Volume 19 Number 75 Produced: Mon May 29 10:03:01 1995 Subjects Discussed In This Issue: Entering Batei Avoda Zara [Norman Tuttle] Marrying off one's daughter (4) [Michael Grynberg, Avi Feldblum, Heather Luntz, Avi Feldblum] Salt Friday Night [Shlomo Grafstein] Witnesses, et al [Zvi Weiss] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <ntuttle@...> (Norman Tuttle) Date: Wed, 24 May 95 18:49:33 -0400 Subject: Entering Batei Avoda Zara I was a student at the U. of Chicago for 4 years, and graduated in 1991. Graduations were always held at the Rockefeller Chapel, used during the year for church services for some of the denominations & for choir practice. The main graduation (undergraduate) was also held on Shabbat. Ignoring the Shabbat issue (it was possible to graduate on a Friday with the graduate students), I was certain that because of the Isur (prohibition) of entering houses of idol worship, it was forbidden to enter the chapel for graduation. However, lest I rely too much on my limited scholarship, I asked for Psak from the Rav of Agudat Israel of Chicago, Rabbi Fuerst. He agreed that entering the Chapel was forbidden. Since the Psak was not popular at the time with the leadership of the Yavneh (Orth. minyan) of the U. of Chicago, I additionally asked the Posek of the minyan, who happened to be the head of the CRC (Chicago Rabbinical Council), informing him that I had already received the Psak that it was ASUR (forbidden). He also ruled that entering the Chapel was forbidden. Nosson Tuttle ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Michael Grynberg <spike@...> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 13:00:53 +0300 (IDT) Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter > >From: <Keeves@...> (Akiva Miller) If i understood correctly, Akiva was posting his disgust at a situation whereby a young daughter can be married off by her father, and attempting to bypass this situation to prevent it's occurrence. (i hope i didn't misrepresent him) [stuff deleted] > This father is committing an atrocity against his > own daughter.Denying his daughter the ability to ever get married is a > perverse twist on the most obscene forms of abuse imaginable. I was always taught that the torah was not given for a specific generation but for every generation. How do we then reconcile this with akiva's staement about this atrocity. (which i happen to agree with) i mean the torah permits it, and all it's ways are ways of peace. > The act of helping the father carry out this evil plan is a sin in and > of itself. Again, it is not evil or forbidden, in our western mentality it is abhorrent, but halachically, why should we be upset? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:31:05 -0400 Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter Michael Grynberg writes: > > This father is committing an atrocity against his > > own daughter.Denying his daughter the ability to ever get married is a > > perverse twist on the most obscene forms of abuse imaginable. > I was always taught that the torah was not given for a specific > generation but for every generation. How do we then reconcile this with > akiva's staement about this atrocity. (which i happen to agree with) i > mean the torah permits it, and all it's ways are ways of peace. > >... > Again, it is not evil or forbidden, in our western mentality it is > abhorrent, but halachically, why should we be upset? Here is what I have tried to explain to several people who have either presented questions similar to yours, or to the opposite extreme of "how could the Torah allow this?". The problem here is NOT the Torah law allowing the father to marry off his under-age daughter. It is my firm belief that the major problems are a combination of the fact that we have lost any real "community" in America at least, and the complication of the co-existance of Jewish and American legal systems. Let's look at this issue from a purely "Jewish-Halakhic" perspective. One: The background to this problem is that a divorce proceeding is either underway, or one party is attempting to initiate a divorce proceeding. Under a pure halakhic situation, one or both parties approach the Beit Din in the community. The Beit Din then calls the two parties before it and adjudicates the complaint. If one of the parties refuses to accept the verdict of Beit Din, the Beit Din can enforce it's decision by one of two main ways: a) it can give Malkut Mardit (lashes for failing to listen to beit din) to the party untill the party agrees, or b) it can put the person in Cherem. In the latter case, this basically means the person wil be totally excluded from the community, and in a real community, that would be devastating. Two: If the father went ahead and was mekadesh beto ketana (betrothed his minor daughter) before the case came to Beit Din. The