Jonathan Dickson | 30 Jun 17:23

validity of ketubahs if .....

I think the comments regarding "signing" the ketuba are a bit of a red herring. The chatan accepts the obligations of the ketuba when he makes a kinyan on it, and then hands it to his kalla, bifnei eidim. I suspect (but no source for this) that the only point of having eidim sign the ketuba is so they can be traced later if necessary.
 
After all, if I make a verbal commitment to you in front of eidim, no written document is necessary to enforce that commitment (under either English or Jewish law) - you would just bring those eidim to court/bet din and their testimony would be enough to establish my obligation.
 
Regards

Jonny
 
Save paper...think before you print.

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP

The Sunday Times Best Companies to Work For 2009

Adelaide House, London Bridge, London EC4R 9HA, UK
DX 92 London/Chancery Lane
t: +44 (0)20 7760 1000 f: +44 (0)20 7760 1111 w: www.blplaw.com

Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC315919) and is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. A list of members of Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP and of the non-members, who are designated as partners, is open to inspection at the above registered office. The term partner is used to refer to a member of Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications. The members are either solicitors or registered foreign lawyers. VAT registration number: GB 243 2449 76.

This email and the information it contains are confidential and may be privileged, if you have received this email in error please notify us immediately. You should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person.
Internet communications are not secure and therefore Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP does not accept legal responsibility for the contents of this message as it has been transmitted over a public network. If you suspect the message may have been intercepted or amended, please call the sender.

This email has been checked for potential computer viruses using Messagelabs technology.

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
Michael Makovi | 30 Jun 02:10

R' Soloveitchik on religious turmoil, pesak halakhah

>From "Orthodox Judaism Moves with the Times: The Creativity of
Tradition", by R' Emanuel Rackman, Commentary June 1952

Some quotes I found very powerful, mostly regarding Rabbi Soloveitchik:

(1)
	Soloveitchik regards as altogether too simple the popular notion of
religious experience as one preeminently pleasing and soothing-a
stream of delight and relaxation and an asylum from the frustrations
of life. This conception of religion Rabbi Soloveichik deems a fraud,
the result of a surrender on the part of religious thinkers to the
desire of the mass of men to lose themselves in states of bliss. It
also echoes Rousseau in his flight from reason, and much subsequent
romanticist thought. Religion's invitation has been misinterpreted to
say: "If thou cravest peace, if thou cravest integration, make the
leap of faith." In the flight from reason and the rejection of
objective truth, Rabbi Soloveichik sees the cause of the moral
deterioration of contemporary man. He would prefer to see religion
wedded to a cold objectivity and rationality, even though faith and
reason may at times appear to conflict with one another, rather than
derive religion from man's instinctual longings.

	Also, he asserts, the highest form of religious experience comes from
constant turmoil and from the experiencing of life's irreconcilable
antitheses-from the simultaneous affirmation and abnegation of the
self, the simultaneous awareness of the temporal and the eternal, the
simultaneous clash of freedom and necessity, the simultaneous love and
fear of God, his simultaneous transcendence and immanence. True, with
the departure of Sabbath's peace, Jews may sing, 'The Lord is my
Shepherd, I shall not want. He maketh me to lie down in green
pastures." But the road to the green pastures is a narrow and winding
one, along a steep cliff, with a bottomless pit below. It is the other
words of the Psalmist-"From the deep I called unto Thee, O Lord"-that
describe the most authentic religious experience, and the deep is a
deep of antinomies, doubts, and spiritual travail.In A sense, it can
be said that Rabbi Soloveichik is trying to fuse the emotional
intensity of existentialism with the hard logic of rationalism.

(2)
	Yet in traditional Jewish style, his philosophy is derived from, and
applied to, the Halachah of Judaism. He is not content with the way in
which Jewish scholars have heretofore examined the sources: to
reconcile conflicting authorities and to arrive at the correct rule of
Law is only one phase of Jewish jurisprudence. Soloveichik finds the
essential antinomies of religious reality also incarnated in Halachic
matter. A dispute over the extent of liability in a particular tort,
the question of a prohibited form of work on the Sabbath, or of the
proper preparation of a temple offering-all these may become for him
the basis of a theological insight. In this, he is in the tradition of
the illustrious Abraham I. Kook, late Chief Rabbi of Palestine, who
derived a philosophy of Jewish community, as opposed to mere
"collectivity," from Talmudic law on the acquisition of property.

