the gemora says  
> that the wife should be given a divorce -- that means that the husband  
> can be forced by being beaten with sticks. However SOME SAY that all  
> those CASES IN WHICH THE GEMORA DOES NOT EXPLCITLY SAY THE HUSBAND IS  
> FORCED TO GIVE A GETbut only says the wife should be divorced -- THE  
> HUSBAND IS NOT TO BE FORCED with sticks, but is only told ,"The sages  
> require you to divorce your wife" and if he does not divorce his wife  
> then it is permitted to call him an avaryan

The yeish omerim talk about a case in which the gemara doesn't explicitly
require a divorce. That's the case under machloqes. The case where
the gemara does, the SA allows kefiyah, where it doesn't -- machloqes.

Which is why your brackets in the Rama are simply wrong:
>                                              Rema: Since this is a  
> dispute of the sages [whether all cases where the sages say to divorce  
> one's wife the husband may be forcing by a beating] it is appropirate to  
> be machmir and not beat him in order to avoid making a get me'usa  ...

No, the Rama says:
>                                              Rema: Since this is a  
> dispute of the sages [whether all cases where the sages DO NOT say to
> divorce one's wife the husband may be forcing by a beating] it is
> appropirate to be machmir and not beat him in order to avoid making
> a get me'usa ...

So, it's appropriate to be machmir, not the essence of the law, not to
use qefiyah when the gemara doesn't explicitly require divorce. If the
gemara does require one, the Rama writes:
>                                    But if the marriage constitutes a sin  
> then everyone agrees that the husband can be forced to divorce with a  
> beating. As a general rule all cases where beating is not permitted we  

So, qefiyah is allowed when the gemara requires a gett, and *ra'ui to
be machmir*, not mandatory, to avoid qefiyah when the gemara does not.
Exactly what I wrote.

How do you get from ra'ui lehachmir to the Rama saying the get would
not be valid? Or from the SA's yeish omerim to thinking that's his
own pesaq?

None of which touches your brother's understanding that nearly everything
is kefiyah rather than harchaqas RT, despite the rest of the Rama:
>                                    But if the marriage constitutes a sin  
> then everyone agrees that the husband can be forced to divorce with a  
> beating. As a general rule all cases where beating is not permitted we  
> also do not use nidoiNevertheless in these cases [where beating and  
> nidoi are not permitted]it is possible to decree on all Jews not to do  
> any favor for him or do business with him or to circumcize his sons or  
> to bury him -- until he divorces his wife. Any chumra that beis din  
> wants to do they can do -- as long as it doesn't consitute nidoi.  
> However one who doesn't fulfill his sexual obligations to his wife it is  
> possible to place him in nidoi or cherem until he fulfils his obligation  
> or divorces his wife. This is not force except to motivate him to fufill  
> his obligation...

...
> The issue of using force in a case of ma'us alei is addressed EH 77:2 -  
> there the Shulchan Aruch says - "*If* the husband wants to divorce his  
> wife." ...

77:2 talks about her receiving her kesuvah, not gett. A moredes does
not get her kesuvah. And BD doesn't need to force a divorce, so "im"
is correct.

Our case is one where the moredes's husband doesn't want her or can't
be with her, and whether BD can choose to push him into divocing. And
you're asking us to ignore a very clear se'if about the limits of
such compulsion.

>        As the Otzer haposkim points out the Shulchan Aruch uses the  
> Rambam's language  except it makes one major change - Ramam says in  
> ma'us alei he is forced to give a get but Shulchan Aruch says "if the  
> husband wants  to divorce"  Thus clearly the Shulchan Aurch does not  
> hold like the Rambam! ...

The Rambam doesn't allow a husband or BD to decide the marriage is
salvagable. The SA says they can -- not that BD lacks the power to end
the marriage if they think it is unsalvagable. Therefore "im" -- they
could choose to allow the marriage to continue despite her revolt.

We see from the se'if you bothered to translate that the SA and Rama
do say the majority opinion is that the BD could use qefiyah even where
Chazal do not require a get

Gut Voch!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 35th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Malchus sheb'Hod: What is soul-like about
Fax: (270) 514-1507                  submission, and how is it glorious?

On 12/05/2012 11:08 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> The yeish omerim talk about a case in which the gemara doesn't explicitly
> require a divorce. That's the case under machloqes. The case where
> the gemara does, the SA allows kefiyah, where it doesn't -- machloqes.

NO.  That is not what it says.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 12/05/2012 11:08 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> The yeish omerim talk about a case in which the gemara doesn't explicitly
>> require a divorce. That's the case under machloqes. The case where
>> the gemara does, the SA allows kefiyah, where it doesn't -- machloqes.

> NO.  That is not what it says.

I have no idea how to respond. I highlighted the line in RDE's translation
that says just that, and you just answer with an unsupported denial.

