Chodosh Guide 2023-24

unfortunately probably the last guide. Also check out yoshon.com

Chodosh Guide 2023 Complete by shasdaf on Scribd

Real Agunah Story (but not Jewish)

A woman whose husband disappeared (a real aguna, though she was not Jewish) and was declared dead has now found out her husband is still alive.

This possibility is why Jewish Law has specific thresholds until a missing man can be declared dead according to Halacha.  The sages (Chazal) knew how important it was to be able to reach this threshold so they were lenient in expanding the allowed witness pool, accepting testimony about the missing's person alleged death by certain classes of people whose testimony s generally not accepted.

Sourcer: Carole Baskin: 'Dead’ husband found alive but no one noticed (nypost.com)

The “Tiger King” star declared that her missing ex-husband, Don Lewis, was found alive in Costa Rica, but the discovery is just now going viral — over a year later.

During a resurfaced November 2021 interview with ITV’s “This Morning” talk show, Baskin, 61, alleged that her ex, who was declared legally dead in 2002 after disappearing a few years before, was actually alive and well.

However, not everyone is buying it.

Baskin herself told The Post she was unaware of the alleged revelation until the sequel series was broadcast in November 2021.

“I was not aware of it until ‘TK2’ aired,” Baskin told The Post via email, as much confusion and online debate ignited on social media. The animal rights activist alleged in the resurfaced ITV footage that the Department of Homeland Security has been in touch with her former spouse. 

“One of the really exciting things that came out of ‘Tiger King 2’ is that they produced a letter from Homeland Security and it says that a special agent in charge with the FBI at Homeland Security reached out to the sheriff’s detective George [Jorge] Fernandez, which means this had to have happened after 2002 because Homeland Security wasn’t even around until 2002,” Baskin told the outlet at the time.

“They said my husband, Don Lewis, is alive and well in Costa Rica,” she revealed. “And yet all of this drama has been made about me having something to do with his disappearance when Homeland Security has known where he is.”

Lewis disappeared in 1997 at the age of 59 — and would be 84 if he’s still alive today.

The Post has reached out to Baskin, the Department of Homeland Security, and the FBI for further comment. Meanwhile, Florida’s Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office partially shot down Baskin’s newly viral remarks when reached for confirmation.

“We have not received any communication from our federal partners that confirms the location of missing person Mr. Don Lewis,” Fentress Fountain, public information officer for the sheriff’s office, told The Post. “The investigation into Don Lewis’ disappearance remains a priority for the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office, as do all missing person cases.”

Lewis has not made any public statements debunking rumors that he had died.

More Yoshon and Chodosh resources

 This is a handy site to find info about yoshon products or the check the yoshon or chodosh status

Home » Yoshon.com

www.yoshon.com

Chodosh Guide final 2022 - 2023

Chodosh Main Guide 2022 Final by shasdaf on Scribd

Chodosh Guide (preliminary)

Preliminary Chodosh Guide 2021 Edited by shasdaf on Scribd

Intermarriage in the News (Muslim & Hindu)

from: NYTimes

MODERN LOVE

I Tried to Filter Him Out

As a Pakistani Muslim, I knew that falling for a Hindu Indian would break me. And it did.

By Myra Farooqi

April 16, 2021Updated 12:16 a.m. ET

We started texting during the early months of the pandemic, going back and forth every day for hours. The stay-at-home order created a space for us to get to know each other because neither of us had any other plans.

We built a friendship founded on our love of music. I introduced him to the hopelessly romantic soundtrack of my life: Durand Jones & The Indications, Toro y Moi and the band Whitney. He introduced me to classic Bollywood soundtracks, Tinariwen and the bass-filled tracks of Khruangbin.

He was eccentrically passionate in a way that barely annoyed me and often inspired me. Our banter was only curtailed by bedtimes we grudgingly enforced at 3 a.m., after eight straight hours of texting.

We had met on a dating app for South Asians called Dil Mil. My filters went beyond age and height to exclude all non-Muslim and non-Pakistani men. As a 25-year-old woman who grew up in the Pakistani-Muslim community, I was all too aware of the prohibition on marrying outside of my faith and culture, but my filters were more safeguards against heartbreak than indications of my religious and ethnic preferences. I simply did not want to fall for someone I couldn’t marry (not again, anyway — I had already learned that lesson the hard way).

