Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
be treated humbly and with respect. Thank you.
-Naomi
"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
Nor give your children cause to doubt
That virtue springs from iron within,
Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me.
Sure they will. In fact, someday soon you should make a special
effort to talk to some so you'll see it for yourself. When you were
in Hyde Park this wasn't so easy to do, but Boston's laid out
differently, so IIUC you have an opportunity this summer.
I guess I must put one caveat on my first sentence. Just like, if you
start off with a used car dealer: "I know you guys cover up the car's
problems", it will cast a pallor on the conversation, there is a way
to offend just about anyone, Haredim included.
>I need to have a question
>answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
>this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
>to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
I offerred you my own rabbi in NJ (I'm not sure if you read that
post), but that was for a different question. His forte is being
clear. I have no special feeling that he is strict, and on some
issues I think he's not.
>one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
>not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
>be treated humbly and with respect.
You already covered what I said above. If someone knows a strict
Haredi, I think you should call him.
To all of you. Aren't most rabbis "strict" on some things and liberal
on others. Partly because some things are the counterparts of others,
and partly because different people/rabbis emphasize different things?
>Thank you.
>
> -Naomi
>"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
> Nor give your children cause to doubt
> That virtue springs from iron within,
> Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
animzmirot
Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
visitors.
Marjorie
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Jul 2001 17:28:28 GMT Naomi
>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>
>>Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me.
>
>Sure they will. In fact, someday soon you should make a special
>effort to talk to some so you'll see it for yourself. When you were
>in Hyde Park this wasn't so easy to do, but Boston's laid out
>differently, so IIUC you have an opportunity this summer.
I'm not sure where to go. Any suggestions? I don't know Boston very
well yet. I do know most of the Jewish population is concentrated in
or around Brookline, but within that range are also a whole lot of
other people and what I saw there was mostly Modern Orthodox ranging
to random gentiles.
>I guess I must put one caveat on my first sentence. Just like, if you
>start off with a used car dealer: "I know you guys cover up the car's
>problems", it will cast a pallor on the conversation, there is a way
>to offend just about anyone, Haredim included.
I'm sorry; I wasn't aware "I don't expect you'd be willing to talk to
me..." was an insult; I thought it was an apology and a plea -- please
make an exception just this once, because I need your help, although
there's no real reason you should have to.
>>I need to have a question
>>answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>>matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
>>this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
>>to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
>
>I offerred you my own rabbi in NJ (I'm not sure if you read that
>post), but that was for a different question. His forte is being
>clear. I have no special feeling that he is strict, and on some
>issues I think he's not.
This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
Orthodox standard, we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
>>one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
>>not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
>>be treated humbly and with respect.
>
>You already covered what I said above. If someone knows a strict
>Haredi, I think you should call him.
If someone knows one who is willing to help me I will be grateful for
the chance to call him. I've already called the RCA's Bet Din of
America and had one of their members put on the phone. he questioned
me extensively about the details of my witnesses and ketubah and said
"That sounds like a kosher wedding to me. If anyone gives you trouble
over it, send 'em to me." I'd rather nt have to do this, however, and
I don't know how many people will take Rabbi Reiss as an authority.
>To all of you. Aren't most rabbis "strict" on some things and liberal
>on others. Partly because some things are the counterparts of others,
>and partly because different people/rabbis emphasize different things?
Granted; that's why, on reflection, I gave the subject this time.
Robert
> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
> this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
> to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
> one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
> not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
> be treated humbly and with respect. Thank you.
Naomi, you will never find such a rabbi. No matter how fanatic a man
you find, as soon as someone finds out about his ruling, someone else
will come along and challenge it. (And it doesn't matter what the
topic is).
Further, why do you believe that strictest rabbi is necessarilly the
most intelligent and the most sensitive to the issue at hand? Halakha
isn't just a bunch of rules that can mindlessly be applied like one
solves a mathematics problem. Without mastery of the fifth order of
the Shulkhan Arukh (and the wise will know precisely what I am
referring to) a psak halakha will be worthless.
In any case, by definition, when a rabbis is strict in regards to one
halakhic aspect of an issue, he is being lenient in regards to one or
more other aspects of the issue.
To put it plainly, what you are asking for is not wise, and
furthermore, doesn't exist. Why not ask for a rabbi who has a
reputation for intelligent decision making and who is very
knowledgeable in the area you need?
Shalom,
Robert Kaiser
Seidman
<ple...@donot.mailme> wrote:
> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
> this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
> to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
> one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
> not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
> be treated humbly and with respect. Thank you.
why don't yuou email me. I refer you to someone who has
been educated in many different Yeshivahs.
toichen
> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
> this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
> to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
> one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
> not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
> be treated humbly and with respect. Thank you.
>
> -Naomi
Speak to Rabbi Belsky. If you need his phone email me, if you need an
introduction email me too.
Does everybody else agree that Rabbi Belsky is a good choice? I am not
in America, but I am of the opinion that he is a marvelous talmid
chacham and respected by all and further, he will listen to whatever
Naomi has to say.
toichen
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
So far, this makes seven rabbis I've talked to on the wedding question
and four on the baby question and not gotten a single answer. How does
anyone ever get definitive rulings???
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>On 18 Jul 2001 23:42:47 GMT, "animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>If you're in Boston, call either the Zviller Rebbe or the
>>Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
>>visitors.
>
>Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
>And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
>I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
>me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
>to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
>them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
>that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
>tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
From other discussions we've had here, I've thought they often don't
make rulings when they don't want you to be bound for one reason or
another.
It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
long as there is no sex act obviously.)
So I must admit I can't even guess what the halachic issue is
regarding timing, nor what the biological issue is regarding timing,
except that 3 or 4 days are better than the others. Maybe one day is
best of all each month, for all I know. But unless it is always
Shabbes, and they don't want you driving to the doctor's office etc, I
don't see how that results in a halachic issue.
You don't have to explain if you don't want. Duh.
>So far, this makes seven rabbis I've talked to on the wedding question
>and four on the baby question and not gotten a single answer. How does
>anyone ever get definitive rulings???
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme>
>Subject:Re: Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
>Date: 20 Jul 2001 04:59:11 GMT
>Message-ID:<3b56f83...@news.cris.com>
>On 18 Jul 2001 23:42:47 GMT, "animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>
>>If you're in Boston, call either the Zviller Rebbe or the
>>Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
>>visitors.
>
>Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
>And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
>I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
>me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
>to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
>them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
>that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
>tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
>
>So far, this makes seven rabbis I've talked to on the wedding question
>and four on the baby question and not gotten a single answer. How does
>anyone ever get definitive rulings???
You ask me :-)
Seriously, you would email Rav Dr. Avraham Sofer who is *the* leading posek
in medical halacha in Israel and who runs Internal Medicine at Shaare Zedek
Hospital in Jerusalem.
Josh
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>Speak to Rabbi Belsky. If you need his phone email me, if you need an
>introduction email me too.
>Does everybody else agree that Rabbi Belsky is a good choice? I am not
>in America, but I am of the opinion that he is a marvelous talmid
>chacham and respected by all and further, he will listen to whatever
>Naomi has to say.
If you are referring to the Rabbi Blesky in Flatbush, you are correct in
saying that he is respected by most, but not by all.
N. Samuel R.
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9lg8fa....@amanda.dorsai.org...
The fact that some people do not respect HaRav Yisroel Belsky, shlita, says far
more about them than it does about R' Belsky.
And I say this as someone who uses the Borough Park, of which R' Belsky is
probably the most vehement opponent.
I respect BOTH R' Belsky and the esteemed authorities who are on the other side
of the eiruv issue.
'Eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chayim..."
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Well, since I don't know R'Belsky and am reluctant to bother someone
without an introduction, if someone who knows him could arrange one,
I'd be grateful. Email is nri...@concentric.net and for these
purposes, so long as you don't take the opportunity to argue with me
about something while you're there, anyone may email me.
Thank you!
Shaineleah
> On 18 Jul 2001 20:43:12 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Jul 2001 17:28:28 GMT Naomi
> >Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>
> I'm not sure where to go. Any suggestions? I don't know Boston very
> well yet. I do know most of the Jewish population is concentrated in
> or around Brookline, but within that range are also a whole lot of
> other people and what I saw there was mostly Modern Orthodox ranging
> to random gentiles.
There's also a large Jewish community in Newton that I know for sure,
and I think in other towns in Greater Boston that I am unsure enough
about that I
will refrain from mentioning them for the moment.
Shaineleah
Jonathan J. Baker
>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>On 18 Jul 2001 23:42:47 GMT, "animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you're in Boston, call either the Zviller Rebbe or the
>>>Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
>>>visitors.
>>
>>Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
>>And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
>>I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
>>me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
>>to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
>>them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
>>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
>>that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
>>tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
>From other discussions we've had here, I've thought they often don't
>make rulings when they don't want you to be bound for one reason or
>another.
Oh. If that's the issue, a good person to call is R' Moshe D. Tendler.
He's been head of both the bio and the talmud departments at YU, and
is also the son-in-law of R' Moshe Feinstein. He's widely regarded as
one of the greatest experts on such issues. He's also rumored to have
written several of the opinions attributed to R' Moshe Feinstein on
these issues,
R' Tendler's phone number can be found through <http://www.switchboard.com>;
he lives in Monsey, NY.
Alternatively, you can call the Yoatzot in Israel (the women who
are trained to be an interface between women with such difficulties
and the poskim in Israel).
Pointers to the yoatzot via email
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v34/mj_v34i82.html#CABK>
and by phone
<http://www.ottmall.com/mj_ht_arch/v34/mj_v34i97.html#CAGK>
>It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
>AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
>long as there is no sex act obviously.)
R' Moshe T. has said that there's no issue of mamzerut in AIDonor,
although it's not recommended ab initio. But if it's one's husband's
stuff, and the issue is timing, call him. OTOH, AIDonor is almost
never needed for married women any more, since IVF/ICSI works relatively
well.
>>So far, this makes seven rabbis I've talked to on the wedding question
>>and four on the baby question and not gotten a single answer. How does
>>anyone ever get definitive rulings???
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>
GAN EDEN WINES
"Sheldon Ackerman" <acke...@amanda.dorsai.org> wrote in message
news:slrn9lg8fa....@amanda.dorsai.org...
BS"D
Rav Belsky is in regular contact with many other poskim around the world.
For instance, when I asked him once for a heter, he contacted Rav Eliashav
in Israel. Between the two of them, they could not come up with a heter
with which they felt comfortable (although others in the "black hat" world
use a heter to allow this). The point is that if it is important to be
certain that the Jewish World will accept something, he will range far and
wide to answer that question. Once he makes a ruling, other poskim may
disagree with that ruling, but nobody will put up too much of a fuss,
because a valid, respected halachic authority made that ruling.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
Menachem Mavet
> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?"
Why do you _need_ to care about whether "Everybody" will accept your
decision about how you observe Torah? The way the Jewish community is
split, I believe there is no way that "everybody" will accept anything.
I had a friend who did an overseas adoption. The question of conversion came
up, and at first he wanted to go Orthodox, so "everybody" would accept it,
then he fount that the Orthodox Beis Din in his city placed so many conditions
on the conversion (which basically amounted to a demand that the family
become right-wing orthodox in practice), that he said "forget it," and they
did the conversion with a Conservative rabbi, which is how they affiliate.
He told me that if his kid decides at some later date to become Orthodox, he/
she can decide about whether the sperate orthodox conversion is worth it.
So I would suggest that you "find yurself a rabbi" as they say in Pirkei
Avot, a rabbi whose rulings you can respect, and follow his (or her)
advice or rulings. As long as _you_ feel comfortable that the halakhic advice
is reliable, who cares what "everybody" thinks?
Menachem
Harry Weiss
> On 18 Jul 2001 20:43:12 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Jul 2001 17:28:28 GMT Naomi
>>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>
> This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
> marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
> marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
> Orthodox standard, we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
> it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
> kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
> already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
Why can't you have another quiet marriage if your first one was okay. The
second then won't be more than an extra cup of wine. (I don't the
unnecessary bracha problem should be a real issue)
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
>marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
>marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
>Orthodox standard, we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
>it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
>kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
>already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
>
couple from going through a "kosher wedding" if they are indeed already
married?
