Matzav.com brings a question that was asked to the author of the Chelkas Ya'akov, R' Mordechai Yaakov ben R' Chaim Breisch of Zurich. The question was whether or not a shidduch could be broken because the bride lied about her age. In the specific case at hand, she said at the time of engagement that she was 28, yet when it came time for the wedding three years later (three years??!!), it turned out that she was 36 at the time.
The Chelkas Ya'akov answers that the only time one can break a shidduch because of age is if the woman is over forty (because of childbearing concerns). Otherwise, a lie about one's age is not grounds for breaking a shidduch.
With all due respect to the Chelkas Ya'akov, I find this answer a bit difficult. Rather than focusing on the fact that the number of years was inaccurate, how about focusing on the fact that if she's willing to lie about this, it reveals a serious character flaw about the person. I know that I would not want to start a relationship with someone who lies about their age.
I can understand that the woman was scared -- she was 36 and single and probably figured that if she didn't find a husband soon, then she would never find one. I really do understand that. However, the fact that she was willing to fib about her age shows that she understood that the guy didn't want an older wife -- a fact that was borne out by the fact that he asked the question about breaking the shidduch when he did discover her true age. And even if the age issue isn't truly worth breaking a shidduch (suppose, for example, she truly beleived that she was 28 and only later discovered the truth), I would think that the dishonesty and deception that she displayed would be valid reasons to break the shidduch.
The Wolf
Showing posts with label halacha. Show all posts
Showing posts with label halacha. Show all posts
Friday, September 04, 2009
Monday, March 30, 2009
Can Someone Please Explain This Ruling?
Matzav.com is reporting on a p'sak (halachic decision) by R. Eliyashiv regarding making a mezuman by the seder. He says that normally three people who eat together are required to make a zimun. However, he says, there are two cases on the night of the seder when three people eating together do not make a zimun. I'm going to present the second one that Matzav.com reports first.
1. People who eat together on Pesach but are makpid (particular) not to eat food that is prepared by others on Pesach. Since they cannot share each other's food, they are not counted for a zimun.
OK, that sounds logical to me. They may be eating in the same location, but they're not really eating "together." The other case is as follows:
2. A group of people where some only eat hand matzah and some only eat machine matzah. "Even though this is only a chumra," reports Matzav and in reality, they *are* allowed to eat each other's matzah, they cannot join for a zimun.
The second ruling truly surprises me. Here you have people who, by choice, are not eating each other's food, and they are not able to join for a zimun.
How is this really any different than if my two friends and I go to a fast food place and they order a burger with tomatoes (I hate tomatoes!)? I, by choice, am not eating their food -- and perhaps they don't like my choice of food. Does that mean that we cannot join for a zimun?
The Wolf
(Please, no snark. Serious discussion only)
1. People who eat together on Pesach but are makpid (particular) not to eat food that is prepared by others on Pesach. Since they cannot share each other's food, they are not counted for a zimun.
OK, that sounds logical to me. They may be eating in the same location, but they're not really eating "together." The other case is as follows:
2. A group of people where some only eat hand matzah and some only eat machine matzah. "Even though this is only a chumra," reports Matzav and in reality, they *are* allowed to eat each other's matzah, they cannot join for a zimun.
The second ruling truly surprises me. Here you have people who, by choice, are not eating each other's food, and they are not able to join for a zimun.
How is this really any different than if my two friends and I go to a fast food place and they order a burger with tomatoes (I hate tomatoes!)? I, by choice, am not eating their food -- and perhaps they don't like my choice of food. Does that mean that we cannot join for a zimun?
The Wolf
(Please, no snark. Serious discussion only)
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Only Ten People In Shul For Laining And the Kohen Leaves...
We had this problem in shul this past Shabbos. We had exactly ten people, with one Kohen. For whatever reason, the Kohen decided that he did not want the first aliyah. In order to preclude the gabbai from calling him up, he walked out of the shul into the hallway.
The problem, however, was that there were only ten people in shul. The gabbai called up a Yisrael, but now we were stuck. The person who was called up can't say Barchu, because we only had nine people. If the Kohen walks back in, even after Barchu, we have to set the Yisrael aside and call up the Kohen. What to do?
The rav thought about it for a moment and ruled in an interesting manner. He ruled that the Kohen was, in a manner of speaking, both present and not present at the same time. He was present for the purpose of having a minyan (he was still visible to us in the hallway), but yet, by getting up and walking out, he clearly demonstrated that he did not want the first aliyah and so, in that respect, he wasn't there. To do otherwise, he explained, would make two people unhappy - the Kohen, who clearly didn't want the aliyah, and the oleh, who would have to be set aside and stand by the bimah until the third aliyah. To cause two people unhappiness on Shabbos, the rav said, was something that he didn't want to do. So, the Yisrael said Barchu and the Kohen walked back in as the oleh was making the bracha.
