Avodah Mailing List

Volume 17 : Number 101

Tuesday, August 1 2006

< Previous Next >
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 17:18:11 -0400
From: "Shmuel Weidberg" <ezrawax@gmail.com>
Re: nashim da'tan kalos

On 7/27/06, Elazar M. Teitz <remt@juno.com> wrote:
>> It seems to me that p'shat is that an isha is gomar umakneh nafshoh when
>> it is clear to her that there are solid witnesses who are watching. And
>> therefore it is the fact that two witnesses are such solid evidence of
>> something happening that gives their presence so much meaning and it is
>> not separable from the fact that they are solid witnesses.

> Then why are they necessary when she appoints a shaliach to be m'kabeil
> kiddushin, and isn't even present when the kiddushin is accepted?
> And why is the presence of eidim necessary at a get, which can done
> against her will? And if it's for her to be gomeir umaknah nafshah,
> why is it that the ba'al can be m'yacheid eidim, and not the woman?

I wasn't accurate when I said that she is gomer umakneh nafshoh. I meant
that it is a proof that the parties who are participating are being
truly serious about what they are doing. That's why the eidim have to
be present when she says she wants them to accept the kiddushin on her
behalf. By a get her will is not at all necessary besides for the cherem
deRabbenu Gershom, so we don't care if she is serious or not.

> It is accepted that eidim, whether for kiddushin or for gittin, are
> not eidei raiyah, who serve as proof that the act took place. For proof
> purposes, even if the ba'al appointed specific witnesses to the exclusion
> of all others, any kosher witnesses who were there can _testify_ that
> the kiddushin took place.

They can testify to the actions, but not to the thoughts of the
parties. If they were to say we were just joking when we did what we did,
the Eidim wouldn't be able to contradict them.

> The purpose of the eidei kiddushin is kiyum
> hadavar; that is, the Torah defined an act of, e.g., kiddushei kesef not
> merely as the willing giving of something worth a p'ruta by a man to a
> woman for the sake of kiddushin and its willing acceptance by the woman,
> but rather the doing of same in the presence of two kosher witnesses.
> Their presence is what makes the act a kiddushin or a geirushin.

Where does it say in the Torah that two witnesses are required? It
doesn't. The chachamim are the ones who tell us that it is so. I want to
say that the way the kiyum hadavar works is that it is a kiyum when there
is no chance that they were simply playing around. And theoretically it
should be possible to have kiddushin in some other way as well.

Although there is a case brought in the Igros Moshe where there was a
marriage booth at some Jewish carnival and people were marrying each
other by giving rings and saying Harei at.. and there were friends there
who saw what was happening.


Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 15:08:56 -0400
From: "Zvi Lampel" <hlampel@thejnet.com>
Re: Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin

Wed, 26 Jul 2006 from: kennethgmiller@juno.com"" <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
> R' Zvi Lampel wrote:
>> Eid Echad Ne'eman B'Issurin applies even to a
>> frum restaurant owner-operator testifying about
>> the restaurant. The fact it is his parnassa
>> does not ruin the ne'emonus.

> The Aruch Hashulchan disagrees, and says that though he has neemanus
> regarding what he personally eats in his home, he does *not* have neemanus
> for what he sells in his store. (Hmmm, I remember clearly that the AH held
> this way for fleishigs, I don't remember if he spoke about non-fleishigs.)

Hmmm. So then we're back to what I originally suggested, that there's
more to the issue of the butcher than whether to use scientific devices
to determine the metsius.--a drawback in his ne'emanus.

I thought I was wrong, but perhaps I was mistaken. 

I'll have to forward this info to my local kashrus supervusor..

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 23:27:55 +0300
From: "Moshe Feldman" <moshe.feldman@gmail.com>
Re: Wheat Tortilla Bread (was: malawach)

R. David Eisen wrote from the Lebanese front regarding R. Shlomo Levi's
Kuntrus Birchat HaPas:
> Does he discuss in there the berakha for wheat tortillas
> (I assume corn tortillas would be a different berakha, depending on the
> quantity of wheat in the flour)? My guess is that it would be a mezonot
> as the dough is a blila raka; that said, I wonder if one eats it as part
> of a well packed wrap, which have become extremely popular in Israeli
> cafes in recent years, if it would then require a hamotzi as one will
> be considered to be qovea seuda on it.

He doesn't mention tortillas in the table of contents-not surprising as
he wrote the kuntrus in 5749, when wraps weren't that popular.

He does discuss the gemara's case of tarisa, which involved spilling
a blila raka on a pan, and the result did not have a tzuras ha'pas.
According to the Bais Yosef, if people are not normally koveah seudah on
tarisa, then the bracha is mezonos, while the Magen Avraham holds that
one makes a hamotzi if one is koveah seudah. It's possible that most
people are koveah on today's wraps, so their bracha would be hamotzi
even according to the Bais Yosef.

Kol tuv,

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 13:54:11 -0500
From: "Kohn, Shalom" <skohn@Sidley.com>
Recorded music

R. Shmuel Svarc wrote:
>As one of the Lakewood poskim told me, "If you want to use a suppository
> that will give you nutrition on Yom Kippur, fine. The Torah assered
> achila, not its result and that isn't achila. The prohibition of listening
> to music in the Three Weeks is because of its result; therefore these
> types of music which lead to that result are prohibited as well.

This analysis is generally correct, because aveilus is a question of
attitude (although there are classic aspects of aveilus prohibitions
which need to be enforced despite a subjective feeling that they might
be unrelated to mourning). However, as applied to the three weeks/nine
days, the requisite "result" is not the absence of music, but the absence
of the joy and celebratory atmosphere that exposure to music historically
entailed. That applied to parties, and -- perhaps stretching the point --
even concerts (at least of certain kind of music), but in today's society,
it seems far-fetched that this air of joy and celebration could be said
to attend any type of recorded music outside a party setting (like a DJ
at a bar mitzvah), especially when not accompanied by dancing. From this
vantage point, the distinction drawn between instrumental and a capella
music is itself tenuous, and leads to the pulled-up-by-the-bootstraps
chumra that a tape recording is an instrument so recorded a capella
music is therefore instrumental and prohibited. Defining the "issur"
in terms of music, rather than joy, entirely misses the point.

That being said, there is a certainly a basis for urging the deprivation
of certain pleasures/diversions in order to emphasize the sadness of this
period -- le'havdil, like giving up something for Lent -- but that it
a more subtle and thoughtful approach than simply pronouncing an issur.
I also think that promulgating fixed and universally applicable "rules"
as to the "correct" practices on this subject is halachic legislation
without basis, and an approach that undermines the individual, personal
and necessarily nuanced attitude which will make the recognition of the
mourning period more meaningful.

May we see the geulah soon.
                           Shalom L. Kohn

Go to top.

Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2006 21:36:07 -0500
From: "CBK" <fallingstar613@hotmail.com>

> For a taqanah we NEVER go based on our understanding of the intent,
> only the intent if codified. If no reason is included in codification,
> we must treat it "as a choq".

The GRA and talmidei Ari"zal taught that even when a reason is given
for a takanah, and that reason is no longer applicable, it should
still be observed because the reasons given in the Gemara are only
the chitzonius of the takanah and have much deeper reasons that are
still applicable according to sod.

Unless I am misunderstanding your use of the term takanah as being
opposed to gezeiros and other dinei d'rabbanon.


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 >