Volume 20 Number 23
                       Produced: Wed Jun 28  0:11:21 1995

Subjects Discussed In This Issue: 

A Rose by Any Other Name
         [Mechy Frankel]
Kedusha Ketana: New information from Israel
         [Josh Backon]
Manna  Vol. 20 #4
         [Neil Parks]
Marrying Someone with a Parents Name
         [Chaim Steinmetz]
Mechitza Height
         [Aryeh Frimer]
Minor Marriages - Solution Clarification
         [Yisrael Medad]
         [Joseph Steinberg]
Names Mother/Wife
         [Harry Weiss]
         [Jonathan Katz]
Shaving on Chol Hamoad
         [Michael J Broyde]
Shechita of Fowl
         [Moishe Kimelman]
         [Janice Gelb]
Women writing books
         [Aleeza Esther Berger]


From: Mechy Frankel <FRANKEL@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 18:40:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: A Rose by Any Other Name

C. Karmiel (Vol 20 #18) requested information on "common heterim", and
source for the custom of not marrying women with names identical to the
prospective mother-in-law.

1. Heterim
 There are a bunch of teshuvos on this matter, including, most recently,
one from R. Feinstein z"l (Igros Moshe, Even Ho'ezer, Siman 4) which can
easily make the whole problem go away. He cites a number of heterim,
including one quoted in the name of the Chasam Sofer advising an
official name change - though R. Moshe doesn't particularly like this
one for modern day circumstances. A similar suggestion/heter was also
made by, among others, the Tzemach Tzedek, on which basis they would add
an additional name with the approbation of three rabbonim thirty days
before the wedding and then proceed.  R. Moshe suggests that if the
names of the individuals differ, even in english, there is no
problem. i.e. they could have perfectly identical hebrew names but if
they also have/use loazi names with the slightest difference, there is
no issue here. He also alludes to the fact that with sufficient
examination such "differences" may invariably be exhumed. (possibly he's
referring to use of nicknames here).  His bottom line however, is that
none of these "heterim" are even necessary if the bride and groom really
don't care, since the whole matter depends on their (most definitely not
the in-laws') concern. (ma'an di'loh kapid, loh kapdinan).  A long list
of responsa on this matter is brought down in the Mikor Chesed, p. 19,
R. Reuven Margolis' perush to Sefer Chasidim - Mossad harav Kook, 1957.

2. Source
 As has been noted, the source seems to be the Tsavo'ah of R. Yehuda
haChasid (12th century) (siman/oas? 23). There is also a proscription of
this sort asserted in siman 477 of Sefer HaChasidim (also by R. Yehuda
HaChasid) but that is not quite as clear since the sefer chasidim cites
a case where three generations, the mother-in-law, daughter-in-law, and
grand-daughter-in-law, all had the same name. This led the Chachmas Adam
to conclude that everybody (but him) had improperly interpreted the
tsavo'ah and that R. Yehuda only advised against the much more rare
three-generation-same-name marriages. This view was of course, (since
everybody involved was jewish), indignantly disputed, with the Belzer
being particularly wrought over the Chachmas Adam's interpretation.

3. One cannot escape the impression, comparing the tone of a classical
litvak's teshuva (i.e R. Moshe's) with that, say, of the Tzemach Tsedek,
that (latter day) chasidim treat this whole matter somewhat more
seriously than others.  Indeed the Tzemach Tsedek informs us that this
marriage name "warning" is to be treated even more seriously than other
warnings in the tsavo'ah. This is also probably not surprising since the
marriage name proscription is also brought down in mishnas chasidim in
the name of the Ari-z"l. and much of modern chassidic minhag is an
attempt to reconstruct his minhagim. It is, after all, lubavitchers, and
not litvaks who attempt to emulate the nusach Ari.

