Volume 19 Number 75
Produced: Mon May 29 10:03:01 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Entering Batei Avoda Zara
[Norman Tuttle]
Marrying off one's daughter (4)
[Michael Grynberg, Avi Feldblum, Heather Luntz, Avi Feldblum]
Salt Friday Night
[Shlomo Grafstein]
Witnesses, et al
[Zvi Weiss]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <ntuttle@...> (Norman Tuttle)
Date: Wed, 24 May 95 18:49:33 -0400
Subject: Entering Batei Avoda Zara
I was a student at the U. of Chicago for 4 years, and graduated in 1991.
Graduations were always held at the Rockefeller Chapel, used during the
year for church services for some of the denominations & for choir
practice. The main graduation (undergraduate) was also held on Shabbat.
Ignoring the Shabbat issue (it was possible to graduate on a Friday with
the graduate students), I was certain that because of the Isur
(prohibition) of entering houses of idol worship, it was forbidden to
enter the chapel for graduation. However, lest I rely too much on my
limited scholarship, I asked for Psak from the Rav of Agudat Israel of
Chicago, Rabbi Fuerst. He agreed that entering the Chapel was
forbidden. Since the Psak was not popular at the time with the
leadership of the Yavneh (Orth. minyan) of the U. of Chicago, I
additionally asked the Posek of the minyan, who happened to be the head
of the CRC (Chicago Rabbinical Council), informing him that I had
already received the Psak that it was ASUR (forbidden). He also ruled
that entering the Chapel was forbidden.
Nosson Tuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael Grynberg <spike@...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 13:00:53 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter
> >From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller)
If i understood correctly, Akiva was posting his disgust at a situation
whereby a young daughter can be married off by her father, and attempting
to bypass this situation to prevent it's occurrence.
(i hope i didn't misrepresent him)
[stuff deleted]
> This father is committing an atrocity against his
> own daughter.Denying his daughter the ability to ever get married is a
> perverse twist on the most obscene forms of abuse imaginable.
I was always taught that the torah was not given for a specific
generation but for every generation. How do we then reconcile this with
akiva's staement about this atrocity. (which i happen to agree with) i
mean the torah permits it, and all it's ways are ways of peace.
> The act of helping the father carry out this evil plan is a sin in and
> of itself.
Again, it is not evil or forbidden, in our western mentality it is
abhorrent, but halachically, why should we be upset?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:31:05 -0400
Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter
Michael Grynberg writes:
> > This father is committing an atrocity against his
> > own daughter.Denying his daughter the ability to ever get married is a
> > perverse twist on the most obscene forms of abuse imaginable.
> I was always taught that the torah was not given for a specific
> generation but for every generation. How do we then reconcile this with
> akiva's staement about this atrocity. (which i happen to agree with) i
> mean the torah permits it, and all it's ways are ways of peace.
> >...
> Again, it is not evil or forbidden, in our western mentality it is
> abhorrent, but halachically, why should we be upset?
Here is what I have tried to explain to several people who have either
presented questions similar to yours, or to the opposite extreme of "how
could the Torah allow this?".
The problem here is NOT the Torah law allowing the father to marry off
his under-age daughter. It is my firm belief that the major problems are
a combination of the fact that we have lost any real "community" in
America at least, and the complication of the co-existance of Jewish and
American legal systems.
Let's look at this issue from a purely "Jewish-Halakhic" perspective.
One: The background to this problem is that a divorce proceeding is
either underway, or one party is attempting to initiate a divorce
proceeding. Under a pure halakhic situation, one or both parties
approach the Beit Din in the community. The Beit Din then calls the two
parties before it and adjudicates the complaint. If one of the parties
refuses to accept the verdict of Beit Din, the Beit Din can enforce it's
decision by one of two main ways: a) it can give Malkut Mardit (lashes
for failing to listen to beit din) to the party untill the party agrees,
or b) it can put the person in Cherem. In the latter case, this
basically means the person wil be totally excluded from the community,
and in a real community, that would be devastating.