How a passionate, quirky, ambitious, 30-year-old, Hindu Indian American made it through my filters — whether by technical glitch or an act of God — I’ll never know. All I know is that once he did, I fell deeply in love with him.

He lived in San Francisco while I was quarantining seven hours south. I had already planned to move up north, but Covid and the forest fires delayed those plans. By August, I finally made the move — both to my new home and on him.

He drove two hours to pick me up bearing gag gifts that represented inside jokes we had shared during our two-month texting phase. I already knew everything about this man except his touch, his essence and his voice.

After two months of effortless communication, we approached this meeting desperate to be as perfect in person. The pressure to be nothing less overwhelmed us until he turned some music on. Dre’es’s “Warm” played and everything else fell into place — soon we were laughing like old friends.

We went to the beach and shopped for plants. At his apartment, he made me drinks and dinner. The stove was still on when my favorite Toro y Moi song, “Omaha,” came on. He stopped cooking to deliver a cheesy line that was quickly overshadowed by a passionate kiss. In this pandemic, it was just us, with our favorite music accompanying every moment.

On our fourth date, he transformed his apartment into The Fillmore venue to create a concert at home. He scanned my fake ticket, took my coat, made a gaudy cocktail and ushered me to the dimly lit dance floor where we danced terribly, but always in each other’s arms.

He ended the set with Leon Bridges’s song, “Beyond,” one I had heard many times. He held me tight and whispered, “I was afraid to show you this song, but here it is.

We swayed slowly as I listened to the lyrics: “I’m scared to death that she might be it … That the love is real, that the shoe might fit …”

I avoided eye contact with him, but I gripped the back of his flannel shirt tighter because I knew what line was coming: “Will she be my wife?”

He wasn’t crazy, and it was not too soon, because I felt the same. After having endured several dead-end relationships with non-Muslims and Muslims alike, here he was at last, the man I was supposed to be with. I knew it was time to have the big conversation with him — the one in which I remind him that I am Muslim.

On our fifth date, we drank white wine on a semi-quiet San Francisco street corner. I asked if he was ready to hear more about my family and religion.

“Yes,” he said.

I said, “Do you understand what it means to be with a Muslim girl?”

He began to ramble about his academic curiosity for the Quran and spirituality, and his eagerness to raise children in an interfaith household.

“If we decide to be together,” I said, “you need to understand that the only way forward is for you to convert. It won’t make things easy, but it will make things possible.”

His answer came too fast for comfort: “I’m game.”

How could he be so certain?

“Sometimes,” he said, “you are willing to change your whole future for one person.”

He and I continued to date for the rest of the year, fleeing from the societal expectations of our families and communities — fleeing, really, from any expectations at all. In our Covid bubble, we said “I love you” too soon, didn’t listen to our friends when they urged us to take it slow and ignored the harsh familial realities ahead of us.

I hadn’t told my mother anything about him, not a word, despite being months into the most consequential romantic relationship of my life. But Thanksgiving was fast approaching, when we each would return to our families.

This love story may have been his and mine, but without my mother’s approval, there would be no path forward. She was born and raised in Karachi, Pakistan. To expect her to understand how I fell in love with a Hindu would require her to unlearn all the traditions and customs with which she had been raised. I promised myself to be patient with her.

I was scared to raise the subject, but I wanted to share my happiness. With just the two of us in my bedroom, she began complaining about Covid spoiling my marriage prospects, at which point I blurted the truth: I already had met the man of my dreams.

“Who?” she said. “Is he Muslim?”

When I said no, she shrieked.

“Is he Pakistani?”

When I said no, she gasped.

“Can he speak Urdu or Hindi?”

When I said no, she started to cry.

But as I spoke about my relationship with him, and the fact that he had pledged to convert for me, she softened.

“I have never seen you talk about anyone like this,” she said. “I know you’re in love.” With these words of understanding, I saw that her strict framework was ultimately less important than my happiness.

When I told him that my mother knew the truth, he celebrated the momentum this development promised. However, in the coming weeks, he grew anxious that her approval was entirely predicated on him converting.

We each returned home once more for the December holidays, and that’s when I felt the foundation of my relationship with him begin to crack. With every delayed response to my texts, I knew something had changed. And indeed, everything had.

When he told his parents that he was thinking of converting for me, they broke down, crying, begging, pleading with him not to abandon his identity. We were two people who were able to defy our families and lean on serendipitous moments, lucky numbers and astrology to prove we belonged together. But we only searched for signs because we ran out of solutions.