4. A closing note from the Kotsker.
 The Sefer Chasidim and Tsavo'oh of R. Yehuda HaChasid gained a
remarkable currency during the middle ages, and was accepted essentially
as authoritative - even, quite remarkably, when the directives in the
tsavo'ah would seem to contradict clear, and as far as anyone knows,
hitherto undisputed talmudic dicta. e.g.  R. Yehuda's warning aginst
marrying a niece (siman 22 of tsavo'ah) vs the talmud's (yevamos 62)
apparent encouragement, or the strictures against marriage of a father
and son to two sisters despite R. Papa's precedent, etc.  The Kotsker
Rebbe, appreciating the irony of the massive acceptance and general
extreme deference to the tsavo'ah's minhagim by the folk practice in
eastern europe in his day, is said to have sighed and lamented the fact
that R. Yehuda neglected to include the ten commandments in his
tsavo'ah, since people might then have paid them more attention. (like
many other Kotsker lines, it is impossible to know if this is authentic
since the Kotsker's reputation for pithy yiddish one-liners was so great
that practically any sufficiently clever bon mot eventually got
attributed to him unless their real authorship got nailed down early).

Mechy Frankel                                             H; (301) 593-3949
<frankel@...>                                       W: (7030 325-1277 


From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Tue,  27 Jun 95 0:30 +0200
Subject: Kedusha Ketana: New information from Israel

I just noticed that Monday's YEDIOT newspaper in Israel had an article
on the KEDUSHA KETANA incident. I was surprised to learn that the case
had reached Harav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach z"l over a year ago and
contrary to what was intimated on MJ 2 weeks ago, he paskened that the
girl *was* ESHET ISH (married) and that nothing could be done except for
major coercion on the father to reveal the name of the husband. Harav
She'ar Yashuv Cohen, the chief rabbi of Haifa just returned from a visit
to NY and suggested what someone on MJ had mentioned: the HAREI AT
M'KUDESHET "KEDAT MOSHE V'YISRAEL" implied following the rulings of the
poskim. Since the father went again this ruling, the bet din had the
right to annul (MAFKIA) the marriage.  Harav Cohen reiterated the psak
of the RABBANUT HA RASHIT from the 1950's that forbade in no uncertain

Josh Backon


From: Neil Parks <nparks@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 13:20:55 EDT
Subject: Re: Manna  Vol. 20 #4

>>From: Barak Moore <szn2758@...>
>If B'nai Yisrael ate Manna in the desert, why were they told to buy food
>from B'nai Eisav (Dvarim), et al?

So we would have the opportunity to show them gratitude for making it 

     NEIL PARKS  Beachwood, Ohio    mailto://<nparks@...>


From: <Chaimstein@...> (Chaim Steinmetz)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 17:28:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Marrying Someone with a Parents Name

The source for not marrying a wife with one's mother's name and a
husband with the same name as one's father is found in R. Yehuda
Hachasid's will (para. 23). for an excellent discussion of the issues,
see Reuven Margulies footnotes, and the otzar haposkim even haezer,
siman 1(?). needlesss to say, there are kulot, including the well known
opinion of the noda beyehuda that says that this rule only applies to
r. yehuda hachasid's descendents. there must be close to one hundred
teshuvot on the topic.

chaim steinmetz


From: Aryeh Frimer <F66235%<BARILAN.bitnet@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 13:20 O
Subject: Mechitza Height

The height of a mechitza depends on what its purpose is supposed to be.
If its purpose is to divide the room into two separate areas for prayer,
then a wall of 3 feet should suffice as it does for all other halakhic
matters.  If however the purpose of the mechitza is to prevent physical
contact between men and women, then 50 inches (Rav JB Soloveitchik
Zatsal, personal communication 1970) or 60 inches (Rav Moshe Feinstein,
Igrot Moshe, several places) of even a glass mechitzah is required. If
the function is to prevent visual contact (Hungarian poskim) then a
solid floor to over the head mechitzah is required.
     Similarly, according to the first two schools, a balcony requires
no mechitzah, while the visual contact school does require a mechitzah.


From: MEDAD%<ILNCRD@...> (Yisrael Medad)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 09:09 IST
Subject: Minor Marriages - Solution Clarification

Regarding the Moderator's comment on Vol 20 Number 17:

 True, if he is defined as a Shoteh so as to invalidate the marriage of
his minor-aged daught, then the possibility exists that he then cannot
grant a Get;
 However, if the Bet Din does declare the minor-marriage invalid, then
maybe he will regain enough of his senses in order that the Bet Din will
regard him fit enough to grant the Get.