	Given the premise that all the Law is God's revealed will, it follows
logically that all of it will have theological significance. The
totality of the Law is taken by Soloveichik as a realm of ideas in the
Platonic sense, given by God for application to the realm of the real.
Just as the mathematician creates an internally logical and coherent
fabric of formulas with which he interprets and integrates the
appearance of the visible world, so the Jew, the "Man of Halachah,"
has the Torah as the divine idea that vests all of human life with
direction and sanctity. Legislative change is irreconcilable with
Halachah, yet creativity is of its very essence. "The Halachah is a
multi-dimensional everexpanding continuum which cuts through all
levels of human existence from the most primitive and intimate to the
most complex relationships" (from an unpublished lecture by Dr.
Soloveichik). Thus, though Halachah refers to the ideal, its
creativity must be affected by the real.

(3)
Halachic creativity is not an ingenious academic exercise. The man who
would bridge the distance between the ideal and the real, who would
discover what is the intent of divine will in a new and unprecedented
situation, must employ the dialectic of reason in fear and
trembling-his thinking must be part of a religious agony. God willed
that man obey his Law. God also willed man's welfare. Sometimes the
Law and man's welfare come into seeming conflict. The pious jurist
must then probe the sources and the commentaries of the saints, must
descend into that same crucible of pain out of which the right way was
originally revealed.

(4)
[Permitting the draft of rabbis for the military chaplaincy,] Rabbi
Soloveichik admitted that he had not approached the sources with
complete objectivity; that he had had certain intuitive feelings and
held certain basic values that prejudiced him in favor of the decision
rendered by Yeshiva University and guided him in his exploration of
the various aspects and facets of the problem. But this lack of
objectivity is merely a fundamental avowal of inevitable human
limitation, and is not to be confused with arbitrariness. As anyone
who has studied the Talmud knows, the Halachah is too objective a
discipline to permit an approach based on transient moods.
Nevertheless, in the deepest strata of Halachic thinking, logical
judgment is preceded by value judgment, and intuitive insight gives
impetus to the logic of argument.

(5)
[Quoting Rabbi Soloveitchik, permitting the Jewish community to adopt
and raise as Jewish its share of abandoned babies; even though
statistically, the babies are probably gentile.] "One school sees, in
a naturalistic fashion, life and death on a biological level
exclusively and identifies Pikuah Nefesh (the obligation to conserve
life) with the saving of a carnal existence from extinction. The other
school introduces an idealistic motif. It maintains that the law of
Pikuah Nefesh which is based upon a value judgment-the appraisal of
life as the highest good-transcends the bounds of biological fact and
extends into the domain of spiritual activity. Life is not only a
factumn but also an actus, not only a tangible reality but also an
abstract ethical value to be attained. Death is both a biological and
ethical-spiritual phenomenon. The failure of an individual to realize
his own personality in a manner decreed by his creator at birth is as
tragic as his physical disintegration. One may save a life not only
through medical skill but also by extending moral help. Hence,
whenever man's inner life, his unique relationship to God, and the
mode of his existence as an individual and social being are to be
determined, we encounter the problem of Pikuah Nefesh, which means
here the preservation of a spiritual identity. .... Hence [the concept
of] majority finds no application in this case."

(6)
However, as has been demonstrated, the Orthodox view does not exclude
Halachic creativity or changes, flexibility, and. growth in concept
and method in order to meet the most perplexing of the problems that
trouble the religious minds of today. But it insists that such
evolution must be organic, i.e., it must be a further unfolding of
historical continuity and develop authentically out of tradition.
Orthodox Jews feel that they are helping the revealed Law to fulfill
itself, and in their Halachic creativity they move slowly and with the
same turmoil of soul that characterizes the authentic religious
experience, but with the firm faith that where the basic values of
Judaism still live, the Law will suffice to meet the requirements of
life.

Michael Makovi
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

rabbirichwolpoe | 29 Jun 22:07

Tefillin and Osos


Re: taking off tefillin before Hallel on ChhM Sukkos Someone asked me:

"The osos of the Torah are three:
    tefillin
    mila
    shabbas
So where in Hazal is [arba minnim or matzah] an os to undue the tefillin
obligation [on ChhM]?"