The Wolf
The problem, however, was that there were only ten people in shul. The gabbai called up a Yisrael, but now we were stuck. The person who was called up can't say Barchu, because we only had nine people. If the Kohen walks back in, even after Barchu, we have to set the Yisrael aside and call up the Kohen. What to do?
The rav thought about it for a moment and ruled in an interesting manner. He ruled that the Kohen was, in a manner of speaking, both present and not present at the same time. He was present for the purpose of having a minyan (he was still visible to us in the hallway), but yet, by getting up and walking out, he clearly demonstrated that he did not want the first aliyah and so, in that respect, he wasn't there. To do otherwise, he explained, would make two people unhappy - the Kohen, who clearly didn't want the aliyah, and the oleh, who would have to be set aside and stand by the bimah until the third aliyah. To cause two people unhappiness on Shabbos, the rav said, was something that he didn't want to do. So, the Yisrael said Barchu and the Kohen walked back in as the oleh was making the bracha.
The Wolf
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Creeping Standards
I saw an interesting bit in the online Yated last week regarding the expansion of the Mehadrin (sex-segregated) bus lines in Israel.
Now, I personally find the idea of having women sit in the back of the bus repugnant. However, I also have to take into account that I am an American and "back of the bus" has an ugly connotation here that does not exist in Israel. Furthermore, I have to keep in mind that we're dealing with people who have a completely different mindset than I do. As such, as long as a substantial portion of the population wants sex-segregated buses and as long as a deal for it is negotiated fairly, I don't have a real problem with it.
However, there was a line in the article that I found quite interesting (bolding mine):
The rabbonim said they have been discussing various matters with Egged and Transportation Ministry representatives in order to make special arrangements that meet halachic requirements.
I know, from personal observation here in New York City, that there is no halachic requirements to have segregated seating in public transportation. Thousands of frum Jews take mixed-seating buses and trains everyday with nary a second thought. No one thinks that they are engaged in anything licentious by taking public transportation and I don't think that any of them ever asked mechila (forgiveness) from God on Yom Kippur for taking public transportation.
If you like, you can certainly argue that having separate seating buses and trains is a halachic extra that one should strive for. (I'll probably disagree with you, but the argument isn't totally out of the ballpark.) You could argue that perhaps a man won't see an immodestly clad woman if the seating is separate (although he does have to face the back of the bus as he walks to his seat, doesn't he?). But one thing that I think we can all agree on is that it is not a "halachic requirement." It never was and still isn't to this day. By calling it a "halachic requirement," all the rabbonim are doing is engaging in creeping standards.
Now, to be honest, creeping standards are not always a bad thing. After all, the standards for health care are far more stringent today than they were a hundred years ago. This didn't happen overnight either... the standards "crept" upwards as the century dragged on. Education standards grew as well -- many more people living today (expressed in terms of a percentage of the population as a whole) have college educations than those living a century ago. Our physical standard of living has increased as well.
Religious standards increase over time as well. A century ago, many Orthodox children in the United States sent their kids to public schools, and taught them Torah subjects after school. Today, most Orthodox children attend yeshivos where they receive at least (and in many cases much more than) a half-day of Torah education.
However, there is an important point to be made with regard to the last item: the increase in standards has been voluntary. Orthodox parents have *voluntarily* sent their children to yeshivos in the United States. No one (to my knowledge) has been forced to. People are still free to send their kids to public schools and educate them in Judaic studies in the afternoons or evenings. True, there are very few who do so, but the option is still there if they want it. No one is being forced to do so.
However, there are times when creeping standards are a bad thing, even if the standards are creeping higher. Sometimes the higher standard comes at too high a cost. There is even a term for this in halacha -- it's called a g'zaira sheain hatzibur yechola la'amod bah -- a decree which is simply too hard for the community to keep. Such a decree, even if it embodies higher standards that, in theory, one should strive for, is null and void, because the cost (and I don't just mean the economic cost) of keeping it is just too high for the community. An extreme example of this might be a decree that all men quit their jobs and learn full time. Such a decree would be impossible for the community to fulfill and therefore, would be null and void.
The needs of the community must be balanced against the desire to have increasing standards of observance. Sadly, however, it seems that the needs of the community are often not considered when decrees are issued; especially when those decrees are extra-halachic. A good example of this, IMHO, was the decree against women's education programs in Israel a few years ago. Not only were these programs shut down, but women who had already completed them found themselves shut out of the education jobs that they were trained for. It's one thing to say that these programs are bad (which is a position that I don't agree with), but it's quite another to then take people who already completed the program b'hetter (while it was permitted) and cause them to be blacklisted because of it. Many women who were probably the sole wage-earners in their families (because their husbands learn full time) were out of jobs. Why? Because of an extra-halachic decree. This is a case where the needs of the community were not considered before the decree was issued. Another example was the ban on certain colors or styles of clothing in Israel. The ruling was clearly extra-halachic - there is nothing wrong with wearing red clothing or certain styles - but there was absolutely no consideration made for merchants who carried such merchandise and bought it in good faith. They were simply told to get rid of it, or face a boycott.
