Avodah Mailing List

Volume 02 : Number 154

Thursday, February 4 1999

• tefillah b'tzibbur - real chiyuv?
• Re: Hair Covering and Textualism
• Hair Covering vs. Head Covering
• Tefillah be-Tzibbur and R. Soloveitchik and Religious Zionism
• Ho'il
• Re: Avodah V2 #153
• Hair covering
• Prenupt
• Prenupt
• R. Amnon Yitzchak
• edah conference
• Re: Avodah V2 #153
• Re: Hair covering
• Moyshe and Yisroy - a lesson for our time
• >From The Agunah.Com Website
• Re: Hair covering

Whether tefillah b'tzibbur is a chiyuv or not might depend on Rashi/Tos. in
Berachos 47b.  What was the mitzva drabbim that R' Eliezer freed his slave to
do? - Tos. sounds like it was tefillah b'tzibbur, but Rashi says it is
specifically saying devarim shebikedusha - not tefillah b'tzibbur.  Other
Rishonim say it was a specific mitzva like reading P. Zachor.  Rashi's pshat
might also fit the Rambam who paskens (Avadim 9:5) that freeing an eved is
permitted even to fufill a chiyuv derabbanan, but holds that tefillah
b'tzibbur is not a chiyuv at all (8:1) - there must be some other chiyuv (like
Rashi's saying devarim shebekedusha) involved.

Also note the lashon of the mechber in siman 100 - 'Yishtadel..."  Does that
sound like a real chiyuv?

-Chaim  

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Micha Berger wrote:

> I'm not sure what you mean. The gemara only says the point, and not the
> din.  "Sei'ar ba'ishah ervah". It doesn't says "Tzrichin li..." I agree
> with your comparison to a dress, but I think it would be more accurate
> (as one poster already did) to compare a sheitl to wearing a
> form-hugging skin-colored outfit -- IOW, one that closely resembles that
> which it covers up. 
> 

Your comparison - and underlying logic - would compel us to require
unmarried women to cover their hair.

Clearly the enticing nature of hair does not change mystically from before
to after the Chuppa.

Therefore, Ervah here is not a term of allurement at all.

Hence, the same restrictions to be placed on an unmarried woman's
hairstyle (good taste, modesty, and, in Bnei Brak, brevity) should be
placed on the sheitel of a married woman.

No more, no less.

> About Yeshaya's statement to Chizkiyah... Yes, "na'aseh" comes before
> "nishmah", we reason about the p'sak, and not taylor the p'sak to the
> reason. However, we still need to look at the reasoning. I don't think
> Yeshaiahu meant anything more than that. 
> 

My argument, as above, is with your reasoning.

> And in the case of two equally weighted piskei halachah, IOW, once the
> halachic process has been applied and we still need to be chokeir
> between two shitos, why not choose the one which better fits
> lihashkafasi? 
> 

HUMOR ALERT! (May be semi serious!)
Hey, Micha! That sounds chauvinistic to me! "Hashkafsi?" What about
"Hashkafas ishtecha?!" I know you bavorned that in your Ps - but not
completely!


YGB

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

My understanding is:
1) Head Covering is both med'oraiso and aboslute based upon the posuk - ufora es
roshoh..
2) Covering all the hair is only a relative chiyuv and would be a function of  
the prevaling minhog hakokom.  I.E. uncovering hair would  be ossur  mishum 
pretizus geder when the minhog was to keep them entirely covered.

Are there any sources that support this concept?

Rich Wolpoe

Regarding tefillah be-tzibbur vs tefillah bi-zmanah, it was my sense
that the consensus of posekim (not just the Gra) considers the latter to
be primary.  In many communities this is a basic issue in December and
January for people whose occupations require them to attend early
morning minyanim.

Aryeh Frimer quotes R. Ahron Soloveichik to the effect that his
grandfather R. Hayyim did not view tefillah be-tzibbur as a hovah.  He
also quotes R. Lichtenstein to the effect that R. Yosef B. Soloveitchik
quoted this view approvingly.

Nor was this merely an abstract view of R. Hayyim's.  In a meeting with
the YU Kollel Gavo'ah, the Rosh Kollel once stressed the value of
tefillah be-tzibbur by reference to R. Hayyim, whereupon the Rav
contradicted him and said that R. Hayyim often missed minyan.

