Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 054

Tuesday, May 30 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 13:51:54 +0300 (IDT)
From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
Subject:
marranos


If a jewish family because xtain/moslem etc. (r"l) what is the
status of their children after several generations (through the
daughters).

For example, if a family can prove they are descendants of marranos
(again through the women) but never knew they were "jewish" until
now are they considered jewish.

This has two parts:

1. If they continue to practice their other religion.
For example a female descendant of such a marrano family wishes
to marry a Jewish boy. Can such a marriage be performed and is
it any different from any other chiloni wedding.

2. If the person wishes to become Jewish. Is any sort of conversion
necessary.

In all the above I assume that there is "proof" of the family history.
Halackhic proof of such a claim is another matter.

kol tuv,
Eli Turkel


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:17:58 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


On 29 May 2000, at 21:30, Shoshana L. Boublil wrote:

> (3)  I heard from a relative that I can't eat at a certain hotel (5
> stars, Kashrut Mehadrin of the Rabbanut) as it is known that the
> Mashgiach "bothered" the owners, and therefore they bought him a free
> pass to a video store so he can watch videos and not "bother" them
> anymore.
> 
> My conclusion:  Neither I nor my people can eat at hotels under
> Hashgacha of the Rabbanut, even Mehadrin.

Since I was the person from whom this question was taken, I just 
wish to point out to the Chevra, as I did to you in private email, that 
the hashgacha in question was NOT a Mehadrin Hashgacha, and 
that I drew no conclusions from it other than regarding the specific 
Rabbanut involved (and even then my only conclusion was to check 
THAT Rabbanut's Hashgachot before eating from them).

Since the incident in question took place five years ago, I see no 
toeles in publicly discussing the details.

-- Carl


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

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:50:16 -0400
From: "Stein, Aryeh E." <aes@ll-f.com>
Subject:
RE: Taz on Milah


From: Stein, Aryeh E. <aes@ll-f.com>
>> IIRC there is a shita (Ramban? or perhaps the Ritva that RJR spoke of?) that
>> holds that it is k'firah to say that Chazal first decided to make their din
>> d'Rabanan and then they searched for an asmachta to back them up.  Rather,
>> Chazal first took note of the asmachta, which indicated to them the
>> need/grounds for the din d'Rabanan.

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> IIRC, The Ritva in RH says that asmachta'os were intended by the RBS"O as a
> minor form of derosho, not just as a mnemonic device, but not that the
> process was from the asmachta to the din.

It is that Ritva in Rosh Hashana (17a) that holds that an asmachta is an
indication that that RBS"O wanted Chazal to make their din, except that RBS"O
didn't want to make it a chovah, and instead put the matter in Chazal's hands
to make their din if they should decide to. In other words, says the Ritva,
Chazal were never mechadesh dinim on their own.

And, to answer RMB's question ("According to this shitah, what is the line
between an asmachta for a diRabbanan and a d'rashah for a di'Oraisa?"), the
difference is that the diRabbanan is optional, while the di'Oraisa is not.
(Ayin sham b'Ritva.)

And, the Ritva says, it is "meenus" to hold that an asmachta is a siman created
by Chazal (and that RBS"O didn't necessarily intend that Chazal should darshan
the asmachta). But don't worry, Rabbi Bechhofer, you are in good company; the
Rambam, Ramban, Mabit and the Kuzari agree with your understanding of asmachta.

KT
Aryeh


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:29:30 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Asmachta


From: Stein, Aryeh E.
> It is that Ritva in Rosh Hashana (17a) that holds that an asmachta is an
> indication that that RBS"O wanted Chazal to make their din, except that
> RBS"O didn't want to make it a chovah, and instead put the matter in
> Chazal's hands to make their din if they should decide to.  In other words,
> says the Ritva, Chazal were never mechadesh dinim on their own.

I think you misunderstood me. I was explaining the *Ritva*, from my
perspective, that it is not necessarily the case that Chazal combed through
the Torah for the asmachta'os and then made the dinim, rather first they
made the dinim and then istaya milsa and they found the remez in the Torah -
not as a siman, but as a minor form of derosho.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:36:39 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


Except for the gelatin issue, I think we all agree with RAY - note carefully
his reponses. For example:

> (b) In every place where there is Hashgacha, Terumot and Ma'aserot are
> taken Ka'Halacha.

