Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 032

Monday, October 11 1999

• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Re: Actuarial Analysis of DEFICIENT and FULL
• Re: Mapic in Aramaic
• Rav Aviner shlit"a and Zionism
• Re: Changes in Nature and Hil. Niddah
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• NCSY
• Rav Kook and Messianism
• The Story of Mizrachi-Chicago
• Re: Women Yoatzot
• Halakhic Advisors
• Women/psak
• Re: Halakhic Advisors
• Davening on Continental Airlines
• Re: Women/psak
• Re: The Story of Mizrachi-Chicago

RYGB wrote <<< For now, I have a simple question: If such fabulous
success can be
achieved with the girls, why, indeed, is it not happening with the boys?
>>>

Maybe the reason is that the "boys" are locked into a system which says
that if one can demonstrate proficiency in Taaruvos and a few other
selected portions of Yoreh Deah, then they can be certified as capable to
service all the needs of a Jewish community. In contrast, the "girls" are
building their system from scratch, and are able to build it in a way
which will meet the needs of the current generation, rather than running
on the inertia of centuries past.

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Kenneth G Miller wrote:

> Maybe the reason is that the "boys" are locked into a system which says
> that if one can demonstrate proficiency in Taaruvos and a few other
> selected portions of Yoreh Deah, then they can be certified as capable
> to service all the needs of a Jewish community. In contrast, the "girls"
> are building their system from scratch, and are able to build it in a
> way which will meet the needs of the current generation, rather than
> running on the inertia of centuries past. 

Forgive, please, a tad of sarcasm:

Gee, if Rabbanit Henkin could figure that out, couldn't she do some of her
male sponsors and supporters a favor and let them know the secret?

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

On Sun, 10 Oct 1999, Russell J Hendel wrote:

> I have been arguing SOURCES with Rabbi B rather then simply confront him
> with the bold facts. 
> 

Nope. I disagree. These Rashis are not based on grammar at all. They are
based purely on the significance of the spelling chaser or maleh.


YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

: See for example, Megilla 9a which points out that there are words in the
: Torah which are Aramaic.

By this argument, Ancient Egyptian has kedushah.

: See also Sanhedrin 38b (Adam HaRishon spoke Aramaic).

An interesting point. Also, the idea that mal'achim don't understand Aramaic
makes it unique.

I'm not sure, though, why any of these issues would impact the relative value
of the textualist's Aramaic over the mimeticist's version.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 11-Oct-99: Levi, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 51b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Having followed some (though not) all of the posts on Religious Zionism,
I wanted to add a few notes.:

Rav Aviner shlit"a (Rosh Yeshivat Ateret Cohanim and Rav of Bet El) holds
strongly that we are not permitted to enter the Har haBayit. This is separate
from questions of who and how it should be controlled. Until we have both
Jewish sovereignty and a King, we are not yet able to rebuilt Bet HaMikdash.
This follows the school of thought of Rav Kook zt"l that one is not permitted
even to touch the Kotel, let alone attempt to today rebuilt the Bet haMikdash.
(see Rav Aviner's Shalhevetya, as well as various articles in the Iturrei
Kohanim journal)

Though I have never physically learned there, I can tell you that at Yeshivat
Ateret Cohanim, talmidim study much of the same texts as any other Yeshiva-
Tanakh, Gemara and Halacha. Like many Yeshivot they also study Mussar
(ethics). As did Rav Zvi Yehuda Kook zt"l, they also study Emunah (faith-
works including Kuzari, Shemone Perakim, etc.). They do have seminannual
seminars regarding laws of the Bet haMikdash and the Kehuna...Of course,
the Chafetz Chaim also believed in studying these laws!

At Ateret Cohanim, they do teach Religious Zionism in that they believe that
the Medinah is an important step towards redemption...Thus, settling all
areas of the Land, particularly all areas of Yerushalayim, is vital. Still,
all of this is to be done without either violent words or deeds (to other
Jews or non-Jews). Indeed, the unity of nation is central to Rav Aviner's
thought..."Building the Nation Through Ahavat Chinam (Love without reason)"
is the Yeshiva's slogan.

