Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 112

Thu, 11 Jun 2009

• 1. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Micha Berger)
• 2. leining questions (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 3. Re: Jew Or Not? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Tiqun Olam (Michael Makovi)
• 5. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 6. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 7. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (Yitzchok Zirkind)
• 8. Re: (Neviim & Possible Mistakes); Akeidah & Yizchak (hankman)
• 9. Re: Jew Or Not? (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: Jew Or Not? (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Jew Or Not? (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 12. Re: Stam yeinam of Giyur Candidates (Chana Luntz)
• 13. Re: Jew Or Not? (Michael Makovi)
• 14. Re: Jew Or Not? (Zev Sero)

On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 12:02:07PM -0400, David Riceman wrote:
: You might want to reread that Abarbanel.  He holds that the Rambam held 
: that Avraham, not Lot, had the prophetic vision, and the entire parsha 
: up to 19:26 when Avraham wakes up is a retelling of Avraham's vision.  

Tangent, I would have said, which Abarbanel. In the chumash he explains
his own opinion... he and the Rambam have a deep difference in what
nevu'ah is. Leshitaso, nevu'ah is miraculous. According to the Rambam,
it's stopping prophecy from someone ready for it that's the miracle.
Rather, I'm talking about what he says in his peirush on the MN 2:42.

Now, to RDR, thanks for correcting me about Lot having seen the mal'akhim
as well. I suppose that means that Lot had to rely on bitachon to know
he was being saved for hashgachah peratis reasons, rather than seeing
that fact bechush.

:             According to the Rambam you cannot predicate place of 
: disembodied beings (I can find the citation in MN if you really need it) 
: and therefore you can't literally mean "the angels were actually 
: there".  I don't know what you do mean.

I don't think I do either. I'm only named for a navi, and am thus trying
to describe a state of awareness I've never experienced.

In any case, even if "there" is figurative, and that only Avraha,
not Lot had the vision, the point stands. In the Abarbanel's version
of the Rambam's shitah, a nevu'ah is the Imaginative faculty wrapping
sensory-like experience around something real but metaphysical that the
navi becomes aware of. Whereas according to the Ramban, it's a metaphor
constructed by the Almighty to relay a message.

Which means that they must have very different notions of what an
error is.


On Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 09:46:06AM -0400, hankman wrote:
: To enlarge a bit on the question of the Ramban: How does the Rambam
: understand the anshei s'dom asking for the visitors. One could imagine
: that [Avraham] had a mareh nevuoh, but certainly the anshei s'dom did not have
: a mareh nevuoh? ...

Leshitaso, IAUI:
The whole event, complete with the angelic interaction with anshei Sedom,
was Avraham's nevu'ah. It was how Avraham perceived the mal'akhim's
influence as they overturned Sedom but spared Lot's family.

: Also, trying to understand the Ramban who according to you holds that
: a novi could misinterpret his nevuoh. This implies, that even though
: Hashem wished to communicate a message to the novi, sometime he fails do
: communicate as He desires due to the frailties of the novi. Would this
: not be contrary to our understanding of Hashem the he is "kol yochol"? so
: the Ramban needs a hesber as well.

Bechirah means that a person can be befuddled by negi'os.

People can sin through ta'us too, it doesn't make HQBH's omnipotence
any less.


But you're misunderstanding my post, as did RYZ when he wrote
on Mon, Jun 08, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT:
:> . The Ramban's shitah, OTOH, more readily supports
:> the possibillity of the navi misunderstanding parts of the message.

: Please give exact examples, so that I can understand where you are leading
: with this.

I am trying to present a line of attack, not a solution. People are
tyring to put together a picture from a selection of rishonim. Since
those rishonim disagree on what nevu'ah is, how can one combine or even
contrast their picture on how nevu'ah can be flawed?

I was trying to get the conversation split into distinct substreams
based on what nevu'ah might be.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Weeds are flowers too
mi...@aishdas.org        once you get to know them.
http://www.aishdas.org          - Eeyore ("Winnie-the-Pooh" by AA Milne)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

http://agmk.blogspot.com/2009/06/ashkenazis-vs-sefaradit-or-pesach-i.
html

on situations where either the  baal kore   or the kahal  have to tolerate 
 a  nusach not  normally their  own.....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/2d0e8a21/attachment-0001.htm>

David J Havin wrote:
> Assuming that all this can be substantiated, is she entitled to be
> considered a Jew by a Beth Din without further ado?