Yes, where there is Hashgocho, i.e., a Mashgiach Temidi, there is no doubt
that if the Mashgiach says so, one can rely on him that TuM were taken
k'Halocho. The problem is, say, your generic felafel stand where the
proprietor is not Shomer Shabbos and their is no Mashgiach "tzamud".

As to the gelatin issue, it certainly is true that there are mattirim. The
question over the years with gelatin has not, so much, been the theory, but
the practice: I.e., the rigor of Hashgocho on the gelatin producers (In
Europe) to insure that only bones and other inedible material was used  to
produce the gelatin.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 08:43:45 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Chesed, Din, Emes


From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> I'm not sure what yir'ah is more emes oriented than ahavah.

All yir'ah. Chesed knows no boundaries, and therefore by definition lacks
precision. Thus, generally speaking, Chesed (Avrohom) plus Din/Gevura
(Yitzchok) lead to Rachamim/Emes (Yaakov). Without Yirah, Emes cannot be
attained.

(On the other hand, Chesed is essential as well, but CBALC is not Chesed
anyway - it is an alternate form of Gevura, restraint in one way, not
another, v'duk.)

> Second, if the salient point is emes, we should note that chessed precedes
> emes "virav chessed vi'emes", just as DE precedes Torah.

Um, are you sure you want to bring a proof from the language of Yaakov Avinu
in a request for a Chesed specifically? The Emes there certainly has nothing
to do with our discussion.

But, regardless, CBALC is not necessarily Chesed, kana"l.

> So I still don't see why a chumrah in one domain is clearly preferable to one
> in the other.

Because chumros shel sheker are inherently flawed. That is why "kol
ha'meracheim al ho'achzarim sofo mis'achzer al ho'rachmonim".

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:53:41 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


On 30 May 2000, at 8:36, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> Except for the gelatin issue, I think we all agree with RAY - note carefully
> his reponses. For example:
> 
> > (b) In every place where there is Hashgacha, Terumot and Ma'aserot are
> > taken Ka'Halacha.
> 
> Yes, where there is Hashgocho, i.e., a Mashgiach Temidi, there is no doubt
> that if the Mashgiach says so, one can rely on him that TuM were taken
> k'Halocho. The problem is, say, your generic felafel stand where the
> proprietor is not Shomer Shabbos and their is no Mashgiach "tzamud".

Even in the typical felafel stand, AFAIK, whether the owner is 
Shomer Shabbos and whether or not the mashgiach is there all 
day, a good mashgiach will be there when the goods are delivered 
in the morning and see to it that TuM are taken. 

-- Carl


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

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:08:53 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> Even in the typical felafel stand, AFAIK, whether the owner is
> Shomer Shabbos and whether or not the mashgiach is there all
> day, a good mashgiach will be there when the goods are delivered
> in the morning and see to it that TuM are taken.

And if he runs out of cucumbers later in the day?


(Moderator's note: Haven't we drifted into Areivim territory here? We're
moving from the theory of ne'emanus vs kashrus into details about Israeli
culture. I'm letting this reply through, but messages further along this
direction be bumped to Areivim. -mi)


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:03:33 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Existentialism and Kiruv


I think that by focussing on the commonality of the Rihal's rejection of
Scholasticism with that of the frum neo-Kantians I overlooked a major
distinction.

Interestingly, this yielded three approaches to HKBH that can be homiletically
(and perhaps even al pi p'shat) mapped to the avos.

Avraham avinu discovered Hashem Yisbarach by noting that none of the things
worshipped in Aram Naharaim could be considered the First Cause. It's the
Rambam's approach to G-d: working from few observations and first principles
and deducing a logical proof that He must exist. Perhaps that's part of what
the Akeidah was about -- not only did it require A"A working against his
natural neti'ah toward chessed, but also in its illogic.