Rav Aviner's philosophies of Religious Zionism are well document in his
numerous works (Tal Chermon, Shu"t Intifada, Rosh haMemshala, etc., etc.,
etc.). As you can tell, I am a major "fan" (though he certainly doesn't need
my "haskama") of Rav Aviner. I have found his way in philosophy, relations
with other Jews and humanity, and in halacha to be extremely meaningful
and helpful both personally andprofessionally. I do believe that he and his
Yeshiva are worthy of support of the entire Jewish community.

Shmuel Jablon

****************************************************************
Rabbi Shmuel Jablon
e-mail: rabbij@rabbijablon.com

Please visit my homepage: http://pweb.netcom.com/~shmuelaj/rabbijablon.html !
(It's now listed at www.HaReshima.com, as well as yahoo, altavista,
hotbot,looksmart, go and infoseek!)

You can e-fax me at 810-314-2515.

On 10 Oct 99, at 15:26, Jacob Klerman wrote:

> B)  The talmud seems to assume that  vest kavuah (a VERY regular
> menstrual cycle, perhaps not just to the day, but to the hour) is the
> norm.
> Contemporary books and rabbis seem to say that such regular cycles
> are today the exception.

I heard from one contemporary posek that 65 years ago, nearly 
every woman in Yerushalayim had a vest kavua. He heard that it 
was so from an older posek with whom he spoke some fifteen 
years ago. He attributes this change in teva to "neuroses." (I think 
that was only meant to be half tongue in cheek :-). But I think that 
only meant to the day and not to the hour.

> That something has changed is a lot more plausible in this case than
> in some of the other cases.  There is considerable evidence that
> menarche (the onset of menses)  and its continuation (or temporary
> cessation)
> is very sensitive to nutritional status and excercise. 

I would point to the different mesoras with respect to ksomim as 
proof that things have changed. For example, I understand from 
poskim that Yerushalmi poskim are often very lenient with ksomim 
because Yerushalmi women were so malnourished that the poskim 
had to deal with a wide range of colors, many of which were 
determined by mesora not to be tamei colors. In contrast, the 
Hungarians ate healthier and therefore they have very little mesora 
of colors on bedika cloths NOT being tamei. Today, on the other 
hand, most of our women are not malnourished (Baruch Hashem) 
and we see phenomena such as women becoming pregnant while 
they are still nursing a previous child - something that was probably 
unheard of at the time of the Gemara.

Also, it is widely known that many female athletes do not 
menstruate, which supports your hypothesis that menstruation is 
influenced by diet and exercise.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:csherer@netvision.net.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for my son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.

R' YGB asks:


> 
> For now, I have a simple question: If such fabulous success can be
> achieved with the girls, why, indeed, is it not happening with the boys?
> 


Motivation.


---sam

     As the son of NCSY's unofficial historian I wade into this conversation
carefully.  NCSY is a huge organization which does both chizuk krovim & kiruv
rechokim.  That said some people involved in NCSY see it as a kiruv organization
others as a Synagogue service.   In places like Upstate NY & Omaha, Nebraska
NCSY is mostly made up of PS students.  Even in Jewish centers PS NCSYers still
exist.  NY has 1,000-2,000 P.S. students in PS clubs, and NJ has a separate PS
program ("region").  The NCSY Yarchei kallah for PS students is amazing, and
over 300 PS students were on NCSY summer programs this past summer.

     True the yeshiva  background of the majority of NCSYers has changed from
the 60's when most members were in P.S.  (Miami was an exception - but even
there the alum from there who is now a world renown rav was first in PS, and
then in Mesivta.), but many of the NCSYers were even then from Shomer Shabbos
homes.  The same type of families now send there children B"H, predominately, to
yeshiva high schools- and NCSY continues to service them.  NCSY is part of the
OU, and provides a service to its member schuls.  One might say NCSY hasn't
changed as much as the world it serves has changed.


Moshe Luchins

Rabbanit Boublil writes:

>This is exactly the discussion going on in Israel today:  was the coming to
Israel the
>only step we were supposed to take -- or only the first?

There are two different issues issues that need to be kept in mind: what
steps are we supposed to take and what steps do we perceive Hashem to be
taking.

