Avodah Mailing List

Volume 05 : Number 081

Wednesday, July 12 2000

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 2000 10:12:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Mesader Kidushin


I have been wondering about this for a while and in light of the discussions
we have been having on the Shitas HaRan as to whether a woman's response of
"Ani Mekabelet" is MeAkev the Kidushin.

Can a woman be Mesader Kidushin? LAD I would see no particular problem with
it since both the Chasan and the Kallah have the same Chiuv D'Oraisa in
Kidushin hennce a woman should be avb;e to ben Motzie both the C and K with
her Brachos? Or is this a Davar ShebeKedusha as well subject to the same
strictures as other Divrei ShebeKedusha requiring a Minyan and therefore,
preventing a woman's ability to be Motzi a man. And... more basicly... does
a Davar Shebekedusha, which requires a minyan, prevent a woman being Motzi a
man in the first place? Is it L'Chatchila Assur?Is it Assur BeDieved as well?
Or is is Mutar L'Gamrei? Or Mutar even L'Chatchelah? If Mutar L'Chatchilah
is itr still a Davar Garuah for other reassons (mimicing the feminist movement
or the Conservative movement) Or is it Assur even for those reasons?

Does anyone know definatively? 

If I am not mistaken, I remember seeing Herman Wouk's War and remeberance on
Television and there was a scene in it where a woman was mesader Kidushin
during the Holocaust. Someone mentioned to me at the time that this was a
semi-frequent occurance during the holocaust in situations when there were
no men around to be Mesader Kidushin.

Does anyone know if this is true?  

What would be the Halachic status of such a couple (assuming all other parts
of the Chupa were done K'Halacha)?

HM


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 17:35:52 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Nusach


On 10 Jul 2000, at 9:25, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
> The Aruch HaShulchan in his introduction to Choshen Mishpat says that
> it is not derech eretz to daven a different nusach (presumably
> biychidus) than the shul's (although he points out that it doesn't
> really matter).  

Why do you assume that he means b'ychidus? I cannot tell you how common it is
for someone to get up in my Nussach Ashkenaz shul and say "v'yatzmach purkonei"
or the Nussach of Eidot haMizrach, both in Kaddish and sometimes even in
Tfilla. We have a bidding war for Revii every Rosh Chodesh from someone
who davens in our minyan on Rosh Chodesh (and occasionally at other times)
and buys Revii davka so he can claim the Kaddish after leyining, which he
says in the Nussach of Eidot HaMizrach. (Last week Revii went for NIS 250 on
Rosh Chodesh - typically aliyos don't go for more than NIS 5 during the week).

> The Pe'as HaShulchan (in the beginning where he
> discusses general issues) says that it is biblically forbidden to
> daven a different nusach.  

Based on Lo Sisgodidu?

> The Sha'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah
> discusses this in the halachos of shemoneh esreh.  He says that a
> shatz should daven his own nusach biychidus and the shul's for
> chazaras hashatz.  

It seems to me that this may well be what the Aruch haShulchan meant as well,
but I have not seen it inside.

-- Carl

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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:16:03 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Nusach


From: Joelirich@aol.com
> Other than R' Moshe, does anyone have mekorot for the appropriate recitation
> for both the shatz and the kahal where their nusach differs from the nusach
> of the tzibbur. In particular I'm interested in secific elements of tfila(eg
> kadish).  <snip>

See Volume 20 of the Lubavitcher Rebbes Iggaros.  As memory serves, in at
least 3 different letters he insists that the shatz must follow the minhag
hamakom.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:17:06 +0200
From: "Carl M. Sherer" <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Mesader Kidushin


On 7 Jul 2000, at 10:12, Harry Maryles wrote:
>                                            Someone mentioned to me at
> the time that this was a semi-frequent occurance during the holocaust
> in situations when there were no men around to be Mesader Kidushin.

How could you have valid Kiddushin without eidim? And if there were men to
be eidim, how could you not have had a man to be mesader kiddushin if one
is required?