Finally, he called, and we spoke, but it didn’t take long to know where things stood.

“I will never convert to Islam,” he said. “Not nominally, not religiously.”

More quickly than he had declared “I’m game” on that sunny San Francisco afternoon all those months ago, I said, “Then that’s it.”

Many people will never understand the requirements of marrying a Muslim. For me, the rules about marriage are stubborn, and the onus of sacrifice lies with the non-Muslim whose family is presumably more open to the possibility of interfaith relationships. Many will say it’s selfish and incongruous that a non-Muslim must convert for a Muslim. To them I would say I cannot defend the arbitrary limitations of Muslim love because I have been broken by them. I lost the man I thought I would love forever.

For a while I blamed my mother and religion, but it’s hard to know how strong our relationship really was with the music turned off. We loved in a pandemic, which was not the real world. Our romance was insulated from the ordinary conflicts of balancing work, friends and family. We were isolated both by our forbidden love and a global calamity, which surely deepened what we felt for each other. What we had was real, but it wasn’t enough.

I have since watched Muslim friends marry converts. I know it’s possible to share a love so endless that it can overcome these obstacles. But for now, I will keep my filters on.

Myra Farooqi attends law school in California.

Chodosh Guide (Final) 2020-21

Thanks to Mrs. Rosskam

Main Guide 2020 Final by shasdaf

Chodosh Guide (Preliminary) 2020-21

This will be revised soon.

Chodosh Preliminary Guide 2020 Draft 2 by shasdaf on Scribd

Eruvin 11 - Reb Chaim Brisker on Tzuras Hapesach

Reb Chaim Soloveichik Brisker on Tzuras Hapesach as a wall for Shabbos and Sukkah

 

A little background

Mavuy - alleyway.  Alleys in this context were surrounded by buildings.  Sometimes an alley was open at only one end, and sometimes opened at both ends

Tzuras Hapesach (TP) - looks like this  Π.  A horizontal post (or wire) supported at each end by a vertical support post.  This is actually an extended doorway - a lintel with two doorposts, which is the literal definition of this term - “the form (or shape) of a door.” 

Lechi - a vertical post at the edge of an alley

Amah (cubit) between 18-22.5 inches

Tefach - (handbreadth), between 3-4 inches

Rambam Hilchos Shabbos 16:16: any wall which was more openings than wall (meaning gaps in the wall.  A chain link fence is not solid but it is a good wall)  is not a wall. If the gaps were equal to the standing walls, it is permitted [to carry within those walls] as long as no gap exceeds 10 amos (between 15-20 feet).  If the gap measures 10 amos it is like a door if it has a TP, even if it is larger than 10 amos it does not LOSE the wall, as long as the gaps do not exceed the walls.

Rambam rules similarly in Hilchos Sukka 4:12 - A Sukka that has many doors, and the walls have many windows it is Kosher even when the gaps exceed the walls as long as no opening exceeds 10 amos.  If an opening exceeded 10 amos even if it has a TP the gaps must not exceed the walls.

Magid Mishna (a commentator) asks that Eruvin 11 discusses if TP works when the gaps exceed the wall depends if TP for a gap larger than 10 amos.  If TP works for a gap larger than 10 amos, it also works when the gaps exceed the walls.  If so, Rambam rules here that Tp works for a gap larger than 10 amos, how can he rule TP does not work when the gaps exceed the wall?  And Rambam is difficult because he rules TP does not work when the gaps exceed the walls, but he rules that a Sukka can be Kosher when the gaps exceed the walls, so the principle depends if TP works for a gap larger than 10 amos, dince it does, it doesn’t matter if the gaps exceed the walls, so how can he rule TP does not work when the gaps exceed the walls?

Rav’s opinion is TP does not work for a gap larger than 10 amos and it doesn’t work when the gaps exceed the walls.  If so, what does the rule of TP mean to him at all?  Since a gap less than 10 amos does not need a TP and is considered a doorway without a TP, it is not considered a breach in the wall, and one may carry within such a wall, but a gap larger than 10 amos or when gaps exceed the wallsTP does not help.