OTOH, what little we hear about Yitzchak avinu is about maintaining masorah.
He goes up to the akeidah because Avraham says it's ratzon haBorei to do so.
He redigs the wells in Be'eir Sheva. He reuses his father's idea in hiding
his wife. Yitzchak approaches HKBH on emunah, trust, in his tradition.

Ya'akov ish tam yosheiv ohalim. He doesn't rely on Yitzchak's teachings, his
foundations also draw from Sheim va'Eiver. He first realizes what Moriah is
after *experiencing* it. His mehalech could be seen as that stressed by
the many neoKantian (whether they realize it or not) gedolim of the past
century -- belief in HKBH because one experienced Torah and therefore has
trust in its claims about its own origins.

I would argue that the lattermost approach is what speaks to our generation.
As evidence, I would point to the central role experiencing Shabbos plays in
kiruv.

The Rambam's approach has a problem when living in a generation where few of
the "great thinkers" support theism. The Rihal's objection, that either side
of a debate could be proven by a creative enough philosopher, still holds. But
more so, we live in an era where our side of the dialogue is dismissed a
priori as fundamentalist.

But recent history has made the Rihal's approach also problematic. For too
many of us, there is no masorah. They do hear of ma'amud Har Sinai for the
first time from an outsider telling them that it's their ancestor's history.
For the rest of us, how convincing is an argument from history in an era when
others are denying the events of Europe of 55 years ago, and are rewriting
those of the middle east? The Rihal's assumption, that myth can't be passed
be off as history (particularly national history), may be true in the long
run, but in our generation it carries little emotional force.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:35:18 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Chesed, Din, Emes


On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 08:43:45AM -0500, RYGB wrote:
: All yir'ah. Chesed knows no boundaries, and therefore by definition lacks
: precision. Thus, generally speaking, Chesed (Avrohom) plus Din/Gevura
: (Yitzchok) lead to Rachamim/Emes (Yaakov). Without Yirah, Emes cannot be
: attained.

You describe emes as being a synthesis of chessed and yir'ah. Therefore it
is as connected to one as to the other. Yir'ah without chessed would fall
short of emes just as much as chessed alone would overshoot it.

: (On the other hand, Chesed is essential as well, but CBALC is not Chesed
: anyway - it is an alternate form of Gevura, restraint in one way, not
: another, v'duk.)

(CBALC: chumros bein adam lachaveiro.)

Well, that's the point, no? A chumrah is a chumrah be it bein adam laMakom
(bal"M) or bein adam lachaveiro (bal"c). There is no way to expand on one
side of this dilemma without restricting on the other.

However, here there is a more fundamental source of assumetry. A chumrah in
a lav requires gevurah, greater restraint. A chumrah in an assei requires
chessed, going beyond the limits. Trusting another is an asei, not eating
meat from an animal with serichos is a lav.

If one chooses to trust the hecher then mitzad bal"Ch he was clearly a
gomeil chessed. He aided someone's parnassah, he trusted another Jew,
thereby increasing his bond to that Jew, etc.. However, mitzad bal"M
he was also excericising chessed. He was inclusive, running the risk of
perhaps being overly so.

:> Second, if the salient point is emes, we should note that chessed precedes
:> emes "virav chessed vi'emes", just as DE precedes Torah.

: Um, are you sure you want to bring a proof from the language of Yaakov Avinu
: in a request for a Chesed specifically? The Emes there certainly has nothing
: to do with our discussion.

You're talking over my head here. I'm quoting the 13 middos harachamim. I
assume you refer to this as the language of Ya'akov in the same sense as
you associate Yaakov with rachamim.

However, I was actually referring to a relatively famous story (told here
before) about R' Moshe Feinstein and te'udos ishur testifying that an ani was
an ani. R' Moshe didn't check an ani's background before signing and giving one
to whoever asked. A family member called him to task for possibly misleading
the masses into giving tzedakah to someone who doesn't need it. And either
way, the ishur is not what people would assume it is.

RMF's reply was that "rav chessed vi'emes" places chessed before emes for
a reason.