Within the world of religious Zionism, I am not aware of any thinker,
whether from the pre-state period or more recently, who saw "coming to
Israel" as the only step for us to take.  There was the ideal of
building up the land and the dream of reestablishing political
sovereignty.  After 1948, Mizrachi dedicated itself, in the political
realm, to guarding the tzivyon dati of the state and, in the
socio-communal realm, to building religious Zionist schools and
institutions.  Neither of these programs was linked to a belief in the
imminent arrival of Mashi'ah.

[Footnote to our esteemed listowner, who asked, regarding the tenu'ah
under the first letter of mashi'ah: "there's a kamatz katan under the
mem, no?"  No.]

>In any case the next question is "what is immanent"?  For some reason people
think that
>the intention is "now" or "in my time".  Sure, that's what we all pray every
day, 3
>times a day, does that mean that all the jews are messianists?  If so, what
is the
>differentiation?

In my view, the difference begins not with our actions, but one's
perception of God's hand in history.  And here there is room for a
spectrum of views, so the question is not either/or, messianist or
non-messianist.  At one end of the spectrum (leaving aside the hard-core
anti-Zionist position), is the skeptical view: we do not know for
certain whether the establishment of Medinat Yisrael will lead
inexorably to bi'at ha-mashi'ah.  These skeptics do not refer to the
state as "Reshit Tzemihat Ge'ulatenu."  After all, who are we to make
that determination?  More radical skeptics may go further and point to
the many anti-Jewish and anti-Torah attitudes, policies and consequences
associated with secular Zionism as proof that it is inappropriate to
celebrate the existence of the state.  (Call them "hard" skeptics.")
Other skeptics, while conscious of these failings, may instead emphasize
the positive advances in Torah that have emerged as a consequence of the
state.  Indeed, these "soft" skeptics may celebrate the existence of the
state and see great religious significance in its vitality, though
without attributing to it any harbinger of ge'ulah.  (Eliyahu Ki-Tov was
one of these "soft skeptics."  See his discussion of Yom ha-Atzmaut and
Yom Yerushalayim in his "Book of Our Heritage."  These passages do not
appear in the Hebrew version of Sefer ha-Toda'ah; he took them out
pre-publication.)

Moving slightly further along the spectrum, one will find a group who
feel comfortable referring to the state as "reshit tzemihat ge'ulatenu,"
but only because they interpret the term broadly, "the beginning of the
sprouting" can be the earliest step in a very long process, one which
may include setbacks as well as successes and may take many generations.
 (Indeed, an extreme version of this could see the initial hurban itself
as reshit tzemihat ge'ulatenu, as R. Akiva did in the famous aggadah in
which he laughed upon seeing shualim on Har ha-Bayyit.)

A bit further along one will find those who see the events of 1948 and
1967 as very clear expression of Hashem's intent to end galut and
commence the process of yeshu'ah.  These events are both portentous and
irreversible.  Similarly the kibbutz galuyyot from Arabic lands and,
more recently, from the former Soviet Union are seen as further evidence
that the process is accelerating.  Some see further evidence in less
monumental events, such as the birth of a parah adumah.

More extreme still are those who believe Mashi'ah is about to come --
very much in our time and very soon.  It is in that camp that I place
those who are preparing for binyan ha-Bayyit any day now.

And, le-da'avonenu, there are some who feel Mashi'ah just needs a little
push, and have plotted various acts -- some criminal -- that they think
would provide the little nudge that stands between us and ge'ulah
shelemah.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Harry Mayles writes in V4#26:

>I'm sure there are other contributing factors (as in
>the aforementioned "move to the right"). But I believe
>that Mizrachi never survived the fight with R. Aaron.

HM omits a key fact in his account of the dipute between Chicago Mizrachi
and R' Aharon Soloveichik in the '70s over Mizrachi's sale of its facilities to
Buddhists of the Nishereen Shoshu sect.  He fails to mention that after Rav
Aharon objected to the sale and paskened that it was forbidden, Chicago
Mizrachi procured a written psak from a talmid muvhok of the S'reday Aish
(who then served on the HTC faculty) that the sale was not only permitted, but constituted a mitzva. 

I do not raise this point to defend Chicago Mizrachi. On the contrary, their
conduct
was wrong both in procedure (shopping for a favorable p'sak on a matter their
own rav had already decided against them) and in substance (being machzik y'aday ovday
avodah zarah mamash). Rather, I bring this up because I believe it is naive to suggest, as HM does, that this dispute was a material factor in the steep
decline in
the fortunes of Chicago Mizrachi.