Regarding the Rav himself, in an earlier post I said, in the name of my
rebbe R. Lichtenstein, that the Rav in his younger years would
deliberately miss minyan  on Shabbat afternoon.  R. Carmy correctly
added what I inadvertently omitted, that in his later years the Rav made
a greater effort to daven be-tzibbur.  I would add that, in R.
Lichtenstein's view, this change in attitude reflected a deeper change
(brought about by brushes with disease and death of loved ones), in
which the Rav felt far more dependent upon tefillah and its efficacy.

As a footnote, while all the evidence seems to demonstrate that the Rav
did not view tefillah be-tzibbur as a hovah, a recent article claims
otherwise.  The article, which appears in the most recent issue of
Tradition, attributes to the Rav the argument formulated by R. Moshe in
a teshuvah that one who davens without a minyan takes the risk that his
tefillah will not be heard.  "One who chooses not to pray with a minyan
makes a statement that he or she cares not whether God listens or does
not listen to hs or her prayer.  It goes without saying that such a
person has missed the essence of prayer and is obviously not motivated
by proper religious intent."

Based on what I know, this does not seem to accord with what the Rav
himself said or what he said about R. Hayyim Brisker.  The article
(which takes issue with a list member's article regarding the Rav's
attitude toward women's prayer groups) makes some other surprising
statements.  It claims that the Rav did not attribute religious meaning
to the State of Israel, but agreed with his uncle, the Brisker Rav.
This is surprising, given that the Rav served as honorary president of
Religious Zionists of America from 1946 until his death.  In a 1957 Yom
Ha-Atzma'ut address (later published as "Kol Dodi Dofek"), the Rav
describes the establishement of the State as Hashem's "knocking on the
door" of the Jewish people.  In contrast, the Brisker Rav is known to
have disregarded the State utterly, refusing to vote and, I believe,
accept government funds for his yeshiva.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

Gershon Dubin writes besheim the Shaagas Aryeh:

>>We might have thought that if Avraham made an Eruv Tavshilin, then he 
was not keeping the Mitzvah. Therefore, the Gemara teaches us that he was 
indeed fulfilling the Mitzvah of Eruv Tavshilin. How? It must be that the 
Gemara is of the opinion that Shabbos and Yom Tov are one Kedushah, and 
the Torah permits cooking on Yom Tov for Shabbos (as one opinion in 
Pesachim holds), and therefore he did not have to rely on the principle 
of "Ho'il."<<

Maybe Avrohom Ovinu was mekayem the mitzvo not because he expected guests, but 
rather to set a precedent in the spirit of maase avos simon lebonim... and 
therefor it is no rayo...

Rich Wolpoe

> Agunot issues -- such as the fact that Roshei Yeshiva have *discouraged*
> the use of the "pre-nup" agreement despite the fact that it appears to be
> the most halachically acceptable way in which to *prevent* later aguna
> issues.
> 
> - --Zvi

Can you be more specific about this "discouragement".
I know of shul rabbis who are insistent on it.

Eli Turkel

RYGB writes:

>Hence, a shaitel is no different than a dress - are Bnos Yisroel rwuired
>to wear Afghani-like clothing? The same discretion that applies to
>clothing (i.e., clothing that technically covers everything cxan be lewdly
>cut) applies to sheitels - no more, no less.

With respect, the notion that a shaitel is no different than a dress or
other clothing seems to me manifestly untrue.  To my knowledge, no posek
would object to a form fitting hair covering, such as a rubber swimming
cap.  (Uh oh, sounds like I go mixed swimming :)).  But of course form
fitting clothing is generally prohibited.   It would seem, then, that
there are differences.

Moreover, there are significant halakhic differences.  We hold the
covering of hair applies only to a married woman.  According to the
Gemara, Rishonim, and every Aharon I know until the Bah, the
hair-covering requirement does not apply in the woman's own hatzer.