Along the same lines, RES quoted R' Frand (on parashas Sh'mos) as saying:
> "It is no coincidence that the word Chessed always precedes the word Emes
> wherever the two terms are used together in the Torah. (For example:
> Bereshis 24:49; Shmos 34:6; Yehoshua 2:14) If Emes would precede Chessed, we
> would never reach Chessed. If our perspective on life would always be
> 'Truth', then no one would ever be worthy of receiving any Kindness."

:> So I still don't see why a chumrah in one domain is clearly preferable to one
:> in the other.

: Because chumros shel sheker are inherently flawed. That is why "kol
: ha'meracheim al ho'achzarim sofo mis'achzer al ho'rachmonim".

Aren't we assuming there's a sheker -- IOW, that we may/should ignore the
chezkas kashrus that says there isn't? I think your statement here presupposes
your conclusion.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:43:23 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Chazaka with a Rei'usa


From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Aren't we assuming there's a sheker -- IOW, that we may/should ignore the
> chezkas kashrus that says there isn't? I think your statement here presupposes
> your conclusion.

You are actually making a lomdishe assumption that is not pashut - that a
chazaka with a rei'usa bleibt a chazaka. Doubtless someone more conversant
with the relevant Shav Shema'attas than I can give a more considered opinion
on the topic, but arvach arva tzarich.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 18:44:49 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


On 30 May 2000, at 9:08, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M wrote:

> From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> > Even in the typical felafel stand, AFAIK, whether the owner is
> > Shomer Shabbos and whether or not the mashgiach is there all
> > day, a good mashgiach will be there when the goods are delivered in
> > the morning and see to it that TuM are taken.
> 
> And if he runs out of cucumbers later in the day?

In the hope of keeping this in the Avodah forum, I will try to phrase 
it in an "on topic" manner.

If the baal bayis is fruhm, and the Mashgiach comes by in the 
morning to take TuM (ironic abbreviation to use BTW :-), can't we 
give the baal bayis enough neemanus to say that if he has to buy 
more cucumbers he will call the Mashgiach? We're not talking 
about buying more shwarma here! I think that as a practical matter, 
Chaim Yankel knows how much felafel he sells during the day and 
he has enough cucumbers in the morning to last the day. For the 
most part, these things are predictable. 

BTW AFAIK, even the Badatz EC doesn't put a Mashgiach Tmidi in 
every felafel stand (even the ones that sell shwarma).

-- Carl


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

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


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 10:50:35 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Chesed, Din, Emes


----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: Avodah - High Level Torah Discussion Group <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Tuesday, May 30, 2000 10:35 AM
Subject: Re: Chesed, Din, Emes


> You describe emes as being a synthesis of chessed and yir'ah. Therefore it
> is as connected to one as to the other. Yir'ah without chessed would fall
> short of emes just as much as chessed alone would overshoot it.
>

As below, this CBALC is not a Chesed. If anything, Chesed would be to *give*
Tochacha b'shalom u'b'mishor.

> : (On the other hand, Chesed is essential as well, but CBALC is not Chesed
> : anyway - it is an alternate form of Gevura, restraint in one way, not
> : another, v'duk.)
>
> (CBALC: chumros bein adam lachaveiro.)
>
> Well, that's the point, no? A chumrah is a chumrah be it bein adam laMakom
> (bal"M) or bein adam lachaveiro (bal"c). There is no way to expand on one
> side of this dilemma without restricting on the other.
>
> However, here there is a more fundamental source of assumetry. A chumrah
in
> a lav requires gevurah, greater restraint. A chumrah in an assei requires
> chessed, going beyond the limits. Trusting another is an asei, not eating
> meat from an animal with serichos is a lav.
>

Hmm, what "Assei" might that be?

> If one chooses to trust the hecher then mitzad bal"Ch he was clearly a
> gomeil chessed. He aided someone's parnassah, he trusted another Jew,
> thereby increasing his bond to that Jew, etc.. However, mitzad bal"M
> he was also excericising chessed. He was inclusive, running the risk of
> perhaps being overly so.
>

GC is very fungible. Arguably, l'shitascha, one should support Mechalelei
Shabbos in their activities (open movie theartres on Shabbos) or lascivious
pursuits (open more mixed swimming pools) - think of the Chesed (Parnossa,
Oneg Shabbos, Simchas ha'Chaim (sic times 3) involved!).