The conduct of Mizrachi in this episode was entirely consistent with a long
Chicago history of bizuy talmeday chachamim that dates back at least to the
Ridvaz
and continues to this day. Aside from the Ridvaz (who had to sneak out of town
under
cover of darkness due to threats on his life arising out of his views on the
kashrus of local
shechita), such g'dolim as R' Chaim Kreisworth, R' Chaim Zimmerman and of course
R'
Aharon have sufferred the consequences of standing up to Chicago's
self-empowered
laity on matters of halachik principle. 

Rav Aharon was forced out of his position as Rosh Hayeshiva of HTC in the '70s
because
of such conflicts only a short period following the Mizrachi affair. The
community was
not generally supportive of him in his disputes with the HTC board of directors,
just
as it was not generally opposed to the sale of the Mizrachi center. In more
recent years,
the behavior of the Chicago community in the face of Rav Aharon's opposition to
the
Rogers Park eiruv was highly reminiscent of the Mizrachi affair: The community,
following a group of self-empowered lay leaders, went p'sak-shopping and
produced a
permissive p'sak on the basis of which the eiruv project proceeded over Rav
Aharon's
objection.

The point is that such conduct does not make or break institutions in the
Chicago
Jewish community. HTC is thriving, at least at the high school level, despite
its
ugly disputes with Rav Aharon in the '70s (its weak bays medrash  and smicha
programs
being the trade-off in the institutional decision not to get involved again with
big name,
strong-willed Roshay Hayeshiva like Rav Aharon, who would threaten lay
leadership). Likewise, Chicago Mizrachi might well have remained a force were it not for the
series of short-sighted, ill-informed decisions it made in the '60s and '70s, and the
general
climactic change in Orthodox values since those days. 

Opposition to lay leadership is likely to be fatal or highly injurious to a rov
in Chicago,
but the community, its lay leadership and its institutions always seem to
survive unscathed when they overrule and dishonor their g'dolim.

Kol Tuv, David Nadoff

The Jewish Week article (http://www.thejewishweek.com/jwcurr.exe?9910082)
quotes program graduate Deena Zimmerman as saying, "Could this lead to
women being rabbis? That brings up the question of what is a full-fledged
rabbi, and that question isn’t totally answered."

It seems that it's not just me. Yoetzet Zimmerman, too, is unsatisfied by
the lack of answers to "What is a Rabbi?"

It's all semantics. It may be politically necessary to say that these
women will be "consulting" rather than "paskening", but there is really
no difference. Rabbanit Henken reassures everyone that "If there is a
question they can’t answer, they will consult a rabbi on your behalf." --
Just like *any* responsible person will do with a question he can't
answer!

L'mah hadavar domeh? To a yeshiva guy out in a Kiruv K'rovim program
somewhere. (This could be anything from a SEED program out-of-town, to a
gemara rebbe in any high school.) He learns well, knows his stuff, and
has a nice personality, but doesn't have semicha. If he makes the impact
that who hired him are hoping for, people will approach him with
questions about Torah and about Judaism and about Halacha. And depending
on the nature of the question, and how well he knows the subject, he may
very well answer it, or he might consult with the community Rav (or some
other higher-up) first. I think these women have just as much right to
the title "Rabbi" as those high-school teachers do.

I think people are making way too big a deal out of this. It's not like
no one ever brought a shaila to the Rebetzin before! The only thing new
is that now they're institutionalizing it. 

Akiva Miller
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

I was present at the Nishmat graduation, and was deeply impressed by
the scholarship, yirat shamayim and tzni'ut of those who were authorized
to serve as consultants in Hilkhot Niddah. And, indeed, one of the women
has been through Shas twice.Moreover, I personally know several of the
six bohanim and they are Talmide Hakhamim of the first caliber.There is
absolutely no room but to be pleased that learned women have created a
legitimate niche for themselves within halakhah, and one which will only
enhance shemirat mitzvot and shalom bayit. (BTW, I heard long ago that
Reb Moshe Soloveitchik's wife, the Rebbetzin Pesha, used to pasken Yoreh
Deah Shaylos in order not to interrupt her husband when he was
learning).
 	As to why the men can't be so inspired, I suggest we look to ourselves
for the crisis of yeshiva learning.

