Volume 17 Number 62
Produced: Sun Jan 1 9:33:27 1995
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Anonymous Psak
[Mark Press]
Bat Mitzva Celebration
[Michael J Broyde]
Conservative Get
[Stephen Phillips]
Conservative Gittin (2)
[Yosef Bechhofer, Eliyahu Teitz]
Daas Torah
[Binyomin Segal]
Halakha k'Bathrai
[Jeff Woolf]
Hasagat Gevul (2)
[Josh Backon, Nadine Bonner]
Hilchata K'Batrai
[Isaac Balbin]
Non-Jewish Conversions
[Gad Frenkel]
Rabbi of a later era can't dispute
[Gedaliah Friedenberg]
Sale of a House for Pesach and B'dikat Chametz
[Eliyahu Teitz]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Mark Press <PRESS@...>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 95 03:36:03 EST
Subject: Re: Anonymous Psak
Ezra Dabbah misunderstands why the gadol I mentioned did not wish to
have his name associated with the heter he offered for the use of a
microphone under specific conditions. It is my recollection that he
felt that the frequent inability to distinguish between the relevant
parameters of a psak in a particular situation would lead inevitably
to using his psak in an overgeneralized and inaccurate manner to
permit microphones even when they should be prohibited. There was no
suggestion of fear but rather a sensitivity to the need for a specific
ruling based on local conditions.
M. Press, Ph.D. 718-270-2409
Dept. Of Psychiatry, SUNY Health Science Center At Brooklyn
450 Clarkson Avenue, Box 32 Brooklyn, NY 11203
Acknowledge-To: <PRESS@SNYBKSAC>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Michael J Broyde <relmb@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 09:58:18 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Bat Mitzva Celebration
I am a little befuddled by the tone taken by some of the posters
concerning the celebration of bat mitzva. Those who are opposed to the
celebration seen to adopt the tone appropriate for conduct that has no
recognized halachic sanction. Such is certainly not the case for bat
mitzvah. No less an authority than Rav Ovadiah Yosef yabia Omer 6:29
categorically approves of the celebration of a batmitzvah and labels it
a sudas mitzvah. He draws little distinction between bar and bat
mitzvah. In short, I do not understand why the very combatative tone is
being used here. This is a dispute among the contemporary authorties of
our generation, with siginificant poskim on each side. certainly that
is not a new situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <stephenp@...> (Stephen Phillips)
Date:
Subject: Conservative Get
> >From: Sheldon Korn <rav@...>
> 2) In reference to an assumption that an Orthodox Beis Din will accept a
> Conservative Get Bidieved is wishful thinking. I personally know of a
> case of a woman who had received a conservative get and later met a
> Jewish man by whom she became impregnated. When she and her lover
> decided to go the Orthodox way, the Orthodox Beis Din insisted on an
> Orthodox Get and then refused to marry them on grounds of Assur L'baal
> V'assur l'boel. Of course she was left with 2 gets and 1 Mamzur.
I assume, therefore, that the first marriage was in an Orthodox Shul
and therefore required a proper Get. If, however, the marriage had
been under Conservative auspices, then Bedieved [after the fact] the
marriage would have been declared invalid, thus avoiding any question
of Mamzerus.
Stephen Phillips
<stephenp@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <sbechhof@...> (Yosef Bechhofer)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 09:27:25 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: Conservative Gittin
I believe somone misread my posting on Conservative Kiduushin. Since my
premise was that Conservative Rabbis acoording to Reb Moshe are all
pasul l'edus, of course their Gittin are invalid. I was referring to
their siddur kiddushin, which are also invalid, thereby removing the
problem of mamzeirus at its origin.
Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:36:01 -0500
Subject: Re: Conservative Gittin
in response to sheldon korn, 17:58:
i think that the comment about conservative gittin and halacha l'maaseh
was misunderstod ( unless i missed a posting which said this directly ):
the way i read the posting was that an orthodox beit din would be
mevatel a conservative marriage in the case of mamzerut. the posting
did not discuss conservative gittin at all.
on both points the issue is not simple. there might be some situations
where a conservative kidushin will be ignored and others where it won't,
even if mamzerut is the outcome.
as far as gittin are concerned, as well, there might be some situations
where the get might be accepted ( for example, if the sofer was
reputable and he brought the witnesses so that all the significant
parties involved were shomrei torah u'mitzvot ).
we should shy away from making generalizations, especially in matters
that impact of family status.
eliyahu teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <bsegal@...> (Binyomin Segal)
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 18:39:00 -0600
Subject: Daas Torah
Zvi Weiss writes
>2. The "prominent women's seminary" appears to actually be an EXCELLENT
> case of "stifling". After all, did this school consult its OWN posek
> for a guideline on what to teach? If the school did (and there is no
> reason to beleive that they did not), then the school was put into
> cherem for following its p'sak and not following someone else's
> p'sak... The issues are indeed halachic BUT nobody should be able to
> dictate to me or anyone else who I must go to consult when I have a
> shaila. If you disagree with the p'sak that I receive, fine -- but
> that is STILL no basis for a cherem.
I think a historical perspective may help here. We should recall that there
was a well established religious community in Yerushalayim long before
1948. That community - though diverse - had a strong infra-structure and
what amounted to self-government. There was a sphardi bais din & an
ashkenazi bais din. Period. Much of the tension between "meah shearim" and
the "chilonim" today, stems from the fact that the religious community
views the "chilonim" as unwanted intruders on a holy Jerusalem (but that's
a discussion for another time). Historically there were other batei
din/communities established - and their independance is accepted. (For
example, no one - as far as I know - has put Machon Lev in cherem).
