Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 127

Wednesday, November 10 1999

• Re: Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread
• conservative authors
• maravah
• Re: Kol Kevodah vs. Hatzneia Leches
• Re: Reb Shlomo Carlebach and Carlebach minyanim
• Office Mincha
• Re: Shidduchim (was Re: Shabbos Guests)
• Re: Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread
• Fish
• Fwd: Moed Katan 013b: Noach eating fish
• Re: Etiquette Police
• Re: Moed Katan 013b: Noach eating fish
• Re: cholam=choilem=cheilem=chaulem=melo-foom
• Re: Kol Kevodah Bas Melech Penimah
• Re: R Yehudah HeChasid

Since RYGB posted some of his replies which I  thought  had  been
private   communications,   I  figured  I  should  summarize  our
correspondence to date, and post my latest summing-up.

RYGB argued with my reply to Harry Maryles,  holding  that  Torah
uMadda  (AbG  extending  to Chochmos Chitzoniyos (CC)) could only
come from Chabad, rather than Chagat chassidus, since only Chabad
argues  for  avodah  through  intellectualism (not that Chagat is
anti-intellect, but that their avodah comes more  from  the  emo-
tion)

I argued back that before Chasidus split into HBD/HGT, there  was
a  Beshtian  system  where (per Tzavaas haRivash (ThR) 2-3) where
*everything* could have its  sparks  elevated,  *including*  non-
mitzvah  acts.   The  Tanya in chapter 25 argued for only mitzvah
acts being elevatable.

RYGB then said that the Piasetzner as well as Chabadniks and oth-
ers  hold  that  "theirs is the true Beshtian Chassidus (BC)" (to
which I replied that that proves my point: BC can't be *both* HBD
*and*  HGT;  R' Rich Wolpoe pointed out that both could have been
*implicit* in the BC, in the eilu v'eilu sense).   R'  Lamm  must
prove  from  sources  that  *everything*  of the ThR includes CC,
inasmuch as the Izbicer has written that it can't.

I reiterated my (well, it's hardly my chiddush, but he's a-priori
disqualified  any  secondary sources I might bring) "BC splits to
become HBD/HGT" theory, he said I had to support it with sources.
I  also  pointed  out that in later Chassidus, the Rebbe/follower
relationship relegated AbG and spark-raising to  the  elites.   I
argued  that  his position of "everything means everything except
CC" is simply a transvaluation (au  Kaplan?):  the  Baal  haTanya
clearly  held that way, but to argue that the Besht held that way
one needs contemporary sources.  Therefore the  Izbicer  and  his
contemporaries are less relevant as to what the *Besh"t* thought.
(Hey, if he can a-priori disqualify my sources, I can do the same
to him.)

RYGB points out that we are at an impasse, since to  disprove  me
he can effectively only quote the Toldos Yaakov Yosef, which sup-
ports me: everyone else who wrote after the split is writing with
a post- split interpretation (in my view).

In the meantime, RYGB had posted the first note in our correspon-
dence,  Chaim  Brown  had  followed up with a citation from ThR 5
which seemed to mute my distinction between BC and HGT, RYGB  had
dismissed the story of the Besht's wife and the wine.

So here is my response to his last private thing, which brings in
the other material from the list:

This has gotten somewhat off the track.  I  had  originally  been
arguing for elevation of sparks through physical expression.  I'm
not as sanguine about TuM through AbG, since by all of  us,  it's
an  extrapolation in the face of lack of textual evidence.  Also,
I can't find my copy of Lamm's book, to use in the argument.

Regarding AbG stam, your b-i-l's  comment  notwithstanding  about
the  ThR, I don't see the ThR 5 as contradicting the 'everything"
stance: it's a warning not to let the mundane overwhelm the spir-
itual.   Even  when engaged in AbG, Avodah must be the overriding
concern, not Gashmiyus.

Regarding your dismissal of the  ShB  story  about  the  Besh"t's
wife,  I don't accept it.  It clearly indicates Heavenly endores-
ment of their drinking on Simchas Torah.  I suppose this is   the
origin  of the Chassidish thing of mashke on ST.  At any rate, it
clearly dismisses asceticism, and endorses drinking  to  increase
joy,  particularly  on occasions not Purim (which was already or-
dered by the Rabbis).

Regarding early vs. late chasidus, I don't know that much chasid-
ish  literature,  and  have to largely rely on secondary sources,
which you dismiss a priori, so it's hard to argue when each  side
dismisses the relevance of the other's sources.  OTOH, sociologi-
cally, there is clearly a difference between early and late:  the
first  two  generations were circles of equals, while the members
of the second generation founded dynasties  of  clearly  qualita-
tively  different leaders vs. followers.  Whether that difference
involves the ability to elevate  sparks,  is  beyond  my  limited
knowledge.

