Volume 53 Number 49
Produced: Tue Jan 2 5:48:13 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aguna
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Aguna Idea
[David Riceman]
Congratulations and pictures of the new olim
[Jacob Richman]
Demonstrations (2)
[Risa Tzohar, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz]
Eating or Not Eating Meat (3)
[David Riceman, Akiva Miller, Stuart Feldhamer]
Fraud, Google and the Holocaust
[Irwin E. Weiss]
King Saul
[Stuart Feldhamer]
Yefas To'ar (was: Eating or Not Eating Meat)
[Elazar M. Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:47:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Aguna
From: SBA <sba@...>
>> ... an Agunah is a woman with a missing husband - usually, MIA
>> or at sea, rarely do we have Agunot nowadays b/c the husband managed to
>> get a new ID and disappear.
>> Most of the cases discussed are actually Mesoravot Get: The husband is
>> present and accounted for, but he refuses to grant a GET.
>
>Isn't that basically the same thing? AFAIK, when a man refuses to grant
>a Get, he is 'me'agen es ishto'. Or am I misunderstanding something
>here?
I should point out that the difference being referred to is that the
husband who refuses to issue a get is available for pressure. For
example, there is a man in Maryland who is picketed in front of his
house on many Sundays. Hopefully, the various forms of pressure that
can (legally) be used against a man will lead to a get being granted.
If the husband manages to get a new ID and disappear, he is like someone
who dies without leaving a body (such as lost at sea). There is nothing
that can be done other than finding him and presenting the widow with
his body.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore"
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:55:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Aguna Idea
> From: Immanuel Burton <iburton@...>
> After the chuppah ceremony, the husband should be required to give the
> wife a conditional get, the condition being that the get becomes valid
> only when a Beis Din declares the wife to be an agunah.
> Not being knowledgeable on the ins and outs of the relevant halachos,
> are there any problems with this idea?
Wouldn't they be forbidden to live together once the conditional get was
given (see EH 143:1)?
David Riceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 00:18:39 +0200
Subject: Congratulations and pictures of the new olim
Hi Everyone!
Congratulations to the 220 new olim who made aliyah today from North
America to Israel.
I was at the airport and took pictures of the exciting event.
I posted the pictures online at:
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/history/a75.htm
When the first page appears, press the F11 key to view the full length
of the pictures. To move from page to page, use the navigation buttons
on the bottom of the screen.
May the aliyah from North America (and the rest of the world) grow and
bring more Jews back to their homeland, Eretz Yisrael.
Have a great day,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 19:49:44 +0200
Subject: Re: Demonstrations
On 12/28/06, Dr. Josh Backon <backon@...> wrote:
> Who says smoking isn't prohibited ? See: Iggrot Moshe Chelek Bet Siman
> 18 and Siman 76 who states "aval vadai min ha'raui l'chol ish
> u'bi'frat l'vnei torah she'lo l'asheyn". And the NISHMAT AVRAHAM
> Choshen Mishpat 156 and the article by Harav Halperin in ASSIA
> Vol. 37:21. Harav Valdenberg z"l (who passed away 2 weeks ago) author
> of the Tzitz Eliezer categorically prohibited smoking, as did Harav
> Wosner.
What I meant is this:
We all agree that smoking is halachikly prohibited. Now suppose we want
to crusade (you should excuse the expression) against smoking among
Yeshiva students. We really want to see all roshei yeshiva actively
prohibiting their students from smoking, enforcing bans in the yeshiva
making it an issue as important as whose schita to use or being careful
about bugs in lettuce. How would we concerned Jews exert influence?
Best regards,
Risa Tzohar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <sabba.hillel@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 12:55:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Demonstrations
I should point out that many batei medrash are already non-smoking for
the very reason you state. It was done without the public outcry and
without the major publicity on the matter. When it is needed, it gets
done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2006 12:43:15 -0500
Subject: Re: Eating or Not Eating Meat
From: "Frank Silbermann" <fs@...>
> it seems to me that if Yefas Toar were not already rabbinically
> forbidden someone would have suggested its use as a solution to the
> "who is a Jew(ish convert)?" controversey. That is, Reform Jews could
> simply arrange for their gentile spouses to be "captured in battle"
> (or purchased as a "slave").
How would this help? (i) yefas toar still requires a valid conversion
(H. Melachim 8:5), and (ii) only applies in the context of a war
(ibid. 8:3).
> Yes, King David did it; he lived before the era of the Tannaim who
> could have rabbinically forbidden it;
On the contrary we have traditions of rabbinic prohibitions
(e.g. unmarried men and women being alone together) from the period of
King David (H. Issurei Biah 22:3) and earlier.
> and his acts (including his authority as king to put to death on the
> spot anyone he pleased) were never accepted as a definitive source of
> normative halacha for the masses.
You are confusing two ideas here. Putting someone to death is an act of
a monarch, and it is precedent only for a Jewish king. Marrying a yefas
toar is not a law pertaining specifically to a king, and is a legitimate
precedent for any (male) Jew.
> (I believe that the children of the wives he took in battle caused
> him no end of trouble. I don't recall any analogous lessons from his
> diet.)
Hazal certainly criticised marrying a yefas toar. Why aren't you upset
at them for implying that they were "in some way morally superior to
our" Biblical commandments, and to the great King David? If, indeed, you
believe that the Rabbis prohibited yefas toar, why isn't this an even
greater insult to God, Who permitted the act, and to those great
Biblical characters who performed it?
David Riceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 13:39:35 GMT
Subject: Re: Eating or Not Eating Meat
Frank Silbermann wrote:
> I suspected that Yefas Toar is probably already forbidden
> rabbinically... I don't have a source, but it seems to me that if
> Yefas Toar were not already rabbinically forbidden someone would have
> suggested its use as a solution to the "who is a Jew(ish convert)?"
> controversey. That is, Reform Jews could simply arrange for their
> gentile spouses to be "captured in battle" (or purchased as a
> "slave").
I do not know how they would even be *able* to prohibit Yefas Toar. My
understanding is that the rabbis are unable to totally ban something
which is explicitly allowed by the Torah, and this would be an example
of that.
(Another example would be an attempt to forbid blowing a shofar on Rosh
Hashana, on the basis that it is a musical instrument, like a bugle
which cannot be blown on any Shabbos or Yom Tov. But because the Torah
explicitly allows blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashana, the rabbis cannot
totally ban it. But a *partial* ban, such as prohibiting the Shofar when
Rosh Hashana is on Shabbos, is allowed.)
Furthermore, I do not know how the law of Yefas Toar would help in the
"Who is a Jew" problem. Where is the "battle" that you would "capture"
her in?
The idea of purchasing a non-Jew as a slave was explored in "The Journal
of Halacha and Contemporary Society", issue #28 (Fall 1994), in a
32-page article by Rabbi David Katz. However, his article was titled
"The Mamzer and the Shifcha", and its aim was to try to find a way for a
mamzer to marry and have a child who was *not* a mamzer. His conclusion
was that it would work halachically, but would not be feasible
practically because of modern laws which forbid slavery (and that is the
point of relevance to Mr. Silbermann's suggestion).
In any case, what "Who Is A Jew Controversy" are you trying to solve?
If you're referring to the problem of converting people who do not
intend to accept the mitzvos, I don't think they'll accept becoming a
slave either.
By the way, even if these suggestions (Yefas Toar and Slave-Buying)
*would* work, they'd only work half the time: For converting a woman,
but not for converting a man.
Akiva Miller
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:57:29 -0500
Subject: RE: Eating or Not Eating Meat
From: Frank Silbermann <fs@...>
> *snip*
> No, I don't have a source, but it seems to me that if Yefas Toar were
> not already rabbinically forbidden someone would have suggested its use
> as a solution to the "who is a Jew(ish convert)?" controversey. That
> is, Reform Jews could simply arrange for their gentile spouses to be
> "captured in battle" (or purchased as a "slave").
>
> That no one suggests these as methods of conversion makes me suspect
> that they are no longer permitted. (I welcome comments from those who
> are in a position to know.)
Where do you get the concept that the Yefas Toar process is a method of
conversion? I understood that the woman's conversion is actually part of
the process.
Stuart
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin E. Weiss <irwin@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 07:42:33 -0500
Subject: Fraud, Google and the Holocaust
With regard to this topic, Yeshaya (Charles Chi) Halevi posts
intelligently that one cannot rely upon information merely because it is
on the internet. For sure this is true. One has to be quite careful in
relying upon printed information--One must carefully consider the
source.
I have seen many articles in the secular press on legal topics (I am a
lawyer) that contain ridiculously incorrect and misleading information.
I assume these errors are unintentional (unlike the ones noted by
Charles Chi) but are the product of journalists who might know how to
write, but don't understand the underlying topic. I try to keep this in
mind when I read articles about topics that I don't know anything
about. For example, if I am reading an article about earthquakes
(something I don't know hardly anything about) and it says "there are 4
earthquakes every day rated 2. 5 or more on the Richter scale" I don't
regard this as true merely because it is said. Maybe it is and maybe it
isn't.
Irwin E. Weiss
Baltimore, MD
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Stuart Feldhamer <Stuart.Feldhamer@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:46:17 -0500
Subject: RE: King Saul
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
> The person objected to my depiction of King Saul. When I said that I
> took it from the pshat, the straight words from the Tanach, the response
> was that we're not supposed to learn from the pshat; we're supposed to
> find out what the rabbis say the words mean.
I also object. From your blog: "King Saul was our first king, the one
chosen by the people, because he looked the way they felt a king should
look, tall and noble. Unfortunately, it proved to be a superficial
decision, and he ended up being a very bad king."
Shaul was clearly NOT chosen by the people but by Hashem, as is
explicitly stated in the "straight words of the Tanach". Furthermore, it
is Shmuel who points out to the people that Shaul is taller than
everyone else and seems to imply that it is a noble characteristic and
that he was at least partially chosen for that reason.
Whether or not Shaul was a "very bad king" I will leave up to others to
debate, but for that we should certainly be guided by the words of our
sages, as this is a moral judgement that is not explicitly stated
anywhere in Tanach.
Stuart
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Elazar M. Teitz <remt@...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 17:49:42 GMT
Subject: Yefas To'ar (was: Eating or Not Eating Meat)
The following comment was recently made:
> it seems to me that if Yefas Toar were not already rabbinically
> forbidden someone would have suggested its use as a solution to the
> "who is a Jew(ish convert)?" controversey. That is, Reform Jews could
> simply arrange for their gentile spouses to be "captured in battle"
> (or purchased as a "slave").
This comment demonstrates an apparent lack of understanding of the
halacha of yefas to'ar. How does one arrange a war? Yefas to'ar
requires that there be a war between a Jewish and a non-Jewish army.
She must be captured in battle, without quotation marks; the war must be
a real one, authorized by the Sanhedrin. Then and only then can a
soldier avail himself of the hetter of yefas to'ar.
Furthermore, after the original liaison, she remains prohibited
unless and until she converts willingly, so that the problem of "who is
a Jewish convert" would still exist.
EMT
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 49