Now, TP works on the principle is that it works as a door [not a breach], as Rambam ruled in Shabbos Ch 16 that a TP at the edge of a wall is not effective, because people do not make a door in a corner [or at the edge].  This does not nullify the TP, but when Tp functions as a door, this rule nullifies the TP when it is at the edge.  We see the nthat TP is based on the principle of a doorway.  If so, a breach less than 10 amos is not a breach even when not TP, why do we need the principle of TP?  The answer is they are two different principles.  A door is a door and not a breach (see Eruvin 6 and Shabbos 15) it is not a “stopgap”or wall that permits an area [to carry within].  A wall (“mechitza”), and that a private domain (“Reshus hayachid”) is surrounded by walls, is made up of real walls.  A door [does not make a wall,] only removes the status of a breach [which forbids carrying within the breached perimeter].  See Shabbos 15: as long as the fence is 10 tefachim highand has no gaps more than the built [portions] and any gap until 10 amos os permitted [to carry within[ because it is like a door; larger than that it is forbidden to carry within,” because there are two principles: 1) the standing wall must exceed the breaches establishes the wall around the area, thereby making it a Reshus Hayachid, 2) the status of a “doorway” which removes the status of breach which, if it would be a breach, would prohibit carrying inside.  However, TP even if it works on the principle of a doorway, it is completely about establishing a wall.  This is the rule of TP: With a pole on each side and a bar on top of them, and the doorway under / beneath them together are a wall.  Besides for this difference between a wall and TPO - a TP is a door, not a wall - there is a difference between a breach smaller than 10 amos (which is not a breach)  and a door created by a TP: a breach less than 10 amos is considered a doorway by virtue of the status of walls on either side of it (the gap: because there is a wall on the left, and a wall on the right, the gap may be considered a doorway, and it has a status of doorway because of the walls on either side of the door.  However, TP is independent of walls on either side of it; the law of TP considers it a doorway even without walls on either side of it.  This is understandable from the principle of walls, that the length of the walls must exceed the breaches, or must equal the size of the breaches as explained in Eruvin 15 which is a Halacha Lemoshe Misinai.  For there is a question on this: Pasi Biraos (which are 4 L-shaped beams placed at corners around a central point, usually a well) are considered walls even though the length of the “breach” exceeds the length of the walls (the small L-shapes), and Eruvin 20 teaches if one throws an object from beyond the Pasi Biraos into the area enclosed by the Pasi Biraos one is liable to transferring an item between a RHY and RHR, so we see then the breach exceeds the walls it is a good wall on a Biblical level?  In fact, Tosfos asked this question and answered Pasin are different because each L-shape has one amah, the breach is considered a doorway.  The explanation is as I said: even though a wall (mechitza) requires the gaps to not exceed the walls, that is if the gap has the status of a breach, but here the breach is considered a door, so the breach does not concern us.  This is why it matters if there is a measurable wall on the sides of a gap - without a measurable wall on either side of it,  a gap is considered a breach.  When it is is a breach, we need the wall to be more than the length of the breach, or equal to it (halacha dlo tifrotz rubah or gdur ruba).  However, Pasi Biraos has a measurable wall on every side (1 Amah on each side of the opening for all four openings)the gap is not a breach, rather a door, so we are not concerned that the gaps exceed the walled portions.  This is explicitly as we explained that a gap is considered a door when it is surrounded by a wall on either side of it.  Even without this reason - it is not considered a door unless it has walls around it - we can understand the distinction of Tosfos, because the status of door only removes the status of a breach which prohibits carrying within such a wall, but does not give it (the doorway) a status of a wall.  The gap only has the status of a door, but is not considered a solid partition, so we see adoor only helps when there is enough walls on either side of it, so there is a partition (wall) on either side that starts from a pillar (or edge / corner) and the status of doorways helps to not consider the gap a breach, rather a door; but when we don’t have enough partition on either side of the gap it does not help to give the gap a status of a doorway, because a doorway does not confer the status of a partition to that side [it only removes the status of breach].

But it seems all of this is included: when there is not enough partition on either side there is no partition and no dorm and when there are partitions on either side of the gap the area is made a private domain by the partitions on either side, and there is no status of “the breach exceeds the walls”since the gap considered a door, not a breach, and to confer the status of partition (wall) on something it must be the partition exceeds the gap and the status of door does not help because a door is not a partition, and without partition on either side the gap does not attain the status of a door.