Sheldon Ackerman
>
>The fact that some people do not respect HaRav Yisroel Belsky, shlita, says far
>more about them than it does about R' Belsky.
>
>And I say this as someone who uses the Borough Park, of which R' Belsky is
>probably the most vehement opponent.
>
>I respect BOTH R' Belsky and the esteemed authorities who are on the other side
>of the eiruv issue.
>
>'Eilu v'eilu divrei elokim chayim..."
Excuse me, but the question was not if someone can find a rabbi that N.
Samuel R. respects. The question as I recall it was a rabbi that EVERYONE
respects.
meirm...@erols.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>In <ht0gltcrib0k0se3b...@4ax.com> meirm...@erols.com writes:
>>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>>On 18 Jul 2001 23:42:47 GMT, "animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>If you're in Boston, call either the Zviller Rebbe or the
>>>>Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
>>>>visitors.
>>>
>>>Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
>>>And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
>>>I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
>>>me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
>>>to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
>>>them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
>>>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>>>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
>>>that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
>>>tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
>
>>From other discussions we've had here, I've thought they often don't
>>make rulings when they don't want you to be bound for one reason or
>>another.
BTW, is the default (or is there a default) that a rabbi gives a
ruling, or that he just discusses it with someone. On one occasion
I've specified that I just want to discuss it, but on all the other
times I've only gotten discussion anyhow. FWIW and it probably says
more about me than about rabbis, I've very rarely asked for a ruling
or gotten one during a discussion.
Does it matter how one introduces himself (I'm sure it can), how long
and in what manner you've known each other, whether you have requested
or been given rulings before, etc. With all these variables, maybe
there is no clear default.
>Oh. If that's the issue, a good person to call is R' Moshe D. Tendler.
>He's been head of both the bio and the talmud departments at YU, and
>is also the son-in-law of R' Moshe Feinstein. He's widely regarded as
>one of the greatest experts on such issues. He's also rumored to have
>written several of the opinions attributed to R' Moshe Feinstein on
>these issues,
>>It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
>>AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
>>long as there is no sex act obviously.)
>
>R' Moshe T. has said that there's no issue of mamzerut in AIDonor,
>although it's not recommended ab initio. But if it's one's husband's
>stuff, and the issue is timing, call him. OTOH, AIDonor is almost
>never needed for married women any more, since IVF/ICSI works relatively
>well.
That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Those stories how most men
had 200 million sperm or something like that but 100 million wasn't
enough still strike me as strange. Then I read how 50 million were
no good to begin with, 25 million got waylaid on the first leg of
their trip, 13 million a little bit later, and some how after several
other steps, by the end of the trip there were only 10 left!! But if
there were 20 that would be enough!! It's still wierd. I guess for
IVF they can pick out 20 good ones on more at the very beginning.
I have a friend who adopted their first child from Chile and got the
second one out of testtube. They're both very nice boys.
meirm...@erols.com
dr_m...@my-deja.com (Menachem Mavet) posted:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message news:<3b559eed...@news.cris.com>...
>> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
>> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?"
>
>So I would suggest that you "find yurself a rabbi" as they say in Pirkei
>Avot, a rabbi whose rulings you can respect, and follow his (or her)
>advice or rulings. As long as _you_ feel comfortable that the halakhic advice
>is reliable, who cares what "everybody" thinks?
I believe she's trying to make plans for someone else. Maybe you
missed that, but assuming so, does it then only matter what makes her
feel comfortable? You woudn't recommend that she be what seems to me
like self-centered at the expense of others?
But as I said in a post that I had hoped would appear at the same time
as the other one at 7AM this morning, or at least before Shabbes if
Naomi might possibly be still reading, I'll say in brief. I think
there is nothing she can do that will affect the status of her baby.
Other than things she has no thought of doing.
>Menachem
GAN EDEN WINES
Rav Belsky is an excellent choice. I can do the same.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
"toichen" <toi...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:dd1c0ee8.01071...@posting.google.com...
Binyamin Dissen
:>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message news:<3b559eed...@news.cris.com>...
:>> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
:>> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
:>> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
:>> this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
:>> to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
:>> one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
:>> not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
:>> be treated humbly and with respect. Thank you.
:>Speak to Rabbi Belsky. If you need his phone email me, if you need an
:>introduction email me too.
:>Does everybody else agree that Rabbi Belsky is a good choice? I am not
:>in America, but I am of the opinion that he is a marvelous talmid
:>chacham and respected by all and further, he will listen to whatever
:>Naomi has to say.
If one wanted to know the strictest opinions, one could post the question to
this NG.
This would not be practical Halacha.
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>On 18 Jul 2001 20:43:12 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Jul 2001 17:28:28 GMT Naomi
>>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>
>>>Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me.
>>
>>Sure they will. In fact, someday soon you should make a special
>>effort to talk to some so you'll see it for yourself. When you were
>>in Hyde Park this wasn't so easy to do, but Boston's laid out
>>differently, so IIUC you have an opportunity this summer.
>
>I'm not sure where to go. Any suggestions? I don't know Boston very
I know Boston less well than you do. Only I thought that most Jewish
communities were sort of on the west side, somewhere around Newton.
And that you wouldn't be stuck far away like in Hyde Park.
>well yet. I do know most of the Jewish population is concentrated in
>or around Brookline, but within that range are also a whole lot of
>other people and what I saw there was mostly Modern Orthodox ranging
>to random gentiles.
>>I guess I must put one caveat on my first sentence. Just like, if you
>>start off with a used car dealer: "I know you guys cover up the car's
>>problems", it will cast a pallor on the conversation, there is a way
>>to offend just about anyone, Haredim included.
>
>I'm sorry; I wasn't aware "I don't expect you'd be willing to talk to
>me..." was an insult; I thought it was an apology and a plea -- please
It could sound that way too.
>make an exception just this once, because I need your help, although
>there's no real reason you should have to.
I think they'll be glad to talk to you and all you have to do is ask.
Of course not everyone is competent to talk about your subject. AI is
pretty new. I don't know how Chassidim work. Does the rebbe answer
all these questions or does he refer people from his community to
rebbeim outside.
>>>I need to have a question
>>>answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>>>matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?" For
I don't know much but at least maybe I can help you with questions to
ask. If we're talking about artificial insemination, I don't know
why you need someone who is strict. AIUI, it sounds like you are
going to be the mother in every respect. Specifically, it will be
your womb. In such a case, in deciding whether your child is a proper
Jew, I don't think it matters to anyone including the strictest rabbi
what procedure you used. I don't think there is anything you can do
which will make your child into something other than a Jew.
If you have an opinion from any O rabbi that your procedure was
proper, I doubt any other rabbi will second guess him. It's generally
not the rabbi's place to decide if you've done something wrong in the
past, aiui, unless you're planning to do the same thing in the future.
What happened in the past is between you and G-d. (Exceptions would
be where the acts in the past have a real effect on the present. If
you never got a divorce from a first husband, he can't cooperate in a
second marriage. But that's totally not the situation here.)
As an extreme example, even if you actually transgressed during the
baby's conception, say you drove to the doctor's office on Shabbes,
for shots or the AI, other than adultery which would, nothing else you
could do would affect the baby's status. And the guilt for these
things is on your shoulders, not the baby's.
>>>this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
>>>to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
I can only imagine you want strict so no one will doubt the baby's
status. See above. AIUI, just as one shouldn't shop for a lenient
rabbi on a particular issue, so he should shop for a strict one.
But I've wondered about this before. What if one needs a specialist?
What if one's regular rabbi can't answer the question? Do you have to
take the ruling of a rabbi he refers you to, or can you start your own
search with your own standards. If the Jewishness and the
non-mamzerus of your baby is the issue here, I don't think these
questions matter in this case. Is or isn't there uniformity on
artificial insemination by donor?
>>I offerred you my own rabbi in NJ (I'm not sure if you read that
>>post), but that was for a different question. His forte is being
>>clear. I have no special feeling that he is strict, and on some
>>issues I think he's not.
>
>This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
>marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
>marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
>Orthodox standard,
Why does it have to be every conceivable O standard? Are there any
consequences if it's not. Are you thinking your child will want to
marry into Satmar and if your marriage wasn't by their standards
they'll reject hir? Sort of like people wouldn't marry someone who's
parents were in show business? Is this an issue anywhere? Have you
heard it is or are you just guessing it would be?
>we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
>it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
>kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
>already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
AIUI, the major thing you need is two kosher witnesses to his saying
"Harei, mikudeshet li ..." and your not having to be held down to keep
you from escaping while he says it. OR two kosher witnesses to his
giving you something of value, like a ring, and your accepting it OR
two kosher witnesses to his signing the ketubah, who also sign. If
you don't have the last thing, I don't know if one has to identify the
kosher witnesses to the first two things.
And if you didn't have any of this, maybe it helps that your living
together.
At any rate ISTM any rabbi who thinks the marriage is invalid will be
glad to do another one, and you wouldn't be violating any rule about
doing it twice. You're not expected to get a consensus of all rabbis
or even best two out of three.
If there is a doubt aren't you allowed to remarry, just like people
are allowed to convert again if there is doubt about there first
conversion. Isn't that geyrut l'chumra, roughly converting to be
stringent? (I had actually never heard, one way or the other, that
one couldn't marry a second time even if the first was valid.)
And any rabbi who thinks it is valid is enough evidence that it is.
But if this has something to do with having a child, I don't think it
matters. Has anyone said the two things are related?
>>>one of our more extremely observant members direct me to one? This is
>>>not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
>>>be treated humbly and with respect.
>>
>>You already covered what I said above.
I should have said, "Ah, there was no need for my paragraph above,
becuase you already covered what I said above."
>>If someone knows a strict
>>Haredi, I think you should call him.
>
>If someone knows one who is willing to help me I will be grateful for
>the chance to call him. I've already called the RCA's Bet Din of
>America and had one of their members put on the phone. he questioned
>me extensively about the details of my witnesses and ketubah and said
>"That sounds like a kosher wedding to me. If anyone gives you trouble
>over it, send 'em to me." I'd rather nt have to do this, however, and
>I don't know how many people will take Rabbi Reiss as an authority.
But who is going to give you trouble? He thinks it's kosher. Isn't
that enough for *you* and for your husband? How will other people get
involved?
IIUC your issues are not so complicated that you need a great sage to
rule on them.
>>To all of you. Aren't most rabbis "strict" on some things and liberal
>>on others. Partly because some things are the counterparts of others,
>>and partly because different people/rabbis emphasize different things?
>
>Granted; that's why, on reflection, I gave the subject this time.
> -Naomi
>
>"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
> Nor give your children cause to doubt
> That virtue springs from iron within,
> Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 20 Jul 2001 04:59:11 GMT Naomi
>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>
>>On 18 Jul 2001 23:42:47 GMT, "animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>>>If you're in Boston, call either the Zviller Rebbe or the
>>>Bostoner Rebbe. They're both easily found and pretty open to
>>>visitors.
>>
>>Tried the Bostoner; he's in Israel but his son/assistant talked to me.
>>And was very nice, if not ultimately very helpful, which is something
>>I don't fault him for because he didn't know it wouldn't be. He sent
>>me on to a different rabbi, who was somewhat less nice and unwilling
>>to give actual answers to anything, although the closest he got to
>>them amounted to "No, you aren't halakhically allowed, even by
>>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
>>that he wasn't willing to go so far as to make into a ruling, he just
>>tossed it out as a gratuitous personal opinion.
>
>From other discussions we've had here, I've thought they often don't
>make rulings when they don't want you to be bound for one reason or
>another.
I see. I hadn't thought of that; thanks.
>It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
>AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
>long as there is no sex act obviously.)
I *think*, though he didn't explain, that being inseminated qualified
under his view as touching a part of the man, even if it had been
removed from the man and processed at the time and was being applied
to my body by a woman. Essentially, if I can't touch my husband at
that time of month, I can't touch his sperm cells either, even with
that sort of distance between.
If what he gave me was an opinion so I wouldn't be bound by a ruling I
may very well ignore it, because without this I have *no* chance of
ever having a baby.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message news:<3b559eed...@news.cris.com>...
>> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
>> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?"
>
>Why do you _need_ to care about whether "Everybody" will accept your
>decision about how you observe Torah? The way the Jewish community is
>split, I believe there is no way that "everybody" will accept anything.
As long as I may have to live in Israel some day, I need to care
whether the Haredim are going to consider my marriage legal. Besides,
fundamentally I don't mind strict standards for things like this; it's
easy enough to go get a small private wedding ceremony done with an
Orthodox rabbi should it be necessary. I just want to know if it's
necessary or not.
Harry Weiss
> On 20 Jul 2001 16:06:33 GMT, dr_m...@my-deja.com (Menachem Mavet)
> wrote:
>>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message news:<3b559eed...@news.cris.com>...
>>> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
>>> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>>> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?"
>>
>>Why do you _need_ to care about whether "Everybody" will accept your
>>decision about how you observe Torah? The way the Jewish community is
>>split, I believe there is no way that "everybody" will accept anything.
> As long as I may have to live in Israel some day, I need to care
> whether the Haredim are going to consider my marriage legal. Besides,
> fundamentally I don't mind strict standards for things like this; it's
> easy enough to go get a small private wedding ceremony done with an
> Orthodox rabbi should it be necessary. I just want to know if it's
> necessary or not.
If you are a Jew married to another Jew who you were allowed to marry,
there will never be a problem with anyone. No Rabbi will ever question
such a marriage unless there is a specific need (e.g. such as a divorce
without a get)
> -Naomi
> "Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
> Nor give your children cause to doubt
> That virtue springs from iron within,
> Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
--
Harry J. Weiss
hjw...@panix.com
animzmirot
Could you please email me privately about this topic. I do
have information but because of the personal nature, you
might want a private conversation.
Marjorie
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
news:3b582307...@news.cris.com...
animzmirot
I DO know Boston very well, having lived there for 26 years.
I'd be happy to help you if you would contact me off the
newsgroup.
Marjorie
animzmirot
*the* leading posek
> in medical halacha in Israel and who runs Internal
Medicine at Shaare Zedek
> Hospital in Jerusalem.
>
Good advice. But I'd also ask Rav Dr. Sofer for a posek who
deals specifically in infertility matters. There are
several, I just can't recall the names. BUT....Naomi, you
might want to ask Dr Selwyn Oskowitz at Boston IVF for the
names. I know for a fact he knows them because he was the
one who told me. It may take a bit to get thru to him, but
it's really worth the effort.
Marjorie
Sheldon Glickler
Weigh your options. Which is more important to you. Then proceed
accordingly.
Shelly
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
>
> On 20 Jul 2001 10:53:19 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> >It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
> >AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
> >long as there is no sex act obviously.)
>
> I *think*, though he didn't explain, that being inseminated qualified
> under his view as touching a part of the man, even if it had been
> removed from the man and processed at the time and was being applied
> to my body by a woman. Essentially, if I can't touch my husband at
> that time of month, I can't touch his sperm cells either, even with
> that sort of distance between.
And keep in mind that even if you did have relations with your husband
during this time (definitely forbidden), *no stigma* whatsoever
attaches to the child according to anyone. And no one has to know.
It also seems to me that his view of using AIH at that time of the
month is not universal.
> If what he gave me was an opinion so I wouldn't be bound by a ruling I
> may very well ignore it, because without this I have *no* chance of
> ever having a baby.
If it wasn't a ruling, you're not bound by it. If it's the child's
status you're worried about, ask specifically about that. And I
second the recommendation of R. Tendler - he's definitely the one to
see about medically-related halacha.
-Shlomo-
meirm...@erols.com
arg...@sunlightNOSPAM.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon ) posted:
>
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
>
>>
>> On 20 Jul 2001 10:53:19 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>> >It sounds like timing is the issue, and that he's not objecting to
>> >AIDonor??? That using other than your husband's sperm is ok?? (As
>> >long as there is no sex act obviously.)
>>
>> I *think*, though he didn't explain, that being inseminated qualified
>> under his view as touching a part of the man, even if it had been
>> removed from the man and processed at the time and was being applied
>> to my body by a woman. Essentially, if I can't touch my husband at
>> that time of month, I can't touch his sperm cells either, even with
>> that sort of distance between.
>
>And keep in mind that even if you did have relations with your husband
>during this time (definitely forbidden), *no stigma* whatsoever
>attaches to the child according to anyone.
Exactly. That seems very important to me. I don't know if there
can't be contact between you and your husband's sperm or not. I know
so little. But it still wouldn't affect your baby.
It seems I didn't have enough details and much of my posts in this
thread was irrelevant, but each still contains at least some parts
interspersed that are worthwhile. Just skip the parts that are
irrelevant.
> And no one has to know.
>It also seems to me that his view of using AIH at that time of the
>month is not universal.
And you don't have to find someone who has the most restrictive view.
That's not the system. What would be the point of the other views if
they were always trumped by the most restrictive view? It would
be one thing if you already had a ruling from your own rabbi that you
can't do this, but you don't have that. And even that I understand
could be appealed. I don't remember the history of the extra seven
days after bleeding stops, but they're not d'oraisa original and iirc
they were assumed by women themselves, or by men and women together,
or something. Did they assume them even in such cases when it would
prevent them from getting pregnant at all? Did they know then that
that could make the difference? I don't think so. Because in most
cases it plainly doesn't. I'm sure this has been considered already,
but my mother would say that it is a good idea to point it out (not
because it is about motherhood, she would say this wrt anything).
And this situation is one or two logical steps more distant.
There is an O fertility clinic in Manhattan, maybe the upper west
side. I'm sure they've faced this question at least a couple times,
and I'm sure someone on the phone, even a nurse or technician, will
tell you what they do. And they can refer you to rabbis who know
about this stuff. Maybe women seek their own rulings and maybe some
rulings say no, but if they all said no, we'd be hearing someone
complaining publicly. (I looked in Yahoo maps but couldn't find it.)
>> If what he gave me was an opinion so I wouldn't be bound by a ruling I
>> may very well ignore it, because without this I have *no* chance of
>> ever having a baby.
>
>If it wasn't a ruling, you're not bound by it. If it's the child's
>status you're worried about, ask specifically about that.....
>
> -Shlomo-
animzmirot
This really isn't the place for a discussion on Advanced
Reproductive Technologies, but you appear to be mistaking
IVF (in vitro fertiliation) with IVF/ICSI. ICSI washes the
sperm, then picks out a sperm, and injects it directly into
the egg, making the fertilization happen completely outside
of the woman's body. IVF mixes sperm and eggs together
invitro, but does not do the injection.
Unfortunately, MOST states do not have insurance coverage
for either IVF or ICSI (or any other fertility options for
that matter) mandated. Exceptions include Massachusetts,
where Naomi is fortunately to now reside, Maryland, and a
few others with more watered down mandates. The cost for
these treatments is almost prohibitive (can be around 10K to
25K per cycle, depending upon the amount of meds needed) and
the success rate, while much better than 10 years ago, is
still fairly dismal for women over 35.
With all that in mind, it's extremely difficult for
religious couples of MANY persuasions to run against their
religions in their quest to become biological parents. Jews
are not the only people with strict prohibitions on some of
the procedures. In my mind, the stress of infertility is
hard enough without a lot of different people, most of whom
have never experienced it themselves, making pronouncements
on what is and isn't acceptable. But that's only my opinion.
Marjorie
>
>
> I have a friend who adopted their first child from Chile
and got the
> second one out of testtube.
We don't EVER say test tube. Besides being completely
scientifically incorrect (they use petri dishes, not test
tubes) it's insulting. When the topic comes up, it's
preferable to say ART helped them to concieve. Just like
it's not preferable for one to say "Oh, this is my ADOPTED
son Jordan, and my other son Max." We just don't do that.
Once a child comes into a family, that child is a part of
that family, regardless of how he or she got there.
meirm...@erols.com
"animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> posted:
>> >R' Moshe T. has said that there's no issue of mamzerut in
>AIDonor,
>> >although it's not recommended ab initio. But if it's
>one's husband's
>> >stuff, and the issue is timing, call him. OTOH, AIDonor
>is almost
>> >never needed for married women any more, since IVF/ICSI
>works relatively
>> >well.
>>
>> That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. Those stories
>how most men
>> had 200 million sperm or something like that but 100
>million wasn't
>> enough still strike me as strange. Then I read how 50
>million were
>> no good to begin with, 25 million got waylaid on the first
>leg of
>> their trip, 13 million a little bit later, and some how
>after several
>> other steps, by the end of the trip there were only 10
>left!! But if
>> there were 20 that would be enough!! It's still wierd. I
>guess for
>> IVF they can pick out 20 good ones on[or] more at the very
>beginning.
>
>This really isn't the place for a discussion on Advanced
>Reproductive Technologies,
What is the point of saying this and then continuing? I don't care if
this is the place or not, I don't mind if you write, but if you do,
you shouldn't write, certainly not this much. Jonathan had 1 1/2
lines, I had 8 lines, and you have between 24 and 32 lines and have
dragged the topic into insurance payments!
>but you appear to be mistaking
>IVF (in vitro fertiliation) with IVF/ICSI. ICSI washes the
>sperm, then picks out a sperm, and injects it directly into
>the egg, making the fertilization happen completely outside
>of the woman's body. IVF mixes sperm and eggs together
>invitro, but does not do the injection.
Whatever. I was talking about IVF. (V stands, as you say, for vitro,
which means glass.)
>Unfortunately, MOST states do not have insurance coverage
>for either IVF or ICSI (or any other fertility options for
>that matter) mandated. Exceptions include Massachusetts,
>where Naomi is fortunately to now reside, Maryland, and a
>few others with more watered down mandates. The cost for
>these treatments is almost prohibitive (can be around 10K to
>25K per cycle, depending upon the amount of meds needed) and
>the success rate, while much better than 10 years ago, is
>still fairly dismal for women over 35.
>
>With all that in mind, it's extremely difficult for
>religious couples of MANY persuasions to run against their
>religions in their quest to become biological parents. Jews
>are not the only people with strict prohibitions on some of
>the procedures. In my mind, the stress of infertility is
>hard enough without a lot of different people, most of whom
>have never experienced it themselves, making pronouncements
>on what is and isn't acceptable. But that's only my opinion.
You just made your own pronouncement, that "Jews [have] strict
prohibitions on some of the procedures." Don't criticize me. Yours
should give Naomi more stress than anything I've said. *I've*
consistently tried to tell her that afaik it's not as big a problem as
she seems to already think.
>Marjorie
>
>>
>>
>> I have a friend who adopted their first child from Chile
>> and got the second one out of testtube.
I meant to include that my friend is Jewish and belongs to an Orthodox
shul.
>We don't EVER say test tube.
Well I'm not part of "we".
> Besides being completely
>scientifically incorrect (they use petri dishes, not test
>tubes) it's insulting.
Who did I insult? The kid is not here. And why is it insulting in
this context?
> When the topic comes up, it's
>preferable to say ART helped them to concieve. Just like
>it's not preferable for one to say "Oh, this is my ADOPTED
>son Jordan, and my other son Max." We just don't do that.
>Once a child comes into a family, that child is a part of
>that family, regardless of how he or she got there.
And I didn't say or do anything you've criticized, and I'm not
introducing these kids to prospective friends. I'm talking about
anonymous kids in a thread about difficulties in conception. You
should only learn to be as respectful of people as I am.
BTW I'm sure his father loves both of them more than any of us do and
it didn't stop his father from telling me about his kid's glass
origin. And I told him how proud I was of him for taking the
initiative in using new ways to have children, both of them. And I
feel the same way about Naomi**. In fact that's why I told the story
about these two boys.
**And my brother, for that matter.
Jonathan J. Baker
Indeed, I thought of him because he was recommended to me by a
reproductive gynecologist.
Jonathan J. Baker
>"animzmirot" <animz...@home.com> posted:
>>With all that in mind, it's extremely difficult for
>>religious couples of MANY persuasions to run against their
>>religions in their quest to become biological parents. Jews
>>are not the only people with strict prohibitions on some of
>>the procedures. In my mind, the stress of infertility is
>>hard enough without a lot of different people, most of whom
>>have never experienced it themselves, making pronouncements
>>on what is and isn't acceptable. But that's only my opinion.
