Avodah Mailing List

Volume 08 : Number 110

Monday, February 11 2002

• Re: Rav S F Mendelowitz z'l & Cholov Akum
• Halachic methodology and chalav hakompanies
• RE: Avodah V8 #108
• Re: CY/ChC
• Misquoting (was: CY/ChC)
• Nevi'im & Ketuvim: A New Tool for Bekiut
• Re: Isha Psulah Ladun
• Re: Isha psulah ladun
• Re: Segulos
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• ktav ashurit
• Re: Kesav Ashuris
• Re: evidence
• Halachic permissibility of viewing movies
• Re: Puppy Love
• kesuvah
• Two kesubos
• calendar

In a message dated 1/30/02 1:55:54am EST, sba@iprimus.com.au writes:
> From sefer Maasei Rav - Minhogei Hagro [os 97]: "...Hu hoyo omer, kol mah
> sh'osru Chazal...mipnei eizeh taam, af shebotol hataam hagoluy lonu,
> tekanton v'isurom bemekomom omedes..."

> We seem to have quite start studded list of names who have this kabolo -
> the Gr'o, Boruch Taam, Divrei Chaim, Oruch Hashulchon and RSFM...

It seems to be the case here re: CA no doubt.
But Tosafos and Rema are Meikel in other places 
What's the chiluk?
And it is arguable that the AhS himself is not consistently opposed to
"obsoleting" gzeiros. He is after all meyashev many minhaggim including
being meikel on Sukkah on Shmini Atzeres.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

In a message dated 2/4/02 11:22:27am EST, afolger@ymail.yu.edu writes:
> Furthermore, RRW, I think that nispashet doesn't apply to the question
> of minhag Ashkenaz; it applies only for the period when the gezeirah is
> new, such as the period during which 'Hazal realized that the gezeirah
> of shemen shel nokhrim was not accepted. However, once a valid gezeirah,
> always a valid gezeirah. That said, as we noticed in the discussion of
> reading by wax candle light, a gezeirah has a limited scope, and if we
> can establish that a particular happenstance is not within that limited
> scope, then the gezeirah is not applicable.

I am getting the sources togehter:
See Beitza 30a: Tosafos DH Tnan ein metphcin
Tur Orach Chaim 339, and especially BY there DH v'lo metapchin
SA 339:2, Rema (2 lshonos)
MB 339:7,8
IM Orach Chaim(2) #100 re: dancing and clapping on Shabbos

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

The issue is really time vs. location.
What many are saying is times change so the Gzeira does not apply. 
What I am saying is diffefrent
You can PRESUME that a Talmudic Gzeira is binding
UNLESS
You get a protest (mach'ah) saying it does no take hold here and now
MY Presumption is - because it NEVER took hold HERE and therefore it is
not taking hold NOW

Nearly this entire list and RMF deal with the Gzeira having already
taken hold at one time and finding {IMHO} really dochack constructs to
evade or avoid the issue of repealing a Gzeira that has taken hold.

{NB: I hate to invoke Occum's Razor so I will not} neverthless in
every case where the minhag amongst the Observant has been to ignore a
Talmudic Gzeira you either come up with
A) Ad hoc dochack constructs and adventures in hair splits
Or
B) a General Rule which is really neat, clean, simple and quite
baalebatish
and  explains {at least} 
1) Mayyim Acharonim
2) Metapchin and Merakdim
3) Chalav Akum {nidan didan}

and that is the Gzeira was not nispashet

That is of course a Descriptive idea NOT Prescriptive and in no way
offers a carte balnce to repeal Gzeiros perceived by some as obsolete IOW
it would NOT provide a heter for doing away with shchikas Sammmanim. In
Nearlyy every OTHER version Shikas Sammemanim SHOULD be obsolete by your
very own svaros. {So should YTsG, for that matter.}

But we see that no posek like Tosafos, Rema or RMF protested this one
That lack of mahcha'a is tanatamount to conceding a hispashtus.

The loophole of mutav shyihyu Shoggegin is one "fly in the ointment"
that is not so easily dealt with.

If you don't like my method, fine. Then take your arguments as is,
and apply them to shchikas Sammamanim (for example) and ask how you can
prevent Rabbanim from extending this technique to this case, too.

My answer is REAL SIMPLE
In any case where a Talmudic Gzeira was ignored in W. Europe Tsofaos
told us so . Implicitly he either felt it was obsolete {too politically
incorrect for many in this group to buy --smile--}, it somehow fit in
Iraq but not in France, or it is really simple. Not every Gzeira had
hipsahstus.