With respect to your other question, IIRC all of the brachos require a minyan
with one exception (which of course I now forget, but I think the relevant
s'if in Shulchan Aruch is EH 62:4), so that would likely preclude women from
saying them anyway.

-- Carl

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: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 11:24:50 -0400
From: "Noah Witty" <nwitty@ix.netcom.com>
Subject:
Nusach


Gil Student:
> The Sha'arim Metzuyanim BaHalachah discusses this in the halachos of
> shemoneh esreh. He says that a shatz should daven his own nusach biychidus
> and the shul's for chazaras hashatz. R. Menashe Klein comes to the same
> conclusion in his Halachos Ketanos. My rav concurred.

I recall seeing that the purpose of the quiet shmoneh esrei for the Shatz is
to afford him an opportunity to review the words before saying them aloud.
*If* that is the reason, then reason dictates that he daven the nusach he
will be reciting aloud in order that he not default (on account of roteness)
to a nusach that is not local to the amud.

NW


Go to top.

Date: Mon Jul 10 12:44:56 2000
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Mesader Kidushin


> IIRC all of the brachos require a minyan with one exception (which of course
> I now forget, but I think the relevant s'if in Shulchan Aruch is EH 62:4),
> so that would likely preclude women from saying them anyway.

Why? Get a minyan together and have a woman say the berachos. Its not a
davar shebekedusha, its a din in pirsum (Kesubos 7b).

The problem is assuming birchas eirusin is a birchas hamitzva (mach. the Rambam
and the Rosh) there would be a problem of a woman (who is not obligated in
peru u'revu or mitzvas kiddushin) being motzi a man. (If it is a birchas
hashevach there is a differet problem: it is the mesader kiddushin and not
the chassan and kallah who should be drinking the wine; see Afikei Yam who
quotes that R' Chaim would spill some of the wine on his hand and sip it).

Derech agav: even in cases where a woman is obligated in a mitzva/beracha,
there are shitos that hold a woman is not included in arvus - machlokes R'
Akiva Eiger and other achronim based on a Rosh in Berachos.


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 13:35:01 -0400
From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
Subject:
Re: Nusach


RN Witty wrote:
>I recall seeing that the purpose of the quiet shmoneh esrei for the Shatz is to
>afford him an opportunity to review the words before saying them aloud. *If* 
>that is the reason, then reason dictates that he daven the nusach he will be 
>reciting aloud in order that he not default (on account of roteness) to a 
>nusach that is not local to the amud.
     
I recall seeing that also but I think the source of that idea is R. Moshe 
Feinstein.  Others disagree.

Gil Student
gil.student@citicorp.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 16:43:07 -0400
From: MPoppers@kayescholer.com
Subject:
Re: Question on Rashi in P' Korach


In Avodah V5#80, CBrown writes:
> The whole episode really occurred earlier when the appointment took place
> (Ibn Ezra, Sifsei Chachamim on Rashi) ...

I'll be happy to look up the Sifsai Chachomim -- in the meantime, what leads
you to believe that RaShY himself held that way? The Ibn Ezra isn't RaShY :-),
and I would argue that RaShY felt the actual rebellion, as per his reading of
the posuk you mention below, occurred _after_ chait ham'raglim -- see his 16:4
comment (i.e 14:13 is the third instance and this machlokes is the fourth).

> (Rashi only explains smichus haparshiyos when things are out of order, see
> beg.  of Shlach as well.)

Where in the sedrah of _Korach_ does he ask "lomoh nism'chah"? The t'chailes
question wasn't the only one asked by Korach v'adoso, and nothing about how
RaShY quotes it indicates that he felt the sedros were ordered Sh'lach-Korach
because of that one question.

> If this is correct, what's pshat in rashi 16:14...?

If it isn't, there's no problem understanding RaShY.