In any case, as I think Joel Rich pointed out, no one has invented a
piece of modest clothing that looks the same as uncovered flesh.  (And
if someone did, I cannot imagine it being approved by posekim.)  In the
case of wigs, of course, we have a hair covering that is designed to
look exactly like -- or in some cases is made of -- human hair.  At a
minimum, there would seem to be a huge marit ayin problem.

Indeed, given that men's head covering is not an obligation, I find it
striking that a man who wears a toupe is generally told to wear a kippah
on top, while women who wear sheitels generally are not so required.

Kol tuv,

Eli Clark

   Look at the gemorah BM 66a , Nedarim 27b and SA 207 Rambam
   Hilchot mechirah Ch.11 and encyclopedia talmudis for asmachta. Also,
   look up R. Bleich Bnetivot Halacha vol 1 and R. Breitowitz's book on
Gittin.   
  
   Asmachta is defined as any "conditional" agreement in money matters.
   If something happens I owe you-if not I don't owe you.
   We assume that he is not gomer daas on the kinyon and does not
   mean it. No one really expects to get divorced.There are 2 solutions 
   (a) saying meachsav and (b) doing it in front of a bet din choshuv. 
   The later means that a bes din of a certain quality execute the prenupt.
   Some say, that the document is turned over. Not only, does the Rabbi 
   not find such a bes din he does not do it at all. He has them sign in
   his study. This makes witnesses sign a sheker. The Kesef misne
   in hilchos mechira (11:7) and (11:18) says that we cannot use meachsov
   for a hischayvus of "money" only real objects. See the Rambam's suggestion
   in (11:18) which is R. Goldberg's version. R. Willig did not do it. I am
not
   sure why he deviated from the suggestion of R. Goldberg who uses the
   Rambam's chachme seforad suggestion. I am sure that he can defend 
   himself. But, you asked for other opinions.
   Also, at the end she says that the marriage is contingent on
   his signing the prenut. You do not make conditions in a marriage. And, if
   it really is a sheeloh then maybe that clause can be used to annul(?)
   a lot of this can be found in R. Bleich's book, some are my caveat.

   Finally, R. Breitowitz suggested a clause to exclude the moredes. There 
   are poskim who say that since a "real" moredes gets nothing the "get" 
   could be meusseh if it serves as leverage.

   Rabbi Bleich was smart to write in Hebrew. In tradition it would have made
   political trouble.

   The above is not an opinion. Only, an answer as to what the issues are.
   Rav Goldberg's version can be found in article by R. Gartner (I forgot
where)
   R. Breitowitz points it out in his book. (And, I looked it up)

   By the way, not only do many shul Rabbis not understand the issues but.....

   Shaya Beilin


   



  

 

 The way Rav Goldberg suggests is as follows.
  If we have a separation I owe you from now and if not 
  I owe you from now but you are mochel every day we 
  are together. Thus, both sides of the condition ian IOU
  but one side has mechila. This is the Rambam's suggestion
  in Mechira (11:18) and CM 207:7 lehalacha.

  Rabbi Willig says on the down side if we are together then
  I don't owe you. This is a problem for rambam as explained
  by kesef mishne.

RE: Rav Amnon Yitzchak

For those of you who are a little tired of the MO/ R. Klein/Jewish Center
threads, let's try something completely different.

A new phenomenon seems to have taken root in Israel over the last 10 years.
Evangelizing rabbis have been mekarev tens of thousands of Jews, mostly
sephardim, through an approach that uncannily resembles Billy Graham's tent
crusades. The most popular of this new breed of evangelist is R. Amnon
Yitzchak. 

His effectiveness is to no small extent changing the face of Israeli
politics. Consider the Knesset history: Mafdal (the National Religious
Party) has had 10-12 seats since the founding of the State, with no real
growth. Agudah/ Degel Hatorah have had 4-6 seats since the founding of the
state, with again no real growth in the Knesset. Neither has an effective
kiruv infrastructure, and in fact Mafdal is extremely concerned about the
opposite trend: a widespread phenomenon of the secularization of it's youth
known as "moridim kippa", (a subject which really deserve its own thread).
In contrast Shas, which did not exist in 1980, now has 10 seats, with the
polls predicting 15 in the next Knesset, which will make it the third
largest party in Israel. This is partly due to R. Amnon and his evangelizing
colleagues. 

