Volume 53 Number 56
Produced: Thu Jan 4 5:54:13 EST 2007
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Aguna legislation in Maryland
[Irwin E. Weiss, Esquire]
Egged Bus
[Batya Medad]
FLUORESCENT and being a halachic flame
[.cp.]
Katon - Katan
[Jack Gross]
King Saul
[Brandon Raff]
Living among Christians of many ilks -- also busing.
[Carl Singer]
Not about smoking
[Risa Tzohar]
Pictures of the Aliyah - Klita Fair in Jerusalem
[Jacob Richman]
Smoking
[Rich, Joel]
Yefas To'ar (3)
[David Riceman, Warren Burstein, Russell J Hendel]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Irwin E. Weiss, Esquire <irwin@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:24:13 -0500
Subject: Aguna legislation in Maryland
Delegate Sandy Rosenberg and Senator Lisa Gladden (who represent a
portion of Baltimore City in which the Orthodox community is centered)
intend to introduce in a few days legislation in Maryland to attempt to
deal with the husband who refuses to give a get. As I understand it,
the proposed legislation, which has the support of the local Orthodox
Rabbinate, would allow a woman (or man) in a civil divorce to request
that the other party state, under penalty of perjury, that he (or she)
has taken all steps solely within that person's control to remove all
religious barriers to remarriage by the other party. If such a request
is made, the civil court hearing the divorce would be prohibited from
granting the divorce/annulment without the statement. Of course, if the
statement were made under penalty of perjury, the other side could
contest it if it were not true. It should be easy to establish whether
or not a get has been written and given or not.
Whether this solution works in all circumstances remains to be seen.
Irwin E. Weiss, Esq.
Baltimore, MD
<irwin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Batya Medad <ybmedad@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 07:08:21 +0200
Subject: Re: Egged Bus
> I would be very interested in the details of how Egged could possibly
> stop a bus service that was run and funded by private individuals for
> a specific community.
Simple, they have a legal monopoly in the areas in which they work.
There is no competition in public transportation. Egged simply has to
remind the local administration that if another bus company is there,
they will cease all services, including the routes the new one can't
handle. That's why in our local Mateh Binyamin region, there are some
free buses at hours that Egged doesn't serve, such as the "one hour
after Shabbat to Jerusalem." The yellow school buses used on those
routes are forbidden to charge money, since that would go against
Egged's conditions for servicing the area. I guess our property taxes
pay for it.
Batya Medad
http://shilohmusings.blogspot.com/
http://me-ander.blogspot.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: .cp. <chips@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 18:05:35 -0800
Subject: FLUORESCENT and being a halachic flame
Not sure this is definitive or would change any halachas, but ...
my night lights that turn off automatically in the presence of light,
turn off when exposed to sun light and regular light blubs but don't
change a whit when in FLUORESCENT light.
-p
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jack Gross <jbgross@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 21:00:08 -0500
Subject: Re: Katon - Katan
They two forms of the same word. The base form is Katon. But when the
word occurs at the end of a sentence (sof pasuk or esnachta) the cholam
changes to kamatz, much as a patach would.
Cf: v'kha'asher shakholti shakhalti.
Perhaps also, in this week's parsha: Az chillalta y'tzu'i alah (=aloh).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brandon Raff <Brandon@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:50:01 +0200
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."
>......
>
>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
The Gemara (Yoma 22b) relates:
'Saul was a year old when he began to reign.' R. Huna said: Like an
infant of one year, who had not tasted the taste of sin. R. Nahman
b. Isaac demurred to this: Say perhaps: Like an infant of one year old
that is filthy with mud and excrement? R. Nahman thereupon was shown a
frightening vision in his dream, whereupon he said: I beg your pardon,
bones of Saul, son of Kish. But he saw again a frightening vision in his
dream, whereupon he said: I beg your pardon, bones of Saul, son of Kish,
King in Israel. (Yoma 22b)
Brandon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Carl Singer <casinger@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 08:00:25 -0500
Subject: Living among Christians of many ilks -- also busing.
> N.B.: This is a side issue, and I haven't quite gotten my mind around it
> yet, but I find it fascinating that my much more Christian, much more
> Southern neighbors here are *more* tolerant of my Jewishness than my Bay
> Area neighbors were. Partly this appears to be simply politeness;
> people in this part of the country really *are* more polite. But partly
> it seems that, since the *Christians* here are, on the whole, more
> devout, they have respect for *anyone* who is more devout, be they
> Christian or not. I am sure that this is not true across the economic
> spectrum, but it is certainly true in *my* neighborhood. In the Bay
> Area, on the other hand, I often had the feeling that I had some kind of
> communicable social disease by trying to be observant in *any* faith,
> and was thereby looked down on.
>
> It is interesting to me that the ostensibly "more liberal" Bay Area
> seems to be *less* tolerant to people who want to be religious than the
> supposedly "bigoted" South, but that's been my--admittedly
> limited--experience. The gist here seems to be, "Well, at least you
> believe in God!" The gist in the Bay Area is, "You believe in God?
> What are you, some kind of idiot?" I'm over-simplifying, of course, but
> that's the gist.
I believe the key word is RESPECT. Much of my experience in a
non-Jewish milieu has been in the Army. (Where for the last ten years
of my career, I commanded a detachment of Colonels and LTC's and worked
in an environemnt of primarily field grade officers.)