Remember, according to many, once a Gzeira IS nispahset it is TOO LATE
to turn back

Either Tosafos argues on this premise
OR
He is sipmly duly noting for the historical record the facts on the
ground as they are IOW it failed to be nispashet there.

IMHO RMF was doing so for CA, too albeit- like Tosfos often does -
RMFqualifies his limud zchus with a limiting ratoinale. IOW neither
Tosafos nor RMF use this principle without accompanying it with some
svara, too. But if Svara alone were sufficient enough - then why not
obsoslete Shchikas Sammamin?

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

The converse can be deduce mildly by Rif/Rambam/SA {The Sephardic school}.
You will vritually NEVER see them using current local Minhag to modify
or repeal a Talmudic Cosntruct. The fact that Tosafos makes it a POINT
to mention the Minhag is itself almost alien to Rif/Rambam - at least
as fara as I can tell.

See Arvei psachim (105b) re: Birchas hamazon Teuna kos Then see The Rmbam
Hichos Brachos {ch. & IIRC} and the Kessef Mishan there who deduce from
the Rif how another sugya makes kos optoinal. But Tsofaos makes a note:
"the entire world is not noheig to bench on a kos"

So who cares what the world DOES? After all we are talking about what
the Halachah IS now how the world behaves?

But that is the point. Whereas Rif/Rabmam/Kessef Mishnah would find it
strange to make a Halachic point using Minhag - Tosafos does not find it
strange at all. Aderabbah, Tosafos finds it strange that the Minhag does
not follow the psaht of the text. So he deals with it as best as he can.

{Again mutav shyihyu shoggegin can comlicate this issue, but I will
defer that one a bit}

I have no doubt that RMF did NOT cite "lo nispahset" re: CA, while re:
Metpchin RMF he DOES cite lo nispashet but uses a slightly different
spin on
how to deal with it, one that is
A) far more creative 
B) difficult to understand 
C) a more volatile precedent
and
D) is IMHO not necessary.

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

As I present it, Lo Nispashet is a post facto justification. That means
any gzeira not ALEADY compromised may not be compromised. This is good
news for those who rely upon Tradition/masorah/Precedent

As others present their ratoinales, you use Lamdus to Defacto Defaeat or
to nullify the Gzeira. Tell me which gzeira is NOT subject to finding
a good chiluk between the original and the way the facts are today?!
So there is no way to stop a good svara from undoing a Gzeira except the
discretion of the poseik. This makes the matter subjective to the eyes
of the poseik.

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

From: kennethgmiller@juno.com
<<<I'm not so surprised.
What should we expect from a system that allows people to quote one
posek's halacha in the name of a different posek, in order to insure
that the audience will accept that p'sak as binding?>>

Huh? Please elaborate.

Someone (I forgot who) commented that Areivim-Avodah has received several
contradictory reports about various members of Rav Moshe Feinstein's
family, and whether or not those genuinely chashuv relatives drink
Chalav haCompanies.

I remarked about that, <<< I'm not so surprised. What should we expect
from a system that allows people to quote one posek's halacha in the
name of a different posek, in order to insure that the audience will
accept that p'sak as binding? >>>

R' Chaim Markowitz asked me to explain what I meant. My point was that
(as I understand it, and has been cited before in Areivim-Avodah) halacha
DOES allow a person to deliberately misquote a well-known posek in order
to induce the audience to follow the proper halacha, despite the fact
that the quoted posek actually did NOT give the quoted p'sak.

It seems to me that while the goal is noble, the means to that end is
not. It is a distortion of Torah, and that sits very poorly by me. It
ranks up there with the deliberate mistranslations of the Targum
Shiv'im. Which is to say that I am not quibbling with the halacha;
I accept the halacha which says that under certain circumstances, the
ends DO justify the means, and we DO have to distort Torah into something
which it is not.

Again, I do accept the halacha which allows this. But we have to realize
that there is a price to be paid, and that is that whenever a person
quotes a certain source, we have to take it with a grain of salt. Perhaps
the source is someone other than the one being quoted.

In our case, I am saying that SOME of the people who claim that a certain
gadol did (OR DID NOT) drink Chalav haCompanies, MAY have either made
up the story in order to induce us to accept his view. Alternatively,
he may be sincerely quoting someone ELSE who made up the story in order
to induce us to accept his view. Who knows?