Hodesh tov,
JJB

I remember seeing copies of "Jastrow" in Telshe.  Of
course, at that time (9th and 10th grade), I had no
knowledege that he was one of the founding fathers of
the Conservative Movement.  I wonder if the Telsher
RH's were aware of Prof. Jastrow's Historiography.


On the other hand how many copies of R. Liberman's commentary on
Tosefta can one find in yeshivot?

Eli Turkel

HM writes

<<The best known case of this type of school is Marava.
This is a Yeshiva patterend after the American style
of Yeshiva which has Limudei Kodesh till about 3 or 4
in the PM and then LC.  I believe R. C P Scheinberg
origianlly gave his haskama on it but was pressured
(by R. Shach, I believe) to rescind his support. >>

Also, the school began in Jerusalem but was pressured to leave town.
A friend of mine attended the yeshiva several years ago and went to
Rav Eliyashiv to ask whether he could continue there and was told
that he should leave and go to a "full time" yeshiva.

When my son went to Shaalavim high school about 10 years ago they
were still getting a mixture of MO and haredi boys.
Hence, I suspect that these and similar yeshivot (yishuv etc) still
get some "fringe" haredi pupils who are interested in secular studies.
However, these are a tiny fraction of the entire student population.

Eli Turkel

Chana/Heather Luntz wrote:

>>PS any idea why tzneius is not one of the desirable traits mentioned in 
Avodah Zara 20b (and hence in Mesillas Yesharim)?>>

Rashi on the gemara explains the whole list of traits as levels of 
avoidance of issurim (probably leshitaso to the beginning of parshas 
kedoshim).  That being the case, hatznea leches is a way of acting more 
than a way of not acting and doesn't belong in the list.  According to the 
Mesillas Yesharim your question still remains.

Gil Student

Gad Frenkel <garry.j.frenkel@ssa.gov> writes in v4n113:
: I often wonder if because it is so difficult for many of use to feel
: anything in much of our Avodah, that we're happy for any kind of engaging
: experience such as the high we get from dancing.   But in reality is the
: "headspace" that we are striving for in T'filla different from the one
: engendered by dancing?

This is a hard question, and one not limited to dancing in tephillah. Pilpul
raises a similar question. The excitement you get when you finally chap the
s'varah, is it the high of understanding the Da'as haBorei or the intellectual
high of any epiphany?

With even passing familiarity with sifrei mussar we'd have to take the
absolutist terminology off the question. It's not either-or, but how much
of the joy is related to Avodas Hashem, and how much are related to the
joy generated by the activity itself?

I'm reminded of a quote from RYGB's web site from R AE Kaplan
<http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila/raek.htm>:
    Mussar does not disagree with Chassidus. Mussar is often satisfied with
    the Jewish strength of Chassidus; its capacity not to submit to the
    environment; its heartfelt openness bein adam l'chaveiro that softens
    petty superficial European etiquette; its readiness to dedicate itself to a
    lofty purpose, and so easily sacrifice for that purpose normal conditions
    of life; its youthful fervor in mitzvos, which extends well into old
    age. Mussar, however, also has a significant criticism of Chassidus:
    It sees Chassidus as too external, too theoretical and abstract. The
    Chasid deludes himself into thinking that he is getting more out of
    Chassidus than he actually is. Chassidus deals with profound thoughts and
    great deeds, but it remains outside the essence of the Chasid. Chassidus
    penetrates the depths of the greatest Torah problems - between both Man
    and G-d, and between Man and Man - but it penetrates too little the
    self of a person, so that he might engage in a reckoning as to where
    he stands in relation to his World and in relation to his obligations
    in his World... The average Chasid deludes himself into thinking that a
    nigun that he sings wells up from his heart, and that the dveykus that
    he experiences has its source in his soul, even though it is entirely
    possible that these are transient moods, not associated with his true
    essence. One should not judge hastily. We cannot say even to the simplest
    Chasid, when he experiences dveykus, that he does not truly cleave to
    G-d. But that constant self-critique: "Perhaps I am deluding myself;"
    the query that should accompany every step in life: "Have I not strayed
    in this instance from the path?"; and, finally, all that is encompassed
    in the thought that serves as a necessary precondition for Shivisi Hashem
    l'negdi tamid ["I have placed G-d before me always"], namely, the thought,
    "I have placed my "self" before me always," - all this is more prevalent
    in Mussar than in Chassidus...

:                          The challenge of course is taking that high and
: using it in a growth producing way.

To the extent that the high is a product of d'veikus, that high itself is
an end, not only a mean. Identifying that extent is a skill to be learned
from mussar.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

Since the topic came up...