There I found that my many devoutly religious (Christian) colleagues
were respectful. Helpful (re: Shabbos -- almost shooing me out the door
on Friday afternoon) and a bit curious (those new on board sometimes
asked why I was wearing a yarmulke -- on those days where I wore a suit
rather than a uniform to the office.) Yes there were a few who wanted
to "save me" (an annoyance, easily handled) but I saw that as their
over-zealous response to a different stimulus.
Many of us live, work and play in a multi-religious environment. Some
play well together -- others don't.
Carrying this over to the busing issue -- I disagree with the blanket
statements that either (1) condem all "Chareidi" men or (2) propose that
they are either "normal" or saintly in their approach to women. --
Restating an previous -- I believe that there are many individuals
within that community who do not RESPECT those outside their circle.
Carl
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Risa Tzohar <risa.tzohar@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 15:48:31 +0200
Subject: Not about smoking
Perets Mett wrote:
>This is an Aunt Sally. First invent a situation, then criticize it.
>
>All the Roshei Yeshiva I know **actively** ban smoking. They have been
>doing this for decades, and without prompting from Mail-Jewish.
>
>OTOH, I have not heard from any of my sons that their Rosh Yeshiva
>tells them which shechita to eat from. **That** is something we decide
>at home.
>
>So, please find something else to criticize.
Dear Perets,
I am not criticizing at all. I asked a question about how regular Jews,
who are not Rabbis, could influence the topics which addressed
publicly. I purposely tried to use an example were there is a consensus
(as in "All the Roshei Yeshiva I know **actively** ban smoking.) My
question remains how come now all the roshei yeshiva do this when in the
80's it wasn't widely accepted and in the 60's even less so. What
accounts for this change?
Best regards,
Risa Tzohar
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Jacob Richman <jrichman@...>
Date: Tue, 02 Jan 2007 22:36:20 +0200
Subject: Pictures of the Aliyah - Klita Fair in Jerusalem
Hi Everyone!
Today I attended an aliyah - klita fair at the Nefesh B'Nefesh offices
in Jerusalem. During the fair, Teudat Zehut cards (Israeli citizen id
cards) were distributed to the olim that came on the recent aliyah
flights from North America and England.
I posted 95 pictures of the klita fair at:
http://www.jr.co.il/pictures/israel/history/2007/a89.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.
Congratulations to the new citizens of Israel.
Have a great day,
Jacob
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rich, Joel <JRich@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 08:05:52 -0500
Subject: RE: Smoking
From: Perets Mett <p.mett@...>
> Risa Tzohar wrote:
>> 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?
>
>This is an Aunt Sally. First invent a situation, then criticize it.
>
>All the Roshei Yeshiva I know **actively** ban smoking. They have been
>doing this for decades, and without prompting from Mail-Jewish.
>
>OTOH, I have not heard from any of my sons that their Rosh Yeshiva tells
>them which shechita to eat from. **That** is something we decide at
>home.
>So, please find something else to criticize.
Dear Perets,
I'm curious to understand why you responded this way instead of simply
saying - "All the Roshei Yeshiva I know **actively** ban smoking. They
have been doing this for decades, and without prompting from
Mail-Jewish.
OTOH, I have not heard from any of my sons that their Rosh Yeshiva tells
them which shechita to eat from. **That** is something we decide at
home."
Your post as it stands assumes that your experience is the universal
case. This may or may not be so but your statement is not sufficient to
prove it. Your tone indicates you are sure it is and thus you can bash
Risa for inventing a situation and criticizing it. Then you close out
with a curt dismissal.
I don't blame the moderator as this is a judgment call. I urge you to
consider whether it meets the criteria for a ben torah and, irrespective
of that, does it make it more or less likely you will convince others of
your point.
Kol Tuv, Joel Rich
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Riceman <driceman@...>
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 11:48:30 -0500
Subject: Re: Yefas To'ar
> From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
<me>
>> (i) yefas toar still requires a valid conversion
>> (H. Melachim 8:5),
> <Rabbi Trachtenberg>
> Doesn't a valid conversion require the consent and will of the
> convertee? If so, could a captured woman simply refuse to convert as a
> means of avoiding marriage (this would seem to contradict the simple
> meaning of the Torah).
Yes. ibid. 8:7
David Riceman
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Warren Burstein <warren@...>
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 15:56:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Yefas To'ar
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
> Doesn't a valid conversion require the consent and will of the
> convertee? If so, could a captured woman simply refuse to convert as a
> means of avoiding marriage (this would seem to contradict the simple
> meaning of the Torah).
Hilchot Melachim 8 can be found at
http://kodesh.snunit.k12.il/i/e508.htm. 8:9 (8:7 in some editions) says
that if she does not want to convert, she is set free after twelve
months (assuming she accepts the seven Noahide commandments - she
doesn't get a choice about that).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@...>
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:49:32 -0500
Subject: Yefas To'ar
Someone recently suggested that Reform gentile intermarriages could
be saved by using the loophole of the Captured Captive
>That is, Reform Jews could simply arrange for their gentile spouses to
>be "captured in battle"
One discussant adequately answered this (The Captured Captive must still
convert!).
However on the lighter side we should point out that if a gentile spouse
"captured" a Jew in marriage it would not make legal sense to view the
capturer as captured:)
Russell Jay Hendel; http://www.Rashiyomi.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 53 Issue 56