>You just made your own pronouncement, that "Jews [have] strict
>prohibitions on some of the procedures." Don't criticize me. Yours
>should give Naomi more stress than anything I've said. *I've*
>consistently tried to tell her that afaik it's not as big a problem as
>she seems to already think.
Indeed. As someone with experience with these technologies, and the
range of Orthodox rabbinic opinion on them, I can say that the trend
is to be lenient when it comes to these things. I think Marjorie is
frightening Naomi off, and it may come from incomplete understanding
of how Orthodox rabbis actually work in halacha (as opposed to their
writings, which tend to be fairly stringent).
I don't think it's a secret that we've been married for 10 years
and don't have kids [yet].
As for the fertility doctor on the upper West Side, he didn't work
for us, but he did work for two other frum couples that I know, and
he does have a large number of frum patients, including hasidim from
Boro Park and Williamsburgh.
Jonathan J. Baker
>> And no one has to know.
>>It also seems to me that his view of using AIH at that time of the
>>month is not universal.
>And you don't have to find someone who has the most restrictive view.
>That's not the system. What would be the point of the other views if
>they were always trumped by the most restrictive view? It would
Exactly. You don't need the strictest view. As many gedolim, e.g
Tiferes Yisroel in the last century, have said, it's easy to say no.
But it's also dangerous, because in being strict in one place, one can
wind up being lenient in another place: e.g., excessive stringency in
niddah (much of which in this post-churban age is based on custom
rather than law, or law as a precaution against uncertain facts, which
is also a place where doubt can come into play) leads to leniency in
pru urvu (reproduction). What you need is not the STRICTEST rabbi,
but the MOST RESPECTED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE rabbi, hence the recommendations
for R' Tendler or R' Belsky. What you want is an opinion that will
stand up to later scrutiny. Being stringent is no guarantee of halachic
strength.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
I guess what I'm looking for, about the marriage question rather than
the baby question anyway, is a rabbi whom nobody else will ever turn
up their nose at for being too lenient with me and say he was wrong to
have done so. I figure that if I end up with a strict one, then there
won't be anybody to say he was too lenient and the decision was wrong,
but if he's only respected and knowledgeable ("only" for these
purposes alone; surely it is a greater thing in general) then those
who are extremely strict will say "Well that's all very well for *him*
but *I* do things to a more exacting standard, and *I* say you're not
married after all!!" I don't want that to happen.
GAN EDEN WINES
"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:9jesvi$lku$1...@panix6.panix.com...
> In <me> arg...@sunlightNOSPAM.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon ) writes:
> >Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
>
> >> If what he gave me was an opinion so I wouldn't be bound by a ruling I
> >> may very well ignore it, because without this I have *no* chance of
> >> ever having a baby.
>
> >If it wasn't a ruling, you're not bound by it. If it's the child's
> >status you're worried about, ask specifically about that. And I
> >second the recommendation of R. Tendler - he's definitely the one to
> >see about medically-related halacha.
>
> Indeed, I thought of him because he was recommended to me by a
> reproductive gynecologist.
B"H
I think of Rav Tendler as being a very controversial figure in halacha
today, and his opinions are not as universally accepted as those of some
other rabbis, which is why I (and perhaps why others as well) recommended
Rav Belsky in the case of Naomi, due to her desire to satisfy the Jewish
world in as close to the entirety as possible. However, if it were me, and
I had a question about medical halacha, Rav Tendler is probably the one I
would go to in most instances. I feel it helps that he is a scientist as
well as a well-trained rabbi, halachicist and ethicist. That is, I would
not go directly to Rav Tendler, but rather to our rav for reproductive
halacha issues, Rabbi Ozarowski (now the executive director of the CRC in
Chicago, but formerly a congregational rabbi of ours) who often follows Rav
Tendler's opinions in medical halacha.
Now that I think about it, Rabbi Ozarowski might be the person whom Naomi
should contact. He's extremely easy going and personable, and is one of the
few orthodox rabbis I know who takes pastoral duties very seriously (he has
taken advanced degrees in such things in order to be capable in the pastoral
role). He also knows haow to talk to people with deference and sensitivity,
and has a history of sensitivity to the needs of those less halachically
observant or knowledgeable. He has a knowledge of many aspects of medical
and reproductive halacha, and the ear of many reknowned poskim, including
Rav Belsky, Rav Tendler and Rav Gedalia Schwartz, as well as many others.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
> --
N. Samuel R.
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
That sounds wise and I suggest that you make this very clear to whomever you
ask.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
I was told we would be breaking the law the same way bigamy was
breaking the law, that a person who was already married was forbidden
to marry without a get in between, even to the same person. I am *not*
willing to divorce my beloved husband just so we can make sure and get
married as soon as possible all over again.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Ackerman) wrote:
They's what one of the rabbis told me. He said it would be like
bigamy, that we would have to acquire a proper get and wait the
requisite period before we would be allowed to marry each other, if we
were in fact already legally married.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
Ackerman) wrote:
>Excuse me, but the question was not if someone can find a rabbi that N.
>Samuel R. respects. The question as I recall it was a rabbi that EVERYONE
>respects.
Or at least that EVERYONE will grudgingly accept a ruling from. They
don't have to like it, they have to agree that the wedding in question
-- whether the one we already had or another we'd have to replace it,
according to the rabbi's judgment -- counts as valid if he says it
does.
Sheldon Glickler
Naomi, why do you even care? Do you believe that your marriage is
valid? Yes? Then forget it. All you are doing is fueling the
fantasy that non-O somehow must look to O for authenticity and
consider themselves to be second-class. Frankly, it seems to me now
that you believe that. I don't.
Shelly
Jonathan J. Baker
>"Jonathan J. Baker" <jjb...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> Indeed, I thought of him because he was recommended to me by a
>> reproductive gynecologist.
>Now that I think about it, Rabbi Ozarowski might be the person whom Naomi
>should contact. He's extremely easy going and personable, and is one of the
>few orthodox rabbis I know who takes pastoral duties very seriously (he has
>taken advanced degrees in such things in order to be capable in the pastoral
>role). He also knows haow to talk to people with deference and sensitivity,
>and has a history of sensitivity to the needs of those less halachically
>observant or knowledgeable. He has a knowledge of many aspects of medical
>and reproductive halacha, and the ear of many reknowned poskim, including
>Rav Belsky, Rav Tendler and Rav Gedalia Schwartz, as well as many others.
That's probably a good idea. Going straight to the Great Man without
an interface can lead to inaccurate rulings, since you the layperson
don't necessarily know what is relevant to tell the Great Man. One
rabbi friend said he was mostly motivated to get smicha so he would
learn how to ask a question.
GAN EDEN WINES
Naomi:
If you were insemintated with your husband's semen when you were nidah, the
worst that one could say is that your child is a ben niddah. A ben nidah is
not a mamzer (as far as I know based upon every opinion I have heard or
read), and there are, as far as I know, absolutely no halachic restrictions
to a ben or bas nidah. While it is obviously better not to be one, most
balei teshuva must learn to cope with having this on our record. This may
be one of the reasons that FFBs do not always find it acceptable to marry
BTs, but it rarely matters so much in real life.
If, on the other hand, the sperm donor is not your husband, then the
resulting child may be considered a mamzer, depending upon the psak of a
competent rabbi (there are multiple opinions on the subject, as far as I
know). Then, it will become important to ascertain whether or not your
marriage is indeed valid from a halachic perspective-- if this is the
working scenario, then in any case the question of mamzerus would not really
present itself in application until your offspring is contemplating
marriage, so you have time to wait and not act precipitously.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
news:3b582307...@news.cris.com...
GAN EDEN WINES
So you have 2 questions-- one about AI, and one about your marriage.
Needless to say, if you are using sperm donated by someone other than your
husband, a currently invalid marriage would make things easier right now, as
even those who opine that a child fathered by someone other than your
husband would be a mamzer would have to conclude that the child was not a
mamzer, and you could always have a halachically valid wedding at a later
date (after the child is born, for instance) to make that valid for the
purposes of halachic validity. As I said in another post, if the other
question is simply one of introducing your husband's sperm while you are
niddah, the resulting child would not be a mamzer, but rather a ben niddah,
and therefore would be no worse off than the multitude of balei teshuva.
Craig Winchell
GAN EDEN Wines
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
news:3b58627c...@news.cris.com...
Jonathan J. Baker
>Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
>> >pru urvu (reproduction). What you need is not the STRICTEST rabbi,
>> >but the MOST RESPECTED AND KNOWLEDGEABLE rabbi, hence the recommendations
>> >for R' Tendler or R' Belsky. What you want is an opinion that will
>> >stand up to later scrutiny. Being stringent is no guarantee of halachic
>> >strength.
>> I guess what I'm looking for, about the marriage question rather than
>> the baby question anyway, is a rabbi whom nobody else will ever turn
>> up their nose at for being too lenient with me and say he was wrong to
>> have done so. I figure that if I end up with a strict one, then there
>> won't be anybody to say he was too lenient and the decision was wrong,
>> but if he's only respected and knowledgeable ("only" for these
>> purposes alone; surely it is a greater thing in general) then those
>> who are extremely strict will say "Well that's all very well for *him*
>> but *I* do things to a more exacting standard, and *I* say you're not
>> married after all!!" I don't want that to happen.
>Naomi, why do you even care? Do you believe that your marriage is
>valid? Yes? Then forget it. All you are doing is fueling the
>fantasy that non-O somehow must look to O for authenticity and
>consider themselves to be second-class. Frankly, it seems to me now
>that you believe that. I don't.
I tend to agree with Shelly here. It's not your problem. As long
as both of you are Jews, who could be married (i.e., neither divorced
beforehand, etc.) nobody will care whether the rabbi who did your
marriage was O/C/R or whatever.
It's why I encourage C/R to set up their own religions in Israel -
why keep whining at the O authorities that "you don't accept us"?
Just make yourselves acceptable.
Susan Cohen
meirm...@erols.com wrote:
> What would be the point of the other views if
> they were always trumped by the most restrictive view?
My one major worry in this (besides your happiness, of course, Naomi)
is that you can (probably) *always* find a rabbi who will disagree with
another rabbi's rulings - certainly in complicated matters.
I would urge you to find a rabbi whose rulings your community will
accept - or, perhaps, the community in which you some day hope to live?
Susan
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>Unfortunately, MOST states do not have insurance coverage
>for either IVF or ICSI (or any other fertility options for
>that matter) mandated. Exceptions include Massachusetts,
>where Naomi is fortunately to now reside, Maryland, and a
>few others with more watered down mandates.
Unfortunately, I'm not yet a legal resident of Massachussetts, nor is
my insurance here. We're just here for the summer while my husband
works at a summer job; we're going back to Chicago in three weeks. But
we hope to be back next May for good -- and yeah, the fact that
Massachussetts required insurance coverage for infertility treatment,
as well as having good adoption laws, did not escape my attention when
we were choosing a place. (We also just love Boston.)
Sheldon Glickler
> purposes of halachic validity. As I said in another post, if the other
> question is simply one of introducing your husband's sperm while you are
> niddah, the resulting child would not be a mamzer, but rather a ben niddah,
> and therefore would be no worse off than the multitude of balei teshuva.
Serious question: If Naomi and her husband (and the doctor) don't
say anything, how will **anyone** know? Is this question **ever**
asked of the child? the parents? How will the child know?
Seems to me that it is "much ado about nothing".
Shelly
Sheldon Glickler
Not so simple. Noone wants to tell the world he is "second class".
Unless the O also agree to have Orthodox in front of Judaism for
theirs, then that is not an acceptable alternative.
Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>You just made your own pronouncement, that "Jews [have] strict
>prohibitions on some of the procedures." Don't criticize me. Yours
>should give Naomi more stress than anything I've said. *I've*
>consistently tried to tell her that afaik it's not as big a problem as
>she seems to already think.
