Volume 18 Number 73 Produced: Sun Mar 5 1:25:27 1995 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: A Convert's Privacy [Mosheh Wolfish] Gomel (Blessing of Appreciation) [Lon Eisenberg] Jewish Calendar and Adar [Joseph Greenberg] Preserving the privacy of converts [Stephen Phillips] Secular courts [Eliyahu Teitz] Secular Courts [Eliyahu Teitz] Secular Courts. [Immanuel O'Levy] Secular Israeli courts [Ezra Frazer] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Mosheh Wolfish <MWolfish@...> Date: Thu, 02 Mar 1995 16:22:18 -0500 Subject: A Convert's Privacy I am not a posek nor talmid chacham, so I can only offer what I have understood from things that I have learned, observed and analyzed. I have been a gabbai in a shul that had a number of converts and when I attempted to call them up as ben Avraham Avenu (thinking that a great honor), was specifically told by the rabbi to drop the Avenu. During the more than ten years since, I have never heard a convert called up to the Torah as anything other than ben Avraham. I have recently signed on a k'thubah with a convert who, in front of me, was specifically instructed by the current Strepkover Rav (rebbe) (of Me'ah Sh'arim, Jerusalem) to sign just ben Avraham. The groom was also a convert who also was referred to in the k'thubah as ben Avraham. This was all done with the seeming concurrence of Rav N'san'el Kostolitz, a talmid chacham and posek in Baltimore. (He is the rabbinic supervision of Empire chickens.) The talmud, in dealing with the laws of gittin (divorces) assumes (and relies upon) that anything done by a beth din (Jewish court) has a "voice" and people would hear and know about it. (This is the reason that Mordechai did not divorce his wife Ester even though she was cohabitting with Ahashverosh. He was afraid that Ahashverosh would find out that Ester was someone else's wife and would kill him or her. -Talmud) A conversion is kosher only if done by a beth din. One would therefore assume that the knowledge would be public because it has a "voice". In the only conversion that I participated in, the head of the beth din, Rabbi Mendel Feldman of Baltimore (also a talmid chacham and posek), did not instruct us to keep the matter private. My own resolution of the need to honor the convert's privacy with the publicity of the matter, has been to be discrete. I prefer not talking about others, save for where there is a need or it is complimentary to the subject. A particular instance of need may be within the realm of shiduchim. I'm sure there are others. I don't recall ever hearing that one may not disclose the fact that someone is a convert without permission, even though I had been told by a convert that she did not appreciate it when others disclosed her being a convert. I do not believe that a convert can rightfully demand the silence of others. However, discretion and consideration of another's feelings is just common sense. I would be grateful if you would let me know what other opinions and responses you get. There is always more Torah to learn. Thank you. Mosheh Wolfish ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Lon Eisenberg <eisenbrg@...> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:31:42 +0000 Subject: Gomel (Blessing of Appreciation) Chaya London <CGREENBE@...> wrote: >When I do have children (G-d willing) why should my husband get an >aliyah for benching gomel? I would much prefer to be in a women's >minyan - I will be the one who survived, not him. Although I've heard of the custom of the man saying gomel for his wife who gave birth, IMHO, it is incorrect. It makes sense to me (and Rabbi Kaminetsky of Highland Pk., NJ stated) that only the person who went through the experience (in general, not just for childbrith) can say gomel. It seems to me that the accepted practice is for the woman to stand up (on her side of the mehizah), usually at the end of the time for reading the Torah, and saying "hagomel". For this reason, I don't understand the need for Chaya to be in a women's minyan (I do not mean to imply that a women's minyan is necessarily wrong). So I still don't understand why women don't say gomel after crossing the ocean. Lon Eisenberg Motorola Israel, Ltd. Phone:+972 3 5658438 Fax:+972 3 5658205 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Joseph Greenberg <postmaster@...> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 11:14:36 - 500 Subject: Jewish Calendar and Adar On the issue of the Jewish Calendar and Adar, I have been heavily involved in testing and researching the Jewish Calendar aspects of a program called Almanac, shareware (available on all the major online services - no I don't get a cut, I paid for registration), written by a non_jewish fellow named Len Gray. Besides being (in my biased opinion) a great calendar program, Len has put in a Jewish Calendar mode, that required extensive research as to observance of birthdays, yahrzeits, etc. Besides being "somech l'davar" (interested party) (I observe yahrzeit for my father on Adar 29, and my birthday and my oldest son's birthday are in Adar) I have spent _hours_ researching the issue of Adar/Adar I/Adar II and Cheshvan/Kislev 30, in both primary and secondary sources. These include Rambam, Shulchan Oruch, achronim, and books published by various contemporary authors (Weiss, Artscroll, Lamn, Speir). As with many other aspects of halacha, there are as many opinions as sources. Speir offers the most comprehensive "halacha l'ma'aseh" (practical) guide, although I don't see where he gets 30 Shevat as the yahrzeit date of someone who dies on 30 Adar II (although it makes sense to me). There appears to be ample support for observing yahrzeit in Adar I or Adar II or both. And there are different issues relating to birthdays and yahrzeits. One comment by one of the contemporary authors (Rabbi Abner Weiss) stands out... "one should be consistent in one's custom." This, combined with the typical response here on MJ ("consult your local orthodox Rabbi") should be what guides most of the readers here. Just be aware that there is a certain amount of "flexibility" in this matter. Joe Greenberg - <postmaster@...> Human Synergistics, Int'l 39819 Plymouth Road 800/622-7584 Plymouth, MI 48170 313/459-1030 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <stephenp@...> (Stephen Phillips) Date: Thu, 2 Mar 95 12:57 GMT Subject: Preserving the privacy of converts >From: Freda B. Birnbaum <FBBIRNBAUM@...> >On the other hand, male converts are supposed to be called up to the >Torah as "ploni ben Avraham Avinu". On the Shabbos during my week of Sheva B'rochos I was called up for Maphtir at Yeshivas Chofetz Chaim in London. I told the Gabbai that my name was "Yisroel Ben Avrohom Ovinu" and thus was I called up. Afterwards, the Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Ordman, told me that it is not necessary to publicise that one is a convert and that it is sufficient to be called up as "Yisroel Ben Avrohom". Ever since, this is how I am called up. Stephen Phillips <stephenp@...> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:38:18 -0500 Subject: Re: Secular courts Gilad J. Gevaryahu writes: > Sometimes the issue of gentile court comes up as it relates to the > Israeli judicial system, where you have Jewish [and non Jewish] judges > who adjudicate not according to the halacha. Everything which relates > to the status of the [secular] courts with Jewish judges, who > adjudicate not according to the halacha, is in the area of Siman 8 in > Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat, which have nothing to do with the > prohibition of going to a gentile court. The subject of the > prohibition of going to a gentile court is discussed in Siman 26 of > the Shulchan Aruch. There, the emphasis is on the danger to the Jewish > autonomy by going to a gentile court...which does not exist in the > State of Israel. The prohibition against going to a non-Jewish court is not one of danger to Jewish autonomy. The problem is giving credence to a legal system that is different than our own, even if the outcome would be the same as halacha. The prohibition against going to Jews who do not judge according to halacha is similar. There is one major difference though. Whereas Jews may accept the judgement of other Jews who are not valid judges ( if for example the judges arerelated to one of the parties ), and may also accept the judgement even if it does not follow the rules of halacha, they may *not* do this with non-Jewish judges. ( see Ramban on Shmot 21,1, and Rama Choshen Mishpat 8,1 ). > Note that in Talmudic time there was the court of the exilarch, > which under the above definition will be probably labeled a gentile > court, since he ruled not only by halacha. Again, Jews not ruling by halacha are not rendered a gentile court, rather they are a Jewish court not deciding according to halacha. The distinction made above ( of acceptance of non-halachic decisions ) would apply to the exilarch's court as well. > Therefore, Jews are allowed in certain instances to use a gentile > court, and have done so throughout history. Yes, under certain circumstances Jews are allowed to use the gentile courts. The question is what are