situation is basically the same, only in my opinion much more direct and immediate for such a father. Remember, the tactic here is to accept kedushin for the girl, then go to Beit Din and inform them that the girl has been betrothed, but then refuse to tell Beit Din to whom the girl is betrothed. Why can he refuse to tell Beit Din? Simply because in todays Jewish society Beit Din has almost no effective power. If Beit Din were to proscribe whipping him and try to carry it out, he is likely to take the members of Beit Din to American court on charges of assault and battery. And if Beit Din puts him in cherum? In the main case listed in the papers to date, the man is living in Boro Park. I strongly doubt that a cherum would be carried out by the people living in Boro Park even if the Beit Din was one located in Boro Park, even less likely if the Beit Din was located in Toronto (where I think the mother and daughter live). Even if we could get to the point where the Jewish community would enforce a cherum, today one could live acceptably in modern American society and simply ignore the Jewish society. So as I see it, the problem is not that the Torah has set up an un-acceptable situation. The first level of blame (both for the current situation in the "Get Wars" as well as this most recent tactic) lies in my opinion on us as a Jewish (non)community. We simply do not give Beit Din the respect and authority it should have. Some of that can be traced to the fact that there is an enormous splintering and fractionalization of the religious Jewish community, so that any small segment would not respect the statements of the Beit Din associated with some other segment. Maybe we need some issues so clearcut to all of us to see that some level of co-operation between Beit Din, and respect for statements from Beit Din is needed to bring our community back together. Maybe this will lead to a strengthening of the power of community among us, as many of us see what the consequence of lack of community has been. -- Avi Feldblum Shamash Facilitator and mail-jewish Moderator <mljewish@...> or feldblum@cnj.digex.net ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Heather Luntz <luntz@...> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 22:24:07 +1000 (EST) Subject: Marrying off one's daughter In mail-jewish Vol. 19 #74 Akiva Miller writes concerning the situation where certain men are marrying off their minor daughters. I'm sorry Akiva, i wish your solution would work, but I'm afraid it doesn't. I heard about this about a year ago - davka it was either the shabbas before or after shvuos (just shows you, it takes exactly a year for something to get from Boro Park/Flatbush to the New York Times). And I did a bit of checking up into it myself (because like you I was appalled and horrified). And I'm afraid you don't need witnesses (well you don't need to produce them anyway). The halacha is that a man is believed to say that he has married off his minor daughters, and, if for example he says that he doesn't remember to whom he has married them - then they are forbidden from marrying *ever*. You don't need to produce the witnesses, just the statement of the father is enough. This is explicit in the Rambam Hilchos Ishus Perek 9 halacha 10 (and 11), the Shulchan Aruch Even Haezer siman 37 si'if 20 and I believe the Tur around the same place - although I do not have access to a Tur from home. It is based on a gemorra in Kedushin 64a. And of course you realise that if the father dies - then that is it. If anything it is a better situation if there *are* witnesses - because after all, if we know who the designated man was, then we can pressure him for a get, and that gives us two more to pressure for information - but if it is just the statement of the father, then it could literally be anybody in the world (and the story as I heard it it was just the word of the father). I presume that this statement of the father would need to me made before a beis din to have validity, - but I don't see that a beis din could refuse to sit to hear it, so I don't know that this helps. Sorry Chana ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Avi Feldblum <feldblum> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 09:44:53 -0400 Subject: Re: Marrying off one's daughter Heather Luntz writes: > In mail-jewish Vol. 19 #74 Akiva Miller writes concerning the situation > where certain men are marrying off their minor daughters. > I'm sorry Akiva, i wish your solution would work, but I'm afraid it doesn't. > And I'm afraid you don't need witnesses (well you don't need to produce > them anyway). It is the difference between "you don't need" and "you don't need to produce them" where Akiva's proposal lies. You absolutely need witnesses, otherwise there is no halakhic act of kedushin. These witnesses need to be kosher