In fact this is the sugya in Sukka 4 Rav Yaakov says __diyumdi of  Sukkah is one tefach, and Chachamim say you need two complete walls and the third may be one tefach.  And in Sukkah 7 it learned from a Brasia Shabbos has an extra law that Sukkah doesn’t have - for Shabbos the walls must have the standing partition exceed on the gaps, but this is not needed for a Sukkah. That the gaps may exceed the walls in a Sukkah.  But a Braissa that we need walls _dyumdi Sukkah so obviously gaps and doors do not contribute to the partitions and don’t make a Sukkah kosher, because the door status of a gap cannot confer the status of partition, only remove the status of a breach.  However, a TP has the status of a partition and also its status of doorway does not depend on partitions on either side of it, this is the law of TP that the shape of a door - the gap and the standing parts, are together a partition.

This is explained in Sukkah 7 Rav Yehuda said a Sukkah made like a mavoy (two parallel walls) is Kosher, and the additional tefach can be placed on whichever side he wants.  Rav Simon, and some said Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi, make a __pas a little more than 4 tefachim, and stand it within three tefachim of a wall, and when the distance is less than three tefachim the law of lavud is applied (which considers the two pieces as touching / connected).  The conclusion is you also need a TP , and the Gemara there does not distinguish if the gap is more than 10 amos or less - you always need a TPbecause we need the status of partition on the entire unwalled area, so the status of door would not help; however, a TP helps because it is considered a partition.  This is because TP is considered a partition, and if so Rambam is difficult why, when you have a TP, you need the standing partition to exceed the length of gaps - why do we need that if the TP is a partition, and not a doorway, gap or breach?

It appears Rambam hold that even though a TP has the status of a partition and can interrupt the planted area of different species of plant, and by placing a TP between them we may eat from those crops and they are not considered a forbidden mixture of two species together (kilayim) it does not complete the minimum length of partition.  When you need real partitions a TP is not enough.  This is explicit from Sukkah that you need TP also - for we could ask why do we have a board of 4 tefachim which completes the status of partition (wall) using lavud - let us  say the T Pis a partition!Or an L-shaped Sukkah (__GAM) that you make a board just longer than one tefach and put it within three tefachim of the other wall - the lavud and the small board are considered a partition of length four tefachim, answer also need a TP - why do you need a partition of four tefachim, let the TP be considered the partition! Rather we see that TP makes it considered as being surrounded by partitions a TP helps make a Sukkah spayed like a mavoy (two parallel walls) Kosher with a TP connecting those two walls and a Sukkah made like GAM (L) the TP on either side makes it considered enclosed by three partitions [on three sides] But for the fundamental definition of Sukkah - two full walls and the third wall of even one tefach - the law is we need real walls, not TP, and secondly, __ the status (din) of TP using Lavud and the partitions exceed the gaps - those rules are real partitions, however TP confers a halachic status of partition but it cannot be used with actual partitions to reach a threshold of the minimum partitions required.  Therefore Rambam holds for the status of private domain on Shabbos you ned actual, physical partitions to give the status of private domain, so TP does not help.  That is why the Rambam says both for Shabbos and Sukkah we need the partitions to exceed the gaps - this is the definition of real partitions needed for Shabbos and Sukkah.  See Eruvin 11 - an incident of a person who put four posts, one in each corner of his field, and strung vines between them [as a TP]___ and the Sages permitted it for kilayim, and according to our analysis kilayim would be different than Shabbos and Sukkah because kilayim needs the separation afforded by a wall but does not require an actual wall, so a TP is sufficient for Kilayim, but Shabbos and Sukkah require real partitions so TP does not suffice, as we explained the Sukkah needs a TP also bit it does not contribute to the “two walls and the third of a tefach.”

In Eruvin 11 - Reish Lakis said like they permitted for kilayim they permitted for Shabbos, and Rabi Yochanan says they permitted it for kilayim but not for Shabbos - with what?  If it was ten [tefachim] in such a case Rabi Yochanan does not permit that [ a gap of 10 tefachim or less] for Shabbos?  [Of course such a gap is acceptable with a TP!]  Rather the gap was larger than 10 tefachim.  According to our explanation in the Rambam that TP without real partitions does not confer the status of a private domain even on a Biblical level - why did the Gemara ask that - let Rabi Yochanan on Shabbos it does not work?  It’s simple that it does not work because it is not a private domain!  Rather we can explain the Gemara is referring to thee fourth side (the other three sides are enclosed] so a lechi suffices, and certainly TP works.  However there is a question from Eruvin 6 - how does one enclose a Mavuy (parallel walls, and parallel openings like this: |  |) open to a public domain?  Make a TP on one of the open sides, and a Lechi and Koreh on the other open side.  How does a TP work if it is missing a partition according to Rambam, that a TP is insufficient to grant an area the status of private domain.  It works according to Rashi on Daf12 that two walls and a lechi grant an area the status of private domain, for he holds a RHY requires only two walls and a lechi on a Biblical level, certainly a TP which is considered as completely closing off its side, however Rambam himself holds (Shabbos 17:__) that Lechi is a wall only if there are three walls and the Lechi is on the fourth side, and we need three complete partitions for a private domain.  So our question how can TP work for an open mavuy?