One or two posts may have skipped my notice, but I got the impression that
none of the listmembers personally saw any of Rav Moshe's descendants
actually drinking ChC with their own eyes; rather they quoted someone
else. Similarly from the other direction: I don't think anyone personally
heard any of those descendants speaking about their own practices and
when they might or might not relax them.

So I still stand by what I originally wrote: In an issue such as this,
where Rav Moshe's writings were somewhat ambiguous, and where the issue
is emotionally charged in some quarters, I am not surprised that we have
recieved contradictory reports of how his descendants act. I beleive
that it is POSSIBLE that at least SOME of these reports (though I have NO
idea which) ORIGINATE with well-meaning people, who are acting IN ACCORD
WITH HALACHA to convince us to follow the opinion which they believe to
be the correct one.

Akiva Miller

I had referred to a halacha which allows a person to deliberately misquote
a well-known posek in order to induce the audience to follow the proper
halacha, despite the fact that the quoted posek actually did NOT give
the quoted p'sak.

R' Chaim Markowitz asked for the source for this. I did find some sources,
but I must admit that it is in the Nos'ei Kelim, and is probably not as
well known as I had presumed. For all I know, there might even be poskim
who argue against the sources which I will now bring.

My primary source is Rav Aryeh Kaplan's "Handbook of Jewish Thought",
12:53, where he writes <<< When a rabbi is positive of his conclusions,
... he may even, if the situation warrants, ascribe the decision to
a great sage so that it will be generally accepted. Where it is not
absolutely necessary, however, this is forbidden. >>>

Rav Kaplan brings several sources for this, including "Magen Avraham
156:2; from Eruvin 51a; Pesachim 112a" and "Birkey Yosef, Yoreh Deah
242:24, quoting Teshuvoth HaGeonim 324." That M"A is a very long one;
if anyone wants to look at it, in my edition, it is on daf 103b, first
column, about 1/3 to 1/2 of the way down. If anyone wants to supply
additional references or comments, great.

Akiva Miller

I recently finished a project that I have mentioned on this list in
the past, namely: creating a modest tool designed to make it a little
bit easier for individuals to do something very basic - to pick up a
plain Tanakh in order to read and review books in Nevi'im and Ketuvim.
It is a sort of "Nakh Yomi" system, but a very flexible one, because it
is based on month-units: each Rosh Hodesh you decide anew which sefer
to read or review. (It is most emphatically not "perek yomi", for it
is not based on the chapter divisions at all, but rather on natural
divisions in the text.)

Each individual guide sheet for a book of Nakh is designed to give a
sort of textual "snapshot" of the structure and contents of the book
as a whole, from large sections to very small ones, and at the very
same time to divide the book into daily units of reasonable length.
These units begin and end at points where they interrupt the flow of
the text as little as possible.

The basic idea is to choose which sefer to read, print out the guide
sheet, fold it in half (or in quarters), and keep it in your Tanakh for
guidance as you make progress throughout the month. The idea itself
is quite simple, but it took a great deal of tedious work to actually
implement it. It was worth it in the end, though: the practical result
for me, personally, was that it allowed me to read and review each
book in Nakh a minimum of three times each over the past four years,
something I was never able to do before (not even once).

Since the sheets are now all finished, I want to make them available
to anyone else who might find them useful. Shalom Berger has
kindly agreed to "host" them on LookJed's website in Adobe format,
along with some explanatory material. The material can be found at
<http://www.lookstein.org/tanakh/guide.pdf>.

While I am aware that they are not appropriate for everyone, I do hope
these guide-sheets can help certain people master the basics in Torah
she-Bikhtav more easily. I would be glad to receive feedback on them,
including (especially) technical comments on how the titles and division
of the text can be improved. (As they stand, these pages should still
be considered drafts, with lots of rough spots that still need to be
smoothed out.)

I hope they can supplement the recent plans at AishDas for bekiut
learning, including Nakh.

Bivrakha,
Seth (Avi) Kadish

In a message dated 2/5/02 3:52:33pm EST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> In any case, it's clear from the rishonim (and not "only" Tosafos) that
> the notion of a shofetes poses a halachic problem that needs addressing.
> It's not a usable precedent.

See the AhS re: using Michal as a precdent for women wearing Tefillin...
IIRC Orach Chaim Siman 37

AhS presumption: exceptions MAY be made for exceptional women

Im kein the fact that Devorah was a Nvi'ah would indicate that she was
bechezkas "exceptional"....

