Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 467

Tuesday, March 28 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 07:39:52 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Re: 19th Century Dress

On Mon, Mar 27, 2000 at 06:46:18AM -0500, Avi Feldblum wrote:
: I do not understand this answer, since it is clear that this lvush is in
: no way "authentic" jewish, it is simply the standard lvush of 18th or 19th
: century Eastern European gentile nobility.

As pointed out a number of times on scj, Chassidishe livush isn't that off
18th century nobility. First, we know what nobles wore. One lurker here on
Avodah actually checked out an nice exhibit at the Art Institute of Chicago
about the art and culture of Poland ("The Winged Horseman of Poland").

His conclusion, as posted on scj:
> There were several pictures of Polish nobility, including one
> depicting dozens of them convening at the Sejm to elect a king.

> I looked specifically for similarities in the dress between the
> nobility and modern Chasidic sects, allowing for the refusal of the
> latter to wear colors.

> I found very few, if any, similarities.  I found no streimels among the
> Poles.  Perhaps, the Chasidic kapota (which is not a Polish term
> AFAIK) looked similar to some of the Polish outerwear, but I'm not
> sure how unique such outerwear was to Poland.

Second, how would Jews get away with wearing nobility's clothing? Why would
such a minhag ever have started?


Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Mar-00: Shishi, Tzav
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Rosh-Hashanah 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Haftorah

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:00:42 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Re: Golus mentality

Rav Yosef Blau wrote:

>>The phrase golus mentality was introduced by secular zionists criticizing the 
response of european Jewry to the holocaust.  It has no halachic significance.  
Chilul Hashem, darkei shalom and eivoh are halachic concepts and they should be 
the focus of any discussion about the pope's visit to Israel and the broader 
issue of how to deal with the non-Jewish world.>>

With all due respect (and I mean that), some other halachic issues that have 
significance (but not necessarily overriding those mentioned above) are chanifah
to a rasha and showing kavod to avodah zarah.

Question:  Does the Pope have a status of melech over the Vatican and, if so, 
should one say the berachah upon seeing him?

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 11:26:33 -0500
From: Alan Davidson <perzvi@juno.com>
Ari/Nusach HaMakom

The halacha for the tzibur is where minhagim differ not to say things the
tzibbur doesn't say -- Tachanun by Mincha, Baruch Hashem Bayom -- many
say after the rest of the tzibbur leaves (like makeshift Hallel minyans
Leil Pesach in Nusach Ashkenaz shuls).  On the halacha list (Rabbi
Neustadt's list) a few years back it was mentioned that Nusach HaMakom
overrriding Nusach Ha-Avos only applies if a community has a Kehal which
is relatively united in these issues -- you even go to the minyan factory
in Flatbush referred to on the list there is no unified minhag --
different shaliach tzibburs say different shemoneh Esreis (all under the
rubric of Nusach Sefard).     

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 13:33:09 -0500
From: "Jay S. Lapidus" <jlapidus@usa.net>
Re: 19th Century Dress

On 27 Mar 2000, at 7:39, Micha Berger wrote:
> As pointed out a number of times on scj, Chassidishe livush isn't that
> off 18th century nobility. First, we know what nobles wore. One lurker
> here on Avodah actually checked out an nice exhibit at the Art
> Institute of Chicago about the art and culture of Poland ("The Winged
> Horseman of Poland").
> His conclusion, as posted on scj:
> > There were several pictures of Polish nobility, including one
> > depicting dozens of them convening at the Sejm to elect a king.
> > I looked specifically for similarities in the dress between the
> > nobility and modern Chasidic sects, allowing for the refusal of the
> > latter to wear colors.
> > I found very few, if any, similarities.  I found no streimels among
> > the Poles.  Perhaps, the Chasidic kapota (which is not a Polish term
> > AFAIK) looked similar to some of the Polish outerwear, but I'm not
> > sure how unique such outerwear was to Poland.

As the referred to lurker, allow me to add that the term "kapote" 
comes from the Persian word "caftan."  The streimel bears close 
resemblance to traditional Mongolian headwear.  Asiatic dress 
did have some influence on Easter European dress, Jewish and gentile.
> Second, how would Jews get away with wearing nobility's clothing? Why
> would such a minhag ever have started?