Two: If the father went ahead and was mekadesh beto ketana (betrothed
his minor daughter) before the case came to Beit Din. The situation is
basically the same, only in my opinion much more direct and immediate
for such a father. Remember, the tactic here is to accept kedushin for
the girl, then go to Beit Din and inform them that the girl has been
betrothed, but then refuse to tell Beit Din to whom the girl is
betrothed.
Why can he refuse to tell Beit Din? Simply because in todays Jewish
society Beit Din has almost no effective power. If Beit Din were to
proscribe whipping him and try to carry it out, he is likely to take the
members of Beit Din to American court on charges of assault and
battery. And if Beit Din puts him in cherum? In the main case listed in
the papers to date, the man is living in Boro Park. I strongly doubt
that a cherum would be carried out by the people living in Boro Park
even if the Beit Din was one located in Boro Park, even less likely if
the Beit Din was located in Toronto (where I think the mother and
daughter live). Even if we could get to the point where the Jewish
community would enforce a cherum, today one could live acceptably in
modern American society and simply ignore the Jewish society.
So as I see it, the problem is not that the Torah has set up an
un-acceptable situation. The first level of blame (both for the current
situation in the "Get Wars" as well as this most recent tactic) lies in
my opinion on us as a Jewish (non)community. We simply do not give Beit
Din the respect and authority it should have.
Some of that can be traced to the fact that there is an enormous
splintering and fractionalization of the religious Jewish community, so
that any small segment would not respect the statements of the Beit Din
associated with some other segment. Maybe we need some issues so
clearcut to all of us to see that some level of co-operation between
Beit Din, and respect for statements from Beit Din is needed to bring
our community back together. Maybe this will lead to a strengthening of
the power of community among us, as many of us see what the consequence
of lack of community has been.
--
Avi Feldblum
Shamash Facilitator and mail-jewish Moderator
<mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Heather Luntz <luntz@...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 22:24:07 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Marrying off one's daughter
In mail-jewish Vol. 19 #74 Akiva Miller writes concerning the situation
where certain men are marrying off their minor daughters.
I'm sorry Akiva, i wish your solution would work, but I'm afraid it doesn't.
I heard about this about a year ago - davka it was either the shabbas
before or after shvuos (just shows you, it takes exactly a year for
something to get from Boro Park/Flatbush to the New York Times). And I
did a bit of checking up into it myself (because like you I was appalled
and horrified).
And I'm afraid you don't need witnesses (well you don't need to produce
them anyway). The halacha is that a man is believed to say that he has
married off his minor daughters, and, if for example he says that he
doesn't remember to whom he has married them - then they are forbidden
from marrying *ever*. You don't need to produce the witnesses, just the
statement of the father is enough. This is explicit in the Rambam
Hilchos Ishus Perek 9 halacha 10 (and 11), the Shulchan Aruch Even
Haezer siman 37 si'if 20 and I believe the Tur around the same place -
although I do not have access to a Tur from home. It is based on a
gemorra in Kedushin 64a.
And of course you realise that if the father dies - then that is it. If
anything it is a better situation if there *are* witnesses - because
after all, if we know who the designated man was, then we can pressure
him for a get, and that gives us two more to pressure for information -
but if it is just the statement of the father, then it could literally
be anybody in the world (and the story as I heard it it was just the
word of the father).
I presume that this statement of the father would need to me made before
a beis din to have validity, - but I don't see that a beis din could
refuse to sit to hear it, so I don't know that this helps.
Sorry
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:44:53 -0400
Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter
Heather Luntz writes:
> In mail-jewish Vol. 19 #74 Akiva Miller writes concerning the situation
> where certain men are marrying off their minor daughters.
> I'm sorry Akiva, i wish your solution would work, but I'm afraid it doesn't.
> And I'm afraid you don't need witnesses (well you don't need to produce
> them anyway).