All the best from
Michael Poppers * Elizabeth, NJ


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 14:19:50 -0700 (PDT)
From: Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com>
Subject:
Re: Mesader Kidushin


Carl M. Sherer <cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il> wrote:
> How could you have valid Kiddushin without eidim?
> And if there were men to be eidim, how could you not have had a man to be
> mesader kiddushin if one is required?

Perhaps there were Eidim but although Kosher, not sufficiently conversant
with Sidur Kidishin, whereas a Rebbitzin or the like were knowledgeable. I
don't know.

HM


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 18:48:14 -0400
From: richard_wolpoe@ibi.com
Subject:
Custom - Origins of


From: Eli Turkel <turkel@math.tau.ac.il>
> Most minghim are based on differences between poskim.
> For examples many of the differences between ashkenaz and sefard depend on 
> whether one paskens like tosaphot or Rambam or Ramban. Hence, I don't
> understand the difference between minhag and psak.

This is a popular over-simplification
Especially wrt to Rishonim, they are often REFLECTING existing minhagim as
opposed to starting them. {tangentially, this is imho how rishonim have
such a superior authority, they were resposiytories of more ancient mesoros}

While I have not but a few pages, I'm fairly sure Ta Shma's Minhag Asehkenaz
haKadmon goes along with this

Minhagim are often related to mimetics. And very old minhagim reflect oral 
mesorah's that often {though not always} pre-date the poskim that first commit 
those minhagim to paper.

Rich Wolpoe


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:20:20 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Mesorah Question


My father asked me to ask the chevra the following:

In Parashas Korach,  16:18, on the word "vayikchu"  ish machtoso,  the
Mesorah says,  simply,  "siman".  Can anyone explain?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com
 


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:13:34 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Nusach


From: Joelirich@aol.com
> What about the situation where the nusach is to follow the nusach
> of whoever is the shatz(so that shacharit might be ashkenaz and 
> musaf edot hamizrach)?

	Is there a shitta allowing such mixing of nuschaos/ot?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 22:11:44 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Ruth and Kiddushin


From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
:> When the twelve months have passed, the Rabbanan ... imposed a chiyuv
:> parnasa notwithstanding the lack of nisuin.
 
: IIRC, midin k'nas, no?

: This would mean that it's not an intrinsic part of eirusin, but a penalty
: against delaying nisuin.

	As we used to say,  QED.  Now that we've established that (I think)
could you remind me how this sub-thread started?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Mon, 10 Jul 2000 23:08:33 EDT
From: Bin613@aol.com
Subject:
Re:Chiuv k'sus from kidushin


> But
> with respect to ksus, I think it falls under the same category as parnassa,
> and the husband would have to give his wife clothing twelve months after
> Kiddushin, even if nisuin had not taken place.

I don't have the mar'eh mokom in front of me, but I recall that the achronim
deal with the chiuv mezonos which comes after 12 months. Some say that
this is just a knas for not having married her. There is even a Tosfos
HaRosh toward the end of Kesubos (which at the moment I cannot find) which
equates this chiuv to that which a yavam has to feed the shomeres yavam if
he hasn't decided whether or not to marry her, which he writes is because
she is essentially "stuck" because of him. I believe that the Or Sameach
writes that the chiuv mezonos stems from ishus. I don't recall if he says
that the ishus comes from nisuin or kidushin.

I apologize for the lack of clarity, and I'll repost if I can find the
exact sources.

-Binyamin Goldman


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:18:46 +0200
From: "Carl and Adina Sherer" <sherer@actcom.co.il>
Subject:
Re: Nusach


From: Joelirich@aol.com
> What about the situation where the nusach is to follow the nusach of
> whoever is the shatz(so that shacharit might be ashkenaz and musaf
> edot hamizrach)?

On 10 Jul 00, at 22:13, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>  Is there a shitta allowing such mixing of nuschaos/ot?

I don't know, but I can tell you that it goes on in many shuls here in 
Yerushalayim, including all of the well known shtiblach.

-- Carl

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il


Go to top.

