Avodah Mailing List

Volume 30: Number 42

Mon, 14 May 2012

• 1. Re: forcing a GET (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: forcing a GET (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 3. commentary of the maharshal on the smag (Rich, Joel)
• 4. Re: forcing a GET (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: commentary of the maharshal on the smag (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 6. Re: Any opinions on the kashrus of Peng Peng? (Zev Sero)
• 7. question on the Mei Shiloach (David Riceman)
• 8. Re: Fwd: Rabbi Hershel Schachter - True Freedom (Ben Waxman)
• 9. torture in halacha??? (Harvey Benton)
• 10. why finger (Harvey Benton)
• 11. Re: why finger (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: torture in halacha??? (Lisa Liel)
• 13. Re: torture in halacha??? (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: question on the Mei Shiloach (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: torture in halacha??? (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: forcing a GET (Daniel Eidensohn)

On Sat, May 12, 2012 at 11:55:13PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> EH 154:21
> All those whom they [Chazal] said must divorce, we force them [to do so]
> even with sticks. [Whether or not the gemara says so.  It's enough that
> the gemara says he must divorce; it doesn't have to spell out every detail.]
> And some say [the opposite]: that anybody that the Talmud does not explicitly
> say "we force him to divorce", but only "he must divorce", we cannot force
> him with sticks...

Stam SA:
    Anyone who they said must divorce, you can force him even with
    sticks.

2nd opinion:
    Veyeish omerim -- anyone who they do not say "force him to divorce,"
    only that "he must divorce", you cannot force him with sticks.

Notice neither limits the use of non-corporeal kefiyah in cases where
he must divorce. The machloqes is on "afilu beshutin". The yeish omerim
says that in cases the divorce is mandatory but qefiyah isn't specified
by the gemara,
    We tell him, "The sages obligate you to divorce." And if he won't
    divorce, you are allowed to brand him a sinner.

So, in such cases, you may ostracize the guy.

Then, after the Rama says that it's better to avoid the machloqes and
not use qefiyah beshutim in violation of the yeish omerim, he writes:
    But if he has a wife sinfully, everyone agrees kofin beshutin.
    Wherever it says ein kofin beshutim, we also do not put him in nidui.

Then his discussion of harchaqos RT, which is -- again -- everything short
of nidui.

The Tzitz Eliezer 17:52, Yabia Omer 8:25 and R' Sternbuch 5:344 all
invoke this se'if in their discussions of ma'us allai.

So I feel pretty secure in saying it applies.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

What does the applicability of the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam have to do 
with your mistaken assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema posken 
like the Rambam? How does this show that  there is an obligation for a 
man to get divorced in a stam case of ma'us alei? Nobody is disputing 
that the harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam were sometimes used in a case of 
Ma'us alei. It is stated clearly however that for hundreds of years they 
were not generally used. Contempoary poskem such as Rav Eliashiv and Rav 
Sternbuch clearly express concerns that even such passive pressure might 
produce a get me'usa. Others such as Tzitz Eliezar, Rav Ovadia Yosef and 
others assert that our contemporary society needs their occassional use. 
But more to the point you claimed my brother's halachic views are that 
of a daas yachid - Despite clear and overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary- you refuse to acknowledge your assertions are wrong.

On 5/9/2012 10:45 PM, Micha Berger wrote:

> Both the SA and the Rama say that iqar hadin is like the Rambam and
> we may use kefiyah even when the gemara doesn't explicitly require a
> divorce. However, the SA has a "some say" not to, and the Rama lauds
> the minhag of some areas not to allow kofin oso ad sheyomar "rotzeh
> ani", and avoid the dispute. Where the gemara*does* require a divorce,
> which I am not insisting is our case, there is not even a "yeish omerim"
> against the Rambam. So yes, we do hold like the Rambam -- we just
> prefer lemaaseh not to rely on him lekhat-chilah for beyond iqar hadin
> reasons
On 5/13/2012 1:18 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Stam SA: Anyone who they said must divorce, you can force him even 
> with sticks. 2nd opinion: Veyeish omerim -- anyone who they do not say 
> "force him to divorce," only that "he must divorce", you cannot force 
> him with sticks. Notice neither limits the use of non-corporeal 
> kefiyah in cases where he must divorce. The machloqes is on "afilu 
> beshutin". The yeish omerim says that in cases the divorce is 
> mandatory but qefiyah isn't specified by the gemara, We tell him, "The 
> sages obligate you to divorce." And if he won't divorce, you are 
> allowed to brand him a sinner. So, in such cases, you may ostracize 
> the guy. Then, after the Rama says that it's better to avoid the 
> machloqes and not use qefiyah beshutim in violation of the yeish 
> omerim, he writes: But if he has a wife sinfully, everyone agrees 
> kofin beshutin. Wherever it says ein kofin beshutim, we also do not 
> put him in nidui. Then his discussion of harchaqos RT, which is -- 
> again -- everything short of nidui. The Tzitz Eliezer 17:52, Yabia 
> Omer 8:25 and R' Sternbuch 5:344 all invoke this se'if in their 
> discussions of ma'us allai. So I feel pretty secure in saying it applies. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/30b3f80d/attachment-0001.htm>

Anyone know where this can be found?
KT
Joel Rich

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/8ce8a510/attachment-0001.htm>

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:52:40PM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> What does the applicability of the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam have to do  
> with your mistaken assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema posken  
> like the Rambam? How does this show that  there is an obligation for a  
> man to get divorced in a stam case of ma'us alei?...