those circumstances. In Shulchan Aruch ( CM 26 ) the ruling is brought down that the plaintiff must first approach Beit Din to summons the defendant. If this fails then the plaintiff may go to the gentile courts provided he receives permission from the Beit Din. For one to decide on his own that the person he is taking to court will probably not want to go to Beit Din and therefore he the plaintiff will just "save time" and go straight to the gentile courts is not permitted. In fact, there is a lone opinion that the Beit Din must actually decide the case based on the plaintiff's claims and then the Beit Din goes and testifies in gentile court that the defendant owes the plaintiff the amount deemed his by the Beit Din. Eliyahu Teitz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <EDTeitz@...> (Eliyahu Teitz) Date: Wed, 1 Mar 1995 13:36:29 -0500 Subject: re: Secular Courts Jay F Shachter asks: > My question is a derivative one. How do we act in the situation > wherein a Jew enlists the Gentile court against another Jew, fails to > obtain the desired result, and then comes to the Jewish court as a > second resort? Do we accept the case, if it has merit, or do we > reject it out of hand? The Tur seems to leave the question > unresolved; the Beit Yosef on the Tur seems to favor rejection, but > the Beit Yosef is not entirely clear to me. The Rama in Shulchan Aruch ( 26,1 ) brings two opinons on this issue. The first position is that we do not entertain his case in Beit Din at all. The second opinion limits the first opnion to cases where the plaintiff has caused the defendant a loss of money. The S"ma writes about this limitation that it is not necessary to cause a loss of money. Rather it means that the defendant paid what the court had ordered him to pay ( even if this amount is less than he would have had to pay had the parties initally gone to Beit Din). Rama says that he feels the first opinion is correct, that we do not entertain the case under any circumstances. The Netivot gives two possible explanations for this ruling. 1. there is a rule that Jews may accept the legal decision of judges who are not permitted to rule ( if they are related to the parties for example ). The non-Jewish court would be seen as having been accepted by the parties and therefore their decision is final. 2. the Rama feels that this is a penalty imposed on the plaintiff for taking the case to secular court. The Netivot feels that the second possibility is the correct analysis of the situation at hand. Eliyahu Teitz ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <imo@...> (Immanuel O'Levy) Date: Mon, 27 Feb 95 11:23:42 GMT Subject: Secular Courts. There has been discussion recently about bringing fellow Jews before a secular court and the punishment of excommunication associated with this. In Sefer Maddah, Hilchot Talmud Torah, chapter 6, paragraph 14, the Rambam lists 24 things which are punishable by excommunication. The ninth item on the list is: "Testifying against a fellow Jew in a secular court and extracting from him money to which one is not entilted". (The Rambam adds that the excommunication lasts until the money has been paid back.) Does this imply that if one is entilted to money from someone then one has a choice of bringing that person before a Beit Din or a secular court? Secondly, why does no-one ever seem to mention the second part of the Rambam's statement, namely extracting money to which one is not entitled? Immanuel M. O'Levy, JANET: <imo@...> Dept. of Medical Physics, BITNET: <imo@...> University College London, INTERNET: <imo@...> 11-20 Capper St, London WC1E 6JA, Great Britain. Tel: +44 171-380-9704 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Ezra Frazer <frazerez@...> Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 18:40:42 -0500 (EST) Subject: Secular Israeli courts Rav Ovadya Yosef (I can't find the teshuvah in Yehave Daat right now, but I know that it's footnote 2 in the teshuvah) rules that modern day Israeli courts are worse than non_Jewish courts. His reasoning is that any court which goes by secular law has the status of a non-Jewish court. Thus, attending Israeli court violates both the prohibition of going to a non-Jewish court and the prohibition of lifnei iver (leading the secular judge astray by making him think that what he's doing is ok, whereas it is forbidden for him as a Jew to be a secular judge). Rav Yosef uses rather harsh language with regard to anyone who justifies going to Israeli court on the grounds that the judges are Jewish Ezra ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 18 Issue 73