Volume 50 Number 23
Produced: Sat Nov 26 18:44:26 EST 2005
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Baal Koray vs Rabbi (was LCOL MARAY AYNAY HACOHEN)
[Orrin Tilevitz]
Hebrew source of English words?
[Lisa Liel]
Internet Bans (2)
[S. Wise, Frank Silbermann]
Ketuba (2)
[Sholom Parnes, David Mescheloff]
Ketubat non-Betulah
[W. Baker]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Orrin Tilevitz <tilevitzo@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 09:29:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Baal Koray vs Rabbi (was LCOL MARAY AYNAY HACOHEN)
In response to my posting, Russell Hendel writes:
<This has happened to me many times (I think a torah is posol and a
Rabbi, possibly with good eyesight says it is OK>
Reread my posting. The point was not that the rabbi and the baal koreh
disagreed on psak, in which case the baal koreh would have no right or
authority to disagree. The problem was that he was incorrect in
metziut--he denied a physical reality.
<Finally the code of jewish law clearly states that in cases of doubt
use a minor ages 6-10---if he recognizes the letters/words then you can
continue leining.>
I don't think that's true if the problem is a break in the letter. If it
were, all hairline cracks, where there's a complete break, would be ok.
Anyway, this was a morning minyan; no kids.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Lisa Liel <lisa@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 15:57:34 -0500
Subject: RE: Hebrew source of English words?
From: Yehoshua Steinberg <ysteinberg@...>
>From: Nathan Lamm <nelamm18@...>
>>Simply because the theory has nothing to back it up. Too often,
>>it takes words whose origins are well known and removes "roots"
>>from them that don't really exist, and then tries to find a
>>Hebrew source.
>
>I'm not quite sure that can't be said just as easily for the
>desire to find consistent Indo-European "roots" that may or may
>not exist.
Exactly. Two of the ones that really irk me are "earth" and "upshot".
The Arabic cognate of "aretz" is "ardh", with an emphatic "dh". There
should be no reasonable question but that the Semitic word came before
the Germanic "erde", but go find a dictionary that even mentions the
Semitic antecendent.
And "upshot". You all know what the word means, right? It's the bottom
line, or summation. But if you look it up in a dictionary, you'll find
an attempt to relate it to the final shot in certain archery
competitions in England in the middle ages. When it's clearly from the
Hebrew/Aramaic "pshat".
Lisa
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <Smwise3@...> (S. Wise)
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:34:46 EST
Subject: Re: Internet Bans
Aryeh G writes:
If you sent your child to a coed school, and the administration
decided one day to ban short skirts and sleeveless shirts would
you assume they were trying to discriminate? Most people would
assume the administration felt not having a dress code would be a
bad influence on the students. The Yeshivish administration aren't
out to get us, they feel usage of the Internet is a bad influence
so they banned it like a Modern Orthodox school would ban mini
skirts and sleeveless shirts.
I don't understand your comparison. How is a dress code in school
comparable to a threat to expel kids because there is Internet access at
home? The discrimination I speak of pertains to what appears to be a
poorly kept secret that the yeshivishe community of Lakewood is not
happy with the influx of non-Yeshivish people. The discrimination is
the fact that the yeshivos appear bent on keeping out these people based
on the extent of their religious beliefs. I'm talking about people who
probably are just as frum as the other Lakewooders, except for the fact
that they work, need the Internet and just don't conform to what
Lakewood yeshiva would like the composition of the community to be.
A friend of mine, who learned in Lakewood and now lives there, couldn't
get his son into the yeshiva of his choice, because his daughter didn't
attend Bais Faiga. Another acquaintance's son was ordered for
psychological evaluation for no particular reason. In general, the
theme is "Non-Lakewooders keep out."
Sadly, there appears to be a either no voice or a weak voice to suggest
that treating other frum people as if they were lesser frum Jews is a
form of SInas chinom. It almost sounds like the traditional NIMBY (not
in my neighborhood) as it is used when minorities start moving in. Can
someone out there disprove any of this?
S. Wise (Yisroel Wise)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:47:02 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Internet Bans
Aryeh Gielchinsky <agielchinsky@...> V50 N21:
> The Yeshivish administration aren't out to get us, they feel
> usage of the Internet is a bad influence so they banned it like a Modern
> Orthodox school would ban mini skirts and sleeveless shirts.