However, much/most of the "yeshiva" community has aligned itself with that
old community structure. Over the years it has remained, and as long as you
identify as part of that larger community, you are required to follow the
psak of the bdatz. That is not news - its straight from the gemara: either
you establish a new bais din/community or you adhere to the principles of
the old community.
binyomin
<bsegal@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jeff Woolf <F12043@...>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 94 18:29:17 IST
Subject: Halakha k'Bathrai
A footnote to Lea Zakh: Use of Halakha k'Bathrai by Sefardic Poskim is a
sign of the assimilation of Ashkenazic Halakhic thought by
Sephardim. Jeff Woolf
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <BACKON@...> (Josh Backon)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 13:30 +0200
Subject: Re: Hasagat Gevul
See Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 156:5 on the concept of MA'ARUFYA.
Josh
<backon@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <n.bonner@...> (Nadine Bonner)
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 95 04:12:00 UTC
Subject: Hasagat Gevul
After reading Lee Buckman's post, I feel compelled to contradict his
contention that the existing funeral home charges competitive prices. I
happen to know the funeral home and have seen a list of their prices
compared with the prices of three Jewish funeral homes in the nearest
large community. The prices here are hundreds of dollars higher than
any of the other homes for the same services.
The non-profit home he is refering to does not plan to offer embalming
services or open casket, so people who do wish those services (and as a
member of the chevra kedisha I know that many do) will still have to use
the existing funeral home.
I don't know if this will affect the tshuva, but I felt that the facts
should be clarified to understood the situation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Isaac Balbin <isaac@...>
Date: Sun, 01 Jan 1995 18:53:56 +1100
Subject: Re: Hilchata K'Batrai
| >From: Leah Zakh <zakh@...>
| in MJ 17:51 Mr. Gevaryahu wrote that Sephardim do not follow the rule of
| Holchata K'Batrai. That is not quite correct.Rav Mordechai Eliyahu,
| shlita who is one of the foremost sephardi poskim in Israel nowerdays
| DOES hold "Hilkhata k'Batrai" and paskins accoerding to the Ben Ish Chai
| and the Kav-HaChaim. R' Ovadia Yosef, Shlita on the other hand goes
| according to the Rov. Thus neither derech of psak is ruled out in the
| Sephardi community.
Leah's description above is an oversimplification of the halachic
process especially in the theory of how Rav Ovadya comes to a
conclusion. Rav Ovadya is often misunderstood as one who `weighs up the
pros against the cons' and then decides. Whilst the casual reader of his
Psakim might get this impression from the sheer enormity of his B'kius
[erudition] and the style of his writing, delving into his Tshuvos on a
larger scale and *most importantly* reading Rav Ovadya's own
introduction to his Tshuvos in relation to how an Acharon should arrive
at a Psak and what parameters are in force, will reveal a much more
intricate method than simple counting. Indeed Rav Ovadya's introduction
to Yabia Omer (from memory especially the last few snifim [sections])
would should light on some of the issues discussed in this forum.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gad Frenkel <0003921724@...>
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 94 11:07 EST
Subject: Non-Jewish Conversions
>From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
>a more difficult question can be asked: how do we treat intermarried
>couples where the wife is the jewish partner & the j\husband has no
>interest in conversion. the children are still 100% jewish. do we try
>and reach out to the owman & kids, or do we simply ignore them wit hthe
>notion that she brought this trouble on herself and she will suffer for
>her children's sins?
I didn't see the original posting that prompted Eliyahu's question, but
I have heard in the name of R' Yaakov Kaminetsky Z"L, that even in the
case of a Jewish father and non-Jewish mother, one should give special
consideration to the children, who are obviously not Jewish, because
they are Zera Yisroel. I'm not sure what the parameters of this special
consideration are. Practically, I've applied it to situations where
such a child expresses an interest in Jewishness. Responding to their
interest should be different than responding to the interest of a
full-blooded non-jew. I think that one could easily make a Kal V'Chomer
to Eliyahu's questions. Besides, as stated, the kids are 100% Jewish,
and they have done nothing wrong. How can you ignore a guiltless Jew?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gedaliah Friedenberg <gedaliah@...>
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 1994 22:01:02 -0500
Subject: Re: Rabbi of a later era can't dispute
Newsgroups: israel.mail-jewish
Rabbi Moshe Feinstein zt'l also paskined (ruled) in ways which
'overturned' his predecessors. A sefer entitled Ligeres Iggeres (out of
print) compiles all of the opinions of R' Moshe that contradict earlier
Rabbis.
Gedaliah Friedenberg
<gedaliah@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz)
Date: Fri, 30 Dec 1994 11:53:42 -0500
Subject: Sale of a House for Pesach and B'dikat Chametz
in response to ralph zwier:
concerning the sale of a house for pesach and b'dikat chametz:
the room where chametz is stored for those staying home for pesach is
rented to the non-jew ( in some versions of the sale document ), meaning
that the jew technically has no right to enter the room. yet, before
that room is "rented out", the jewish owner has an obligation to check
there for chametz.
when "selling' the entire house, the idea is that the rental to the
non-jew is extended to the entire property. why should the obligation
of b'dika fall off just because i have extended the rental area?
another problem is that if you sell the entire house and you have to
return home for an emergency then you have to ask the non-jew for
permission to enter your house before you go in.
eliyahu teitz
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 17 Issue 62