It appears that a TP is a partition as we see from Kilayim and for certain laws of Sukkah, so the enclosed area is considered closed off [from the public domain] due to the TP even though it is not walled [by the TP].  We see it has split status: the TP cannot make the mavuy a private domain because it does not have a partition on the third side, but the area is no longer considered a public domain andone may carry within it.  Rambam’s opinion is the permission to carry is not dependent on the status of a private domain, and this is proved by a mavuy which is considered enclosed by a koreh (cross beam) if you throw an object from a public domain into it according to Rambam you are exempt from punishment because it is not a private domain, yet you are allowed to carry within that mavuy.  Similarly TP does not confer upon it the status of private domain it allows one to carry within it.  

With this the sugya in Eruvin 6 is explained very well.  An mavuy open to a public domain (two parallel walls and two parallel openings) make a TP on one open end and a lechi and koreh on the other open end -  but a public domain is not enclosed unless it is surrounded with walls and doors, as Rambam ruled in Shabbos 17:__.  Even though it seems Rambam holds these open mavuys are considered to be parts of the public domains than open into it, on a Biblical level as he rules in Shabbos 14:)__ )a corner next to a public domain is not a public domain because it is surrounded by three walls, implying if it was an open mavuy it does connect with the adjacent public domains to be considered a public domain, then why are open mavuys permitted with Tp and lechi and koreh, and don’t need to be completely enclosed?  According to our explanation we understand that the open mavuy is considered a public domain because it is connected to the adjacent public domains, a TP helps to cut it off from the adjacent public domain.  However a public domain itself, which can only lost its status of public domain if it is walled with walls and doors which can make it into a private domain, TP do not suffice because TP are not actual walls (partitions).  The Rambam’s ruling lead to this conclusion, but with this more of his rulings are understood.  In Shabbos 17:__ he rules: how do we allow [carrying in] closed mavuy (surrounded on three sides by walls)?  On the fourth side make a lechi or a koreh and it is enough...for according to Biblical law one may carry within three walls and Rabbinic enactment requires a fourth enclosure, therefore a lechi or koreh suffice.  His ruling works for a koreh which is not a partition, but not for a lechi - a lechi can be considered a wall on the fourth side and it it is a complete Biblical private domain as he rules in 17:__ a mavuy which was made kosher to carry within it by a lechi, if one throws an object into it from the public domain is punished [for moving from a public domain to a private domain] because a lechi is a complete partition and the mavuy is enclosed on all four sides!  Why does Rambam include lechi in Halacha __?  According to our explanation it is understood, because an open mavuy which was enclosed with a TP could be also enclosed with a lechi, and it is not a private domain at all (it lacks three complete walls for even the Biblical level) as we said a TP does not complete a wall of a private domain and the lechi only encloses it because the TP removes the status of public domain, and the ruling that the mavuy is considered enclosed with a lechi and Koreh according to Rmabam to carry inside of it even though it does not have the status of a private domain.  That is why Rambam gives the reason that Biblically one may carry in it even though it is not a private domain.  We see that TP is not a partition or wall to make that mavuy a Biblical private domain, so we understand why Rambam rules we need standing walls to be greater than the gaps even with TP - because TP does not make that area a private domain.