I'm not sure what there was to "get away with."  Why shouldn't 
Jews have worn what their well-to-do gentile counterparts did?  
Whatever the case, the discussion here centers on to what extent 
the various styles of Hasidic garb are sui generis versus derived 
from the surrounding culture.  On that, I claim no special expertise.

Jay Lapidus   ICQ #2083554    http://jlapidus.tripod.com
  "Nonsense is nonsense, but the history of nonsense is  
    a very important science." -- Prof. Saul Lieberman     


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:33:05 +0300
From: "Berger" <rachelbe@netvision.net.il>
Query: Mishloach Manot from a man to a woman

I know that this is a few days late, but it is a question that has concerned
me for some time.

The Ramah in Hilkhot Megilla (OC 695:4) paskens that men should not send
Mishloach Manot to a single woman (Almanah), lest they come to a possibility
of Kiddushin. The Mishna Berura (26) explains that it is a concern for

In Hilkot Kiddushin (EH 45:1) the Ramah seems to limit the concern with
Savlonos to such a limited case that it certainly should net include a
situation of Mishloach Manot, as there was probably no "shiduchin"
beforehand, the Mishloach Manot are sent for a specific, non-marriage
reason, etc.

Why then the concern with Mishloach Manot on Purim.

My thanks,
Shalom Berger

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 10:02:43 -0500
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Re: Kaddish question

>>The answer to that question raises another question.  Which came first, the 
M"B's tzeireh or the Arukh HaShulhan"s tzeireh?  Both appeared somewhere about 

The Aruch HaShulchan sometimes quotes the Mishneh Berurah, so MB was evidently 
published first.

Gil Student

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 23:17:20 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Re: mishpat ivri

In message , Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
>Since this topic does not seem to have invoked wide spread interest I shall
>make some final notes and leave the discussion to others.

My impression is that there has been a fair bit of interest (however I
am, at the moment very busy and not always able to keep up with Avodah,
so I have not been responding)

>> I think problem here is that you are understanding the term ho'raas
>> sha'a as used by the Tur here as something unusual, uncommon and exceptional. 
>> The answer is given by the Tur in Siman 2 - and much of that answer is
>> linked to hora'as sha'a.  ...
>> Otherwise you would have the scenario of beis din  goes
>> around taking away property in an indiscriminate manner.  
>> Because of this  many of the Zionist rabbis involved with the foundation
>> of the State (generally those without a messianic bent) saw  this (tried
>> and tested) model as the appropriate one for the state.  As I think I
>> indicated, Rav Herzog (the first Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi of the State of
>> Israel) was a strong proponent of this, and you can see his discussion
>> of these questions in his work "t'chuka l'yisroel al pi hatorah". 
>Nevertheless, Tur stresses very strongly that Horaat Shaah cannot be legislated 
>which leads to the problem that different courts will react differently and is 
>not the basis for ruling a large society. Again, in Eastern Europe it was not 
>a great problem if the courts in Vilna would apply horaat shaah differently
>than in Warsaw. However, it is inconceivable that the courts in Jerusalem and
>Tel Aviv have their own interpretations.

Warsaw and Vilna were (usually) in two different kingdoms with two
different sets of rulers.  Tel Aviv and Jerusalem fall within one
political entity.  Just as the beis din of Shavli was the authority for
Shavli and towns round about (including Zagare, which, I imagine, would
have taken longer to travel from than Tel Aviv to Jerusalem today), so
there is nothing stopping the beis din in Jerusalem from being the
authority over the lesser beitei din in Tel Aviv.  Part of the idea of
Horaas sha'ah is what the time needs - the time did not need or warrant
the same rules in Warsaw and Vilna, but you have just explained so
eloquently why such rules are needed in Jerusalem and Tel Aviv.  English
system legal courts do not "legislate", rather the higher courts set
precedents that the lower courts must follow, at all points until the
higher courts overturn such precedent.  Under halacha, you cannot
overturn a decree of another beis din unless you are greater in minyan
and in chochma, so such flexiblity is not available, *unless* you
understand that the previous ruling was appropriate, and only
appropriate to the particular time and place (which place could easily
include the whole of the State of Israel) but which can be overturned
even by a beis din of lesser minyan and chochma because the needs of the
time have changed (ie social mores are different). 