Oh, nobody's stressing me out, so quit worrying at each other, the
both of you. :) Seriously, I thank you both for the advice and
information; it's been interesting. I was less concerned with the
status of the baby, which I was already *fairly* sure would be okay
even if I'd done wrong in the process of conception (though your
prediction was nice to hear) and more concerned simply with the
personal issue of am I allowed to do this or will I be breaking the
rules if I do? I don't know whether I would break the rules for the
purpose, knowing I was doing so, but.... well, Moshe wrote to me and
suggested I try extra halakhic effort as well as the medical in order
to have a baby, and although I try not to be superstitious I don't
really want them to start off on the wrong foot. Right now I don't
trust God much. I don't think he'd be a mamzer but I wouldn't be half
surprised if God decided to make him stillborn or with some awful
congential disease or something just because I hadn't been scrupulous
about timing and mikvah in his conception. It sounds like just the
sort of horrible thing God *would* do.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 21 Jul 2001 18:06:14 GMT
>arg...@sunlightNOSPAM.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon ) posted:
>>And keep in mind that even if you did have relations with your husband
>>during this time (definitely forbidden), *no stigma* whatsoever
>>attaches to the child according to anyone.
>
>Exactly. That seems very important to me. I don't know if there
>can't be contact between you and your husband's sperm or not. I know
>so little. But it still wouldn't affect your baby.
Wouldn't affect his status? I understand and accept. Wouldn't make God
kill or injure him in order to punish me? I'm not convinced. It sounds
just like God's sort of attitude, from what I've seen.
>And you don't have to find someone who has the most restrictive view.
>That's not the system. What would be the point of the other views if
>they were always trumped by the most restrictive view?
Sorry for not being clear. On this subject, I just need a ruling by
someone respectable and qualified. On the question of whether I am
legally married or not, I need the strictest possible, because what I
want to know is whether the strictest possible of the non-rabbis I
might meet would accept my marriage as legal or not, and the only way
I can do that is to find a rabbi all -- and I do mean all -- of *them*
would, if grudgingly, concede to be an authority.
>There is an O fertility clinic in Manhattan, maybe the upper west
>side. I'm sure they've faced this question at least a couple times,
>and I'm sure someone on the phone, even a nurse or technician, will
>tell you what they do. And they can refer you to rabbis who know
>about this stuff. Maybe women seek their own rulings and maybe some
>rulings say no, but if they all said no, we'd be hearing someone
>complaining publicly. (I looked in Yahoo maps but couldn't find it.)
If I can find out its phone number somewhere, I'll be happy to call
it. Maybe there's something similar in Chicago, I'll check when I get
back.
GAN EDEN WINES
"Sheldon Glickler" <shel...@mediaone.net> wrote in message
news:3B5B2293...@mediaone.net...
B"H
You're probably correct. In the case of ben nidah, nobody would ever know
for certain, and the question would probably never come up.
Craig
>
> Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>BS"D
>
>So you have 2 questions-- one about AI, and one about your marriage.
Correct. The one about my marriage is the far more important, the
other is mainly curiosity.
>Needless to say, if you are using sperm donated by someone other than your
>husband,
Time to make this clear since lots of people seem confused about it:
WE WOULD BE USING MY EGG AND MY HUSBAND"S SPERM. Nobody
else's anything. The only reason for the AI procedure is that I don't
ovulate easily and therefore the doctors believe that we would have a
greater chance of conception in any given month by finding the correct
day through ultrasound monitoring and then injecting the sperm by
medical procedure directly into my womb, rather than letting it make
its way there the normal way.
Nor am I worried about the child being a mamzer. I'm just wondering
whether I would happen to be committing a sin. I will probably do it
either way, I don't think I'm quite dedicated enough to give up all
chance of having a child because my husband's sperm is not allowed to
touch me on the tenth day of my cycle after being processed in a
centrifuge and delivered through a tube by a female medical
technician. But I think little enough of God's attitude toward
humanity just now that I'd be frightened He might give them a horrible
congenital defect to punish me for it or something... it's just His
nasty sense of humor.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>Naomi, why do you even care? Do you believe that your marriage is
>valid? Yes? Then forget it. All you are doing is fueling the
>fantasy that non-O somehow must look to O for authenticity and
>consider themselves to be second-class. Frankly, it seems to me now
>that you believe that. I don't.
I don't believe in any religion or any denomination or any authority
but I believe in the State of Israel and I love it and I want to live
there as soon as I can manage to get my husband to move with me. It
matters to me whether it and its people, even the ones I don't like
much, think I am married or not. I care about their opinion and not
yours, not because they are Orthodox and you aren't, but because they
are Israeli and you aren't. And for that same reason, I care about
their opinion more than mine, because I love and admire Israel more
than I do myself and will do whatever it takes to do things their way.
>Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
My own community would happily accept a civil ceremony, a pagan
handfasting, or a statement that we're now officially decided to be
life partners. The one I someday hope to live in is the State of
Israel and I want the WHOLE state, anyone I might happen to meet
there, from the most secular to the most extreme observant, to accept
my marriage. It's a wide range, I'm afraid.
>Susan
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>That's probably a good idea. Going straight to the Great Man without
>an interface can lead to inaccurate rulings, since you the layperson
>don't necessarily know what is relevant to tell the Great Man. One
>rabbi friend said he was mostly motivated to get smicha so he would
>learn how to ask a question.
Okay, so now I have to ask:
1) who do people recommend I go directly to?
2) Do I ask them to go to someone in particular on my behalf, or
simply to find me an answer and then let them worry about how or from
whom?
3) How do I get (in the case of the marriage) a ruling in writing so
that I can prove it happened to skeptics?
4) How *do* I ask the question, at least of the first person?
5) Can anyone introduce me to a good preliminary figure? I'm getting
shyer by the minute just hearing all this and don't want to talk to
anyone who hasn't been prepared to deal with someone incredibly afraid
of him.
James Kahn
>On 20 Jul 2001 19:53:19 GMT, acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon
>Ackerman) wrote:
>>Excuse me, but the question was not if someone can find a rabbi that N.
>>Samuel R. respects. The question as I recall it was a rabbi that EVERYONE
>>respects.
>Or at least that EVERYONE will grudgingly accept a ruling from. They
>don't have to like it, they have to agree that the wedding in question
>-- whether the one we already had or another we'd have to replace it,
>according to the rabbi's judgment -- counts as valid if he says it
>does.
I think that's the issue: It's not necessarily the strictest rabbi
you want, but the most respected. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was not
the strictest rabbi, but his rulings are very widely accepted.
I also wanted to echo someone else's earlier comment, that if both you
and your husband are halachically Jewish, and permissable to each other
(i.e. no Kohanim issues, or earlier marriages without gets, etc.) than
after the fact you're marriage is kosher even if it wasn't done "by
the books" in the first place. Not that you should take my word,
but that's just my understanding.
--
Jim
New York, NY
(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
http://www.panix.com/~kahn
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com>
>Subject:Re: Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
>Date: 22 Jul 2001 18:07:38 GMT
>Message-ID:<9jam41$1nr$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>BS"D
>
>Naomi:
>
>If you were insemintated with your husband's semen when you were nidah, the
>worst that one could say is that your child is a ben niddah. A ben nidah is
>not a mamzer (as far as I know based upon every opinion I have heard or
>read), and there are, as far as I know, absolutely no halachic restrictions
>to a ben or bas nidah. While it is obviously better not to be one, most
>balei teshuva must learn to cope with having this on our record. This may
>be one of the reasons that FFBs do not always find it acceptable to marry
>BTs, but it rarely matters so much in real life.
AID via husband: Those that prohibit include: Divrei Malkiel IV 107;
Mishpetei Uzziel II 19; and the Yaskil Avdi V Even HaEzer 10. Those that
permit in extenuating circumstances: Tzitz Eliezer IX 51 Shaar daled.
Those that completely permit include: Maharsham III 268; Har Tzvi [as
brought in the Otzar haPoskim 23:1 s"k alef oht 17]; Minchat Yitzchak
I 50;Zekan Aharon mahadura Tinyana 97; Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach in
an article in the halachic journal NOAM 5718 p. 157; Sridei Eish III 5;
and Rav Ovadia Yosef in Yabia Omer II EH 1.
TIMING: see the Tzitz Eliezer above, Iggrot Moshe EH II 18, and Yabia
Omer II EH 1.
Josh
>
>If, on the other hand, the sperm donor is not your husband, then the
>resulting child may be considered a mamzer, depending upon the psak of a
>competent rabbi (there are multiple opinions on the subject, as far as I
>know). Then, it will become important to ascertain whether or not your
>marriage is indeed valid from a halachic perspective-- if this is the
>working scenario, then in any case the question of mamzerus would not really
>present itself in application until your offspring is contemplating
>marriage, so you have time to wait and not act precipitously.
>
>Craig Winchell
>GAN EDEN Wines
>
>"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com>
>Subject:Re: Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
>Date: 22 Jul 2001 18:08:04 GMT
>Message-ID:<9jaodf$c60$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>BS"D
>
>So you have 2 questions-- one about AI, and one about your marriage.
>Needless to say, if you are using sperm donated by someone other than your
>husband, a currently invalid marriage would make things easier right now, as
>even those who opine that a child fathered by someone other than your
>husband would be a mamzer would have to conclude that the child was not a
>mamzer, and you could always have a halachically valid wedding at a later
>date (after the child is born, for instance) to make that valid for the
>purposes of halachic validity. As I said in another post, if the other
>question is simply one of introducing your husband's sperm while you are
>niddah, the resulting child would not be a mamzer, but rather a ben niddah,
>and therefore would be no worse off than the multitude of balei teshuva.
Sigh ....
The Iggrot Moshe EH II 18 and the Yabia Omer II EH 1 even permit AID
during the time she's Niddah.
Josh
>
>Craig Winchell
>GAN EDEN Wines
>
>
>"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
>news:3b58627c...@news.cris.com...
>> On 20 Jul 2001 16:06:33 GMT, dr_m...@my-deja.com (Menachem Mavet)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
>news:<3b559eed...@news.cris.com>...
>> >> Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me. I need to have a question
>> >> answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
>> >> matter how strict they are, and if not, what do I do about it?"
>> >
>> >Why do you _need_ to care about whether "Everybody" will accept your
>> >decision about how you observe Torah? The way the Jewish community is
>> >split, I believe there is no way that "everybody" will accept anything.
>>
>> As long as I may have to live in Israel some day, I need to care
>> whether the Haredim are going to consider my marriage legal. Besides,
>> fundamentally I don't mind strict standards for things like this; it's
>> easy enough to go get a small private wedding ceremony done with an
>> Orthodox rabbi should it be necessary. I just want to know if it's
>> necessary or not.
>>
meirm...@erols.com
jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker) posted:
>In <me> arg...@sunlightNOSPAM.cs.biu.ac.il (Dr. Shlomo Argamon ) writes:
>>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
>
>>> If what he gave me was an opinion so I wouldn't be bound by a ruling I
>>> may very well ignore it, because without this I have *no* chance of
>>> ever having a baby.
>
>>If it wasn't a ruling, you're not bound by it. If it's the child's
>>status you're worried about, ask specifically about that. And I
>>second the recommendation of R. Tendler - he's definitely the one to
>>see about medically-related halacha.
>
>Indeed, I thought of him because he was recommended to me by a
>reproductive gynecologist.
That is something else to consider Naomi. Not about rabbis, about
doctors. My brother's wife went to a gynocologist for a year. I
guess he was somewhat reproductive! She did what he said but she
didn't get pregnant. Then they switched to a fertility specialist.
He gave her some shots of pergonal and iirc she was pregnant within 2
months. I doubt she had whatever you had, but still. Personal details
about her omitted.
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
remove the QQQ or not you are posting the same letter.
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>On 20 Jul 2001 18:02:15 GMT, Harry Weiss <hjw...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote:
>>> On 18 Jul 2001 20:43:12 GMT, meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>>
>>>>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 18 Jul 2001 17:28:28 GMT Naomi
>>>>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>>>>
>>
>>> This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
>>> marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
>>> marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
>>> Orthodox standard, we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
>>> it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
>>> kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
>>> already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
>>
>>Why can't you have another quiet marriage if your first one was okay. The
>>second then won't be more than an extra cup of wine. (I don't the
>>unnecessary bracha problem should be a real issue)
>
>I was told we would be breaking the law the same way bigamy was
>breaking the law, that a person who was already married was forbidden
>to marry without a get in between, even to the same person. I am *not*
>willing to divorce my beloved husband just so we can make sure and get
>married as soon as possible all over again.