Regards and Kol Tuv,
RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com

Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>:> The Rashba on Shevu'os (pereq 4) writes "delo shofetes mamash, elah
>:> minaheges keshofetim shashafetu es Yisrael".
>
>: What do any of these sources say to the Targum's translation of "shofetet"
>: as "dayna", contra the translation of "shofet" as "negid" in Perek 2?
>: You still haven't answered this...

>The burden isn't on me, but on the Rashba -- who explicitly says
>otherwise from the Targum. I therefore assumed some answer existed
>without bothering to find one. (Yet.)

Again, I don't understand the problem, so maybe I have missed something.
We know that a person who is posel to be a dayan (eg a karov) can be
a dayan if both parties accept that person (mishna, Sanhedrin 24a) -
it is one of the bases that a modern day dayan (who of course does not
have smicha) is able to judge. Is a modern day dayan not a "dayan"?

I also don't quite understand how we got from dayanus to rabbanus.
They are distinct titles even today (Yoreh Yoreh vrs Yadin Yadin)?
If anything, one of Tosphos' explanations for Devorah is that she did
not function as a dayan but as a rav (she taught, rather than judged).

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

Micha Berger wrote:
> Why should there be a metaphysical causality beyond din or
> "gam zu litova"? Why would HQBH create these rules by which hatavah or
> pain can reach someone by changing something that doesn't change his
> tzidqus?

See Ramban on Deut. 18:9, Guide [not that he'd agree with the Ramban]
I:73, discussion of the sixth proposition.

David Riceman

Seth Mandel wrote:
>The Rambam in his t'shuvos, however, has a different spin: noting that 
>everything from the time of the Bayis Rishon is written in k'sav 'Ivri, he 
>says that K'sav Asshuri was used, but only for Sifrei Torah, T'fillin, 
>Mezuzos, etc.

This sounds like the shitah of R' Elazar HaModai in Sanhedrin 22a.
According to Rebbe and Mar Zutra, the kesav for holy objects was changed
to Kesav Ivri and then, in Ezra's day, change back to Kesav Ashuris.
R' Elazar HaModai holds that the kesav was never changed. But does
he disagree with the broad historical assertions of Rebbe and Mar
Zutra that the standard script for daily use in Israel was Kesav Ivri?
In order to minimize the machlokes, and avoid a machlokes on a very
general (and possibly provable - see Yishayahu 8:1) metzius issue, we
would say that REHM holds that stam was always written in Kesav Ashuris.
However, the daily script for Israel was Kesav Ivri and Ezra changed it
to Kesav Ashuris.

Where is this teshuvah of the Rambam?

Gil Student

Seth writes <<His opinion is brought by the SA, that K'sav Asshuri should
be reserved for STaM, which would aser most secular books and newspapers
and even s'forim. >>

The question is what constitutes Ktav Ashurit today. R. Chaim Davis
HaLevi held that one cannot read an Israeli newspaper in the bathroom
since it is ktav ashurit. I doubt if this psak is generally followed.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 2/8/2002

I dunno, maybe it was one of his "unclear" moments, but when RSM wrote
>There is no evidence that anyone in EY used it before shivas Tziyon

I'm sure he meant "it" as referring to the term "ketav ashuris" and not
the actual script. His seifa might have also confused some ppl into
thinking that it contradicted the reisha of his remarks. Namely, his
reference to the inscription in Aramaic of Uzziyahu's "tomb" . Clearly,
Uzzihayu was in EY *before* shivat Tsiyon and yet the inscription is
in ketav Ashurit. Ah, but as he well knows, that inscription is from a
time *later* than Uzziyahu himself. His tomb was moved there (wherever
"there' was) many yaers after his death. Which means, of course, that
the inscription cannot be used as proof of use of Ashurit for pre-shivat
Tsiyon times.(I do not mean that RSM implied that, only that some may
have come away from his remarks thinking that). That, in the manner
of clarification.

And now, in manner of correction and reference: My teacher and RSM's
near neighbor, Dr Richard Steiner, has shown [Orientalia 62, 2 (1993):
80-82] that the Hebrew term "ketav Ashurit" was derived indirectly from
the Demotic. It was used by the Egyptians probably bec of the political
fact that Aram was part of the Assyrian empire in the 7th cen BCE and
therefore when they referred to the script they knew they referrerd to it
by the name of the larger political entity. This is very differnt than
RSM's, as well as Jonas Greenfield's (did one T Lambdin have a similar
opinion?), explanation according to which it was called ketav Ashurit
as a result of the era during which the Aramaic language (and script)
became the lingua franca.
 