Gut Voch!
-Micha

On 12/05/2012 11:39 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:11:49PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
>> On 12/05/2012 11:08 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> The yeish omerim talk about a case in which the gemara doesn't explicitly
>>> require a divorce. That's the case under machloqes. The case where
>>> the gemara does, the SA allows kefiyah, where it doesn't -- machloqes.
>
>> NO.  That is not what it says.
>
> I have no idea how to respond. I highlighted the line in RDE's translation
> that says just that, and you just answer with an unsupported denial.

His translation says the exact opposite, you're just not seeing it
for some reason.  So let's go over the words again, slowly and
carefully.

EH 154:21
All those whom they [Chazal] said must divorce, we force them [to do so]
even with sticks. [Whether or not the gemara says so.  It's enough that
the gemara says he must divorce; it doesn't have to spell out every detail.]
And some say [the opposite]: that anybody that the Talmud does not explicitly
say "we force him to divorce", but only "he must divorce", we cannot force
him with sticks.  [The gemara did not authorise us to force him, so we have
no right to do so on our own authority.]  But rather, we say to him "Chazal
obligated you to divorce, and if you disobey them we have the right to call
you a sinner".

What about that is not understood?  It's crystal clear, isn't it?
Now tell me how you jump from that to a case where the gemara did *not*
obligate him to divorce.



-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

I think I am getting an understanding of where you are erring.

*The Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 154) is discussing the issue of what force is 
allowed where the GEMORA KESUBOS 77 MENTIONS  that a divorce is either 
forced or required.*  It is not talking about cases where the Gemora 
says or indicates that husband has the perogative whether he wants to 
get divorced. [BTW the Beis Yosef in 154 says that he discusses the case 
of forcing for ma'us alei in simon 77].  Since in case of ma'su alei a 
get is not required by the Talmud to give or be forced - then it is not 
being discussed in simon 154. The harchokos of rabbeinu Tam are 
mentioned in 154 because according to Rabbeinu Tam they don't constitute 
force and thus are relevant in a divorce case where force is not allowed 
or where you want to be machmir to avoid a get me'usa. Thus at most you 
can conclude  is that in a case where a get is totally optionally 
according to the gemora - that the Rema would allow the use of harchakos 
of Rebbeinu Tam if beis din saw a need for the divorce. No word of what 
the Shulchan Aruch would say. *So when you insist that simon 154 is 
referring to all divorces - that is a major error.* It is only dealing 
with all cases of divorces where the gemora uses the term "force" or 
"required" or that "she goes out".  it is not dealing with cases where 
Get is totally optional according to the gemora.

In contrast you start with the assumption that the Shulchan Aruch must 
hold like the  Rambam that in a case of ma'us alei  the Talmud ( Kesubos 
63b) itself requires a divorce. In fact the Shulchan Aruch says no such 
thing and but clearly states regarding ma'us alei  in 77 -  "if the 
husband *wants* to divorce" . Thus he clearly disagrees with the Rambam 
who says he *must* be divorced in ma'us alei - see Be'er Hagola and 
Magid Mishna . You explain this difficulty away by claiming that simon 
77 is only dealing with the issue of kesuba. But the Beis Yosef says 
otherwise. And the Otzer Haposkim would not attach a whole kuntres of 
"Forcing in a case of ma'us alei "- if it weren't relevant to the simon. 
If you are correct then the Shulchan Aruch would have to say that even 
though the halacha is that we can force the husband - but the minhag or 
the takana of the sages is not to. But he doesn't. In the Beis Yosef - 
there is no statement that he agrees with the Rambam - and in fact he 
brings a list of poskim who reject the Rambam.

You also have a problem why those who are maikel in ma'us alei and allow 
harchakos of Rabbbinu Tam - when they list those who agree with the 
Rambam - do not mention the Shulchan Aruch or the Rema! The Tzitz 
Eliezar in particular has a major dispute with Rav Eliashiv about who 
agrees with the Rambam - he greatly expands Rav Eliashiv's list of 
Rambam and Rashba - but does not include the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema 
[He does say he has a diyuk which could be understood in one place that 
Rema allows the use of force in those places where the Rambam is 
accepted - hardly a support for your position].

Tzitz Eliezar 4:21 [see also 5:26]

??"? ??? ?????? ??? ? ???? ??

??? ?? ??? ??? ?? ????? ??? ???? ???"? ???? ?? ??? ????? ?? ??????? 
????? ?? ????"? ??? ????? ???? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ????"? ???, 
??"? ?? ??"? ????. ????? ????? ????? ???"? ???? ?"? ??? ????? ????"?.