The se'if is generally taken to refer to ma'us alai, and for the simple
reason that it doesn't say anything to exclude ma'us alai. You tried
saying this se'if wasn't relevent. It is.

I still don't know how you can see that se'if and conclude we do not hold
that the iqas hadin is like the Rambam. The only machloqes is whether
or not to use violence, and according to the Rama, whether or not to
use nidui. Not other forms of kefiyah.

And the issue isn't whether or not she is a moredes. (Although that
would forfeit her kesuvah, as you cited.) It's whether or not BD could
use harchaqos RT in a case where they decide a divorce is necessary,
and whether or not bedi'eved, the gett would be pasul if they crossed
the line into kefiyah.

Who is to blame for the initial cause isn't at issue. It's not hilkhos
oneshim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 36th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 1 day in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Chesed sheb'Yesod: What is the kindness in
Fax: (270) 514-1507                 being a stable and reliable partner?

R' Joel Rich:

Anyone know where this can be found?
----------------------------



Otzar Hachochmah has it - it's called Amudei Shlomo; email me off list, if
you'd like, and I can email you the page you're looking for. 

 

KT,
MYG

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120513/a170e60e/attachment-0001.htm>

On 13/05/2012 12:22 AM, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
> While not carnivorous, chickens are omnivorous, but I believe that they
> would fall into this category

Um, chickens are not mammals.  Nor are fish.  But kosher mammals such as
cows are only mostly herbivores, just as cats and dogs are only mostly
carnivores.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

RBW:

<<In parshat Behar, the Mei Shiloach writes that we learn from Shabbat 
(the small oat (sign)) that God is the "poel" of everything and that 
nothing will come of the actions of people. Shmitta (the large oat) 
teaches us there is no power besides God.

  When he says that nothing will come out of the actions of people, what 
does he mean by that? Would anyone disagree?>>

I have a friend (who sometimes comments on this list) who claims that 
the Mei HaShiloah is a determinist.

I have only a casual acquaintance with the book myself, but my 
impression is different.  I think he thinks the world is run by patterns 
(a la MaHaRaL) rather than by cause and effect.

If my friend is right then all rishonim disagree.  If I'm right then 
most rishonim disagree.

David Riceman

So why didn't the Rambam list this a heter?

Ben
\On 5/13/2012 6:48 AM, Doron Beckerman wrote:
>
> Talmidei Chachamim were not conscripted for Milchamos Mitzvah, as is 
> clear from Shevet Levi not participating in Kibbush HaAretz or 
> Milchemes Amalek, which are defined as Milchamos Mitzvah. The Mishnah 
> in Sotah means to override the rule of HaOsek Bemitzvah Pattur Min 
> Hamitzvah regarding going out to war, with Chasan and Kallah being the 
> classics, but Torah study does not fall under that rubric in any event.

is torture ever allowed in halacha???

hb

why do we hold up a finger (pinky amnong some congregations
when the torah is lifted???

and if we are left handed do we switch hands?? 

hb

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 12:43:12PM -0700, Harvey Benton wrote:
: why do we hold up a finger (pinky amnong some congregations
: when the torah is lifted???
: and if we are left handed do we switch hands?? 

The "zos" of "vezos haTorah" implies pointing. Some hold that pointing
with an index finger is insulting, so, the pinky. OTOH, the Siddur Vilna
says (quoting a few meqoros including Seifer haChassidim) one should
bedavqa use the index finger, since that's the one called "etzba". As
in anthropomorphications about HQBH doing things with His "Etzba" --
including the writing of the luchos.

I'm lefty, and I do use my left hand, since that's how I point to things.
But not because I thought about it, just because that's what I naturally
do.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

Is it ever not allowed in halakha?

On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
> is torture ever allowed in halacha???
>
> hb
> _______________________________________________
> Avodah mailing list
> Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
> http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
>
>    
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20120514/7be92989/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 02:01:18PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:
>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???

> Is it ever not allowed in halakha?

If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.

So, there has to be a criterion for justification.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 05:20:44AM +0300, Ben Waxman wrote:
> In parshat Behar, the Mei Shiloach writes that we learn from Shabbat  
> (the small oat (sign)) that God is the "poel" of everything and that  
> nothing will come of the actions of people. Shmitta (the large oat)  
> teaches us there is no power besides God.

AIUI, in Izhbitzer thought (the Mei Shiloach, the Beis Yaaqov, the Orchos
Chaim and R' Tzadoq -- I don't know about the Radzyner branch), "hakol
biydei Shamayim chutz miyir'as Shamayim" is taken far more literally
and inclusively than most of us would understand it.