It seems poshut that she is.  Why would there be a hava amina
otherwise?


T6...@aol.com wrote:
> I think most rabbanim would say that she needs a gerus misafek if, at 
> the time of her birth, her mother was a Christian (even if the mother 
> was halachically Jewish by matrilineal descent). 

What safek?  


Micha Berger wrote:
> Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require miqvah and
> qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD. Reaffirming a return
> to the Jewish faith, even if already born into the Jewish people.
> This is a difference between C & R on one hand, and shmad on the other.
> Someone who leaves Yahadus for a movement that self-identifies as Jewish
> can be accepted as a BT without qabbalas divrei chaveirus.

Where do you get all this?  There is a minhag that a returning mumar
goes to mikveh and re-accepts divrei chaveirus, but:

1. Who told you that it applies also to the meshumad's descendants?
If the makor is from a medieval takanah to discourage shmad, then it
applies only to the meshumad himself, not to his descendants.  And in
this case, who says there was ever a meshumad?

2. Who told you that it doesn't apply to returnees from R/C?   If the
makor is not from a medieval takanah but, as the GRA suggests, from
Avos d'R Natan and Tosfos in Bechoros, then the tevilah applies to
anyone who has eaten treif, and kabolas divrei chaverus is for
any baal teshuvah who wishes to become a chaver.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

By way of hakarat haTov, I might note that
--- Professor Wolfson's and Professor Kreisel's essays (op. cit.), along with
--- Rabbi Daniel Korobkins's Introduction 1 and Appendix A to his new
edition of the Kuzari (Feldheim), and along with
--- Professor Adam Shear's "The Kuzari and the Shaping of Jewish
Identity, 1167?1900"
(http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogue/catalogue.asp?isbn=9780521885331
),
all together served to make the Kuzari for me a living work of
religious and spiritual edification.

Before I saw these sources, my only window to the Kuzari was those of
my rabbis who, to use Professor Yaakov Elman's phrase,  turned the
Kuzari into something "desiccated and bereft of life".

Professor Elman's original context was speaking of fundamentalists and
dogmatists of the Oral Law, when he introduced me to Rabbi Moshe
Shmuel Glasner. Incidentally, Rabbi Glasner (thanks to Professor
Elman) reconciled me to the Talmud, and made the Talmud itself a
source of edification to me, whereas it - like the Kuzari - had been
"desiccated and bereft of life", according to the teachings of my
rabbis. What Graetz says of Rav Hirsch, I'd say of Rabbi Glasner; and
perhaps comparing myself to Graetz is rather apt.)

When I first learned the Kuzari on my own, it was in light of my own
rabbis' interpretation, which rendered the Kuzari into nothing more
than a wretched and puerile mass of ignorance and stupidity and
irrelevance. Thanks to Professors Wolfson, Kreisel, and Shear, and
Rabbi Korobkin, the Kuzari now actually has religious meaning for me.
Even if I disagree with it often, at least I'm now disagreeing with
something meaningful and intelligent.

On the other hand, the Kuzari's treatment of the Golden Calf was
simply brilliant. It turns out that Rabbi Jose Faur's "The Biblical
Idea of Idolatry"
(http://faur.derushapublishing.com/_The_Biblical_Idea_of_Idol
atry_by_Jose_Faur.pdf)
is taken almost whole-cloth from the Kuzari, even though he cites the
Kuzari only once or twice. The only thing Rabbi Faur adds is a
brilliant refutation of academic claims that the Biblical Jews
believed in henotheism. Actually, he doesn't so much disprove
henotheism, as much as he proves that henotheism is a kosher Torah
belief for a frum Jew. (I don't believe the Kuzari would ever dare say
such a thing, and a few people have accused me of heresy for relying
on Rabbi Faur here, but I believe his arguments are true. See there.)
Rabbi Faur also adds a beautiful interpretation of Rabbi Eliyahu
Benamozegh's on the Golden Calf, which only reinforces the Kuzari's
thesis.