He has scores of volunteers distributing free tapes to anyone in a traffic
jam at many busy intersections in the center of the country. During my
commute, (in between listening to tapes of the Rav), I occasionally will pop
in a tape by R. Amnon.  At the very least,  he is very entertaining. He is
most effective in contrasting the degradation of secular society with a
perhaps idealized view of religious society. 

While I am entertained, I am also concerned and often shocked at what he
says. He essentially promises children to childless women who accept
covering their hair, with melodramatic follow-up tapes regarding his success
stories. He promises Olam Haba to those who donate to his cause of audio and
videotape production. His ideas are usually  simplistic and often
misleading. He unequivocally states that a "custom sheitl" is worse than
uncovered hair, and that it is prohibited to shave even with an electric
razor. His anti-Zionism leaves no room for hakarat hatov for a State that
financially supports and defers it's draft to allow the open-ended learning
that he espouses.  He has made very insensitive remarks about a tragic
military helicopter accident a year ago.  He regularly cites the most
tedentious of proofs to the existence of a soul, including reincarnation,
seances, near death experiences, and communication with autistic children,
(the latter despite compelling scientific evidence debunking the technique).
Absolutely nothing he says is intellectually compelling. Let's put it this
way: after hearing an Amnon Yitzchak tape, I am once again ready for the Rav!

At the same time, there is something viscerally satisfying about fire and
brimstone. In grade shool, we all heard the Olam Hazeh - Olam Haba analogy
of the shipwrecked castaway on the diamond-laden island who takes the
diamonds for granted, returning to civilization having squandered the
opportunity to collect the diamonds.  From the mouth of Amnon Yitzchak, the
story is poetry - it makes a real impression.  After hearing it, you find
that almost despite yourself, your next davening has alot more kavvanah than
the last.  

Although not true for the Agudah community, the MO/ Religious Zionist
communities seem to be too cerebral to be religiously motivating. It seems
that the only topic that generates true passion is "shtachim" - nothing else
really seems to capture imagination (perhaps contributing to the youth
alienation mentioned above). 

We could all use a little Amnon Yitzchak.

Arnie Lustiger

in the Jewish Week's article on the subject [at their web site], R Tendler
is quoted as saying it would be an averah for MO rabbis to attend this
conference....

> 
> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 1999 11:25:35 -0500
> From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
> Subject: Rackman/Morgenstern allowed weddings
> 
> In line with a recent post, it seems that rather than (or at least in
> addition to) excoriating Rackman/Morgenstern weddings, the most productive
> approach and the immediate pressing need for the observant community is for
> contact to be made with those rabbis so that an up-to-date database may be
> created with names of the parties in English and Hebrew, birthdates, wedding
> dates, names of partners to first marriage (with wedding dates).
> 
> This will permit this and future generations to accomodate our halakhic
> concerns and needs.  As most readers are aware, the precedent is in Maseches
> Yevamos where Bais Hillel and Bais Shammai respected and accomodated each
> other's opinions failing which unions would have been unlawful due to
> mamzerus.
====> I think that it is an obscenity to compare the "disagreement"
between Rackman/Morgenstern to Beis Hillel/Beis Shammai.  The Gemara (and
Meforshim) noted that the reason why B"S did not accept B"H (who were --
apparently -- the "Rov") was because B"S were "sharper" in their
scholarship and true scholarship could outweigh the majority.  AND, this
was before there was a "real" amida L'minyan.  does anyone think that
Rackman/Morgenstern are "sharper" than the array of poskim who have
condemned this travesty?  Indeed, the suggested data base will help
identify future pesulim created by the irresponsible actions of "Ketanim
B'yisrael".





> 
> Additionally, I would like to present for consideration the following
> solution (ultimately to be presented in the appropriate fora by one who is
> permitted la'asok be-gittin ve-kedushin)  to **some** of the alleged
> mamzerus problems that may be created by Rackman/Morgenstern-sanctioned
> unions. (I really, really hope this is not *Rackman's* solution, because I
> write to solve a problem not create another.)
> 
>  I have heard it said that the sharp eye could pasul most weddings, frum or
> not, due to deficiencies in edus, ownership of the wedding band and a few
> other etceteras.  ***If this be so,***  perhaps a review is in order of the
> videotapes, if available, of the first weddings of the Rackman-Morgenstern
> couples with an eye to simply pasuling the first kedushin (yes, making the
> be'ilos znus) for the reasons above-stated or any other reason. No kedushin,
> no mamzerus.