I invite you to make chillukim.

> You're talking over my head here. I'm quoting the 13 middos harachamim. I
> assume you refer to this as the language of Ya'akov in the same sense as
> you associate Yaakov with rachamim.
>

Good point - however, you are now on even shakier grounds. Of course we will
ask HKB"H to mitigate his Emes with Chesed first!

> However, I was actually referring to a relatively famous story (told here
> before) about R' Moshe Feinstein and te'udos ishur testifying that an ani
was
> an ani. R' Moshe didn't check an ani's background before signing and
giving one
> to whoever asked. A family member called him to task for possibly
misleading
> the masses into giving tzedakah to someone who doesn't need it. And either
> way, the ishur is not what people would assume it is.
>
> RMF's reply was that "rav chessed vi'emes" places chessed before emes for
> a reason.
>

Specific - and wonderful Horo'o - for Tzedoko. Not sure if R' Moshe would
say you do not have to check an establishment's kashrus out the same way...

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 11:26:53 -0500
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
Subject:
Re: Chesed, Din, Emes


On Tue, May 30, 2000 at 10:50:35AM -0500, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
:> However, here there is a more fundamental source of assumetry. A chumrah in
:> a lav requires gevurah, greater restraint. A chumrah in an assei requires
:> chessed, going beyond the limits. Trusting another is an asei, not eating
:> meat from an animal with serichos is a lav.

: Hmm, what "Assei" might that be?

I think I should have gone with chiyuv vs issur rather than the more technical
assei vs lav.

Chezkas kashrus is a chiyuv in birur. Hevei dan kol adam appears to be be
not only a chiyuv (assuming all else applies) but an assei. Perishah min
hatzibbur is a chiyuv but a lav. All could a apply.

In any case, one is being called to act, not to hold back. I therefore see it
in terms of chessed, not gevurah.

: GC is very fungible. Arguably, l'shitascha, one should support Mechalelei
: Shabbos in their activities (open movie theartres on Shabbos) or lascivious
: pursuits (open more mixed swimming pools) - think of the Chesed (Parnossa,
: Oneg Shabbos, Simchas ha'Chaim (sic times 3) involved!).

: I invite you to make chillukim.

An easy one: I'm constructing a case of chumrah vs chumrah. You reply with one
of chumrah vs ikkar hadin. Also, known mechallelei Shabbos have no chezkas
kashrus, and that pasuk of acharei rabim has a seifa.

:> You're talking over my head here. I'm quoting the 13 middos harachamim. I
:> assume you refer to this as the language of Ya'akov in the same sense as
:> you associate Yaakov with rachamim.

: Good point - however, you are now on even shakier grounds. Of course we will
: ask HKB"H to mitigate his Emes with Chesed first!

And the only way we can be ra'ui to do so is if we act that way ourselves!
That seems to be the way middah kinegged midda would work. And even if not,
it would seem mandated because of mah Ani af ata. If HKBH places chessed first,
shouldn't we?

: Specific - and wonderful Horo'o - for Tzedoko. Not sure if R' Moshe would
: say you do not have to check an establishment's kashrus out the same way...

Nor am I. I'm comparing chumrah to chumrah. Remember the case was one of a
mumcheh who is a yarei shamayim who checks for sirchos. Not a shocheit I
never heard of. You therefore have to check that the mashchgiach and rav
hamachshir are reliable. However, the one could be satisfied with that, not
trying to 2nd guess them; or one could be a "shomer nafsho yachmir".

Notice that both of the issues raised on Areivim are addressed by the Ch"S:
the hashgachah needs to be both competent and halachic.

I think you are confusing my position with RAS's more extreme one, about which
I agree "tzaruch iyun gadol".

Rov metzuyim eitzel shechitah mumchin heim, like any rov, is only to be
followed once that possibility of determining the metzi'us is ruled out
(kishe'ein birur).

