Volume 20 Number 42
Produced: Thu Jul 6 23:59:47 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Abortion mess
[Gilad J. Gevaryahu]
Avot and Marriage
[Janice Gelb]
Bombay Shabbat Busses
[Seth Ness]
Kiddushei Ketanah
[Mr D S Deutsch]
Marrying off Daughters (2)
[Israel Botnick, Israel Botnick]
Violence in boys only schools
[Cheryl Hall]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Gevaryahu@...> (Gilad J. Gevaryahu)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 10:54:44 -0400
Subject: Re: Abortion mess
Yaakov Menken (MJ 20#38) suggests that Joseph Steinberg look at
Sanhedrin 57b to see the meaning of the pasuk Shofech dam ha'adam..."
Indeed killing a fetus by a ben Noach is discussed there, and it is
based on the pasuk in Bereshit (9:6) "Shofech dam ha'adam...". This is
an issue of what is the peshat and what is the derash of this pasuk?
Joseph Steinberg corretly brought out (in his translation) the peshat,
and the peshat has nothing to do with abortions. But Chazal based the
rule of ben Noach on this pasuk.
I looked in my limited data base and I found that Joseph Steinberg has
the support of Chazal too:
This pasuk is used in the Tosefta Yevamot 8:5 dealing with the third
marriage of a barren woman; also in Tosefta Sanhedrin 11:1 about
hatra'ah (warning) in front of witnesses; (and one more time in
Yerushalmi on the same subject); also in Bavli Yevamot dealing with
periah ve'rivya (procreation); also in Bavli Sanhedrin 56b which deal in
benei Noach but not in abortion; also ibid 57a in ha'shechata
(destruction?); also ibid 72b in the issue of rodef. I do not have here
the book Ha'torah Ha'ketuva ve'hamesurah, but it is likely that there
are many more uses of this pasuk in midreshei chazal.
Rambam bring this very same pasuk to be used for the issue of direct vs.
indirect killing (Rotzeach 2:3) which is close to the peshat. Both
Unkelos and Rashi see this pasuk to mean killing in front of witnesses,
then he should be killed. Rashi, who obviuosly knew the Gemara in
Sanhedrin chose to follow the same peshat that Steinberg did.
Sheva panim la'Torah (there are many ways to interpret a pasuk)
Gilad J. Gevaryahu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <janiceg@...> (Janice Gelb)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 11:31:43 -0700
Subject: Avot and Marriage
In volume 20 #38, Stephen Phillips says:
> >From: Joseph Steinberg <steinber@...>
> >How do you explain the actions of so many of our ancestors -- >mentioned in
> >Tanach -- who were with prostitutes (Yehuda, etc.) or with numerous
> >concubines (Avraham, etc.). When Yehuda went to Tamar -- his >intentions
> >were clearly not to have children, or for marriage...
> [...]
> As to Yehudah and Tamar, I believe Rashi says that he did actually marry
> her [the gifts were part of the marriage "ceremony" as it were] before
> they had relations.
This seems odd to me. First of all, if he did marry her, why wouldn't he
have taken her with him when he left? Why would he have left a pledged
wife to continue being a prostitute? And when Judah wants to redeem his
pledges and sends a kid, doesn't his messenger ask the locals where the
harlot is? And when he returns without having found her, isn't Judah
afraid that he will be shamed if the story gets out?
I'd very much like to hear more details on this Rashi to answer the
questions I've posed above. Especially since I've always appreciated the
fact that the Torah doesn't gloss over the fact that the avot were human
and didn't always act well.
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with this
<janiceg@...> | message is the return address.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Seth Ness <ness@...>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 1995 23:13:41 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Bombay Shabbat Busses
someone asked about shabbat busses in bombay.
In the UTJ's tomeikh kahalacha vol.2, they have a teshuva about whether
a shul can arrange a shabbat bus. In the course of the answer they
discuss the bombay situation.
The heter was given to a rabbi from bombay by the sephardic chief rabbi of
Israel, Rabbi ben zion uziel in the late 1930's. It involved riding a tramcar
to and from shul on shabbat. Permission was given under the following
conditions...
1.the tram was driven by a non-jew
2. no stops were made specifically to pick up jews
3. the tram went through predominantly non-jewish neighborhoods
4. jewish passengers did not have to pay a fare or carry a ticket(I guess
there was no eruv)
this is in mishpetei uziel, orach chaim I, no. 9
In the 1940's he reversed his decision, without giving any reasons,
mishpetei uziel, orach chaim II, no. 41.
perhaps this has some connection with the bus ticket?
(the UTJ did not allow the shabbat bus)
Seth L. Ness Ness Gadol Hayah Sham
<ness@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mr D S Deutsch <dsd3543@...>
Date: 06 Jul 95 13:31:00 BST
Subject: Kiddushei Ketanah
In mj 20 #33 Jack Stroh published part of a P'sak from Rabbi Stern of
Miami Beach. I should like to get hold of a copy of the original if anyone
can suggest how.
On the same subject I think that previous posters may have suggested that
the father should need to identify the witnesses to be believed. I was
sceptical about this until last night when I found that the P'nei Yehoshua
says EXACTLY that in Kiddushin 64 in answering a Kushya of the Ran at the
end of the Sugya. (The Ran asks why a father is not believed to make his
daughter ineligible for a Cohen by saying "my daughter was captured and I
redeemed her" with a 'miggo' that he could have said "I married her and
collected a divorce on her behalf" for which he is believed and which
would have had the same effect.)
David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 16:24:13 EDT
Subject: Re: Marrying off Daughters
> from <jeremy@...> (Jeremy Nussbaum)
> >From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
> >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 ...) ...