Yisrael Medad


From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:02:42 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Name

:[Note: the prohibition against marrying a person who shares a name with
:your parent only extends to men marrying women with the same name as
:their mother.  A girl who marries a man with the same name as her father
:does not create the same problem since after the marriage the two
:individuals (chosson and father-in-law) will not have the same name.]

Why, will his name change?

    | | ___  ___  ___ _ __ | |__      Joseph Steinberg
 _  | |/ _ \/ __|/ _ \ '_ \| '_ \     <steinber@...>
| |_| | (_) \__ \  __/ |_) | | | |    http://haven.ios.com/~likud/steinber/
 \___/ \___/|___/\___| .__/|_| |_|    +1-201-833-9674


From: <harry.weiss@...> (Harry Weiss)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 15:12:20 -0800
Subject: Names Mother/Wife

Chuck Karmiel asks about marrying someone with the same name as one's
mother.  First of all there is no prohibition against marrying the
person.  The only question is whether the bride will have to change her
name.  I had to check this out when I got married.  The name is
considered the full name.  (Multiple names are not considered separate
names.)  Thus if there was a different second name (or if only one had a
second name) there would be no problem.  In my case my wife's name of
Chana Goldah is not the same as my mother's name of Chana Freidel.
(Incidentally changing a name is done by adding a name.  This applies
also to the case of a sick person, where a name is occasionally changed
to change the Mazal.)



From: Jonathan Katz <jkatz@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 95 11:24:42 +0300
Subject: Negiah  

Joseph Steinberg recently wrote: 
"Negiah is a prohibition of touching in a 'sexually-motivated' manner."

As far as I am aware, this is not true. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I 
learned that the reason that touching is not allowed is because, nowadays, all 
unmarried women are impure (since unmarried women, as a rule, do not go to the 
mikveh nowadays) and there is a Torah-level prohibition against touching an 
impure woman, in any way. This is why people don't even shake hands.
-Jonathan Katz


From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Sun, 25 Jun 1995 17:24:47 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Shaving on Chol Hamoad

Has anyone seen anything by Rav Shlom Zalman Auerbach concerning shaving 
on chol hamoad for a person who is generally clean shaven.
Michael Broyde
404 727-7546.


From: <kimel@...> (Moishe Kimelman)
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 15:47:55 +1000
Subject: Shechita of Fowl

In v20#19 Lon Eisenberg wrote:
>I wish to ask Arthur Roth for a source to indicate that the requirement of
>ritual slaughter (shehitah) for fowl is only rabbinic.

In Chulin 28a there is an opinion - although not prevailing - that shechita 
of fowl is only Rabbinic in origin.



From: <janiceg@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Mon, 26 Jun 1995 12:44:56 -0700
Subject: Re: Shoteh

In mail-jewish Vol. 20 #17 Digest, Avi Feldblum in his persona 
as the Moderator writes:

> [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.]

I take it that there is no such legal possibility as "temporary 
insanity" as a status for a mental state at the time of an act 
but not as evidence of permanent mental illness?

Janice Gelb                  | The only connection Sun has with this      
<janiceg@...>   | message is the return address. 


From: Aleeza Esther Berger <aeb21@...>
Date: Tue, 27 Jun 1995 13:16:13 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Women writing books

Shlomo Pick writes:
> I can add that the recepient of the Isreal Prize for 1993, Prof. 
> D. Sperber, had been asked for copies by some mohalim in Jerusalem
> which they use under the table (is pass nicht to use a book authored
> by a nekeiva).  

I will never cease to be amazed. I never heard of this before. What are 
the sources for/parameters of this "pass nisht" [not nice]?
Does it depend what the book is about? Only Jewish topics? How widespread is 
this? Can women read books by women?  Is this yet another example of
extra-halakhic "extension" of the laws of modesty, of which so many have 
been noted on this list (e.g. women not making a speech to a group of 
men)? All that said, are you sure the issue is not, rather, that it is "pass 
nisht" to read an academic book?

Aliza Berger


End of Volume 20 Issue 23