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 30-May-00: Shelishi, Bamidbar
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Yuma 14a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 09:38:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: marranos


--- Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il> wrote:
> If a jewish family because xtain/moslem etc. (r"l) what is the status of
> their children after several generations (through the daughters).

> For example, if a family can prove they are descendants of marranos (again
> through the women) but never knew they were "jewish" until now are they
> considered jewish.

> This has two parts:

> 1. If they continue to practice their other religion. For example a female
> descendant of such a marrano family wishes to marry a Jewish boy. Can such
> a marriage be performed and is it any different from any other chiloni
> wedding.

> 2. If the person wishes to become Jewish. Is any sort of conversion necessary.

> In all the above I assume that there is "proof" of the family history.
> Halackhic proof of such a claim is another matter.

The immediate question that comes to mind is that of Mamzerus. Any family
pedigree must include whether there were any divorces K'Hilchasa and
remarriages by women, and records of subsequent progeny along with records of
those who ultimately divorced Shelo K'hilchosa and records of their progeny.
Whenever you break the chain, as is the case with Marranos/Conversos, you
must be choshesh For Mamzerus.

No?

Secondly, there is the question of one's Jewishness after many maternal
generations of the mother marrying non-Jews, is there a "watering down" effect?
Theoretically I would think not since any child born of a Jewish mother is a
full fledged Jew. But I'm not sure that carries through for many generations
of intermarriage.

Does it?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:06:10 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Responsa by Rav Ya'akov Ari'el Shalit"a


From: Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
> If the baal bayis is fruhm, and the Mashgiach comes by in the
> morning to take TuM (ironic abbreviation to use BTW :-), can't we
> give the baal bayis enough neemanus to say that if he has to buy
> more cucumbers he will call the Mashgiach?

I am referring to the frei falafel stand owners, not the frum ones. Of
course the frum ones may have ne'emanus.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 14:26:32 -0500
From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
Subject:
Re: Chesed, Din, Emes


From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Chezkas kashrus is a chiyuv in birur. Hevei dan kol adam appears to be be
> not only a chiyuv (assuming all else applies) but an assei. Perishah min
> hatzibbur is a chiyuv but a lav. All could a apply.


Hevei Dan is not applicable when there are raglayim la'davar, necessarily.

But, you are making a mistake in Hevei Dan. Hevei Dan is a "din" in your
internal shatzing up of yenem. It has no halachic ramifications, as you here
imply! Aderaba: "Kabdeihu v'Chashdeihu!"

> In any case, one is being called to act, not to hold back. I therefore see it
> in terms of chessed, not gevurah.

You are called to eat the questionable hechsher?

>: GC is very fungible. Arguably, l'shitascha, one should support Mechalelei
>: Shabbos in their activities (open movie theartres on Shabbos) or lascivious
>: pursuits (open more mixed swimming pools) - think of the Chesed (Parnossa,
>: Oneg Shabbos, Simchas ha'Chaim (sic times 3) involved!).

>: I invite you to make chillukim.

> An easy one: I'm constructing a case of chumrah vs chumrah. You reply with one
> of chumrah vs ikkar hadin. Also, known mechallelei Shabbos have no chezkas
> kashrus, and that pasuk of acharei rabim has a seifa.

Aw, c'mon Micha - I just picked non-subtle ones - I can easily give you
subtle ones:

Using a doubtful eruv to be machzik the communal Rav.

Eating meat under what even you would be modeh is truly questionable
hashgocho to avoid divisiveness.

Supporting JCC's that remain open on Shabbos (or, movie theartres that sell
tickets ahead of time...)

>: Good point - however, you are now on even shakier grounds. Of course we will
>: ask HKB"H to mitigate his Emes with Chesed first!

> And the only way we can be ra'ui to do so is if we act that way ourselves!

Right - the parallel would be that a dayan basar v'dam should employ the
same middas ha'chesed ("merachamim b'din") that we plead of HKB"H?

> That seems to be the way middah kinegged midda would work. And even if not,
> it would seem mandated because of mah Ani af ata. If HKBH places chessed
> first, shouldn't we?

See above.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org


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 >