valid witnesses. Whether the father needs to produce them or not is an issue of ne'emanus (trustworthiness) of the father to make such a statement to Beit Din and be believed. If however the very passive witnessing of such an event (and then refusing to come forth to Beit Din and tell all they know) were to remove them from the status of valid witnesses, then Akiva's suggestion would have merit. As I have mentioned and as Zvi says in his post, we doubt this is a valid approach. But at least speaking for myself, I do not consider myself a valid expert in this matter, so I would like to hear what the Rabbanim and Roshei Yeshiva who see this list have to say on the matter. I have also spoken with my father about this, and am sending him what info I can get so I hope to maybe get a response from him. Avi Feldblum ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: <RABIGRAF@...> (Shlomo Grafstein) Date: Thu, 25 May 1995 21:47:42 -0300 Subject: Salt Friday Night Since the sanctity of eating is to parallel the altar of the Holy Temple service of Jerusalem, we place (or preferred dip) the bread into salt. As was pointed out some do not put salt on the bread (challah) Friday night because there was no sacrifices offered then. The source is the Chasam Sofer. It is unfortunate that some have maligned the the Holy Chasam Sofer because he said "Chadash Asur min HaTorah" New things are forbidden from the Torah. He may have meant that new deviances away from the Torah are strictly or else one can keep on going and tear down the entire structure of the Divine's Blueprint. However new thought ideas and actions which can draw one closer to The Divine truth is most acceptable.... for they come from the Divine Personally in this day and age when some people are just experiencing "a taste of Shabbos" with the Friday night meal, one can give the richness of the traditions and minhagim which will stimulate thoughts. Imagine for the first time a returnee sees someone dipping the challah into salt...it will provoke questions which will lead to the holiness of the table ..yes we eat to live. On the other hand if one comes from a family tradition where they do not use salt Friday night on the challah (UNGvar, Oberlanders, and others with Chasam Sofer minhagim (customs), they should not deviate from "the Torah of their mother" 41st of Omer 5755 Sincerely Shlomo Grafstein Halifax Canada ---------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Zvi Weiss <weissz@...> Date: Mon, 29 May 1995 08:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Witnesses, et al I, too, share the horror at the tactics of these (sub)human beings who clearly have no love for their own daughters. However, I do not know if we can invalidate witnesses. It appears that in order for witnesses to be "pasul", the sin has to be one which is "readily understood" as a sin. The halacha has examples of sins which do not disqualify the witnesses because they sins are not "perceived" to be truly "sinful". The level of "evil" here apparently has to correspond to "Rasha D'Chamas" -- the evil associated with Robbery. While I agree that this action is a truly evil one, I do not know if it meets the gemara's definition of "Rasha D'Chamas". Note, however, that *if* the Poskim all proclaimed that this *was* a truly evil and horrible act, then perhaps my objection would not apply. However, I do not believe that we will see poskim do that as the actual act of a father marrying off a minor daughter is one that the Torah EXPLICITLY gives to the father and the Gemara states that the father even has the "right" to marry her off to a repulsive person ("Mukat Shchin"). I would like to mention another issue. While the Torah allows the father to do this and the Father is believed if he states that he married his (minor) daughter to a specific person ("Es Biti Natati La'ish Hazeh" -- "My daughter I gave to *this* man"), I would question whether the father is *believed* if he states that he married off his daughter without specifying either the man or the witnesses. If the father has no "ne'emanut", then we simply act as if the daughter is not married. If the father is REQUIRED to supply this additional info then we can address the problem in terms of (a) investigating the witnesses for other reasons to disqualify them and/or (b) working on the "husband" to (if necessary) divorce the girl (his "wife"). Note that this "scheme" falls apart if there are "rabbis" who support this who could state that the father told THEM all of the relevant details... Of course, if there are actually rabbis who support this abomination, then our problems are MUCH worse than anyone can imagine... Have there been ANY statements from Agudah, Degel Hatorah, or any of the other "black-hat" organizations? --Zvi ----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 19 Issue 75