This is intriguing. IIRC I've been told that it's good when getting
married to get married in all three possible ways (and although I
always confuse which are the three ways of getting engaged and which
are the three ways of getting married, I know I'm right on this one.)
and that's why (one of these that follow is for the engagement, which
happens only a few minutes earlier) the man gives the woman something
of value, why he signs the ketubah, why he says to her, "harei
m'kudeshet li..", and why he is alone with her for a while to give
them an opportunity to have sex (with the knowledge of witnesses?). It
seems to me, check with a rabbi, that since you assuredly didn't
actually have sex during that short period of being alone, even if you
can't repeat the other two methods, you can do the third since you've
never had sex with the intention of becoming married. No? So check
if you have to tell some 2 shomer-shabbes witnesses that you will be
staying in all night -- with him, ??maybe?? you have to invite them
over for after dinner drinks or coffee, (so they know you're not in
timbuktu and just pretending to be at home) and at 10 announce it's
time for bed (does one have to be immodest for the sake of witnesses?
I doubt it. Check. Maybe you just have to say it is getting late.)
And then have sex with your husband with the intention of becoming
married, and he with you I suppose. And if you weren't, you will be.
No? I'm pretty sure there's some variation of this that will work.
If you're rushing to settle this before you're pregnant, I don't see
the need, but maybe you know something I don't.
> -Naomi
>
>"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
> Nor give your children cause to doubt
> That virtue springs from iron within,
> Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
wrote:
>GAN EDEN WINES wrote:
I like to know when I'm breaking rules. It doesn't mean I won't break
them, but it means I get to decide with all the information at hand.
>Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>That is something else to consider Naomi. Not about rabbis, about
>doctors. My brother's wife went to a gynocologist for a year. I
>guess he was somewhat reproductive! She did what he said but she
>didn't get pregnant. Then they switched to a fertility specialist.
>He gave her some shots of pergonal and iirc she was pregnant within 2
>months. I doubt she had whatever you had, but still. Personal details
>about her omitted.
No personal details about me given, but rest assured I'm seeing a
reproductive endocrinologist as well as a gynecologist, and the former
is overseeing the effort to ensure my fertility.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
think that's great and I thank them. Some of them have been helpful by
email. I think this is okay, even though I have said pretty clearly in
my workname that I don't like personal email off this newsgroup,
because they met my three basic criteria, the letters being (a)
friendly, (b) noncontroversial, and (c) brief. Recently I've started
receiving what look like routine copies of whatever's posted from a
few specific posters -- I won't give names, it's rude; you know who
you are -- via private email. This I do not like. I think it should be
fairly obvious (and indeed I changed it at Meir's suggestion) that
someone whose "from" line reads ple...@donot.mailme doesn't want to be
mailed. If you have something so personal that it can't possibly be
posted, and it's well within the previously mentioned three criteria,
then write to me, by all means! But if it's something you are going to
be posting anyway, please don't send it also, let me read it here.
Thank you.
meirm...@erols.com
WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> posted:
>BS"D
>
>Naomi:
>
>If you were insemintated with your husband's semen when you were nidah, the
>worst that one could say is that your child is a ben niddah. A ben nidah is
>not a mamzer (as far as I know based upon every opinion I have heard or
>read), and there are, as far as I know, absolutely no halachic restrictions
>to a ben or bas nidah. While it is obviously better not to be one, most
>balei teshuva must learn to cope with having this on our record. This may
You'll have to explain this to me. I know what day I was born, but I
can only calculate the approximate day I was conceived. My parents
could likely do no better. You're not saying that if one's parents
ever had sex when she was niddah, the child is ben or bas niddah are
you? Are you saying that if they had sex that month when she was
niddah, that is the consequence? I thought it was necessary for the
sex act that resulted in the child to have been during niddah for the
child to be ben or bas niddah. And who, at least among couples with a
moderately frequent sex life, would know the answer to that?
>be one of the reasons that FFBs do not always find it acceptable to marry
>BTs, but it rarely matters so much in real life.
When you say may be, do you mean you don't know and are guessing, or
you mean you know it is that way for some but you don't know who in
particular, that it's rare?
How can it not matter so much in real life if even once in a while
that is the reason ffb's find it unacceptable to marry a BT? Are you
counting only those who meet through formal introductions, and saying
that anyone who would marry someone he or she met socially wouldn't
care?
The only ffb woman I've discussed this with, educated, with yichus
(her father a respected rabbi, etc,) only gave as a problem that bt's
took things too seriously. They thought seeming exceptions were
never appropriate. Didn't even think to ask.
>
>Craig Winchell
>GAN EDEN Wines
janet rosenbaum
call the boston kollel. 731-8107.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>strictly physically separate artificial insemination procedure, to use
>the only timing which will ever permit you to have a baby," but even
! i have been learning some medical halacha this month at shaarei
tsedek, and my impression is that everyone allows this. contact PUAH regarding fertility questions. they take their questions to a wide variety of
poskim. also, be sure to have the procedures supervised by them (to
ensure that the right sperm goes with the right eggs, and that you don't
end up with someone else's child.) they will do supervision at three
hospitals in ny (maimonides is one. i can't find the pamphlet so i'm
sorry i can't give further information now.)
janet
janet rosenbaum
>whether the Haredim are going to consider my marriage legal.
not really. you only really have to care about the rabbanut.
janet
janet rosenbaum
incidentally, for citizens israeli insurance covers infertility treatments
up to two children (that is, as many cycles as necessary in order to result
in two kids.)
janet
janet rosenbaum
i heard of a case where there was a doubt in a marriage and they said
"at adayin mekudeshet li" (you are still married to me) thus obviating
the question of whether they were married in the first place.
i do not know if this is a real story, much less whose opinion it was.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>If you were insemintated with your husband's semen when you were nidah, the
>worst that one could say is that your child is a ben niddah.
actually, it would be more like ben zava d'rabbanan, since it would
likely be during the 7 clean days.
the whole question about bts and bnei nidah was answered well by rav
feinstein who said that the problem with bnei nidah is that they don't
have good character. thus someone with good character cannot possibly
be a ben nidah and thus their mother must have gone swimming in the
ocean before conception and so wasn't a nidah.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>and four on the baby question and not gotten a single answer. How does
>anyone ever get definitive rulings???
in general, one has one rabbi that they trust, and asks.
if one doesn't have a rabbi and doesn't have a sense of which rabbis
they trust, it makes the process much more difficult.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>call the boston kollel. 731-8107.
incidentally, i wrote this before knowing what the problem was. i would
advise going directly to PUAH on the fertility questions, and not ask
the kollel rabbis since they are probably not expert in this area and will
likely end up asking someone else anyhow. PUAH is as universally
accepted on fertility matters as you can get --- they consult with rav
eliyashiv and other charedi rabbis, rav ovadiah yosef, the israeli rabbanut,
chabad rabbis, etc.
on the marriage question, since the rca rav said it was fine, you have what
to rely on that your marriage is valid. i don't think you need to ask
anyone else. if you want a charedi opinion, you may as well ask one of
the kollel rabbis, though preface the question by saying rav reiss's
opinion and that you wanted to make sure they thought it was okay to
follow his opinion here. btw, one of the roshei kollel is rabbi bier.
you can tell him you got his name from me (and send my regards), though
i don't know if he remembers me.
janet
Dr. Shlomo Argamon
Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
> think that's great and I thank them. Some of them have been helpful by
> email. I think this is okay, even though I have said pretty clearly in
> my workname that I don't like personal email off this newsgroup,
> because they met my three basic criteria, the letters being (a)
> friendly, (b) noncontroversial, and (c) brief. Recently I've started
Naomi,
I have something I believe to be of that nature, that I hope may be
helpful, and ought to stay off the newsgroup - please email me with
your address.
-Shlomo-
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In <3b588e4a...@news.cris.com> Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> writes:
>
>>On 20 Jul 2001 19:53:19 GMT, acke...@amanda.dorsai.org (Sheldon
>>Ackerman) wrote:
>
>>>Excuse me, but the question was not if someone can find a rabbi that N.
>>>Samuel R. respects. The question as I recall it was a rabbi that EVERYONE
>>>respects.
>
>>Or at least that EVERYONE will grudgingly accept a ruling from. They
>>don't have to like it, they have to agree that the wedding in question
>>-- whether the one we already had or another we'd have to replace it,
>>according to the rabbi's judgment -- counts as valid if he says it
>>does.
>
>I think that's the issue: It's not necessarily the strictest rabbi
>you want, but the most respected. Rabbi Moshe Feinstein was not
>the strictest rabbi, but his rulings are very widely accepted.
Okay, granted. I just want universally accepted, even if only
grudgingly respected, and I doubt I can have even that.
How is anyone supposed to do what will properly follow halakha if
nobody is willing to tell them definitively what does and what
doesn't, and even if they do, there will be someone else saying the
first one was wrong?
>I also wanted to echo someone else's earlier comment, that if both you
>and your husband are halachically Jewish, and permissable to each other
>(i.e. no Kohanim issues, or earlier marriages without gets, etc.) than
>after the fact you're marriage is kosher even if it wasn't done "by
>the books" in the first place. Not that you should take my word,
>but that's just my understanding.
We're both born Jewish, as far back in the maternal line as we know,
which admittedly is not all the way back to Sarah, but neither is it
for anyone else I've ever heard of. Neither of us is of Kohanic
descent. Neither had ever been married before. I think we're
reasonably clear, especially after two years of living as husband and
wife, which I seem to recall under certain circumstances can
constitute a marriage in itself.
>Jim
>New York, NY
>(Please remove "nospam." to get my e-mail address)
>http://www.panix.com/~kahn
-Naomi
janet rosenbaum
PUAH information: email: po...@zahav.net.il (sic)
the jerusalem contact info is azriel 19, 02-651-5050, 02-561-7501
(fax). they also have a new york office. haven't found that yet.
janet
janet rosenbaum
>We're both born Jewish, as far back in the maternal line as we know,
>which admittedly is not all the way back to Sarah, but neither is it
>for anyone else I've ever heard of.
i forget who, but i know someone who traced their geneology back to
rashi, who himself is descended from king david. ruth isn't sarah, but it's
pretty far back.
janet
GAN EDEN WINES
<BAC...@vms.HUJI.AC.IL> wrote in message news:9jfka5$jvc$1...@condor.nj.org...
> X-News: hujicc soc.culture.jewish.moderated:46426
>
> >From: "GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com>
> >Subject:Re: Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
> >Date: 22 Jul 2001 18:08:04 GMT
> >Message-ID:<9jaodf$c60$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>
>
> >BS"D
> >
> >So you have 2 questions-- one about AI, and one about your marriage.
> >Needless to say, if you are using sperm donated by someone other than
your
> >husband, a currently invalid marriage would make things easier right now,
as
> >even those who opine that a child fathered by someone other than your
> >husband would be a mamzer would have to conclude that the child was not a
> >mamzer, and you could always have a halachically valid wedding at a later
> >date (after the child is born, for instance) to make that valid for the
> >purposes of halachic validity. As I said in another post, if the other
> >question is simply one of introducing your husband's sperm while you are
> >niddah, the resulting child would not be a mamzer, but rather a ben
niddah,
> >and therefore would be no worse off than the multitude of balei teshuva.
>
>
> Sigh ....
>
> The Iggrot Moshe EH II 18 and the Yabia Omer II EH 1 even permit AID
> during the time she's Niddah.
For the record, Josh, I phrased my post incorrectly. I did not mean to
imply that the child would indeed be a ben nidah in fact, but simply that
the posek with whom she already spoke, who considered that there was this
perceived timing issue, would consider the child to be a ben niddah, and
what I meant was that even given that perception, the downside was not
anything to worry about in practical terms. The fact that Rav Moshe
Feinstein, zt"l would permit it makes it a non-issue to the vast, vast
majority of even the most observant Jews.