					Jeffrey Woolf

This is an excerpt of a very old (20/9/98) post of mine to Avodah which
touched on the question of women and psak.  It is not tailored to this
discussion, but might serve as a basis for sources - the issue that is
actually discussed (and I discuss below) is how could Devorah judge.
One of the answers given by a number of Rishonim is that she din't
judge, she poskened for the judges and they then judged (the implication
being that that eliminates the problem). As far as I am aware, nobody
goes a step further and says "and how could she posken?".  Another
source is from Bruria (I believe we posken like her at least once).

Kind Regards

Chana

....

In relation to the wider question of poskening and acceptance by the
people - to elaborate a bit on what has previously been mentioned
regarding psak and authority - the issue is discussed by a number of
Rishonim in the context of Shavuos 29b-30a and Nida 49b-50a.

The issue there is the statement that all who are kosher to give eidus
are kosher to judge - and the problem being that women are not kosher to
give eidus, and hence they are posul to judge (the yerushalmi brings
this explicitly, see Shavuos there).  So how do we explain the fact that
the tanach says that Devorah "shofta es Yisroel".

I would divide the reasons given by the Rishonim into three distinct
types:

a) she didn't in fact judge, but taught the judges the halacha (ie
poskened for them) and they did the judging.  The problem with this
formulation is of course it is not true to the language of the tanach, -
if that is what she did, then why does it use the term shofta
(especially if we are, by using the term, implying that she was
performing an issur).  However this is the first answer given in Tosphos
in Shavuos (as well as the first in Gitten 88b and Baba Kama 16a) and
the second given in Nida. The Tur also gives this explanation (see
Choshen Mishpat 7);

b) al pi hadibur shani.  (This lashon may come from the Yerushalmi in
yoma, I have been unable to find the relevant passage).  Tosphos refer
to this as the second answer in Nida (she judged al pi hadibur).
However, since this answer assumes that what she did was halachically
assur, and given the klal that a Navi is forbidden to do something that
is halachically assur unless it is a horaas sha'a (see eg megila 2b,
Sanhedrin 90a, Yevamos 90b, Rambam Yesodei Hatorah perek 9) we would
have to assume that it was horaas sha'a (similar to the view expressed
by Rav Moshe regarding Shmaya and Avitalyon).  What is more, if you
follow the formulation of the Rambam a Navi is only permitted to uproot
something from the Torah (like Eliyahu on har carmel) if he or she makes
it clear that the permanent halacha stands, but that for this time
something is being uprooted (this is clearly necessary as the trademark
of a navi sheker is one who tells the people to transgress the halacha).
Given that Devorah is known to have been a true naviah, we would expect
to find such a formulation referred to somewhere (certainly by chazal,
in the way they made it clear in relation to Elyahu and har carmel). 

c) mekablim osah alehem.  There are different versions of this, (with
possibly different halachic consequences).

Tosphos uses the lashon above, although qualifies it with "mipnei
hashechina" - ie the people accepted her upon them because of the
shechina (see eg Shavuos).  What is not totally clear from this
formulation is whether this is a form of al pi dibur shani (ie maybe the
fact of the Shechina's presence meant that the usual halacha was
waived), or alternatively that it is halachically mutar in this form,
and the reference to the shechina is merely to explain what prompted the
people to do accept her.

Perhaps the more interesting versions of this type of reason is given in
the Rashba and the Ramban.

The Rashba writes (on daf 30 in Shevuos) after discussing the fact that
women cannot judge; and then asking the question about Devorah - it is
possible to say that she did not mamash judge rather she conducted
herself like a judge that judges Israel, and even though it says in the
Sifre you shall appoint for yourself a king and not a queen, there she
was not appointed, rather they acted like din malka, and they acted
according to her word, or possibly she was a judge and judged and they
accepted her in the way that a person can accept one of his relatives [
this is clearly a reference to the Mishna in Sanhedrin (24a) which
allows litigants to chose a judge that would otherwise be possel (eg a
close relative) if they both agree (in English law we would call this
arbitration).]

Not dissimilarly the Ramban writes on the same daf in Shevuos: the
explanation (for she judged yisroel) is that they acted (nohagin) one
with the other according to her words and advice k'din malka, even
though it says in the Sifre appoint for yourself a king and not a queen
nohagin hayu ba k'din malka or ei nami  mekablin hayu divreiha
b'ratzonam.