And so it goes. If you want to make a decree on something that is not strictly halacha, then consider the needs of the community -- but also point out that the decree is extra-halachic. But don't try to pass off your own personal chumros (stringencies), such as separate-seating in mass transportation, as halacha. At least be honest about it.
The Wolf
Now, I personally find the idea of having women sit in the back of the bus repugnant. However, I also have to take into account that I am an American and "back of the bus" has an ugly connotation here that does not exist in Israel. Furthermore, I have to keep in mind that we're dealing with people who have a completely different mindset than I do. As such, as long as a substantial portion of the population wants sex-segregated buses and as long as a deal for it is negotiated fairly, I don't have a real problem with it.
However, there was a line in the article that I found quite interesting (bolding mine):
The rabbonim said they have been discussing various matters with Egged and Transportation Ministry representatives in order to make special arrangements that meet halachic requirements.
I know, from personal observation here in New York City, that there is no halachic requirements to have segregated seating in public transportation. Thousands of frum Jews take mixed-seating buses and trains everyday with nary a second thought. No one thinks that they are engaged in anything licentious by taking public transportation and I don't think that any of them ever asked mechila (forgiveness) from God on Yom Kippur for taking public transportation.
If you like, you can certainly argue that having separate seating buses and trains is a halachic extra that one should strive for. (I'll probably disagree with you, but the argument isn't totally out of the ballpark.) You could argue that perhaps a man won't see an immodestly clad woman if the seating is separate (although he does have to face the back of the bus as he walks to his seat, doesn't he?). But one thing that I think we can all agree on is that it is not a "halachic requirement." It never was and still isn't to this day. By calling it a "halachic requirement," all the rabbonim are doing is engaging in creeping standards.
Now, to be honest, creeping standards are not always a bad thing. After all, the standards for health care are far more stringent today than they were a hundred years ago. This didn't happen overnight either... the standards "crept" upwards as the century dragged on. Education standards grew as well -- many more people living today (expressed in terms of a percentage of the population as a whole) have college educations than those living a century ago. Our physical standard of living has increased as well.
Religious standards increase over time as well. A century ago, many Orthodox children in the United States sent their kids to public schools, and taught them Torah subjects after school. Today, most Orthodox children attend yeshivos where they receive at least (and in many cases much more than) a half-day of Torah education.
However, there is an important point to be made with regard to the last item: the increase in standards has been voluntary. Orthodox parents have *voluntarily* sent their children to yeshivos in the United States. No one (to my knowledge) has been forced to. People are still free to send their kids to public schools and educate them in Judaic studies in the afternoons or evenings. True, there are very few who do so, but the option is still there if they want it. No one is being forced to do so.
However, there are times when creeping standards are a bad thing, even if the standards are creeping higher. Sometimes the higher standard comes at too high a cost. There is even a term for this in halacha -- it's called a g'zaira sheain hatzibur yechola la'amod bah -- a decree which is simply too hard for the community to keep. Such a decree, even if it embodies higher standards that, in theory, one should strive for, is null and void, because the cost (and I don't just mean the economic cost) of keeping it is just too high for the community. An extreme example of this might be a decree that all men quit their jobs and learn full time. Such a decree would be impossible for the community to fulfill and therefore, would be null and void.
The needs of the community must be balanced against the desire to have increasing standards of observance. Sadly, however, it seems that the needs of the community are often not considered when decrees are issued; especially when those decrees are extra-halachic. A good example of this, IMHO, was the decree against women's education programs in Israel a few years ago. Not only were these programs shut down, but women who had already completed them found themselves shut out of the education jobs that they were trained for. It's one thing to say that these programs are bad (which is a position that I don't agree with), but it's quite another to then take people who already completed the program b'hetter (while it was permitted) and cause them to be blacklisted because of it. Many women who were probably the sole wage-earners in their families (because their husbands learn full time) were out of jobs. Why? Because of an extra-halachic decree. This is a case where the needs of the community were not considered before the decree was issued. Another example was the ban on certain colors or styles of clothing in Israel. The ruling was clearly extra-halachic - there is nothing wrong with wearing red clothing or certain styles - but there was absolutely no consideration made for merchants who carried such merchandise and bought it in good faith. They were simply told to get rid of it, or face a boycott.
And so it goes. If you want to make a decree on something that is not strictly halacha, then consider the needs of the community -- but also point out that the decree is extra-halachic. But don't try to pass off your own personal chumros (stringencies), such as separate-seating in mass transportation, as halacha. At least be honest about it.
The Wolf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)