>> I do not see Dina D'malchusa Dina as a cop out.  It is a logical
>> outgrowth of a position which did not support the Zionist enterprise (eg
>> the Aguda prior to the founding of the State) but then has come to
>> terms with its reality.  
>> I believe the argument goes that since Israel was really set up by the
>> United Nations, the Knesset is in fact a form of non Jewish government
>> that happens to be staffed by Jews.
>I do not know of any Agudah rabbis who use Dina Demalchuta in the state of 
>Yes they explicitly state that 
>"the Knesset is in fact a form of non Jewish government that happens to be 
>by Jews." But conclude that therefore knesset rules are meaningless and one is
>prohibited from going to secular courts.

Please give me the name of Aguda Rabbi who holds that there is no
obligation to pay taxes to the State (the litmus test of Dina D'malchusa
Dina - if there is Dina D'malchusa dina, tax paying is compulsory, if
there is not, the collectors are a bunch of bandits and you are
forbidden to get any hana'ah from them, even to the extent of changing
money with them (eg big coins to small)).  Please give me the name of
one Rabbi who holds that taxes from the state are in fact stolen money,
and hence cannot be used (eg for funding yeshivas and shuls etc).

>I find the argument that we can base on halacha on a UN decision to be far 
>> >
>> >For a sefer with a full discussion of kinyanim I would suggest "dinei 
>> >by Rav Batzri. As one sees from his sefer all modern takanot are severely 
>> >when they contradict issues in the Gemara and shulchan Arukh. Thus, for 
>> >one cannot legislate that one no longer needs a kinyan. 

I must say I find this rather odd - as issues of kinyan and other dinei
mamonos seem to generally be regarded as the easiest to deal with (Rav
Herzog, for example devotes about two lines to it, as the easy case, due
to powers of hefker beis din hefker, and hence goes on to the harder
cases of onshin, which he summilarily deals with, before getting on to
the really difficult cases relating to matters of ishus).

After all, nobody holds you need a kinyan if it is the minhag of the
place not to use one (that is the barrel stamping case in gemorra), and
the Rema holds that if the parties agree that money is koneh, it is, as
it is in circumstances where the property is not destructable.

Similarly there is, all over the literature, discussions about whether a
goyishe king can legislate to overturn the requirement for kinyanim, and
while there are dissenting opinions, most people appear to hold that
this is perfectly acceptable (and not just to a goy but between Jew and

In fact, how are people operating now?  The Knesset has legislation
relating to property transfer.  I would be extremely surprised if any
beis din reopens a property transfer based on such laws to see if it
satisfied the halachic requirements - do you know of any such case? What
the Knesset legislates is minhag hamakom, and when people make there
property sale they make it on the assumption that that is the way it
will be transferred (as they have done for centuries in countries around
the world).

Where it gets more difficult is clearly in matters of inheritance where
there are not two people with daas getting together and making a
contract (ie somebody is getting "done" out of his rights).  But for
straight kinyanim, I have never heard anybody say that most of the
property transfers in the State of Israel are halachically suspect (and
for metaltelin that could be extremely problematic were one to hold that
was the case, although no doubt yeush comes into play here as well).

>As I indicated several times there is an argument of whether a kahal can
>introduce new rules that harm individuals.

Yes, that is the opinion of Tosphos, but there has been a lot of history
since Tosphos, that is the point.

> Almost no one claims that the kahal
>can introduce rules that explicitly go against the Shulchan Arukh
>eg in kinyanim or davar shelo be-alom etc.

That is not my reading of the sources, Jews have spent the last number
of centuries transferring property without kinyanim and being makne
d'varim shelo b'olam.

>Rabbinic gezerot like exporting during shemittah is even more of a problem
>even though the reasoning of the gezerah no longer applies and in fact exports
>instead of hurting the locals is an important part of the economy.

Shmitta, as a matter of issur v'heter, is a more difficult case than
dinei mamonos.

>kol tuv,
>Eli Turkel

Kind Regards


Chana/Heather Luntz

Go to top.

Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 21:27:34 EST
From: Zeliglaw@aol.com
Fwd: Document: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's Comments of 18 March 2000

Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I have enclosed a copy of Rav Yosef's remarks for the list's HO. LFAD, I 
think that regardless of your spectrum , we must support him in the latest 
edition of the Israeli kulturkamph. Yes, his remarks were politically 
incorrect.However, this is exactly the type of remarks which are the role of 
Gdolim throughout history.
   let's look at the remarks of RSRH. He had to practically secede from 
Germany to protect his community. Let's put his dispute with the other 
Rabbanim in Germany aside. RYBS emphasized in one of his 5 Drashos that if we 
must choose between Elokai (lashon kodesh) Yisrael and medinat Yisrael, then 
we should not be ashamed or afraid of choosing Torat Yisrael.Rav Yosef's 
remarks are no different than Rav Schach's remarks which were very critical 
of a society that was ignorant of the first passuk in Shma Yisrael.
    Instead, Rav Yosef is being persecuted under a politically correct 
interpretation of "incitement" which I don't think would stand up in an 
American court. The danger in this prosecution is that dissent on a relgious 
basis is basing quashed . We face a challenge from  the P.M,Sarid, Beillin, 
Aharon Barak ,Haaretz and their allies which seek to impose a guilt ridden 
version of a post zionist society at our expense . Yes, part of it may be our 
fault because we sought benefits like an interest group rather than tried to 
ennoble our brethren. However, the establishment under law of an Israeli 
society without a moral compass rooted in Torah is a potential disaster and  
the challenge that the prosecution of Rav Yosef faces all Torah Jews. I 
invite all members to respond to this issue .                           
                                     Steven Brizel

Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <owner-imra-l@vjlists.com>
Received: from  rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (rly-yg05.mail.aol.com []) by
	air-yg03.mail.aol.com (v70.20) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:21:41
Received: from  vjlists.com (ns.virtualjerusalem.com []) by
	rly-yg05.mx.aol.com (v70.21) with ESMTP; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 12:21:28
Received: from host (IDENT:server@localhost [])
	by vjlists.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id QAA23078;
	Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:26:50 GMT
Received: from alpha.netvision.net.il (alpha.netvision.net.il [])
	by vjlists.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id QAA22153
	for <imra-l@vjlists.com>; Mon, 27 Mar 2000 16:20:54 GMT
Received: from imra (RAS1-p15.nt.netvision.net.il [])
	by alpha.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.8.6) with SMTP id TAA00721;
	Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:15:25 +0200 (IST)
Message-Id: <000b01bf9810$0c5a33c0$11b6003e@imra>
Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 19:14:50 +0200
Sender: owner-imra-l@vjlists.com
From: imra@netvision.net.il
To: <imra@netvision.net.il>
Subject: Document: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's Comments of 18 March 2000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6600
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2919.6600
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.0 -- ListProcessor(tm) by CREN

Document: Rabbi Ovadia Yosef's Comments of 18 March 2000

Aaron Lerner                  Date: 27 March, 2000

The following is IMRA's translation of the transcript prepared by
the Israel Police of the words of Rabbi Ovadia Yosef broadcast on
18 March 2000 as reported in the decision of the Attorney General
Elyakim Rubenstein.

The remarks are the basis for Rubenstein's decision to launch a
police investigation of Rabbi Yosef for inciting to violence,
defamation of character and insulting a public official.

[Under Israeli law, it is against the law to insult any official
including an elected official.]

The entire quotation, as excerpted in the decision, follows:

". . . the Holy One Blessed Be He presented us in order to test
us.  Brought us Yossi Sarid - this is Satan.  Let his name and
memory be erased!  How can we continue restraining ourselves, how
much will we suffer? We suffer from this evil!  God will uproot
him as he uprooted Amalek, so He will uproot him.  Cursed be
Haman! Cursed be Yossi Sarid!

Where are his brains, what does he want to do?  Want by Mahmoud
Darwish.  That is his sense.  Where is his sense.  It doesn't pain
him that the secular do not know Torah.  Don't know a sentence
from "Shma Yisrael".  It pains him that they don't know who
Mahmoud Darwish is.  God will overturn his recommendations and
?("?" in original) his thoughts.  He should get his comeuppance.
As we saw in the death of Haman. The vengeance that was done on
Haman, so will be done vengeance on him.  And when you say cursed
be Haman after the Book of Esther, also say cursed be Yossi Sarid,
Yossi. . . Darwish. . ."