It is not clear to me whether the Ramban is, in his last formulation,
also refering to the halacha in Sanhedrin, or is referring to a wider
version of the same concept.

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

On Mon, 11 Oct 1999, Dr. Jeffrey R. Woolf wrote:

> six bohanim and they are Talmide Hakhamim of the first caliber.There is
> absolutely no room but to be pleased that learned women have created a
> legitimate niche for themselves within halakhah, and one which will only
> 

Incorrect. There is plenty of room to be other than pleased.

YGB

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL, 60659
ygb@aishdas.org, http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

I have recently returned from a short trip to Israel: I flew Continental
Airlines out of Newark.  As you know, when flying from the US to Israel
eastbound, there is at least one shacharis that must be davened - always a
very awkward experience. Having flown on El Al on numerous occasions, I have
found the El Al stewardesses to be indiffferent, or more often, terribly
nasty to us as we attempted to make a minyan. 

In contrast, on this trip, a Continental stewardess contacted the pilot and
asked him the approximate time of sunrise based on our projected location.
She then spoke to me and told me that we had a window of 45 minutes from
sunrise to the time that breakfast was to be served and the aisles had to be
clear. She woke me up at the appropriate time, and announced on the PA that
those who wanted to pray were welcome to do so in the rear galley. The rear
galley of the 777 can hold up to 17 people comfortably and is closed off by
curtains from the adjoining lavatories. The galley is far enough from the
seats so that we could not be heard by other passengers. We davened like
menschen and agreed that next time our travels took us to Israel, we would
try to fly Continental again. 

On the return flight, the stewardess announced Mincha. 

Arnie Lustiger

In a message dated 10/11/99 2:19:52 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk writes:

<< 
 This is an excerpt of a very old (20/9/98) post of mine to Avodah which
 touched on the question of women and psak.  It is not tailored to this
 discussion, but might serve as a basis for sources - the issue that is
 actually discussed (and I discuss below) is how could Devorah judge.
 One of the answers given by a number of Rishonim is that she din't
 judge, she poskened for the judges and they then judged (the implication
 being that that eliminates the problem). As far as I am aware, nobody
 goes a step further and says "and how could she posken?".  Another
 source is from Bruria (I believe we posken like her at least once).
 
 Kind Regards
 
 Chana
  >>
Interestingly, I once heard a tape of a shiur from the Rav(JB Soloveitchik) 
on the question of gerim in the sanhedrin. I believe the end result of his 
analysis was that they could be in the sanhedrin for purposes of shakla 
vtarya but not for voting.  This sounds almost parallel to your point.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

PS Which Bruria position - yitamu chataim?

I don't intend to the analyse the merits of the various positions in the
below reffered to controversy.  I do want to point out however that despite
R. Aaron's objections, solid htough they may be in Halacha, despite his
legal education, he never practiced law.  As an attorney, I seriously doubt
that once the contract of sale was signed, it would have been possible, much
less easy to void the sale.  Proving fraud is a very difficult matter.
Mizrachi would have had to prove by  a preponderance of the evidence that
the Buddhist sect knew that Mizrachi would not sell to them had the true
identity of the purchasers been known, that the purchasers intended to
conceal their identity, that the deception was done so as to induce Mizrachi
to sell the property, that the deception was material to the transaction,
and the Mizrachi relied on that mistake of fact when entereing into the
deal.  Absent proof of all those elements, the purchasers could have
obtained a judgement ordering the sale as per the contract.  Whether
Mizrachi should have been willing to fight that battle is beyond my
expertise.

DANIEL B. SCHWARTZ, ESQ. SPECIALIZING IN ALL ASPECTS
OF MATRIMONIAL, FAMILY AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION INQUIRE AT:
SCHWARTZESQ@WORLDNET.ATT.NET
----- Original Message -----
From: <david.nadoff@bfkpn.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Monday, October 11, 1999 1:58 PM
Subject: The Story of Mizrachi-Chicago


> Harry Mayles writes in V4#26:
>
> >I'm sure there are other contributing factors (as in
> >the aforementioned "move to the right"). But I believe
> >that Mizrachi never survived the fight with R. Aaron.

********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]