Craig
GAN EDEN WINES
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
> On 22 Jul 2001 17:58:06 GMT, jjb...@panix.com (Jonathan J. Baker)
> wrote:
>
> >That's probably a good idea. Going straight to the Great Man without
> >an interface can lead to inaccurate rulings, since you the layperson
> >don't necessarily know what is relevant to tell the Great Man. One
> >rabbi friend said he was mostly motivated to get smicha so he would
> >learn how to ask a question.
>
> Okay, so now I have to ask:
>
> 1) who do people recommend I go directly to?
You said in an earlier post that you plan to be in Chicago later this
summer. Rabbi Ozarowski, of whom I spoke, is located there, and he is one
of the sweetest people in the world, in my opinion, far more sensitive than
I am (grin), and extremely helpful. Others here will give you other
recommendations, but he would be my choice in such a situation.
>
> 2) Do I ask them to go to someone in particular on my behalf, or
> simply to find me an answer and then let them worry about how or from
> whom?
If it were me, I would discuss the problem, and what I would hope to
accomplish. No doubt he (or whoever you decided to contact, if not him)
would discuss the options with you in terms of a posek suitable for the
purpose, and you would decide together how to proceed.
>
> 3) How do I get (in the case of the marriage) a ruling in writing so
> that I can prove it happened to skeptics?
He can ask the posek for a written answer, if that is what you want. Unless
it is a precedent setting ruling, most would give answers verbally unless
requested otherwise. At least, that is my experience (by the way, I've
never had a precedent setting shaila, so I've always been answered
verbally).
>
> 4) How *do* I ask the question, at least of the first person?
If you have a general question in mind (which you do), but don't know how to
get to specifics, he would probably ask a series of questions to get to what
would be, from a halachic standpoint, the heart of the matter, so he'll know
what to tell the eventual posek. I have found that with my shailas,
questions are asked of me about things which I did not consider relevant
(but turned out to be relevant from a halachic perspective), and questions
which I would have thought would have been asked of me were not, again
because of lack of halachic relevance.
>
> 5) Can anyone introduce me to a good preliminary figure? I'm getting
> shyer by the minute just hearing all this and don't want to talk to
> anyone who hasn't been prepared to deal with someone incredibly afraid
> of him.
I'd be happy to. And I'm sure that is true of most, if not all, of the
people here who are generally considered to be orthodox. I'm sure that
there are a multitude of rabbis to whom we would feel comfortable fielding
questions such as this, and who could act as ombudsmen to gedolim. If there
is someone in this newsgroup, among the orthodox, with whom you feel a
special closeness, perhaps it would be worthwhile to simply ask that person
to introduce you to his/her choice for the best candidate for your needs.
If you ask the whole newsgroup, the number of choices may be daunting, to
say the least. Perhaps choosing the person in scjm whose opinion you most
value and with whom you feel most comfortable, would be the best way to lead
you to the right rabbinical ombudsman for you. In any case, there's no
reason to feel afraid. It's no worse than finding a lawyer for any given
purpose. In fact, it's a lot better, because I've yet to have to pay money
to get an answer to a shaila.
Craig
Susan Cohen
Naomi Gayle Rivkis wrote:
> Right now I don't
> trust God much. I don't think he'd be a mamzer but I wouldn't be half
> surprised if God decided to make him stillborn or with some awful
> congential disease or something just because I hadn't been scrupulous
> about timing and mikvah in his conception. It sounds like just the
> sort of horrible thing God *would* do.
I know you don't like to be e-mailed, which is the only reason I am posting
this.
I can understand you being angry right now, and I won't presume to tell you
that it's because I feel the same way - I couldn't possibly be in your
shoes.
I only want you to know that I understand - I'm sure we all do - and I want
you to know that I'm here for you. We're here for you. If youwant to talk
to
me, I can e-mail you my phone humber, if you like.
Susan
Binyamin Dissen
[ snipped ]
:>You'll have to explain this to me. I know what day I was born, but I
:>can only calculate the approximate day I was conceived. My parents
:>could likely do no better. You're not saying that if one's parents
:>ever had sex when she was niddah, the child is ben or bas niddah are
:>you? Are you saying that if they had sex that month when she was
:>niddah, that is the consequence? I thought it was necessary for the
:>sex act that resulted in the child to have been during niddah for the
:>child to be ben or bas niddah. And who, at least among couples with a
:>moderately frequent sex life, would know the answer to that?
The woman remains in the state of a Niddah until she goes to the Mikvah.
For the non-religious, who never go to the Mikvah, the woman remains a Niddah
even years after her period.
Again, to make it clear, there are no opinions that state that such a child is
a Mamzer.
[ snipped ]
--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@netvision.net.il>
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com
meirm...@erols.com
Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>On this thread, a whole lot of people have been really helpful. I
>think that's great and I thank them. Some of them have been helpful by
>email. I think this is okay, even though I have said pretty clearly in
>my workname that I don't like personal email off this newsgroup,
>because they met my three basic criteria, the letters being (a)
>friendly, (b) noncontroversial, and (c) brief. Recently I've started
I don't remember ever reading these three rules. I do know that you
gave your email address in this very thread. I wasn't aware of these
other rules.
>receiving what look like routine copies of whatever's posted from a
>few specific posters -- I won't give names, it's rude; you know who
>you are -- via private email. This I do not like. I think it should be
>fairly obvious (and indeed I changed it at Meir's suggestion) that
>someone whose "from" line reads ple...@donot.mailme doesn't want to be
>mailed. If you have something so personal that it can't possibly be
>posted, and it's well within the previously mentioned three criteria,
>then write to me, by all means! But if it's something you are going to
>be posting anyway, please don't send it also, let me read it here.
I don't know if I'm am one you are referring to, and maybe it is a
mistake to write if I'm not included, but I want you to know wrt to
the one email I sent you, I didn't send you a routine copy. I started
to write a post and I decided that more than any other post in this
thread, that one you should see. Usenet delivery is not that
reliable. I think that is undisputed. So I sent you a copy, for your
benefit. But that post had been written for others too. So I posted
it, too. I think I forgot to say P&M, and I apologize. I do remember
your rule about no duplicates, but neither this time nor the last time
a couple weeks ago that you posted your email address did you repeat
it. You have a lot of rules. With agent, you can write them all in a
file, copy the file to your post, and then make any modifications you
wish before posting. This would be more clear. Yes, I write just to
read my own words, but they are also meant to help you.
I would email this only but I guess it is not noncontroversial.
>Thank you.
>
> -Naomi
>
>"Cease, then, to fashion state-made sin
> Nor give your children cause to doubt
> That virtue springs from iron within,
> Not lead without." Rudyard Kipling
mei...@QQQerols.com If you email me, please let me know whether
Adelle Stavis
"Naomi Gayle Rivkis" <ple...@donot.mailme> wrote in message
> >Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
> >
> >>Okay, the Haredim probably won't talk to me.
> >
> >effort to talk to some so you'll see it for yourself. When you were
> >in Hyde Park this wasn't so easy to do, but Boston's laid out
> >differently, so IIUC you have an opportunity this summer.
>
> I'm not sure where to go. Any suggestions? I don't know Boston very
> well yet. I do know most of the Jewish population is concentrated in
> or around Brookline, but within that range are also a whole lot of
> other people and what I saw there was mostly Modern Orthodox ranging
> to random gentiles.
>
> >I guess I must put one caveat on my first sentence. Just like, if you
> >start off with a used car dealer: "I know you guys cover up the car's
> >problems", it will cast a pallor on the conversation, there is a way
> >to offend just about anyone, Haredim included.
>
> I'm sorry; I wasn't aware "I don't expect you'd be willing to talk to
> me..." was an insult; I thought it was an apology and a plea -- please
> make an exception just this once, because I need your help, although
> there's no real reason you should have to.
>
> >>I need to have a question
> >>answered that comes down to "Will, or won't, EVERYBODY accept this, no
> >>this, I need the strictest rabbi, Israeli or American, who is willing
> >>to speak to me (being able to speak fluent English would help). Can
> >
> >I offerred you my own rabbi in NJ (I'm not sure if you read that
> >post), but that was for a different question. His forte is being
> >clear. I have no special feeling that he is strict, and on some
> >issues I think he's not.
>
> This is about a marriage. Specifically, given the questions about
> marriages in Israel performed by non-Orthodox rabbis, whether my
> marriage was legal or not, because if it was not by every conceivable
> Orthodox standard, we will find an appropriate Orthodox rabbi and do
> it over quietly and properly, with no hard feelings. But if it *was*
> kosher wedding, then we're not *allowed* to do that because we're
> already married, so you see it becomes important to find out.
>
> >>not a joke and you have my word that whoever you ask to help me will
> >>be treated humbly and with respect.
> >
> >You already covered what I said above. If someone knows a strict
> >Haredi, I think you should call him.
>
> If someone knows one who is willing to help me I will be grateful for
> the chance to call him. I've already called the RCA's Bet Din of
> America and had one of their members put on the phone. he questioned
> me extensively about the details of my witnesses and ketubah and said
> "That sounds like a kosher wedding to me. If anyone gives you trouble
> over it, send 'em to me." I'd rather nt have to do this, however, and
> I don't know how many people will take Rabbi Reiss as an authority.
>
> >To all of you. Aren't most rabbis "strict" on some things and liberal
> >on others. Partly because some things are the counterparts of others,
> >and partly because different people/rabbis emphasize different things?
>
> Granted; that's why, on reflection, I gave the subject this time.
>
> -Naomi
Hi, Naomi
At the risk of having to don an asbestos suit, I will ask the following:
Aren't the basic elements of a Jewish wedding a Groom using the formulaic
phrase, "Harai
aht mekudeshet li...;" the giving and accepting of a ring (or any token
worth the required minimum amount) owned by the groom; Shabbat observant
witnesses. (Given obvious things like Jewish Bride and Groom)?
Can't find my reference books at the moment, but I think even the Ketubah
(giving and accepting) can occur post fact.
IIRC, The Rabbi or Cantor serves as a witness, and to satisfy *civil*
requirements
of, "a ceremony performed by someone recognized w/in the religion as having
the authority to perform said ceremony." But Jewish law doesn't have someone
else *perform* the ceremony, the participants *marry* one another.(My law
professor for Domestic Relations was Jewish and we had a thorough discussion
on Jewish law allowing any Shabbat observant witness but that most states
won't allow the license to be signed by anyone but clergy). That's why, I
think, the
Rabbi questioned you about your witnesses. It is the witnesses that matter,
not the Rabbi.
Hope this is of help. I'm sorry you are going through all this.
I live in Chelmsford (just south of Lowell, currently in the news because
the State House speaker wants to re-district Marty Meehan out of power),
about 30-45 minutes from Brookline or Newton (Not sure where you are
living). If you feel like you need an ear just to vent, or someone to go out
for tea with, email me (deleting the obvious nonsense).
Adelle Stavis
GAN EDEN WINES
<meirm...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:1g9nlts5q7m07ghip...@4ax.com...
> In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 22 Jul 2001 18:07:38 GMT "GAN EDEN
> WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> posted:
>
> >BS"D
> >
> >Naomi:
> >
> >If you were insemintated with your husband's semen when you were nidah,
the
> >worst that one could say is that your child is a ben niddah. A ben nidah
is
> >not a mamzer (as far as I know based upon every opinion I have heard or
> >read), and there are, as far as I know, absolutely no halachic
restrictions
> >to a ben or bas nidah. While it is obviously better not to be one, most
> >balei teshuva must learn to cope with having this on our record. This
may
>
> You'll have to explain this to me. I know what day I was born, but I
> can only calculate the approximate day I was conceived. My parents
> could likely do no better. You're not saying that if one's parents
> ever had sex when she was niddah, the child is ben or bas niddah are
> you? Are you saying that if they had sex that month when she was
> niddah, that is the consequence? I thought it was necessary for the
> sex act that resulted in the child to have been during niddah for the
> child to be ben or bas niddah. And who, at least among couples with a
> moderately frequent sex life, would know the answer to that?