In the days that followed, Rabbi Yosef issued a series of
statements explaining that no one should harm any other person -including
Yossi Sarid, but continuing with his criticism of Sarid.

Dr. Aaron Lerner, Director
IMRA (Independent Media Review & Analysis)
(mail POB 982 Kfar Sava)
Tel 972-9-7604719/Fax 972-9-7411645
INTERNET ADDRESS: imra@netvision.net.il
pager  03-6750750 subscriber 4811
Website: http://www.imra.org.il


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 05:32:32 +1000
From: SBA <sba@blaze.net.au>
Parshas Tzav

From Shlomo B Abeles

Further to the topic of the number of pesukim and the siman for
Parshas Tzav I share the following which I received privately.

>About the simaney pisukei Haparasha, the one on Tzav is a famous one, in the
>same way as is the one on parashas miketz, the Bnei Yissoschor has a lengthy
>discourse on the subject. However it is interesting to note that according to
>the siman the word "Avrech" must be divided into two words (see rishonim).
>As to who was the mechaber and more on the subject I once saw a sefer called
>"Mevin Chidos" which disscusses these issues, if i can i will get a copy for you.


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 08:22:49 +0100
From: Chana/Heather Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk>
Re: Rav Herszog

In message , Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> writes
>> Chana writes:
>> <<What Rav Hertzog was suggesting was that
>>  the framework of halacha was wide enough, and had indeed been wide
>>  enough historically, to encompass both judicial and, in the form of
>>  takanot, legislative solutions to deal with specific social needs to
>>  given legal problems.>>
>With regard to daughters inheriting their fathers R. Herszog himself
>admits that he got no support in within the bet din of the rabbanut
>not to speak of outsiders disagreeing.

I think you might be confusing *power* with *desirability*.

*Power* is the ability to do something ("Can" you);

*Desirability* is whether it should in fact be done ("Should" you).

Given that Rav Hertzog's beis din passed takanot to:

a) forbid a father marrying off his minor daughter (a power specifically
given to the father by the Torah) and

b) requiring a father to support his children above the age of six
(Shulchan Aruch position, is, at least for sons, only until six),

I would be surprised if it was a question of power that was in dispute.

On the other hand, unlike the above takanot, which I think most people
would support in this day and age, a takana with regard to daughters
inheriting is not necessarily desirable.

The truth is, that if a person wants his daughters to inherit, there are
mechanisms to ensure this (Rav Moshe famously held that even a regular
secular will works, at least in the US, but to cover off other opinions,
there are mechanisms that can be used, such as having the property vest
one hour before death).

Thus the Torah law of inheritance only operates where the parents have
failed to make provision (which is more often the case by the poor than
by the rich).  Given that, where there is not much inheritance to divide
up, it can well be better for the daughters that they do not inherit,
but rather take their sustanance first out of the estate, it is not so
clear that a takana of the kind proposed by Rav Hertzog is desirable -
and, especially given the history of this halacha (major source of
dispute with the Saddukim), I am not surprised that other members of Rav
Hertzog's beis din did not think that such a takana *should* be made,
but I do not think that goes to the question of whether it *could* be
made if it was thought to be desirable.

>Hence, his opinions became a minority of one.
>Eli Turkel



PS, something that was bothering me about a previous post, was that you
seemed to suggest that meshicha, halipin etc as a form of kinyan is a
din Torah, that was surely not what you were saying was it?

Chana/Heather Luntz

Go to top.

Date: Tue, 28 Mar 2000 07:51:58 -0600
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Amazon and B&N are selling "The Protocols"

Numerous people sent me emails asking if it belongs on the list. My answer
was "Yes, but you needn't be so verbose". We don't need to forward someone's
chain mail to the entire chevrah.

In short: Amazon and Barnes and Noble are both selling "The Protocols of
the Learned Elders of Zion", a peice of Czarist antisemitism that has played
a role in giving us much grief. (Even in the US, since Ford was enamored of
it.) I don't even know why there would be a market for it -- it's available
on line.

It appears that numerous members of the Jewish Internet community recommend
we take our business elsewhere. Aside from this always being a perogative,
as one email put it, "forgery isn't covered by the first ammendment" (and
presumably its parallels in other countries).

-mi, hoping to bring better news next time

Go to top.


[ 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         ]

< Previous Next >