Volume 20 Number 17
Produced: Sun Jun 25 9:59:26 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Hakaras Hatov
[Chana Luntz]
Halachic Will = Halachic Way???
[Ira Walfish]
Marriage
[Mordechai Shechet]
Marriage of Minor Daughter
[Joseph Steinberg]
Marrying off Daughters
[Israel Botnick]
Minor Daughters Betrothal
[Moishe Kimelman]
Minor Marriages - The Solution
[Israel Medad - Knesset]
Shok (2)
[David Charlap, Gerald Sutofsky]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Chana Luntz <luntz@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 21:37:50 +1000 (EST)
Subject: Hakaras Hatov
Recently Akiva Miller posted here to express his Hakaras Hatov towards
mail-jewish and the various ways in which it and its contributors have
enriched his understanding.
I wish to add my voice to this, expecially as this will be my last post
to mail-jewish for a while. I am leaving Australia early Wednesday
morning, probably indefinitely, (at least initially for Israel and
possibly for England). I do not know when I am next likely to have
access to a computer or an email account. This account will stay open
after Tuesday, at least for the moment, but it will be manned by other
members of my family, and there is no guarantee that any messages for me
will reach me by any other method than snail-mail, and i do not know
when i will next have a opportunity to reply.
So, in the light of this, I wish to thank everbody on this list, for
teaching me much, for answering so many of my questions and for your
endulgance of my postings.
Mail-Jewish has a particular role in sustaining and supporting
Yiddishkeit in places that may be very isolated. And although the
Melbourne Community is in many ways thriving, people who know me from
this list probably do not have too much difficulty in understanding why
the experience of being back in Melbourne has not been an easy one. For
me, mail-jewish has been one of the very few oasis in what has
fundamentally been somethinkg of a desert, and I want to express my
thanks and gratitude to all of you, and particularly to Avi, for all the
efforts he and you have put into it.
Best Wishes
Chana
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ira Walfish <IWALFISH@...>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 16:58:06 EDT
Subject: Halachic Will = Halachic Way???
Mottel Gutnick, vol. 20 #5, states "Where there is a Rabbinic will there
is a halchic way." (He was not sure who said this, but I believe it was
Blu Greenberg). As has already been pointed out in a previous post,
this is a very debateable stand, and in fact I have heard a shiur given
by Rabbi Frand of Ner Israel Baltimore devoted exclusively to why this
statement is totally erroneous. He used two issues, the controversial
"Get" issue and that of a woman's minyan to illustrate why, in his view,
the statement is not true.
It should be pointed out, that IMHO, the statement is definitely not
true, and if one holds that the statement is true, one must then
logically place a fair de gree of blame on the Gedolei Hadoor for not
resolving a number of serious Halachic difficulties (i.e. I guess there
just is no Halachic will so the problems persist???). This is quite
presumptious for most of us, and I would definitely not assume that all
Halachic problems are because the Rabbis just "can't get their act
together." In other words, there are, IMHO, definitely times when there
is no Halachic Way, even when there is Halachic Will, and the above
statment should not be used as a blanket to criticize Poskem for not
solving some difficult problems, which I assume they are just as
desperate to solve as we all are.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <MAXIMOTEL@...> (Mordechai Shechet)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:48:51 -0400
Subject: Marriage
i would like to know if a rabbi is permited to marry non-jews in a civil
ceremoy
a gutn shabes
mordechai
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Thu, 22 Jun 1995 10:50:15 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Marriage of Minor Daughter
This would not solve the problem for the girls already in the situation
of being married to an unknown man...
3) Someone objected to Rabbi Teitz's suggestion that new husbands at the
wedding agree to give up their right to marry off their daughters. He
said this was making a condition on something the Torah permiited. I
personally think Rabbi Teitz's idea was one of the best suggestions so
far. The objection is simply not valid. Just because the Torah permits
something does not mean we must avail ourselves of it. Although the
Torah permits meat one may surely take a vow to not have meat every
other Tues (assuming it is not Yom tov). THis is not what is meant by
that principle.
| | ___ ___ ___ _ __ | |__ Joseph Steinberg
_ | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \ <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \ __/ |_) | | | | http://haven.ios.com/~likud/steinber/
\___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_| +1-201-833-9674
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 12:37:55 EDT
Subject: Marrying off Daughters
Regarding the suggestion that husbands relinquish their rights to marry
off their daughters, I understood the suggestion as saying that just
as a husband (at the time of marriage) can relinquish his right to inherit
his wifes fortune, so too he can relinquish his right to marry off his
daughters. My objection is, that the gemara says that the reason the
husband can give up the inheritance, even though the torah says that a
husband inherits his wife, is because by monetary matters, a condition
can be stipulated even if it goes against the torahs rules. But by non-
monetary matters, that is not the case. (The means of relinquishing the
inheritance is through a tnai(condition), not through a vow).
Tosafot in the fifth perek of masechet Kesubos defines the concept of
*Masneh al mah shekasuv batora* as meaning that one cannot attach a
condition to an act, if it will will alter the torahs definition of a
certain concept. Getting married on the condition that the brother in law
will not perform yibum (levirate marriage), or that the husband will not
divorce his wife, or that the husband will not inherit the wife, all fall
under this category since this would be creating a marriage that is
different than the torahs concept of marriage (where yibum/chalitza are
required, the marriage can be ended with a divorce and the husband
inherits the wife ...). The same would apply to setting a condition that
the husband cannot marry off his daughters. It is true that the husband
does not have to marry off his daughter, but relinquishing this capability
is altering the torahs concept of marriage
which includes certain rights and responsibilities that the to-be parents
have WRT their children. The father can marry off his daughter, accept a
divorce for her in some cases, he is entitled keep objects that she finds,
and he can nullify her vows. Knocking off one of these is altering the
torahs definition of a father/daughter relationship. (not to mention the
fact that it would alter other torah laws based on this right, such as the
fathers reliability that he married off his daughter).