Michael Makovi

> What you said was "HKB"H had a Kavana (which we don't find and therefore 
> cannot put in by other Nvi'im) that he should think MORE then was meant, 
> as he would stop him anyway."  But I have no idea how that solves the 
> problem with the Rambam.  Isn't thinking "more than what meant" failing 
> to understand the prophecy?
> David Riceman

Hashem asei lecha saraph. Moshe wayas moshe nechash nechoshes.
Q how did Moshe know to add on and alter saraph to nechash so that it
would constitute lashon nofeil al lashon.

RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:55 AM, David Riceman <drice...@att.net> wrote:

> I hate to keep coming back to this, since we've both set out our opinions
> very fully.


I hope this time around I can explain my position better, and add/modify it
for clarity.


> The Rambam says that when a prophet receives a prophecy he also receives
> its explanation.  You claim that the Rambam is describing a property of
> every prophecy, and I claim, no, he's describing the standard procedure, but
> there are a group of

exceptions.


The issue really is to understand what is the purpose of prophecy, AIUI it
is that HKBH communicates with us and guides us (see 7:7, and also to make
him more knowledgable), if so it is imperitive that (1) it be understood
(2)  it be accurate, so that the right thing is done, and the right message
is related.

RDR continues:
We considered two of those exceptions in some detail.  The first is Daniel's
prediction of the date of the redemption, which he says explicitly he didn't
understand.  In this case I think you agree with me that he didn't receive
the explanation, but you exonerate the Rambam on the grounds (IIUC) that
this is a unique property of the redemption.

YZ responds:
In addition this was all part of the same prophecy IOW he understood exactly
the entire purpose and message of the prophecy. (which means the purpose of
prophecy was not violated)

RDR continues:
The second exception is the Akeidah....
But why isn't that a counterexample for the Rambam? The prophecy had been
phrased ambiguously, but it did have a precise meaning, which was revealed
several days later.  That means that Avraham did not receive the explanation
instantly when he received the original vision!  And that contradicts the
words of the Rambam!

YZ responds:
Since the Kavana of this Nvuoh was to show that "Yurei E-lokim Atoh" it was
neccessery for Avrohom Avinu to think that he is going to scarifice his son,
and that could only be done by actually "ha'aleihu" with the full intent of
"shachteihu", from that perspective the Pisron he got was the correct one,
and he acted on it perfectly (which is the purpose of Nvuoh).

Yet from the other side, since it was only in ADDING meaning and WRT action
(which is the purpose of Nvuoh) nothing would be done wrong, it is not a
violation of the purpose of Nvuoh, and HKBH could do it.

In addition as this was a private Nvuoh which has different Gdorim where
according to some opinions even a Havtacha Ltova can be reversed, (as
previously pointed to Lechem Mishne on Rambam 10:4). so taking all of these
perspectives LAN"D it exonerrates the Rambam.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/c8b9895e/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:07 PM, Yitzchok Zirkind <y...@aol.com> wrote:

>   so taking all of these perspectives LAN"D it exonerrates the Rambam.
>
>
CORRECTION: it exonerates MY UNDERSTANDING of the Rambam <g>.


>  Kol Tuv,
> Yitzchok Zirkind
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/181bad54/attachment-0001.htm>

RYZ wrote:
I think it is Poshut.  My Hechrech is if there is times that they don't
understand part or all of a Nvuoh, how come the Rambam does not write so
Mfurosh, that would be the screaming difference between Moshe and others.

CM  responds:
I think that the Rambam does so. It is part and parcel of the difference in
the "aspaklaria sh'eina meira." The guaranteed pisron is for that part of
the mareh that Hashem intends the novi to understand. Here the nature of
the aspaklaria does not get in the way. Hashem of course understands the
details of the novi's human frailties and thus his aspaklaria (the level of
which is unique to each novi) and insures that the message he wants
received by the novi gets through. To say otherwise, implies the inability
of Hashem to convey a particular message to a given novi, which of course
can not be.

In your opinion how in fact do you account for the aspaklaria sh'eina
meira? Why is that not an automatic lack of complete pisron with every
nevuoh but those of Moshe? And then in fact the taane of RDR and RRW (I
think) makes sense - how do you differentiate between them (Moshe and other
neviim) in this detail.

Consider: Chazal tell us that a shifcha at krias Yam Suf saw more the
Yechezkel ben Buzi saw in his mareh. It can not mean they saw different
maros, because then the comparison would be meaningless - of course they
saw different things - its comparing apples to oranges. But, this must mean
they saw the same (or similar) mareh but the clarity (the aspaklaria) was
clearer at the Yam. Yet if they saw the same mareh (and as you claim) the
pisron for the entire mareh is understood fully then they should have both
seen the same pisron!

RYZ wrote:
I don't get it, Kovesh Nvuosoi is Chayov Misah Byidei Shomayum (Rambam 9:2).
Klapei Shmayo Galya.

CM responds:
Good point, I agree.

RYZ wrote:
So if a Novi has to relate even a Moshol w/o a Pisron, so what does define
what the Novi relates

CM responds:
The simple answer is that it must be part and parcel of the message the
novi receives. Just as the intended recipient of the nevuoh must be part of
the nevuoh, so to is which part/s should be transmitted. Even according to
you, the novi can only understand which part to repeat if somehow this was
a part of the message he "understood on his own." (He doesn't make this up
on his own.)

RYZ wrote:
Again nowhere does the  Rambam say that at times he doesn't understand it or
a part of it.

CM responds:
Although you are right - nowhere does the Rambam state this explicitly.
Nevertheless I think it is muchrach to be so, otherwise how to
differentiate between what the shifcha at kriasYam Suf and Yecheskel ben
Buzi saw (understood) of the Massei Merkava. I think he (Rambam) took this
as a given. But if you press me, I could read it into YT 7:6 where the
Rambam in differentiating  nevuas Moshe states: "... roeh hadovor al buryov
belo chida ubelo moshol..." IE. It is the lack of clarity due to the
aspaklaria that leave the part of the pisron shrouded from the other
neviim.

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090611/b8521a0d/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:27:53AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>This is a difference between C & R on one hand, and shmad on the other.
:>Someone who leaves Yahadus for a movement that self-identifies as Jewish
:>can be accepted as a BT without qabbalas divrei chaveirus.

: Where do you get all this? ...

Three dayanim from the Vaad Harabbanim of Queens. I'm giving you halakhah
as it was applied in the field. I do not know of anyone who requires a BT
to go to the miqvah before they would count him toward a minyan. However,
I do know of at least 2 people whose mother or maternal grandmother
converted where the beis din did so rule.

The observation that the case of the departee himself who is returning
shows a distinction beween j4j and C/R was made by R' Elliott Shimoff
a"h on scj on a number of occasions. I picked it up from him.

(The relevent SA is YD 268:12, c.f. Rama and Pischei Teshuvah.)

: 1. Who told you that it applies also to the meshumad's descendants?
: If the makor is from a medieval takanah to discourage shmad, then it
: applies only to the meshumad himself, not to his descendants.  And in
: this case, who says there was ever a meshumad?

You're suggesting that someone is an n-th generation converso who grew
up thinking she was a Xian with weird customs and there was no meshumad
in the line?

And the maqor appears to be mesechtes Bekhoros 30b about amei
haaretz. Where did you see someone attribute it to a medieval taqanah
and meshumadim? For that matter, the gemara discusses the criteria for
an am ha'aretz's son. The tana qama in the beraisa says the children and
the rest of the family are carried along with his qabbalah, R' Shimon b
Gamliel require they must go to three chaveirim themselves. Both would
appear to agree in the case where the father didn't.

: 2. Who told you that it doesn't apply to returnees from R/C? ...

Ask the folk at ANY kiruv organization.

This is a good question, as C/R appear to me to qualify as amei ha'aretz
in the gemara's sense of the term. But not upon what I wrote in particular
-- I was just stating halakhah pesuqah (as I wrote, above). Do Chabad
Houses require tevilah and qabbalas divrei chaveirus before counting
men who walk in off the street for their minyanim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:27:53AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
:>This is a difference between C & R on one hand, and shmad on the other.
:>Someone who leaves Yahadus for a movement that self-identifies as Jewish
:>can be accepted as a BT without qabbalas divrei chaveirus.

: Where do you get all this? ...

Three dayanim from the Vaad Harabbanim of Queens. I'm giving you halakhah
as it was applied in the field. I do not know of anyone who requires a BT
to go to the miqvah before they would count him toward a minyan. However,
I do know of at least 2 people whose mother or maternal grandmother
converted where the beis din did so rule.