====> I am not at all certain that that is ALWAYS true.  further, in their
"desire" to show how "correct" they are, I can imagine Rackman/Morgenstern
bending over backwards to make sure that there is no basis for the
disqualification of such "marriages".


> 
> I suppose this is like saying that Rackman may be correct for the wrong
> reasons, but his conduct appears to promise to present us with problems.
> Though we might not like what they are doing and believe it to be incredibly
> twisted, it does us no good to declare the results of his handiwork mamzerus
> if it need not be so. Punishment is not the goal.

===> I do not think that ANYONE wants to "punish" people.  Unfortunately,
the arrogance (?) of Rackman/Morgenstern will likely cause far more misery
than we can even begin to imagine.  If anything, their behaviour should
spur us to OTHER legitimate ways to alleviate the misery of agunot.

--Zvi


> 
> Sincerely,
> Noach Witty

On Thu, 4 Feb 1999, Clark, Eli wrote:

> With respect, the notion that a shaitel is no different than a dress or
> other clothing seems to me manifestly untrue.  To my knowledge, no posek
> would object to a form fitting hair covering, such as a rubber swimming
> cap.  (Uh oh, sounds like I go mixed swimming :)).  But of course form
> fitting clothing is generally prohibited.  It would seem, then, that
> there are differences. 
> 

I am disappointed in my usually erudite friend, R' Eli! I will be dan
l'kaf zechus, that writing midday has its limitations. But, in fact, the
Poskim - including the MB - who rule that shok includes the area of the
calf beneath the knee - still, overwhelmingly - permit form fitting
stockings as a valid form of covering for that region of the body!

> Moreover, there are significant halakhic differences.  We hold the
> covering of hair applies only to a married woman.  According to the
> Gemara, Rishonim, and every Aharon I know until the Bah, the
> hair-covering requirement does not apply in the woman's own hatzer. 
> 

Hey! That was my ra'ayah!

> In any case, as I think Joel Rich pointed out, no one has invented a
> piece of modest clothing that looks the same as uncovered flesh.  (And
> if someone did, I cannot imagine it being approved by posekim.)  In the

Dunno. I think flesh colored stockings are approved for beneath the knee.

> case of wigs, of course, we have a hair covering that is designed to
> look exactly like -- or in some cases is made of -- human hair.  At a
> minimum, there would seem to be a huge marit ayin problem.
> 

To whom? All Orthodox women know about sheitels. Also, since when are we
gozeir our own maris ayin decrees.

> Indeed, given that men's head covering is not an obligation, I find it
> striking that a man who wears a toupe is generally told to wear a kippah
> on top, while women who wear sheitels generally are not so required. 
> 

Dunno again. There is an explicit tradition that many Rebbes and Rabbonim
- including the Maharash of Lubavitch, I believe - wore toupees at
Marienbad and other spas where heads had to be uncovered, as their kisui
rosh. 

YGB

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

With all the discussion of the synthesis of Toyre and secular knowledge
perhaps this week's sedre can teach us a lesson.

We find moyshe rabayni sitting down to adjudicate between klal yisroel.
The bnay yisroel are over the yam sif, amolayk has been beaten, the mon
is providing sustenance and the clouds and pillars of fire are guiding
them. In a word the initial teething problems are behind them and life
is returning to its normal course.

Moyshe rabayni, the first ben toyre, has surgery hours 'from morning to
evening' and all on his own expects to manage the entire workload. This
haphazard way of doing business, not unfamiliar to anyone acquainted
with the workings of chareidi institutions or chasidic courts, results
in long queues and presumably, with the bnay yisroel not being averse to
grumbling, complaints and grievances.