Well, I'm probably incorrect, but I thought that anyone conceived from a
mother who did not tovel herself after her last period prior to the
conception would be considered a ben/bas niddah. If that is the case, since
most BTs were born from mothers who *never* went to mikvah (at least after
the wedding), they would automatically be considered bnei niddah. That the
parents would have been subject to kares in such a circumstance never kept
such parents from their sexual relationship, since they probably did not
know, but at worst did not care about those consequences. But the child, in
such a circumstance, has a blemish, whether the parents knew or not.
>
> >be one of the reasons that FFBs do not always find it acceptable to marry
> >BTs, but it rarely matters so much in real life.
>
> When you say may be, do you mean you don't know and are guessing, or
> you mean you know it is that way for some but you don't know who in
> particular, that it's rare?
I have heard that there are some FFBs who will not marry BTs no matter how
vast their learning, or how good their middos (although I do not have any
first hand knowledge of such a situation), and I am conjecturing that it is
because the BT may be a ben/bas niddah.
>
> How can it not matter so much in real life if even once in a while
> that is the reason ffb's find it unacceptable to marry a BT? Are you
> counting only those who meet through formal introductions, and saying
> that anyone who would marry someone he or she met socially wouldn't
> care?
Of course, it might seriously matter to someone caught in a situation, but
if people are rarely caught in the situation, then it would be rare for it
to matter. I have no idea if or whether there is any degree of frequency
whatsoever to such a situation mattering. It was only conjecture on my
part. In not knowing a shadchen, I have no idea what goes on in the
shadchen's mind, and whether or not this is important to a shadchen. In not
knowing anyone to whom this mattered who was introduced to someone socially,
or who met someone socially, I have no data to conclude that such is or
represents a problem. It is only conjecture on my part, and probably
unfounded, and I would caution anybody to take anything I say with a grain
of salt.
Craig
meirm...@erols.com
Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> posted:
>On 23 Jul 2001 04:16:02 GMT meirm...@erols.com wrote:
>
> [ snipped ]
>
>:>You'll have to explain this to me. I know what day I was born, but I
>:>can only calculate the approximate day I was conceived. My parents
>:>could likely do no better. You're not saying that if one's parents
>:>ever had sex when she was niddah, the child is ben or bas niddah are
>:>you? Are you saying that if they had sex that month when she was
>:>niddah, that is the consequence? I thought it was necessary for the
>:>sex act that resulted in the child to have been during niddah for the
>:>child to be ben or bas niddah. And who, at least among couples with a
>:>moderately frequent sex life, would know the answer to that?
>
>The woman remains in the state of a Niddah until she goes to the Mikvah.
>
>For the non-religious, who never go to the Mikvah, the woman remains a Niddah
>even years after her period.
Of course. I just didn't think of that. Thanks, and thank you Craig.
>
>Again, to make it clear, there are no opinions that state that such a child is
>a Mamzer.
Very important to keep that one straight.
> [ snipped ]
meirm...@erols.com
WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> posted:
>
>> You'll have to explain this to me. I know what day I was born, but I
>> can only calculate the approximate day I was conceived. My parents
>> could likely do no better. You're not saying that if one's parents
>> ever had sex when she was niddah, the child is ben or bas niddah are
>> you? Are you saying that if they had sex that month when she was
>> niddah, that is the consequence? I thought it was necessary for the
>> sex act that resulted in the child to have been during niddah for the
>> child to be ben or bas niddah. And who, at least among couples with a
>> moderately frequent sex life, would know the answer to that?
>
>Well, I'm probably incorrect, but I thought that anyone conceived from a
>mother who did not tovel herself after her last period prior to the
>conception would be considered a ben/bas niddah. If that is the case, since
No. It was my mistake. Thanks for dealing with all my questions.
Sheldon Glickler
> I have heard that there are some FFBs who will not marry BTs no matter how
> vast their learning, or how good their middos (although I do not have any
> first hand knowledge of such a situation), and I am conjecturing that it is
> because the BT may be a ben/bas niddah.
You know, I am reminded of the statement that I wouldn't want to
belong to any club that would have me as a member.
Shelly
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>In soc.culture.jewish.moderated on 22 Jul 2001 23:59:35 GMT Naomi
>Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme> posted:
>
>>On this thread, a whole lot of people have been really helpful. I
>>think that's great and I thank them. Some of them have been helpful by
>>email. I think this is okay, even though I have said pretty clearly in
>>my workname that I don't like personal email off this newsgroup,
>>because they met my three basic criteria, the letters being (a)
>>friendly, (b) noncontroversial, and (c) brief. Recently I've started
>
>I don't remember ever reading these three rules. I do know that you
>gave your email address in this very thread. I wasn't aware of these
>other rules.
Um, I think I gave it stating that it could be used for one specific
purpose, not in general for any advice anyone thought I should see on
the topic. did not give those rules in this thread; I've given them
elsewhere, which is something you have correctly previously pointed
out doesn't always get through to everyone, so I didn't expect they
would be followed. I just didn't bother to complain about those who
used my email for other purposes than the explicitly authorized but
happened to follow said rules anyway. When they started being
violated, I requested that it stop. I'm not angry, I'm not even
critical. You were trying to help and I appreciate that. I was just
making exactly what I said I was making: a request. No more by email
of that sort, please. That's all, and nothing against you for the last
one.
toichen
> phrase, "Harai
> aht mekudeshet li...;" the giving and accepting of a ring (or any token
> worth the required minimum amount) owned by the groom;
If the bride also gives a ring to the husband that would invalidate
the husbands giving of the ring.
> Shabbat observant
> witnesses. (Given obvious things like Jewish Bride and Groom)?
If the witnesses are not clearly named or converself if they are and
they are related either to the bride or groom or to each other or one
of them are female that would invalidate the marriage.
> Can't find my reference books at the moment, but I think even the Ketubah
> (giving and accepting) can occur post fact.
It cannot. Further if the ketuba is not the classical Jewish document
then the husband and wife are not permitted to stay with each other,
and have to separate until they get a valid ketuba.
> IIRC, The Rabbi or Cantor serves as a witness,
With another witness.
toichen
> Adelle Stavis
N. Samuel R.
"GAN EDEN WINES" <gan...@dnai.com> wrote in message
news:9jheki$dnh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
[excerpt]
> I have heard that there are some FFBs who will not marry BTs no matter how
> vast their learning, or how good their middos (although I do not have any
> first hand knowledge of such a situation), and I am conjecturing that it is
> because the BT may be a ben/bas niddah.
I don't know about that but I do think that one of the reasons for people from
Orthodox families not wanting to marry those who are not from such families is
simply because they want to marry into a Orthodox family. The Talmud says that a
man should do his utmost to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.
Binyamin Dissen
:>"Adelle Stavis" <ade...@nospam.mediaone.net> wrote in message
:>> Aren't the basic elements of a Jewish wedding a Groom using the formulaic
:>> phrase, "Harai
:>> aht mekudeshet li...;" the giving and accepting of a ring (or any token
:>> worth the required minimum amount) owned by the groom;
:>If the bride also gives a ring to the husband that would invalidate
^^^^^
:>the husbands giving of the ring.
You misspelled MIGHT.
Naomi Gayle Rivkis
>"Adelle Stavis" <ade...@nospam.mediaone.net> wrote in message
>> Aren't the basic elements of a Jewish wedding a Groom using the formulaic
>> phrase, "Harai
>> aht mekudeshet li...;" the giving and accepting of a ring (or any token
>> worth the required minimum amount) owned by the groom;
>
>If the bride also gives a ring to the husband that would invalidate
>the husbands giving of the ring.
We knew this one. I handled it by doing no such thing during the
ceremony and then a day or two later happening to give my husband a
present, which just happened to be a ring, for no other reason than
that I loved him and wanted to give him a present and with nothing to
do with the wedding. So we wear what look like double rings, but were
told in advance that there's nothing wrong with that halakhically.
>> Shabbat observant
>> witnesses. (Given obvious things like Jewish Bride and Groom)?
>
>If the witnesses are not clearly named or converself if they are and
>they are related either to the bride or groom or to each other or one
>of them are female that would invalidate the marriage.
The Chabad rabbi near here and Rabbi Reiss of the American Bet Din
both explicitly told me that the witnesses need not be named, nor need
the witnesses who observed the ceremony be the same as the ones who
signed the ketubah. They said firmly that as long as there existed two
adult, Jewish, shomer shabbos males who were not related to either of
us and who had a good view and hearing of the words being spoken and
my lack of attempt to flee, then they counted, whether or not they
were the same ones we had designated as witnesses or even whether or
not anybody except us knew which ones they were.
>> Can't find my reference books at the moment, but I think even the Ketubah
>> (giving and accepting) can occur post fact.
>
>It cannot. Further if the ketuba is not the classical Jewish document
>then the husband and wife are not permitted to stay with each other,
>and have to separate until they get a valid ketuba.
Again, you run counter both to the Chabad rabbi and to Rabbi Reiss.
They both say that so long as the classical document is included and
nothing which directly contradicts or counters it is added, there may
be other material added and it is still a fully kosher ketubah.
specifically, ours is classical text with Lieberman clause attached,
and both of these rabbis said that was a kosher ketubah.
BAC...@vms.huji.ac.il
>From: Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme>
>Subject:Re: Need the strictest rabbi I can find.
ROTFL ! These two *rabbis* haven't got the faintest idea what they're
talking about. Unfortunately, the Lieberman clause INVALIDATES the
entire ketuba [and that's apart from the fact that any wedding that used
the Lieberman clause in the Ketuba was performed by a member of the C
clergy, also invalidating the kiddushin].
I'll see if I can dig up the post I once wrote on the C Lieberman clause
and how it completely invalidates the entire ketuba.
Needless to say, there is nothing here that prevents you from having a small
Orthodox marriage ceremony (e.g. rabbi, the couple and another kosher
witness).
Josh
Micha Berger
: news:9jheki$dnh$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
:> I have heard that there are some FFBs who will not marry BTs no matter how
:> vast their learning, or how good their middos (although I do not have any
:> first hand knowledge of such a situation), and I am conjecturing that it is
:> because the BT may be a ben/bas niddah.
On 23 Jul 2001 17:48:01 GMT, N. Samuel R. <n_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
: I don't know about that but I do think that one of the reasons for people from
: Orthodox families not wanting to marry those who are not from such families is
: simply because they want to marry into a Orthodox family. The Talmud says that a
: man should do his utmost to marry the daughter of a Torah scholar.
I assume you'd agree that such concerns come second to the personality
of the girl herself? And can you think of a likelier way of finding an
idealistic mate than looking amongst people who totally overturned their
lives for the sake of their -- and (since you share their O ideals)
your -- ideals?
(FWIW, this was exactly why I *preferred* to date ba'alos
teshuvah. Although admittedly, I didn't date that many women before
returning to propose to the first one I dated.)
A third issue is more pragmatic: people from different cultures have
different expectations of what a successful marriage is. Therefore someone
may wish to look for a bride from as similar of a background as possible.
It minimizes numerous sources of fights.
-mi
--
Micha Berger Time flies...
mi...@aishdas.org ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org - R' Zelig Pliskin
Fax: (413) 403-9905
Jonathan J. Baker
>From: Naomi Gayle Rivkis <ple...@donot.mailme>
>>Again, you run counter both to the Chabad rabbi and to Rabbi Reiss.
>>They both say that so long as the classical document is included and
>>nothing which directly contradicts or counters it is added, there may
>>be other material added and it is still a fully kosher ketubah.
>>specifically, ours is classical text with Lieberman clause attached,
>>and both of these rabbis said that was a kosher ketubah.
>ROTFL ! These two *rabbis* haven't got the faintest idea what they're
>talking about. Unfortunately, the Lieberman clause INVALIDATES the
>entire ketuba [and that's apart from the fact that any wedding that used
>the Lieberman clause in the Ketuba was performed by a member of the C
>clergy, also invalidating the kiddushin].
>I'll see if I can dig up the post I once wrote on the C Lieberman clause
>and how it completely invalidates the entire ketuba.
Be sure to include an explanation of how the Lieberman clause invalidates
the ketubah while neither the Willig pre-nuptial agreement nor the first
New York get law do.
--
Jonathan Baker | It's almost time ta muze
jjb...@panix.com | about the Destruction.
Web page <http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker>