[Avodah] Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch"

[Samuel Svarc]

>From: "Chana Luntz" <chana at kolsassoon.org.uk>
>Subject: Re: [Avodah] Halachic who is right from "The Lost Scotch"

<BIG SNIP>

>This does not seem to me to be relevant to the problem I have with the
>psak.  The idea that an ones can be considered to be eey efshar
>practically as well as physically was not something I thought was raised
>as a problem.  The issue we raised  vis a vis the oneis question was
>(and there were other issues):
>
>does  oneis occur when the act is an "act of man" as well as when it is
>an "act of G-d"?  I was mesupik about that, others argued the case more
>strongly.  The Trumas Hadeshen does not seem to me to help here, as the
>fundamental act causing the ones, the wife falling ill, is an act of
>G-d.  Whereas here, the act that made the eey efshar, the act of the
>kala, was an act of man, making it different. The fact that it made an
>eey efshar practically rather than physically does not appear relevant
>to the distinction being drawn.

What you term "act of G-d" or "act of man" are just synonyms for
"physically" or "practically". And the case of the Terumas HaDeshen speaks
directly to this. Albeit the wife's falling ill is an "act of G-d", that is
not what is causing the oneis. You can, theoretically, hire someone to take
of your wife. The decision not to do so is an "act of man". 

>> The clincher? The author chose this scenario based on a real
>> story: A chosson had hired a popular Jewish singer to sing at
>> his chasunah. At the chasunah, his father-in-law informed him
>> that either the singer goes, or he (the f-i-l-) goes.
>
>Who poskened that the chosson does not have to pay?  (The issue is not
>whether the chosson might not choose to ask him to sing, but whether the
>the lack of appreciation of the f-i-l and therefore the chosson choosing
>not to have him sing pater's paying).  This case in fact seems even
>further from the river case than before).

How so? If there is an oneis the BHB doesn't have to pay. Since fighting
with one's f-i-l (right at the chasunah!) is not a practical option, the
chosson is considered an oneis.

>Let me give you a case closer to that of the Shulchan Aruch.  Let us say
>that the property that needs watering is originally that of the baal
>habayis's wife, not his, and because he has only recently married her
>and taken over the responsibilities for the field, he does not know that
>the river stops on a regular basis - but in fact his wife and her family
>do, as they have had the property for generations (and let us say for
>some reason the workers are workers who also do not know - let us say
>they come from the husband's town not the wife's town). Are you saying
>that because the knowledge resides in the wife and not the husband who
>does the hiring, then the workers have to bear the loss?

Yes. Why do you think otherwise? The halacha is explicit, the BHB needs to
have more knowledge then the poel in order to have to pay him. How does his
wife knowing something create this knowledge by him? (In the case you gave
BD might assume that if his wife knew, then most probably he did as well.
However, if he can prove that he didn't have any knowledge then he wouldn't
need to pay.) Does he go to the mikvah on the day she goes? Why not? What
happened to Ishto k'gufo? Obviously, this halachic concept is not the
panacea you make it out to be.

KT,
MSS