Along comes yisroy the sophisticated priest of midyon, probably with a
degree, a masters and, it seems, an MBA to boot and immediately
identifies the problem. His reaction is not patronising nor admonishing;
he constructively criticises the situation and suggests the best
practical remedy. All that is needed is a management structure to cope
with the volume. He does not think moyshe incapable of comprehending the
problem nor of implementing the solution. He also has no hidden agenda
as he feels confident enough to suggest to moyshe that he consult God
before proceeding.

And Moyshe's response to all this? Well, it was not 'fe! khodosh oser
min hatoyre!' or some other nonsensical soundbite, nor did he feel it
necessary to convene the moyetses gedoyley hatoyre or the hisakhdes to
discuss the latest threat of alien invasions that will kholile wreak
havoc with klal yisroel if allowed to proceed unimpeded. None of this.
Moyshe rabayni was a leader who was able to identify common sense when
it stared him in the face and did not even bother asking God before the
plan was introduced. Now there is a leader!

And the result? A happy symbiotic relationship where both sides,
realising the benefits of the other, are confident enough to borrow the
other's ideas when suitable and happy to let the other live as they see
fit.

David Herskovic

Content-Base: "http://agunah.com/basis/account.htm"  Reported by a Rabbi
in attendance at a Court Hearing under the auspices of the Supreme
Rabbinic Court of America, Inc.  The Rabbi writing this summary document
is not a member of the Court.

The Supreme Rabbinic Court of America, Inc., Convened in Manhattan, New
York City, to hear this case. 

The SRC first determined that there was no chance that the marriage could
be saved.

The various forms of abuse of the husband put the wife's life as well as
her children at risk.

The husband refused therapy many times. 

The Court assumed Rav Moshe Feinstein's position, that once it is
determined that a marriage is "dead", divorce should be implemented as
quickly as possible, rather than further encouraging reconciliation.

The husband refused a Get, and the Court investigation determined that the
husband would continue to do so for the foreseeable future.  The SRC
determined that this refusal would probably continue even if the husband
would receive the sums of money and support he was trying to extort from
his wife and her family.  Certainly, if the wife did not submit to this
blackmail, there would be no possibility of a Get.

The Supreme Rabbinic Court/Beis Din, composed of leading Rabbinic
Scholars, who are righteous, selfless, courageous, and men of conscience,
decreed that a Get would be enacted under their auspices.  Basing
themselves upon a Responsa of Rav Eliyahu Kletzkin and R.Y.Y.  Weinberg in
Setlidet Aish and R.Y.E. Specter in Be'er Yitschuk, the Supreme Rabbinic
Ccourt issued a Get Zeekuee. 

In addition, the SRC Bet Din invoked the method of nullification of an
additional Get and/or the appointed messenger, thereby triggering another
method of invalidating the marriage, based upon Gitten Zeekuy.

In this case, there was an additional factor which pointed toward the
likelihood that there was never a valid marriage, even initially.  False
and misleading pretenses invalidate a transaction in Jewish Law, including
marriage and there was not full disclosure made at the time of the
marriage of relevant facts concerning the groom and his family. 
Therefore, there cannot have been a legal marriage in Jewish Law between
them, and no Get is required. In addition had full disclosure been made at
the time of the marriage, which would have made the underpinnings of the
marriage problematic, the bride never would have entered into the
marriage.

The Supreme Rabbinic Court's Beis Din in Manhattan, however, chose to
protect the wife by acting upon the assumption that there was a valid
marriage, and therefore was concerned with the public perception which
presumed that there was a legal marriage.  As a result, the Court
proceeded with its usual divorce protocol which it set to sever the ties
that bind an Aguna. 

The Supreme Rabbinic Court also proclaimed its annulment of the marriage. 
To support this ruling, the Supreme Rabbinic Court drew upon the power
invested in them by the Talmud, which states that all who marry, entrust
the continuos validity of their marriage to the government of the Rabbis. 
This is the legal meaning which the Talmud derives from the marriage
statement:  "Hare at Mekudeshet Li Ke'das Moshe Ve'Yisrael".