A number of Haredi rabbis in Israel have long banned Internet access
among their followers (no doublt considering it a bad influence).
Rather than coming up with this opinion on their own, perhaps leaders of
the Lakewood community have simply chosen to follow the leadership of
these Israeli Haredi rabbis. The authority granted to the Haredi rabbis
of Israel is probably one of the major differences between members of
the Agudah versus RCA rabbinical associations.
Because any Lakewood family is certainly capable of finding a
pro-Internet rabbi to go to for halachic guidance, the Lakewood leaders
may simply have decided to use the schools as a means of enforcing their
standard.
If all the Lakewood parents are OK with this development, who are we to
criticize? If not, perhaps this signals an opportunity for the
establishment of an RCA-affiliated school system in Lakewood.
After all, isn't this what _they_ do in predominantly Modern Orthodox
communities upon attaining sufficient numbers?
Frank Silbermann Memphis, Tennessee.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Sholom Parnes <merbe@...>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 23:33:02 +0200
Subject: Ketuba
Perhaps I have missed some of this thread.
It seems to me that once the couple has divorced, there is no need for
the ketubah to remain intact as they are no longer living together.
Furthermore, the ketubah acts as a promissary note for the financial
obligations of the husband towards the wife. If we allow the ketubah to
remain intact after the divorce is over and it is in the hands of the
ex-wife, she can claim that she was never paid or that she was never
divorced. This way, we ensure that the Ketubah does indeed become a
"chaspa b'alma". (see Anonymous in MJ 50/19)
Similiarly, the "get" itself, is destroyed once it has been delivered to
the wife. The wife then receives a certificate from the bet din that she
is indeed divorced. The reason for this is that should we leave the GET
intact, someone may find some flaw in the GET at some future date after
the woman has remarried, requiring her to divorce the second husband and
being prohibited to the first.
Shavua Tov
Sholom
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Mescheloff <david_mescheloff@...>
Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 13:48:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Ketuba
Anonymous wrote:
> 1. If the cat eats the Kesuba, must the husband flee the house (issur
> yichud bli kesuba) until a replacement document is duly created and
> given to the wife? My shulchan aruch says Yes, that has not changed.
I have written a "kesuba d'irchasa" (replacement for a lost kesuba) on
more than one occasion. On the other hand, truth be told, the real need
for this today has been discussed by several of our great poskim in
recent generations, with more than one suggesting the need to write a
replacement kesubba is either not necessary, or, at least, not urgent in
our day...
Anonymous also wrote:
> If, based on a clause in seder get shlishi, beis din is obligated to
> destroy the kesuba in the course of any get procedure -- then with
> respect to divorce isn't the document a "chaspa b'alma"? (If you
> agree, where are you sleeping tonight?)
I'm sorry, I don't understand the question. Why should destroying the
kesuba after it has no more meaning, in the course of a get procedure,
render it a "chaspa b'alma" before the get procedure, when it still has
meaning? For one thing, a kesuba has meaning in the case of widowhood,
if a woman is never divorced; for another, there are circumstances in
which a kesuba has genuine financial and/or other significances which
are applied before the divorce procedure. On the other hand, every
legal document of indebtedness - which is what a kesuba is - (as opposed
to other legal documents, such as bills of sale) may, or even should, be
destroyed after its implementation renders it of no value (or possibly
dangerous to have lying around). Does that mean it was of no value
beforehand?
David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: W. Baker <wbaker@...>
Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 14:07:57 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Re: Ketubat non-Betulah
> From: Asher Grossman <asherg@...>
> Now we come to the convert. Gentiles in the time of Chazal, (and
> indeed in most time periods - including today), were extremely
> promiscuous. Thus a female convert is assumed to have had some sort of
> marital history, and the actual existence of Betulin is moot. She is
> considered a Beulah even if the Betulin exist.
I recall learning in a Gemorah shiur that at the time of chazal there
was a belief that if the betulin was destroyed before the age of three,
it would regrow and this was the reason that those converted before the
age of three were permitted to marry anyone, even a kohane. At the
lest, it certainly did not indicate a high opinion of the morality of
the surrounding nations, particularly in reference to very small
children.
Wendy Baker
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 50 Issue 23