The observation that the case of the departee himself who is returning
shows a distinction beween j4j and C/R was made by R' Elliott Shimoff
a"h on scj on a number of occasions. I picked it up from him.

(The relevent SA is YD 268:12, c.f. Rama and Pischei Teshuvah.)

: 1. Who told you that it applies also to the meshumad's descendants?
: If the makor is from a medieval takanah to discourage shmad, then it
: applies only to the meshumad himself, not to his descendants.  And in
: this case, who says there was ever a meshumad?

You're suggesting that someone is an n-th generation converso who grew
up thinking she was a Xian with weird customs and there was no meshumad
in the line?

And the maqor appears to be mesechtes Bekhoros 30b about amei
haaretz. Where did you see someone attribute it to a medieval taqanah
and meshumadim? For that matter, the gemara discusses the criteria for
an am ha'aretz's son. The tana qama in the beraisa says the children and
the rest of the family are carried along with his qabbalah, R' Shimon b
Gamliel require they must go to three chaveirim themselves. Both would
appear to agree in the case where the father didn't.

: 2. Who told you that it doesn't apply to returnees from R/C? ...

Ask the folk at ANY kiruv organization.

This is a good question, as C/R appear to me to qualify as amei ha'aretz
in the gemara's sense of the term. But not upon what I wrote in particular
-- I was just stating halakhah pesuqah (as I wrote, above). Do Chabad
Houses require tevilah and qabbalas divrei chaveirus before counting
men who walk in off the street for their minyanim?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A life of reaction is a life of slavery,
mi...@aishdas.org        intellectually and spiritually. One must
http://www.aishdas.org   fight for a life of action, not reaction.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            -Rita Mae Brown

R' Micha Berger wrote:
> Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require
> miqvah and qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD.
> Reaffirming a return to the Jewish faith, even if already
> born into the Jewish people.

I hope that you were writing quickly, and didn't really intend that the BD would *require* this, especially for a case "without any safeiq in her yichus".

I greatly fear what could happen if they insist on these things, and she
responds with something like, "Either I'm Jewish, or I'm not. But I'm not
going to convert." And everything stops there, and she continues her life
under the mistaken impression that those rabbis consider her to be
non-Jewish, and she quotes those rabbis to her daughter.

I have always thought mikveh in theses cases to be a great idea, but purely
for psychological reasons, not halachic ones, and this should be made clear
to the individual. (I am not referring to cases where a reasonable safek
*is* present.)

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Make the most out of every dollar.  Click here to find websites and services to help invest wisely.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsDqZIkAqcb00f6DNbjRjgvKh1DsvMoshzRNzbH2qfxIZJLK0OTzOI/

RMB writes:

> I don't get the gemara. If he's a geir toshav, then he keeps 
> the 7 mitzvos, or at least is a monotheist (following the 
> machloqes on that amud, this is R' Meir as given by the 
> beraisa) or even that he accepts all mitzvos except neveilos 
> -- which would mean he doesn't have an AZ to give wine 
> libations to. So how could it possibly be yayin nesekh?

Well Rashi explains that he is not makpid on yain nesach.  That is, while he
himself is not going to make libations, he does not guard his wine so as to
prevent a genuine oved chachovim doing so.

> Also ein gezeira chal al gezeira would permit amira to do 
> many of the dinim derabban, no? 

No.

The Chai Adam's summary (since I happen to be there at the moment given my
discussions with RET) is as follows (this is hilchos shabbas klal 62, 6):

A matter which is not a melacha, and is only forbidden to do on shabbas
because it is a shvus it is permitted for a Jew to say to a non Jew to do on
Shabbas, because we have a shvus d'shvus, because amira l'nochri is only
forbidden because of shvus, and also the melacha itself is only forbidden
d'rabbanan which is also a shvus. And this is davka bmakom hefsed gadol or
tzorech mitzvah or mikztas choli, but without these it is forbidden even a
shvus d'shvus - and amira l'nochri b'melacha d'orisa even b'makom mitzva,
like to light a candle to learn or to pray or similar, is forbidden.  And
they did not permit except for a shvus d'shvus (siman 306).  And there are
those who are nohagin heter also in this according to the opinion of the
minority of poskim and it is better that they be shoggagin (magen avraham
siman 276).  And there are those who want to say that according to those who
forbid to say to a NJ to light a candle to learn, that if he lit it by
himself it is permitted to learn, because we say that mitzvos lo l'hanos
nishu (and already the Rivash has written in siman 387 in the name of the
Ramban  that this is not shayach except for things like tekios and tevila in
the rainy season as there is in the gemora a matter which the body does not
have any benefit from at all, but where the body has a benefit from it like
to learn or to eat because of a candle, it is forvidden because in any case
the body has a benefit, and the matter is known that the body has a benefit
from a candle even when learning).