Further, the Supreme Rabbinic Court used the power given them by Jewish
Legal Tradition to uproot any marriage and thereby free a married woman
outright without a get when the husband has behaved in a very
reprehensible manner, "Shelo Ke'Hogon".  The Talmud "who osso shelkehogan
gam anachnu nase shelo kehogen venaficio kedushin mine". The Talmud says,
the sages accomplished this by means of "Hafkoes Kedushin".  The sages
simply uprooted the marriage.  The Court considers "Shelo Kehogen" to
apply equally to conditions arising after the marriage, especially the
refusal to give a get when required to do so, as it does to the original
circumstances of a marriage in the Talmudic Court. The reason for this is
that the court can no longer coerce the husband.  Consequently the wife
never would have entered into an abusive marriage would she have known
that the court is impotent and her husband would abuse her. 

In consideration of the above factors, the Supreme Rabbinic Court issued
documentation to the woman which allows her to prove to anyone her legal
freedom to remarry in the Jewish Legal System, and extended its blessings
for her future happiness. 

It is important for the Jewish Public at large to know that the Supreme
Rabbinic Court is prepared to help free any woman who is distressed by an
issue of Aguna.  The Court subscribes to the ideal that a prime function
of Jewish Courts is to protect and help the weak and oppressed, and to
continue the Talmudic tradition which created laws and searched for ways
to help free Aguna.  Indeed the Court of Rabban Gamlmel was described in
the Talmud as 'The father of All Orphans'.  The position of the Court is
that the stabilizing factor in all Jewish Marriage from time immemorial is
the power that Rabbinical Courts had to protect Husband and Wife from
inequality and bad treatment.

Where indicated, the Court could and would force a Get.  Neither emotional
torture nor physical violence was permitted to fester. The marriage was
annuled and extortion and other means of withholding a Get were not
tolerated.  Even though the actual process of divorcing must be performed
by the man, delivering the divorce document to the woman, the Courts would
force the man to agree to administer the Court-Ordered requirement of
Divorce.

Medieval Jewish communities such as existed in time of the Rashba were
given autonomy by the Government of Spain to deal with internal Jewish
matters. The Rashba's Court was all powerful.  Therefore his Responsa
indicate that the Aguna problem was not critical in his time.  In later
times, the tightly knit enclaves and Shettels of Jewish life thrived upon
peer pressure to protect Jewish family life.  However, in our times, the
system of checks and balances no longer exists.

Therefore we are witness to the terrible situation of today when there
exists an intolerable number of Agunas which we know about, and an even
greater number whom we suspect exist and who don't know where to turn, and
have resigned themselves to their fate. Today we the Rabbinical Court
responds by annuling the marriages.

The Supreme Rabbinic Court of America believes that its duty compels it to
find within its power the means available to it to remedy the Aguna
situation, as it did in the above case under the above mentioned
authorities.

In a message dated 2/4/99 6:22:47 PM Eastern Standard Time,
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 Dunno. I think flesh colored stockings are approved for beneath the knee.
 -----------------------------------------------------------

This may be the same issue- there are flesh colored stockings which are
clearly stockings colored somewhat like flesh and their are stockings which
only on close examination turn out to be stockings.
----------------------------------------------------------

 > case of wigs, of course, we have a hair covering that is designed to
 > look exactly like -- or in some cases is made of -- human hair.  At a
 > minimum, there would seem to be a huge marit ayin problem.
 > 
 
 To whom? All Orthodox women know about sheitels. Also, since when are we
 gozeir our own maris ayin decrees.
 -----------------------------------------------------------
Interesting-does marit ayin only apply to orthodox impressions. also how then
did the first shaitel wearers do it? What about shaitel's covered by hats-does
this create a marit ayin problem.  This is all l'shitatcha- I'm still
unconvinced of your earlier reconciliation of ervah as not having its
something akin to its usual meaning.
-------------------------------------------------------------
 > Indeed, given that men's head covering is not an obligation, I find it
 > striking that a man who wears a toupe is generally told to wear a kippah
 > on top, while women who wear sheitels generally are not so required. 
 > 
 
 Dunno again. There is an explicit tradition that many Rebbes and Rabbonim
 - including the Maharash of Lubavitch, I believe - wore toupees at
 Marienbad and other spas where heads had to be uncovered, as their kisui
 rosh. 
---------------------------------------
But certainly this was the exception for health reasons, not the rule for
everyday life?


Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich
------------------------------

  >>

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.           ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                 ]
[ For control requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]