On 5/13/2012 6:08 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:52:56AM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> On 5/9/2012 10:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>>> Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and
>>> we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
>>> divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds
>>> the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
>>> ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara*does* require a divorce,
>>> which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
>>> against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just
>>> prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
>>> reasons.
>   The above paragraph is a serious misreading of  the Shulchan Aruch and
> Rema.
>
> It says *nowhere* in the Shulchan Aruch or Rema that they hold like the
> Rambam in the case of where the wife claims Ma'us Alei (he disgusts me)
> - the case under discussion...
> In fact, it doesn't limit itself to any particular subset of divorces.
> If you think the SA isn't referring to all divorces, show where he
> says so or at least any of the nosei keilim do.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/66ece00b/attachment-0001.htm>

It is worth noting that it is not at all clear that the wars of Israel
today have the status of a Milchemes Mitzvah. See Igros Moshe Choshen
Mishpat II:78.

Talmidei Chachamim were not conscripted for Milchamos Mitzvah, as is clear
from Shevet Levi not participating in Kibbush HaAretz or Milchemes Amalek,
which are defined as Milchamos Mitzvah. The Mishnah in Sotah means to
override the rule of HaOsek Bemitzvah Pattur Min Hamitzvah regarding going
out to war, with Chasan and Kallah being the classics, but Torah study does
not fall under that rubric in any event.

Torah study wins wars - see Makos 10a - Our feet stood firm in battle
because of the gates of Yerushalayim which were engaged in Torah study. And
Sanhedrin 92a - the yoke of Sancheriv was broken due to Chizkiyahu's oil.

Nonetheless, some Kohanim and Leviyim volunteered.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/c45a28b6/attachment-0001.htm>

CM asked:
Anybody familiar with the details of the need (all be it small) for chlorine for cellular metabolism in plant life?


CM responds:
I have since googled about some more and found:

http://www.ctahr.hawaii.edu/oc/freepubs/pdf/pnm3.pdf 
Chlorine
symbol: Cl; available to plants as the chloride ion, Cl
?
Nutrient functions
? Cl is essential in photosynthesis, where it is involved
in the evolution of oxygen.
? Cl increases cell osmotic pressure and the water content of plant tissues.
? Cl is found in many bacteria and fungi.
? Cl reduces the severity of certain fungal diseases,
e.g., take-all disease of wheat.
Deficiency symptoms (p. 41)
? Chlorosis of younger leaves and wilting of the plant.
? Deficiency seldom occurs because Cl is found in the
atmosphere and rainwater.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120512/432142cd/attachment-0001.htm>

While not carnivorous, chickens are omnivorous, but I believe that they
would fall into this category. Those of us who have worked on or live on
chicken farms can attest to these beasties eating cat food and even stealing
a captured mouse from the cat and eating it.

(For a video showing it's not an isolated incident, you can watch a chicken
doing just that at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iubf1oJdQQQ - Not
recommended for vegetarians to watch!)

Many kosher fish also fall into a similar category, eating little fishies or
treif little scaleless things. But again, they are not technically
carnivores - which have a special digestive tract to process a "mostly meat"
diet.

Eliyahu Grossman

-----Original Message-----


> Kosher birds and fish eat treife animals.  (For that matter, so do
> kosher mammals.)  Would your kal vachomer mean that we can eat whatever
> a chicken eats?!

-Not meaning to dilute your point, which is an excellent one, I'd question
-your parenthetical addition. I can't think of a single kosher mammal
-that's carnivorous. In fact, when cows had meat snuck into their food,
-they wound up with Mad Cow Disease.
-
-Lisa

R?nLL wrote:
No human being was aware of any need for salt, and therefore could not have deduced by kal v'chomer that salt is permissible
CM responds:
I previously responded that we have no idea as to what Adam knew about the
biology of plant life. If  however you want to insist that G-d did not
reveal advanced science to Adam it still won?t matter. The ignorance of the
existance of a kal vechomer by say some am ho?oretz does not make it any
less operative. But your point then might be how did Adam know of the heter
if he was not aware of the kal vechomer ? perhaps he was simply told it was
OK. (I assume that not every communication to Adam was recorded in the
Torah).
On the issue of how much advanced knowledge was revealed to Adam I get
conflicting messages from ma?amarei chazal. His great intelligence and
knowledge is implied by his ability to name all the animals appropriately.
Yet another chazal AZ 8a implies great naivet? in Adam concerning the
workings of the world when he saw the days getting shorter and feared this
was a punishment for his sin but did not realize that this was a natural
phenomenon. The meforshim touch on this subject. The Ritva assumes Adam had
?the wisdom of a Malach? and asks how he could make such a mistake. ?The
Ritva suggests that perhaps because of Adam's sin and his affliction, he
lost his ability to think logically.? (http://dafyomi.co.
il/azarah/insites/az-dt-008.htm ). Others have a different approach.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20120513/d2eba08b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 41
**************************************

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..."