There is more of course, which detail some exceptions (allowing turning on
the heating in cold countries (think Lithuania), especially if there are
children involved, for example), but that is the basic statement of
principle.

> Thanks for yet another informative post. I don't say that 
> often enough.

Your welcome.  These discussions push me to go and look half remembered
things up.

> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana

> Even without any safeiq in her yichus, we would require miqvah and
> qabbalas divrei chaveirus in front of a BD. Reaffirming a return to the
> Jewish faith, even if already born into the Jewish people.
> R' Micha

I've read extremely little on this subject, even less than I've read
on other subjects, so perhaps I have no idea what I'm talking about,
but:

I thought the immersion in a mikvah and such for a person returning to
Judaism was just a humra. Halakhically, there's absolutely no need
whatsoever; the person is a fully-fledged Jew, and no amount of
apostasy can wipe away that fact. Immersion in a mikvah is just a
symbol of teshuva.

Also, I'd think this is more relevant for the original apostate
him/her-self; he or she consciously left Judaism for Christianity, and
thus performs a symbolic return to Judaism. But the descendants never
left Judaism; they were born out of Judaism. Why should they have to
perform a symbolic return? Similarly, we might make the apostate
perform all sorts of other penitential acts (fasts, public
confessions, etc.), but surely we'd never demand a single iota of this
from a descendant.

And if she doesn't perform the kabbalah: so what? Mah koah beit din
yafeh? This is all just a symbol, no? Are we discussing what she
*ought* to do as a nice symbol and gesture, or are we discussing
something with actual ramifications? What level of halakhah are we
discussing?

Also, every discussion I've ever seen of this was by Ashkenazim.
Perhaps the Sefardim discussed this as well; I don't know. Every
discussion I saw was of an Ashkenazi apostate to Christianity, but
perhaps I've simply never seen the (hypothetical) discussions of
Sephardi apostates to Islam (or Greek Orthodox Christianity, as the
case may be). What about Rambam's letter on this subject? Does he say
anything about kabbalah and mikvah, or does he just say the Jew can
stam return to Judaism once he leaves the Almohad-controlled area?

Regarding Karaites who return to Rabbinism - and especially those who
avoided fear of Karaite mamzerut via hafka'at kiddushin and kol
d'm'kadesh ada'ata d'rabanan m'kadesh, thereby allowing Karaites to
marry Rabbinites - were the Karaites required to do anything upon
their return? Whatever the answer to the previous question, did
Ashkenazim and Sefardim agree on this, or no?

(I just heard Professor Zvi Zohar speak of one Sephardi rav (Haham
Nissim Ohanna, She?elot u-Teshuvot Naeh Meshiv, section Even HaEzer,
#2) who annuled the very Jewishness of the Karaites, in order to allow
them to marry Rabbinites. Obviously, he would require kabbalah and
mikvah! Though perhaps the kabbalah would be different than we are
used to, given another rabbi (Haham Moshe HaCohen Dreihem, sh?elot
u-Teshuvot VeHeshiv Moshe, #50/51) Professor Zohar discussed, who held
the Rav Uziel-ian view. See http://www.merkaz.com/lectures.htm --->
Professor Zvi Zohar - 10/31/04 ---> The Role of Values and Outcome in
the Halakhic Process: The Sephardic Approach
(http://www.merkaz.com/lectures/Zohar-10-31-04.mp3), Handout in Word
format (http://www.merkaz.com/lectures/T
he%20Role%20of%20Values%20and%20Outcome%20in%20the%20Halakhic%20Process.doc
).)

Michael Makovi

Micha Berger wrote:

> Three dayanim from the Vaad Harabbanim of Queens. I'm giving you
> halakhah as it was applied in the field. I do not know of anyone who
> requires a BT to go to the miqvah before they would count him toward
> a minyan. However, I do know of at least 2 people whose mother or
> maternal grandmother converted where the beis din did so rule.