I think he means excluding the Zohar.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

rabbirichwolpoe | 29 Jun 18:38

Mitzvos Tzreichos Kavvanah

See mishna Megila 2:1

It seems that the longstanding machloqes need not apply here

The cases that the mishna requires kavvanah are (e.g.) Maggiah etc.
When it is not patently obvious that one is reading lesheim mitzvah.
It THOSE ambiguous cases positive kavvanah is required

OTOH when one is reading megillah on purim no specific kavvanah is needed
because it is patently obvious that it is lesheim mitzvah

This hilluq seems to me patently obvious. :-) Does anyone else say
it already?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

L Reich | 29 Jun 12:44
Favicon

Was Ben Petura a Christian?

The Talmud tells us

"Two people were traveling, and [only] one of them had a canteen of 
water.[There was only enough water so that] if both of them drank they would 
both die, but if one of them drank [only] he would make it back to an 
inhabited area [and live].Ben Petura publicly taught:'Better both should 
drink and die than that one see his friend's death,' until Rabbi Akiva came 
and taught: 'Your brother should live with you' (Vayikra 25:36) - your life 
takes precedence over the life of your friend's.'" (Bava Metzia62a).

I have a vague memory of reading somewhere that Ben Petura was not a Tanna, 
but a Christian.

Can anyone cast light on this?

Elozor Reich 

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

harveybenton | 27 Jun 00:13
Favicon

validity of ketubahs if .....

zev sero wrote (re: ketubah validity if the parties don't understand it):

It doesn't matter what they understand.   The terms of the kesuba are
binding even if there is no document at all.......

hb: the ketubah is binding (or not) on what grounds??contractual, legal, or other????

isn't a ketubah is a binding legal contract between 2 willing parties? if either or both of the parties don't understand it, why would it binding???
or would you classify the ketubah, and resultant marriage, something other than a binding contract (try telling that that to an aggrieved party in a nasty divorce trial, or  to a sotah on the way up to the har habayis, to possibly drink bitter waters.....)

possible side note: isn't the torah is considered (l'mashal) the ketubah between hashem and ourselves.....it promises things to be supplied from Hashem (rain, etc. ) and specifies damages to be incurred for [contractual?] non-compliance on our-part.
Whether or not it was forced upon us, is it also not a legally binding contract?; subject to all provisions and obligations thereof???? or again, would you classify the torah as not a legally binding contract, but as some other sort of arrangement?.....


_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
harveybenton | 26 Jun 20:10
Favicon

k'daas moshe v'yisrael; validity of ketubah contracts

>>>>DAAS MOSHE: If someone says "k'daas moshe v'yisrael" what does that mean?? what is daas moshe??? possibly:
1.  what we think daas moshe was, when he was  alive?? (per recent discussions of brisk and what rambam may or may not have meant in his own mind/day).
2. what we think daas moshe might be right now?? [nonesenical to me; since we have no idea of what moshe might think or not think, especially regarding this particular inyan]
V'YISRAEL: daas yisrael is (obviously) fractured today, even among the orthodox. Perhaps in olden days it was not and this statement might make more unified sense to someone pronouncing it; note: does anyone know the history/origins of this particular pronouncement, and it's legal ramifications???
3. K'DAAS MOSHE V'YISRAEL: What if Daas Moshe and Daas Yisrael are not (nor in the past) one and the same???  Are both conditions required for the kinyan to take legal effect?? and if yes, in whose eyes??? Moshe's?, Hashem's?, current Daas Yisrael?? or some combination? or none-of the above???
>>>KETUBAH DETAILS:
Most people who sign a ketubah are not proficient in Aramaic and thus (perhaps) rely on at least one person who is. 
1. Why isn't this person required to state on the ketubah that he was the one who explained the situation to the parties involved and sign his name; should disputes arise in the future (like an actuary or accountant or legal-adviser does in our days?)
2.  Why don't both parties have to sign a separate document (or an ammendment to the original document - in this case the ketubah) that they have either read and/or understand the contents of the ketubah, it's ramifications, responsibilities, potential penalties for non-observance, etc., or have had it explained to them in clear, understandable, and unequivocal terms???  This ammendment or separate document would (in my opinion) have to be in a language commonly understood  to both parties (unless of course the choson only spoke french and the kallah for instance only read/spoke japanese; then there would be a problem....)

_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
Zev Sero | 25 Jun 15:13

Psulei edus invalidating the whole group

Does this apply only to people who could be in the geder of edus, if
only they weren't relatives, cardsharps, or whatever?   In other words,
if women are included among the witnesses, can we say that they don't
invalidate the male witnesses, because they're not even potentially
kosher, so they're as if they weren't there?