A similar situation is the gemara in kidushin which says
that if a father sells his daughter as an ama ha-ivria(maid servant),
her master has the option of marrying her. The gemara continues that
if she is sold on the condition that the master will not marry her,
the condition is void because it is a *Tnai al mah shekasuv batora*
- it is altering the torahs definition of an ama ha-ivria which includes
the option of the master marrying the maid servant.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <kimel@...> (Moishe Kimelman)
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 14:17:57 +1000
Subject: Minor Daughters Betrothal
In 20#13 Josh backon wrote:
>In 1950, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate (Rabbanut Ha'Rashit) did come out
>with a TAKKANAH forbidding kiddushin with a girl under the age of 16 and
>also *forbidding the girl's father* to marry her off. So between this
>Takkanah and the ability of the girl (if she's still a KETANAH) to claim
>ME'UN before the BET DIN (Even Ha'Ezer Siman 155) the so called marriage
>is annulled.
I think you will find that the law of Me'un applies only where the
marriage is Rabbinic, but where it is a Torah marriage, i.e. where the
father has betrothed his minor daughter for the first time, me'un is
worthless.
In the same issue my landsman Ralph Zwier writes:
>2. The importance of the point about the father's testimony being
>believed is overstated. When the gemara says "so and so is believed" it
>simply means that if you NEED to rely on it, you can. But the gemara
>does not force you rely on the father's word.
In Even Ha'ezer 37:20 it rules that a father who claims to have
betrothed his daughter and not to remember to whom he has betrothed her,
is believed, and she is forbidden to all until the father remembers who
the husband is. This seems to show that we MUST rely on the father's
claim, like it or not.
Later in that issue Danny Skaist writes:
>The father is therefore coming and claiming that he has violated a
>rabbinic issur. There is an iron-clad rule that we do not give
>"ne'emanut" to anybody who claims to have comitted an issur, and made
>himself a rasha.
Once again I think that this is a misunderstanding. The rule of "ain
adam maisim atzmo rasha" - a person is not believed to declare himself a
rasha - only applies to testimony, not to a non-testimony ne'emanus that
has been awarded by the Torah. Proof of this is the fact that the basis
for the rule of "ain adam..." is that a person is considered related to
himself, and may therefore not testify about himself (see Sanhedrin 9b).
Yet despite fathers being unable to testify about their daughters due to
being related to them, the Torah still accords them a ne'emanus
regarding betrothal.
Moishe
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Israel Medad - Knesset <imedad@...>
Date: Wed, 21 Jun 1995 18:38:10 +0300 (IDT)
Subject: Minor Marriages - The Solution
Although I have been out of the loop recently, my wife askesd me to post
this:
The father is marrying off his daughter because of a divorce situation.
He is already not loving his wife and this act would seem to be a proof
that he is acting out of hate. Moreover, acting this way by itself but
adding non-love and hate and one has a situation where the man/father is
acting irrational and may be classified as mentally ill. The act of one
mentally ill is non-binding (for example, a convert judged unstable
cannot go through with the conversion). Therefore, the minor can be
considered as not married.
(Batya) & Yisrael Medad
[However, this please note that this is a two edged sword, as in that
case even were he to give a get to his wife, it should be viewed as
invalid, as one who is mentally ill (details of what is considered
Shoteh is likely complicated, but should be the same as what allows us
to say he is a Shoteh with regard to the Minor Daughter Marriage) cannot
give a get. Mod.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <david@...> (David Charlap)
Date: Tue, 20 Jun 95 18:22:50 EDT
Subject: Re: Shok
Regarding the discussion of what "Shok" means, with respect to
tsniut (the mitzvot of modest dressing), I would argue that it
must mean from the thigh to the knee and not from the knee to
the foot.
If it would mean "from the knee down", then I would assume that
wearing a miniskirt with knee-high socks (or boots) would be
permissible. I know of no one who claims it is.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <gerald.sutofsky@...> (Gerald Sutofsky)
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 95 09:17:36 EST
Subject: Shok
I am writing this on behalf of my father in law who does not have access
to a computer but would like to comment on "shok". It is very intersting
to learn that despite the confusion as to the meaning of "shok" whether
it refers to female part of leg from thigh to knee or knee to ankle, the
machmirim have followed the chumra to compel females to wear skirts down
to their ankles. I believe one must truly be oversexed if the sight of
the knees /or ankles creates immoral thought and undue excitement. But
then again those who machmir have even - as it was related here earlier
- compelled yeshiva girls, in an all girl surrounding at the beach, to
wear robes over their bathing suits. One wonders if they fear that an
airline or heliocopter pilot may spot one of them and due to their being
aroused jump down or are they afraid that some of them may G-d forbid be
lesbians. When will we finally be true people who know our place - boy
& girl - men & women - in the reality of the world and cease these
practices which only create mockery of religion - if that is
religion. Replies should be interesting and perhaps very revealing as to
true reactions on sight of the opposite sex. I specifically would like
to hear for the Yeshivese and Heimshe communities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 17