Did they require shaving as well?  If not, why not?  And more to the
point, would they not count him in a minyan before doing this formal
teshuvah?


> (The relevent SA is YD 268:12, c.f. Rama and Pischei Teshuvah.)

The Pischei teshuvah says explicitly that only applies to the meshumad
himself, not to his descendants.   The GRA presumably disagrees, given
the mekoros he gives.

 
> : 1. Who told you that it applies also to the meshumad's descendants?
> : If the makor is from a medieval takanah to discourage shmad, then it
> : applies only to the meshumad himself, not to his descendants.  And in
> : this case, who says there was ever a meshumad?
> 
> You're suggesting that someone is an n-th generation converso who grew
> up thinking she was a Xian with weird customs and there was no meshumad
> in the line?

What converso?  We're talking about someone who grew up thinking that
she was a normal goy; there's nothing mentioned in the description to
suggest that she or any of her female ancestors were Xian.  The
original grandmother may just have married out without converting,
and the subsequent generations may perhaps not have been religious
at all.  And even if they were religious, if they never knew they were
Jewish in the first place then they could not have apostasised.

(In addition, IF the minhag is based specifically on the tum'ah of AZ,
then one may question whether the particular flavour(s) of Anglicanism
practised at the churches this woman's ancestors would have attended
fit the definition of AZ.   The CofE is a particularly hard church
to pin down when it comes to any theological question; it seems to me
that within the same church there are those who are definitely
idolaters and those who are definitely not, and a whole spectrum in
between.  Which makes sense for a church that claims to follow a
"via media" between Catholicism and Protestantism.)



> And the maqor appears to be mesechtes Bekhoros 30b about amei
> haaretz.

The GRA gives the makor in Bechoros (specifically RT in the tosfos
on 31a, d.h. "vechulan") for the requirement that the returnee accept
divrei chaverus; if that is indeed the makor then it has nothing to do
with shmad or AZ, and applies to any baal teshuvah.  The GRA also gives
Avot d'R Natan as the makor for tevilah; again, if that's the makor
then it must apply to any BT.   The Pischei Teshuvah, who says that it
doesn't apply to the meshumad's descendants, obviously disagrees that
these are the mekorot.



> Where did you see someone attribute it to a medieval taqanah
> and meshumadim?

I don't recall where I read it, but that's the only basis on which
one could distinguish it from a standard baal teshuvah.  And it would
explain why the Mechaber doesn't mention it, and only the Ramo does.


> For that matter, the gemara discusses the criteria for
> an am ha'aretz's son. The tana qama in the beraisa says the children and
> the rest of the family are carried along with his qabbalah, R' Shimon b
> Gamliel require they must go to three chaveirim themselves. Both would
> appear to agree in the case where the father didn't.

That's in reference to the actual chaverim of Chazal's time, who don't
exist any more.   None of us have taken divrei chaverus, and we don't
keep ourselves betahara like chaverim, etc.  Applying this to a mumar
is in Tosfos there, by analogy.   But if this is the makor for this
requirement, then it must apply to anyone who is becoming frum, no
matter from what background.   And of course it doesn't say anything
about tevillah.


> : 2. Who told you that it doesn't apply to returnees from R/C? ...
> 
> Ask the folk at ANY kiruv organization.

That's not an answer.  We don't require it, because it would make
kiruv more difficult; but the same consideration applies no matter
where they come from.   If we don't require it for ordinary BTs, who
says we require it any more from meshumadim?   It is not really a
form of giyur at all, but a formal ritual of teshuvah, or tikkun.




> This is a good question, as C/R appear to me to qualify as amei ha'aretz
> in the gemara's sense of the term. But not upon what I wrote in particular
> -- I was just stating halakhah pesuqah (as I wrote, above).

I question the basis for that psak.


> Do Chabad
> Houses require tevilah and qabbalas divrei chaveirus before counting
> men who walk in off the street for their minyanim?

Of course not, and nor do they require it if the men mention that they
were once Xians, or even if they are still Xians ch"v!  There is no
more basis for excluding meshumadim from a minyan than there is for
excluding mechalelei shabbos.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 112
***************************************

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..."