> It seems to me that you have demonstrated the possibility that a
> marriage entered to on condition of not marrying off one's daughters may
> be invalid. It is not obvious, since the examples are all acts that are
> automatic at some point (yibum if he dies childless, divorce if e.g. his
> wife is seduced, inheritance if the wife dies) while marrying off one's
> daughers is always optional. Thus it is not necessarily the case that
> one may not conditionalize away his rights, just that he cannot change
> the (automatic) outcome of certain situations that may arise.
I see the distinction between a condition that effects an outcome which
is automatic and one which does not, however the rule should apply in
both cases. An invalid condition in this context is one whose existence
alters the tora's pre-defined parameters, independent of potential outcome.
For example, if someone becomes a nazir on the condition that he can still
drink wine, the condition is invalid even though he may never drink wine
anyway, and even if there is no wine available. The fact that the
condition changes the rules of nazir is what makes it invalid.
In any event, the condition of not marrying off one's daughter can also
change an outcome that is automatic. If a man has relations with girl 12
or under against her will, he is obligated to marry her. The only way this
obligation can be fulfilled is if the girl's father marries her off.
> > 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.
> This is a better example, but still different. In this example, it may
> be that a primary part of a father selling his daughter is that a
> marriage may result from it, and that otherwise it is a hardship and an
> unreasonable temptation for her and for her master.
If this were the reason, then the gemara wouldnt have invoked the rule of
*Masneh Al Mah She-Kasuv Ba-Tora*, since this is a separate consideration.
In general the potential temptation and hardship doesn't seem to be an
overriding concern since the gemara says that someone can acquire an
ama ha-ivria even if he is forbidden to marry her (such as where the
master is a Kohen and the girl is a convert) as long as it isn't a
prohibition that would prevent the marriage from taking effect.
Israel Botnick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <icb@...> (Israel Botnick)
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 16:39:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Marrying off Daughters
< from <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
<The solution to this problem is to look at the nature of what I
<suggested. I did not suggest that there be any conditions attached to
<the marriage. (deleted some)
<Rather, the marriage is absolute and total. What I
<recommended was that the husband willingly give up his right to marry
<off his as yet unborn minor daughters.
<As was mentioned in a much earlier posting, Rama on Even HaEzer, in the
<appropriate section dealing with these laws, relates a case of a father
<giving these rights over to his wife as part of a divorce settlement.
<And that the transmission was absolute, to the point that the father
<could not object to his wife's choice of husband for his daughter ( and
<that he could not marry her off as well, and block the mother's
<rabbinically sanctioned marriage - this last point is mine, and is not
<explicitly mentioned in Rama, but it seems that this is the logical
<extension of the discussion there ).
I apologize if I misunderstood the intent of the original posting.
The subject of tnai is one of my favorite topics so I must have
naturally leaned in that direction.
Regarding the real suggestion, my knowledge of Even HaEzer is very
limited, but it seems to me that a father does not have the ability
to give up his right to marry off his daughter.
The Rama quoted above seems to be discussing a case where a father
appointed his ex-wife as a shaliach (agent) to marry off their daughter.
This is no different than if he appointed anyone off the street as his
agent, and it shouldn't effect his ability to still be able to marry
off the daughter.
Israel Botnick
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <CHERYLHALL@...> (Cheryl Hall)
Date: Tue, 04 Jul 1995 17:15:22 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Violence in boys only schools
> >From: 81920562%<TAONODE@...> (M.Linetsky)
> ........
> Tell me, should the administration have expelled the whole school? If
> they did it would have been another day off. It was a tradition in our
> school to have "senior-cut-days". The senior class would not show up
> one day. The result was suspension the next. Two days off. Two for
> the price of one These are not simple problems and it was not due to
> discipline. The students......
> The problem is the confinement. ........ No matterwhat anyone would
> tell me, if you confine me to a one area for 12 hours, I will go crazy
> and probably any other male.
I am almost at a loss for words!!!!
Mr. Linetsky himself admits that this is a "tradition". How many young
men are engaged in this destructive activity (an aveira to be certain)
not out of boredom or confinement, but because of peer pressure to
follow the tradition? How many "traditionists" are there... or should I
more accurately refer to them as "gangsta enforcers"? The rationale
Mr. Linetsky proffers is the same one all the other gangbangers use. The
yeshiva bocherim just are a bit behind the times, they haven't gotten to
firearms yet. Actually, formal charges and juvenille proceedings should
take place... except for some of those seniors who probably can be
charged as adults. I am serious and as a teacher or the repairman, I'd
put their little !!!!!! in jail.
I am so sorry to see that even in our community there is a refusal to
accept responsibility for one's actions. No one is responsible for their
actions anymore.... insanity, drugs, bad parents, hormones, "the devil
made me do it". This is ridiculous and there are both public and private
schools where none of these things would occur.
I don't have kids in the high school yeshivot... but many of my friends
do. Part of the problem is living away from their parents. I have
observed this even in the interaction of the kids with their parents,
too many of these kids think they are adults and really don't have
adequate supervision or disipline, during the week. When they are with
their parents they resent their loss of freedom (or is it licsense?).
There is no one to effectively say no. The more I see and hear, the more
I think a good PUBLIC school at home is BETTER than sending them away.
Their Jewish education many suffer, but their moral foundations and
Jewish living might have a better chance.
By the way twelve hours of confinement do not make all males go
crazy. There are plenty of sys ops, astronuauts, submariners, other
sailors, engineers, pilots etc that seem to get along just fine doing 12
and 12. Actually, a lot of sys ops I know do a 4 and 4 four days on four
days off, in a windowless building that only has 6 people a shift!!!
Cheryl <CHERYLHALL@...> Long Beach CA USA
PS: Is this why a yeshiva education costs 10 grand a year.... to replace
the structure, books and teachers every year.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 20 Issue 42