--

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
zev <at> sero.name                 eventually run out of other people’s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Simon Montagu | 25 Jun 17:17

Baruch Hu Uvaruch Shemo

From the Daily Halacha emails which appear in my inbox:

> 966. One should be mindful to carefully pronounce each word when responding "Boruch Hu U'voruch Shemo", and be especially vigilant to pronounce the letter "Vuv" of U'voruch. Piskei Tshuvos 124:11, Kaf Hachaim 124:29, Boruch She'omar

I didn't understand this well. There are two vavs in "Uvaruch", and I don't know which one it refers to or why one has to be especially vigilant to pronounce either one of them.

I tried to "nachgeschau". I don't know a book called Piskei Teshuvot and neither does hebrewbooks.org. It has four called Baruch She'Amar, and with no page or chapter reference I don't know where to begin looking.

The Kaf Hachaim I do have, and it says something rather different which makes much more sense LAD:  "velo keminhag rabbim me`amei ha'aretz she'omrim 'Baruchu uvaru shemo' ki ein ze mevarech".

Can anyone provide a source and/or a reason for the halacha as stated in the Daily Halacha?
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
AES | 25 Jun 18:17

Halachic Analysis of the "Carlebach Minyan"

http://www.jewishideas.org/print/304

The article (written by a member of a local LWMO shul) deals with the
following five questions relating to "Carlebach Minyanim":

1) Should we associate the name of Rabbi Carlebach with these types of
prayer services as a tribute to his contribution to Jewish prayer, or
choose another name?

2) Is it permissible to modify the liturgical music of a community or
synagogue?

3) If permissible, may we draw inspiration from non-Jewish sources?
And if so, from which ones?

4) Is it permissible to lengthen the time of prayer services?  And if
so, by how much?

5) May music dominate the words of the tefillot, allowing distortion
and repetition?

KT,
Aryeh
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org

Allen Gerstl | 24 Jun 15:53
Favicon

FW: R Tzadok-TSBP


R' Michael Makovi wrote:
:: It is for this reason that Rabbi Angel, following Rabbi Hayim David
:: Halevi. said that while one may be as personally strict as he desires,
:: he must nevertheless respect the lenient opinions. ...

On June 23rd, 2009 R' Micha Berger wrote:
:The other acharonim's opinions on giyur can actually be gone, closed
:options, and yes, declared invalid except possibly as a snif lehaqeil
:beshe'as hadechaq -- assuming other snifim can be found. You don't have a
:"full right to follow" whomever you want. Doubly so on an issue that has
:impact ledorei doros far beyond the sho'eil and the meishiv's community
:of followers.

:The opinion may be "valid" in the sense of a qiyum of Talmud Torah, but
:someone relying on them needs to prove that consensus hasn't taken them
:off the poseiq's table. *That* needs to be RMAngel's central theme, not
:that these neglected pesaqim existed, some of them made by great men
:who did not have the fortune of having a major impact on the flow of
:halachic development. (And RMM could have noticed that in his need to
:tell us who they are.) Compared to a commonly-followed understanding of
:the Rambam?
_____________________________
Some comments:

I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to read RMB's beautiful
description of the development of our knowledge of Halacha and his analogies 
to developments in our knowledge of Physics.

I would, however, respectfully take issue with his description of the
(mostly theoretical) STATUS of minority opinions (but only when such 
are those of Rishonim and Achronim).
In the usual course such minority opinions admittedly are only able to be 
utilized in the manner that is described by RMB as their each being (merely) 
a "snif lehaqueil" (and I can personally recall shiurim with the late posek,
Rav Gedalia Felder, z"l in which he provided examples of such usage as he does 
in his Teshuvot,Yesodei Yeshurun).

However, please see Rav Moshe's Teshuva in Igrot Moshe[1], 
Yoreh Deah 1, No. 101, that I submit provides the best 
THEORETICAL understanding.

Thus we are told that in rare cases of a great posek having "raayyot nechonot"
(and such certainly would not include the use of sociology of knowledge but
true halachic raayot) the opinion of the posek (which 
might include such a minority opinion) may yet
become more than merely a snif lehakeil. 
Rav Moshe brings the caveat that such must not be against the SA given the accepted 
status of the SA. (See similarly SA:CM25)  

I fully realize that only someone of the knowledge, ability and stature of a
Rav Mosheh would still utilize this method and then only in rare situations 
(and those persons of lesser knowledge, ability and stature who try to do so 
are misguided) however this concept is still important for an understanding of 
the nature of pesak.

KT
Eliyahu
_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avodah <at> lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


Gmane