It is the difference between "you don't need" and "you don't need to
produce them" where Akiva's proposal lies. You absolutely need
witnesses, otherwise there is no halakhic act of kedushin. These
witnesses need to be kosher valid witnesses. Whether the father needs to
produce them or not is an issue of ne'emanus (trustworthiness) of the
father to make such a statement to Beit Din and be believed. If however
the very passive witnessing of such an event (and then refusing to come
forth to Beit Din and tell all they know) were to remove them from the
status of valid witnesses, then Akiva's suggestion would have merit. As
I have mentioned and as Zvi says in his post, we doubt this is a valid
approach. But at least speaking for myself, I do not consider myself a
valid expert in this matter, so I would like to hear what the Rabbanim
and Roshei Yeshiva who see this list have to say on the matter. I have
also spoken with my father about this, and am sending him what info I
can get so I hope to maybe get a response from him.
Avi Feldblum
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <RABIGRAF@...> (Shlomo Grafstein)
Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 21:47:42 -0300
Subject: Salt Friday Night
Since the sanctity of eating is to parallel the altar of the Holy Temple
service of Jerusalem, we place (or preferred dip) the bread into salt.
As was pointed out some do not put salt on the bread (challah) Friday
night because there was no sacrifices offered then. The source is the
Chasam Sofer. It is unfortunate that some have maligned the the Holy
Chasam Sofer because he said "Chadash Asur min HaTorah" New things are
forbidden from the Torah. He may have meant that new deviances away
from the Torah are strictly or else one can keep on going and tear down
the entire structure of the Divine's Blueprint. However new thought
ideas and actions which can draw one closer to The Divine truth is most
acceptable.... for they come from the Divine Personally in this day and
age when some people are just experiencing "a taste of Shabbos" with the
Friday night meal, one can give the richness of the traditions and
minhagim which will stimulate thoughts. Imagine for the first time a
returnee sees someone dipping the challah into salt...it will provoke
questions which will lead to the holiness of the table ..yes we eat to
live. On the other hand if one comes from a family tradition where they
do not use salt Friday night on the challah (UNGvar, Oberlanders, and
others with Chasam Sofer minhagim (customs), they should not deviate
from "the Torah of their mother"
41st of Omer 5755
Sincerely Shlomo Grafstein Halifax Canada
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...>
Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 08:20:04 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Witnesses, et al
I, too, share the horror at the tactics of these (sub)human beings who
clearly have no love for their own daughters. However, I do not know if
we can invalidate witnesses. It appears that in order for witnesses to be
"pasul", the sin has to be one which is "readily understood" as a sin.
The halacha has examples of sins which do not disqualify the witnesses
because they sins are not "perceived" to be truly "sinful". The level of
"evil" here apparently has to correspond to "Rasha D'Chamas" -- the evil
associated with Robbery. While I agree that this action is a truly evil
one, I do not know if it meets the gemara's definition of "Rasha D'Chamas".
Note, however, that *if* the Poskim all proclaimed that this *was* a
truly evil and horrible act, then perhaps my objection would not apply.
However, I do not believe that we will see poskim do that as the actual
act of a father marrying off a minor daughter is one that the Torah
EXPLICITLY gives to the father and the Gemara states that the father even
has the "right" to marry her off to a repulsive person ("Mukat Shchin").
I would like to mention another issue. While the Torah allows the father
to do this and the Father is believed if he states that he married his
(minor) daughter to a specific person ("Es Biti Natati La'ish Hazeh" --
"My daughter I gave to *this* man"), I would question whether the father
is *believed* if he states that he married off his daughter without
specifying either the man or the witnesses. If the father has no
"ne'emanut", then we simply act as if the daughter is not married. If
the father is REQUIRED to supply this additional info then we can address
the problem in terms of (a) investigating the witnesses for other reasons
to disqualify them and/or (b) working on the "husband" to (if necessary)
divorce the girl (his "wife"). Note that this "scheme" falls apart if
there are "rabbis" who support this who could state that the father told
THEM all of the relevant details... Of course, if there are actually
rabbis who support this abomination, then our problems are MUCH worse
than anyone can imagine...
Have there been ANY statements from Agudah, Degel Hatorah, or any of the
other "black-hat" organizations?
--Zvi
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 19 Issue 75