Yisrael Dubitsky

In v8n106, Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com> replies to my reply to
his post:
::> This is an investigation of a metzius....
:: Which is a pretty good definition of evidence, no?

: My understanding of evidence as used in this discussion is some type of
: proof which establishes fact, beyond re'iah.

As I clarified in private email, RGD is making a chiluq between direct
observation of a fact, and observing something that indirectly proves that
fact.

This raises a shiur-like question: Where do you draw the line between
the fact and things that imply it?

Earlier I mentioned chazal's test for besulim. Is that re'iyah that she
still has her besulim, or only evidence for it?

To go a shade closer: What about shenei sa'aros -- are they the metzi'us
of being a gadol, or evidence of it?

A shade further: Is DNA part of the metzi'us of parentage, or evidence
of parentage?

RGD cited the following from a tape by R' Reisman along with his
clarification, that I assume he'd allow me to share with the list:
> The question was why Yehoyada Kohen Gadol was believed that Yehoash
> was in fact the king mizerah hamelucha. One of the answers given by
> the meforshim was thatthe crown would only fit someone who was mizerah
> hamelucha. One word occurred to me: evidence!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
Fax: (413) 403-9905             - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

[A comment on a topic raised on Areivim. -mi]

From: Yitzchok Willroth [mailto:willroth@voicenet.com] on Areivim:
>>     a) There are plenty of movies without any nudity
>>             or bedroom scenes. They are mostly children
>>             movies or afternoon movies.  As to the dress --
>>             you'll see the same walking down the street.

> Interesting heter - can you point to it's source in halacha?

And, in a different email:
>> Regarding those that do have inappropriate content, if you've ever taken a
>> subway in NY, then you often knowingly have to walk by a newsstand with
>> inappropriate content displayed in full view. So what do you do? Do you
>> NEVER take the subway? No, instead, you go on by the newsstand trying
>> not to look at it.

> If there's a derech achrita, you take it. Perhaps there's a derech
> achrita for purposes of entertainment... If there isn't, you take the
> subway, providing, of course, that you have a valid reason - point to
> the source in halacha that entertainment is such a valid reason.

A halachic argument to permit viewing movies which depict women dressed as
they would be dressed walking down the street (with judicious use of the
FF button to avoid anything arousing) can be made based on Bava Basra 57b
and Igros Moshe EH 1:56 (towards the end, paragraph beginning "u'gedola
mi'zeh"). The gemara says that one shouldn't walk by washerwomen (who
are not covered properly) if there is a derech achrita, but otherwise
one may. The way Rav Moshe explains it is that if there is a tzorech
("l'farnesa'so, v'la'avodaso u'lshaar tzerachav") one may go there, but
one may not go there simply for a leisurely walk ("l'tayel"), where by
definitely there is no tzorech. Rav Elinson in Hatzne'a Lechet explains
that l'tzorech means any reasonable need, not a great need. Impliedly,
one may take the subway to go bowling, even though one can easily
substitute bicycle riding for bowling. The "derech achrita" refers
not to a different way to fulfill one's need, but a different road to
take to fulfill a specific need. If there is a different road to take
but you deliberately take the road which passes by less-than-optimally
clothed women, then you are a rasha because you are deliberately--for no
reason--bringing yourself into a situation where you might be m'har'her.
But if there is no other road, and your purpose is to fulfill your need
rather than ogle the women, then you are permitted to rely on yourself
to avoid being m'har'her.

A second halachic argument to permit viewing such movies is based on
the principle of habituation, described at length by Rabbi YH Henkin.
As a result of the fact that we have become habituated to the sight
of nonreligious women wearing fashionable (not prutzusdik) clothes,
we do not need to avoid seeing them because we are not likely to have
hirhurim seeing them.

Rabbi Y. H. Henkin wrote in his Tradition article
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n072.shtml#01 <<To prevent any
mistake, it is important to be absolutely clear about which activities
are subject to the mitigating effects of inurement and which are
not. Habituation is an argument for permitting activities which are
innocent in and by themselves, such as those mentioned by the Maharshal:
speaking with women and looking at women's faces, and many everyday social
and commercial activities which involve intermingling of the sexes. It is
not an argument for permitting activities that have explicit or implicit
sexual content, in which case hirhur is inevitable. Mixed swimming,
especially by the scantily clad, is one example. >>

<<Besides Tosafot, another use by a rishon of the principle of habituation
is apparently found in the 15th century Leket Yosher, in the name of
his teacher, the Trumat HaDeshen:

<<He said that it is permitted to walk behind of the wife of a chaver
or behind his mother, because nowadays we are not all that prohibited
(ein anu muzharin kal kach) from walking behind a woman.