Leshitasam, every event that occurs is min haShamayim. Bechirah chafshi
is only in how the person chooses to view his actions -- whether he does
them in an attempt to violate Retzon haBorei or not. The fact that the
intent succeeded is taken as proof that it was part of the Divine Plan.

As I wrote in <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n109.shtml#13>
(11-Jan-2001):

    Prof Yeshaiahu Leibowitz [bases] his understanding of "hakol tzafui
    viharshus nesunah" on determinism. But he holds that others were
    choleik with R' Akiva[, and reject this determinism]. IOW, this is
    a very old machlokes.

    What about R' Chasdai Crescas, who supports determinism in Or Hashem
    3:2:2 ch 1,2? (OH is basically a polemic against using Aristotle
    for hashkafah in general, and against the Moreh in particular.) He
    considers even teshuvah to be min haShamayim. Joy or regret
    while making the choice is the only "softness" the OH gives his
    determinism. He makes a point of quoting R' Akiva as a ra'ayah.

    R' Mordechai Yosef of Izhbitz's shitah in Mei haShilo'ach (1:4b,
    1:14a). He even writes "hakol biydei Shamayim AFILU yir'as Shamayim"!
    The MhS believes in a softer determinism -- that actions are
    deterministic, but decisions are not. Sechar va'onesh and teshuvah
    are moved from being about deed to about machshavah.

    It would seem, therefore, that will without freedom can be supported
    via reason and Torah.

Even if to most of us, it's unthinkable.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Today is the 37th day, which is
mi...@aishdas.org        5 weeks and 2 days in/toward the omer.
http://www.aishdas.org   Gevurah sheb'Yesod: When does reliability
Fax: (270) 514-1507               require one to be strict with another?

On 14/05/2012 4:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 02:01:18PM -0500, Lisa Liel wrote:
>> On 5/13/2012 3:26 PM, Harvey Benton wrote:

>>> is torture ever allowed in halacha???

>> Is it ever not allowed in halakha?

> If tza'ar baalei chaim isn't allowed, lo kol shekein humans.
> So, there has to be a criterion for justification.

If it's for no reason then why talk about torture?  Hitting another
person is explicitly forbidden by the Torah: "pen yosif".  The question
only makes sense in a case where we've already determined that hitting
is permitted, and now RHB is asking whether there are any cases where
not only hitting but also torture is permitted.  And RLL's response is
correct: first find a case where it's *not* permitted, and only then
can you ask whether there also exist cases where it is.

-- 
Zev Sero        "Natural resources are not finite in any meaningful
z...@sero.name    economic sense, mind-boggling though this assertion
                  may be. The stocks of them are not fixed but rather
                 are expanding through human ingenuity."
                                            - Julian Simon

Your reading of the Shulchan Aruch is problematic. In particular your 
insistence that the Iquar is like the Rambam.

Despite showing a range of sources that say otherwise you simple say 
"The se'if is generally taken to refer to ma'u alai"  - but it isn't. 
E.H. 154 is referring to those cases where the gemora says a person 
should be forced or should give a get. The case of ma'us alei found in 
Kesubos 63b does not mention that the get should be forced, or that he 
is chayiv to divorce or even that she goes out of the marriage. All it 
says is she is not forced to have sexual relations. In fact in the 
teshuva literature there are views that as long as we are not concerned 
that she might go off the derech - she remains in the marriage entirely 
at the discretion of the husband - without any pressure applied to him 
to give a divorce.

Even Rabbi Bechhofer who generally is agreement with your position 
regarding harchokas of Rabbeinu Tam agrees that the halacha is not like 
the Rambam in ma'us alei. So I simply don't understand why you are 
ignoring the multiple references in Otzer Haposkim who disagree with 
your understanding. At this point you keep insisting your position 
without offering a single source that agrees with you.

On 5/13/2012 4:42 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Sun, May 13, 2012 at 02:52:40PM +0300, Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>> What does the applicability of the harchakos of Rabbeinu Tam have to do
>> with your mistaken assertion that the Shulchan Aruch and the Rema posken
>> like the Rambam? How does this show that  there is an obligation for a
>> man to get divorced in a stam case of ma'us alei?...
> The se'if is generally taken to refer to ma'us alai, and for the simple
> reason that it doesn't say anything to exclude ma'us alai. You tried
> saying this se'if wasn't relevent. It is.
>
> I still don't know how you can see that se'if and conclude we do not hold
> that the iqas hadin is like the Rambam. The only machloqes is whether
> or not to use violence, and according to the Rama, whether or not to
> use nidui. Not other forms of kefiyah.
>
> And the issue isn't whether or not she is a moredes. (Although that
> would forfeit her kesuvah, as you cited.) It's whether or not BD could
> use harchaqos RT in a case where they decide a divorce is necessary,
> and whether or not bedi'eved, the gett would be pasul if they crossed
> the line into kefiyah.
>
> Who is to blame for the initial cause isn't at issue. It's not hilkhos
> oneshim.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>



------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 30, Issue 42
**************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."