But the Rambam still must be explained that TP is not a partition or wall to make that mavuy a Biblical private domain, but Rambam is talking in all cases, also when a mavuy is surrounded by partitions [on three sides] and it is a Biblical private domain, and one who throws an object in it from the public domain is punished for violating the law against transferring objects from private to public domains, (hotza’ah) and it has real walls, so why is a TP not sufficient for the fourth side?  We see that Rambam holds TP helps for a gap larger than 10*, or for a case when the gaps are larger than the actual walls.  But when a case has both these deficiencies - a gap larger than 10* and the gaps are larger than the walls - TP does not work.  Why not - TP helps for each of those problems individually, and why shouldn’t it work when both problems exist simultaneously?  For Sukkah we don’t care the gaps are larger than the walls and why doesn’t TP work there for a gap larger than 10* and when the gaps are larger than the walls?  The answer is there are two types of doors that work differently form each other: 1) Until 10* a door is a door by virtue of the walls on either side of it, and those walls give the opening a status of “door,” but 2) TP has a status of door by itself.  Therefore a TP has two different statuses: a TP less than 10* is acts like a door surrounded by walls, and for TP larger than 10 the walls on either side of it do not affect its status at all; it is a door ONLY because it is a TP, not because of the walls at either end of it.  Therefore the Rambam hotels when a gap is larger than 10* and overall the gaps are larger than the walls TP does not work: True TP is considered a partition and that side is considered closed off and there is no status of a breach [in the gap which was fixed with a TP].  But TP does not make it a wall to be considered a private domain.  Therefore even though there is not a breach, but there is not a partition there, so this area lacks the status of private domain and permission to carry within it.  Therefore the Rambam requires either the area to have walls larger than the gaps, so the area is considered walled with partitions, or no gap larger than 10*, so the walls on either side of the TP help give it the status of a door, so this area has walls that give it the status of a private domain.  If the gap is larger than 10* and the gaps are larger than the walls, the walls on either side of the breach do not contribute to fixing the breach [by making it a doorway], and the wall only comes from the TP there, so Rambam holds TP cannot give that side the status of a real partition.  So there is no gap but there is not a real wall, so that area lacks partitions to allow to carry in it as a private domain.  

Therefore Rambam requires even for a Sukkah that the actual walls are longer than the gaps - even though a Sukkah can have more gaps than walls, a breach larger than 10 disqualifies a Sukkah, because Sukkah only differs from Shabbos regarding a gap disqualifying it, but there is no difference between them for a partition that allows it [carrying or the Sukkah].  Therefore if the gap is larger than 10* and the gaps are larger than the walls make the Sukkah lacking a real wall, the same as the law for Shabbos.  Therefore there is no question from the Gemara Eruvin __ that TP when the gaps exceed the walls depends on TP for a gap larger than 10*, because Rambam’s reasoning is only when the gaps exceed the walls and a gap larger than 10* together, the TP is not considered a partition, but when an area lacks only one of those, TP is considered a partition either for a gap larger than 10* or when the gaps excess the walls.

Netherlands - Put You in Jail for Refusing to Give a Get (Divorce)

Again, this does not mention if the court will jail women for refusing to accept a get from their husbands.  That happens a lot more than people think.

More to come on this issue soon IYH.

https://www.jta.org/2020/08/19/global/in-the-netherlands-judges-can-fine-and-lock-up-jewish-men-who-refuse-to-give-their-wives-a-religious-divorce

In the Netherlands, judges can fine and lock up Jewish men who refuse to give their wives a religious divorce

By Cnaan Liphshiz August 19, 2020 12:32 pm

AMSTERDAM (JTA) — Sara’s marriage was dead, but she couldn’t end it herself.

As an Orthodox woman, Sara — not her real name, for privacy concerns — needed a “get,” or religious consent to divorce, from her husband to end the process. But he wouldn’t give her one, and rabbis couldn’t help.

Sara, a mother of one in her 40s who works as a buyer for large businesses, was what is called an agunah, or “chained woman.” The plight of these women is seen as a major point of gender inequality in Orthodox Judaism, and Orthodox rabbis have invested effort in recent years to address it.

In the end, Sara was helped most by a nonreligious entity: the Dutch judicial system. The Dutch judiciary is the only one in the world outside of Israel that punishes husbands who refuse to give their wives a get — with significant fines.

Sara’s husband relented after a Dutch judge threatened to slap him with a fine of nearly $30,000. Courts here can impose a fine four times that amount on so-called recalcitrant husbands and even issue arrest warrants against them, as per a 1982 precedent set by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands.

Last year, the Dutch jurisprudence was cemented in legislation: An amendment to the marriage act empowers judges to order individuals to comply with edicts of religious frameworks relevant to their marital bond.

Fines and warrants issued in the Netherlands apply, in turn, across the European Union, giving these husbands records — and chained wives a potentially powerful deterrent. Dutch judges have employed these measures against several dozen recalcitrant husbands since 1982, according to Herman Loonstein, a Dutch-Jewish lawyer who has represented multiple chained wives before Dutch courts.