<<Walking behind a woman is proscribed by the Talmud in Berachot 61a,
and what is the meaning of "nowadays we are not all that prohibited"? It
means that although the Talmud forbade men from walking behind a woman
lest it cause hirhur, nowadays women go everywhere and we are used to
walking in back of them and so no hirhur results.>>

<<In recent times, the principle of habituation has been employed by
the Aruch HaShulchan, R. Yechiel Michel Epstein. One of the things that
prevent a man from reciting the Shema is viewing the uncovered hair of
a married woman. Nevertheless, the Aruch haShulchan (Orach Chayim 75:7)
writes:

<<For many years Jewish women have been flagrant in this sin and go
bareheaded...married women go about with [uncovered] hair like girls
-- woe to us that this has occurred in our day. Nonetheless, by law it
would appear that we are allowed to pray and say blessings facing their
uncovered heads, since the majority go about this way and it has become
like [normally] uncovered parts of her body, as the Mordechai wrote in
the name of Ravyah, "all the things we have mentioned as being ervah
[are] only in what is normally covered" .... >>

Rabbi Henkin further wrote in
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n072.shtml#02 (in his letter to
Tradition in reply to Rabbi Emanuel Feldman):
<<the threshold needed to evoke hirhur is higher. For example, where
women walk around in halter-tops or less, a short-sleeved blouse is
hardly provocative, ...>>

Kol tuv,
Moshe

In a message dated 2/6/02 7:59:37pm EST, gil_student@hotmail.com writes:
> Bava Basra 8a has R' Yonasan ben Amram asking Rebbe to feed him like a
> dog or raven.

These 2 have much in common, Nosein Livheimah (Kelev is Gematriyah of
Bheima, Tos.)... Livnei Orev, Shimshu Bteiva, (interesting that in Soteh
3a Mlafifosoi Kikelev since his punishment was Nikshar), I am sure that
in the Michlol (RGD's low tech CDROM ;-)) many more Mamorei Chazal can be
found, to end up with some sort of positive note the sign that Moshiach
is at hand is when Pnei Hador Kipnei Hakelev, perhaps some connection to
Yetzias Mitzrayim (for which they got their reward in our weekly Parsha)
for Loi Yechratz, and see Maharsha Brochocs 3a WRT Klovim Tzoakim.

Gut Shabbos, v'Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

R E. Teitz writes <<In general, there is a trend to make a k'subah
into something it isn't. Specifically: (1) the framing and hanging of
the k'subah in the marital home, as though it were some form of hiddur
mitzvah, when in fact it is a business document which should be under
the wife's exclusive control;>>

Illuminated ketuvot have existed for hundreds of years and appear in
numerous museums because of their beauty. One hangs a ketuva on the wall
of his home because it is pretty document. I have never seen a standard
ketuva bought from a store hung on a wall.

It is obvious that for many years the ketuva was considered a special
document and lavished with expensive drawings and not viewed as merely
a business document.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 2/8/2002

In message , Elazar M Teitz <remt@juno.com> writes
>Rather than one k'subah and one invalid contract, Mrs. Berger has two
>valid k'subos, in one of which her name is misspelled. I daresay that
>this does not cause any consternation for RMB.

Why aren't we worried that she may use both to claim (in separate beitei
din) despite RMB having only intended for her to have one kesuba -
thus operating to defraud the yorshim?

Regards
Chana
-- 
Chana Luntz

<<Which was by Hillel II -- not coincidentally the av beis din who
disbanded / presided over the self-disbanding Sanhedrin (in 358ce).
He made the calendar because it was the end of the mosad that could be
meqadeish the chodesh.

BTW, I think this case is a good argument for "hidden 2nd reason". If
not for Y"T shein shel galiyos, we wouldn't discuss the inferior nature
of our current calendar nearly as often.>>

Though these facts are generally accepted in fact it appears no where
in the Gemara and many rishonim seem to unaware of the details.

One thing that has always bothered me. If the establishment of the
calendar was such a momentous event how come it is never mentioned in
the gemara. The gemara in beitzah is very vague and certainly does not
mention Hillel II, a Sanhedrin or any such idea.

In fact it is not that clear that the establishment of the calendar
(which took place slowly over the centuries) Is that tied to the loss
of the semicha and the loss of the sanhedrin.

-- 
Eli Turkel, turkel@colorado.edu on 2/8/2002

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


[ 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         ]