Date: Tue, 11 Jul 2000 05:58:41 -0400
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject:
Re: Nusach


On Tue, 11 Jul 2000 08:18:46 +0200 "Carl and Adina Sherer" 
> I don't know, but I can tell you that it goes on in many shuls here in 
> Yerushalayim, including all of the well known shtiblach.

	Mixing shacharis and musaf?  Or different nuschaos seriatim?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com


Go to top.

Date: Tue Jul 11 10:08:26 2000
From: C1A1Brown@aol.com
Subject:
Re: Question on Rashi in P' Korach


> what leads you to believe that RaShY himself held that way? I would argue
> that RaShY felt the actual rebellion, as per his reading of the posuk you
> mention below, occurred _after_ chait ham'raglim.

Obviously if we throw out the Sifsei Chachamim there is no kashe, but I'm
willing to assume that the Sifsei Chachamim saw the same Rashi on 16:14 that
we did and still chose to learn otherwise, ignoring the obvious difficulty.
How/why?

Three questions that your approach doesn't answer:

1. Rashi only quotes Midrashim that resolve a difficulty in pshuto shel mikra.
Why introduce the whole issue of Elitzaphan when it obscures the pshuto shel
mikra - namely, that Korach wanted the kehuna gedola and therefore chose
to rebel?

2. Why introduce the Mirdash of talis shel techeiles when there is no need
to do so based on pshuto shel mikra?

3. If Rashi's intent is to explain Korach's motivation, why introduce it here
only after commenting on Dasan and Aviram - Korach is mentioned earlier in
the pasuk, he was the focal point of the rebellion, and hence Rashi should
have addressed himself to Korach first?

The answers (acc. to Sifsei Chachamim's approach):

3. Since we are forced to explain that Dasan and Aviram became involved because
of there location in the camp, it indicates the rebellion was stewing much
earlier from the time the degalim were set up in P' BaMidbar. Only after
establishing that is Rashi forced to explain that although Korach's rebellion
centered on the kehuna kedola, his motivation as well was the events which
unfolded in P' BaMidbar.

1. The focus on P' baMidbar forces the intoduction of the Midrash relating
to Elitzaphan.

2. It forces the introduction of the Midrash of talis shel techelis as well
to explain why the Torah delayed recording the event till this point in time.

Rashi flows in a logical manner, introducing only that which is relevant
directly to pshuto shel mikra.

The problem is getting this to fit with the other Rashis. Mizrachi on
sirchom revi'i (which I neglected to look at till you raised it) writes that
the Rashis are based on contradictory Midrashim (which Rashi will sometimes
use depending on his pshuto shel mikra needs). Not an approach that makes
me very happy, but at this point I can't think of anything better.

-CB


Go to top.

Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2000 10:15:54 EDT
From: MIKE38CT@aol.com
Subject:
Rabbi Saul Berman's Response


Hello everyone!

This has gone through a few e-mail forwards, unsuccessfully, but I'm pleased 
to be  able to transmit Rabbi Saul Berman's response to the discussion on Kol 
Kallah.

I hope this will shed light on the subject, and people can now continue the 
discussion in a respectable way, knowing the reasoning behind Rabbi Berman's 
decision.

Michael Feldstein
Stamford, CT

Forwarded Message: 
Subj:   Fwd: Kol Kallah
Date:   7/11/2000 7:01:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time

Dear Rabbi Bechhoffer,
It would be my pleasure to have you post the communication which I sent to 
Dov Frimer upon his informing me of the discussion taking place on the Avodah 
list serve. I would also be pleased to engage in further conversation on this 
matter if people want to respond to my comments.
Regards home.
Rabbi Saul J. Berman

-----------------
Forwarded Message: 
Subj:   Kol Kallah
Date:   7/10/2000 8:57:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:   SaulBerman
To: greenj94@green.co.il

Dear Dov,
You can feel free to convey the following to the Avodah list serve or anyone 
else for their information and response. I regret that noone from the list 
serve bothered to contact me about the facts or my position before entering 
into speculation. 

There is, I believe, not significant room for debate as to the permissibility 
of a bride responding to her groom's offer of marriage with words which 
explicitly state her acceptance of his offer of marriage - such as, "Ani 
mekabelet taba'at zu, veharei ani mekudeshet lecha kedat Moshe veYisrael."

The most direct contemporary treatment of this issue can be found in Sefer 
Nissuin KeHalacha, by Rabbi Binyamin Adler, Jerusalem, 1985, second edition, 
vol.1, Ch. 7, par. 39, at pp. 223-224, where he explicitly confirms the 
permissibility of such carefully crafted accepting expression by the bride. 
More extensive treatment of the issue can be found in the Otzar HaPoskim to 
Shulchan Aruch, Even HaEzer, vol. 10, siman 27, section 40, subsection 3, at 
pp. 121-122, as cited by Rabbi Adler.

The background to the issue, in outline form, is as follows:
1. Gemara Kiddushin 5b indicates the elements utilized for valid entry into 
Kiddushin. They are:
    I.A. Natan Hu - the groom must transfer an object of value to the bride 
as visible evidence of his offer of marriage.
    I.B.  Amar Hu - the groom must verbally express his offer of marriage.
    II.A.  Kiblah Hi - the bride's acceptance of the object immediately after 
the groom's verbal declaration, constitutes her acceptance of his offer of 
marriage.
    II.B. Amrah Hi - the bride's verbal expression of acceptance of the offer 
of marriage is not necessary.

2. The Ri Hazaken to Kiddushin 5b, s.v. Amrah hi, raises the question of what 
the law is if the groom makes no verbal statement (omits I.B.), while the 
bride both accepts the object (II.A.), and makes a verbal declaration of her 
acceptance (II.B.).  His response is, that the lack of clarity as to the true 
intent of the groom could reduce the kiddushin to Safek. However, he notes, 
if the groom had just previously been talking to the bride about marriage, so 
that the context could reveal his true intent, then the Kiddushin would be 
completely valid. The fact, he says, that the bride adds a verbal declaration 
which is unnecessary, does not interfere with the validity of the marriage - 
"ain hezek bazeh."
This position is explicitly affirmed by Rabbenu Asher in Rosh to Kiddushin 
Ch.1, sec. 2.
Their position is further explicitly approved by Meiri to Kiddushin 5b. He 
notes the dissent of Tosafot Rid (in Kiddushin 6a, s.v. Li) in regard to the 
situation when the groom is silent (omits I.B.), maintaining that the intent 
of the groom cannot be inferred by the context. Meiri sharply disagrees with 
Tosafot Rid - "ein zeh klum" he says! But even Tosafot Rid does not disagree 
with all of the others about the validity of the Kiddushin when the groom had 
verbally expressed his intent (I.B.), and the bride then adds her verbal 
acceptance (II.B.) to her behavioral acceptance (II.A.)

3. This understanding of the inoffensiveness, and therefore permissibility, 
of the bride's making a verbal indication of her acceptance of the offer of 
marriage (II.B.), in conjunction with her physical acceptance of the object 
offered by the groom (II.A.) - done when the groom has done both the offer of 
the object (I.A.), and his accompanying  verbal declaration (I.B.) - has 
recieved universal approbation.

4. I cannot explain the history of brides' silence in the face of this 
universal recognition of permissibility. It may be that there was recognition 
that subtle differences in language could create serious Halachik problems. 
For example, were the bride to say "Harei ata mekudash li", thereby verbally 
not accepting the groom's offer of marriage but making a counteroffer of her 
own, there would certainly be an invalidation of the Kiddushin. I can also 
understand how Rabbis, cognizant of the common practise of bridal silence, 
might express some reluctance to change simply in recognition of the history. 
However, such reluctance has no sound Halachik foundation.

If you have any questions or suggestions concerning this issue, I would be 
more than happy to hear from you.

Best Regards,

Rabbi Saul J. Berman


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 >