Many of the cases heard in Dutch courts in recent years have involved couples from Muslim communities, in which women seeking a divorce face similar roadblocks. Millions of immigrants from the Middle East have arrived in Holland over the past decade or so.

Today, Sara has a new partner and is feeling “released from prison,” she told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

“You’re trapped, you can’t move forward with your life and someone hostile has this power on you,” she said of being an agunah. “It’s a terrible feeling.”

The Dutch judiciary’s willingness to get involved in this issue is unusual because it contradicts the separation of church and state principle, which is strongly observed in Western Europe. The Dutch courts do not directly interfere with the religious process, which usually involves a beit din, or rabbinical court. But they do label the process of refusing to give a get as “unlawful conduct,” Matthijs de Blois, assistant professor at Utrecht University’s Institute of Legal Theory of the Law Faculty, explained in a 2010 essay for the Utrecht Law Review.

The 1982 Supreme Court ruling here overturned the rulings of two lower courts that had refused to hear a case brought by a chained wife from Utrecht. She had sued her husband in a civil court for refusing to grant her a get.

The District Court of Utrecht, near Amsterdam, declined her lawsuit in 1979, stating that “only the civil aspects of a marriage should be considered.” The woman lost an appeal in 1981.

The high court’s decision bypassed the religious dimension altogether, reasoning that the husband “could be in violation of a rule of unwritten law pertaining to proper social conduct vis-à-vis his divorced wife,” de Blois wrote.

In Israel, which has no separation between religion and state, family courts are also religious ones and 

 run by the Chief Rabbinate. The judges at those batei din belong to the country’s judicial branch and are

 empowered to fine and imprison recalcitrant husbands, as well as confiscate their passports.

Amid an increased outcry in recent years, the Chief Rabbinate has cracked down significantly on recalcitrant husbands. The pressure is showing results: The number of women who have been unchained in Israel has risen for five consecutive years. The largest increase occurred between 2015 and 2017 — from 180 to 216 — according to the latest statistics on the issue.

The Netherlands is the only country that comes close to that system. The Dutch Justice Ministry has not replied to a request for comment on the matter by JTA.

In the United Kingdom, judges may condition the finalization of a civil divorce on the finalization of a religious one — an equation that is meant to place the recalcitrant spouse in limbo for as long as they do the same to their chained spouse.

And in the United States, some Jewish couples sign halachic prenuptial agreements, which stipulate that the spouses in a dissolving marriage must come before a predetermined court of Jewish law or face heavy penalties. As a contract, such agreements are enforceable in civil court.

New York state courts are empowered to enforce rabbinical court edicts on chained spouses as per a landmark 1983 state Court of Appeals ruling. But the enforcement has been limited thus far only to awarding the chained wives higher amounts of alimony, according to Aryeh Ralbag, a former chief rabbi of Amsterdam and a major rabbinical arbiter and judge from New York.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the Switzerland-born president of the Conference of European Rabbis, has been a key advocate of cracking down on recalcitrant husbands, but even he “didn’t think we’d be able to bring about the same kind of deterrence in Europe, with its strong separation of church and state, as there exists in Israel.”

The issue of holding a recalcitrant husband accountable has become more difficult over time, Ralbag said, as Jewish communities have become less centralized.

“When Jewish life in the Diaspora was more centered on community, a beit din could punish people severely for such behavior, imposing a herem,” he said, using the Hebrew word for excommunication or boycott. “Nowadays, many people who get a herem just go to another synagogue, or don’t go to synagogue at all.” 

The Dutch law has “restored deterrence,” Ralbag added.

Ralbag, Goldschmidt and Loonstein all support the Dutch judiciary’s proactive approach, but they are also mindful of the risks it poses at a time when Jewish communities — including in the Netherlands — are fighting against government and judicial interference in other religious customs.

All three have been at the forefront of the fight to keep kosher slaughter legal — it was banned but made legal again in 2012.

A similar debate is taking place across Europe about the legality of brit milah, the ritual nonmedical circumcision of boys.

“Am I concerned that this is creating a precedent for interference? In some places, yes, I am,” Ralbag said. “But I and every rabbi need to measure this against the pain and suffering that is being visited on Jewish women right now. And right now, this is what we can do to help them.”