We have had a mincha minyan in our office building (downtown NY) for about 7
years.
We have always done a full chazoras hashatz.  And we wait for nine people
(including the chazan) to start chazoras hashatz.

We have a core of regular mispallelim, and a large group of semi-regulars,
occasionals, yahrzeit only, etc...

We have no posek, and the only issue that came up over the years is whether
to say tachanun on yom ha'atzmaut (so some do and some don't).

Lately, a few people have complained that mincha takes too long, and have
recommended that we start doing a "haicha kedusha" (sp?).

Assuming the propriety of a "haicha kedusha" in a work place setting, does
the fact that we have always done a full chazoras hashatz constitute a
"minhag hamakom"?  If it does or doesn't, what mechanism can we use to
change it?  Is a majority vote sufficient?  A majority of whom? We have no
elected leaders, the closest thing we have to a leader is the guy who
reserves the conference room for us.  Does he have standing to make the
change/choose a posek to refer the shayla to?


Moshe Rayman
mrayman@lehman.com


==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Mark Rayman
Lehman Brothers  - GIS Market Data
mrayman@lehman.com
212 526 1336
==-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Moshe Feldman <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> quotes in v4n111:
: To be fair, I'm basing myself on what people have told me.  The following
: comes from a recent mail-jewish: <<On the other hand, the shidduch system
: has serious problems itself.
: Any hint of a problem and a person is dropped.  I know of people who hid
: the fact that a sister had kidney stones out of fear that it would
: prevent other siblings from getting married.  >>

As I've already spoken of the sh'mad this causes, you know my opinion on the
subject. Much of shadchaning is eugenic. If the family has a real genetic
flaw or something that is merely percieved as a flaw they have to hide the
existance of certain children in the genetic line or else run the risk of
their other children being single.

And where do these children go? Well, if you're trying to hide the kid from
the community, you're not likely to go to Ohel.

Sorry for sounding like a broken record,
-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

One quibble: I do not agree that the TYY supports your position. I agree
that since I am not aware of any specific reference to CC in TYY that I
cannot prove that I am correct from the TYY.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila    ygb@aishdas.org

----- Original Message -----
From: Jonathan J. Baker <jjbaker@panix.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 10:46 AM
Subject: Re: Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread


> RYGB points out that we are at an impasse, since to  disprove  me
> he can effectively only quote the Toldos Yaakov Yosef, which sup-
> ports me: everyone else who wrote after the split is writing with
> a post- split interpretation (in my view).
>

	In response to the recent discussion re:  fish being punished in the
Mabul,  I am forwarding Rav M. Kornfeld's discussion thereof:

(Please include the header and footer of this mailing when
redistributing.)
_________________________________________________________________

               THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
          Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                  daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
_________________________________________________________________

Moed Katan 013b: Noach eating fish

Shabtai Nachshon <snacson@barringer.com> asked:

The end of the Perek discussed eating of fish etc.... which happened to
fall 
during the parsha of Noah.

Rabbi Eisenberg raised the kasha regarding the heter for Noah to eat
fish. 
Why was Noah permitted to eat fish? He was permitted to eat animals
because 
he saved them and consequently was allowed to eat meat (and so too we).
What 
about fish (which he did not save)?

--------------------------------

The Kollel replies:

According to the view of the RAMBAN, your question is an excellent one.
The 
Ramban (Bereishis 1:29) asserts that the only Heter for Noach to eat meat
was 
that he saved them from the Mabul. As such, there would seem to be no
reason 
to permit eating fish. (We cannot answer that Adam ha'Rishon was
permitted to 
eat fish, but not other animals, because the Gemara in Sanhedrin (59b)
states 
clearly that fish were also prohibited to him.)

The PARDES YOSEF asks a similar question to yours (Parshas Noach, 9:4). I

then found that the KLI CHEMDAH (Parshas Bereishis, #3) asks your
question. 
It must be that fish were made subordinate to all other animals, so that
once 
man was permitted to eat the other animals, he was also permitted to eat 
fish.

(The MARGOLIOS HA'YAM (Sanhedrin 59:18) cites from the SEFER OLAM BARUR
in 
the name of the ARIZAL that meat was forbidden to Adam ha'Rishon because
the 
animals were perfect from their creation and they did not require a
"Birur" 
(a special rectification) through being eaten by man. However, Adam
ha'Rishon 
blemished the animals when he made them sin by feeding to them the
forbidden 
fruit. Until the Mabul, though, the animals still did not need a
spiritual 
rectification, since Adam ha'Rishon brought from them a Korban and
through 
that their blemish was corrected, but at the time of the Mabul the
animals 
sinned again (by being influenced by the morally corrupt ways of man),
and 
therefore Noach and his descendants were permitted to eat the flesh of 
animals, in order to provide them with a spiritual rectification. 

According to this, it could be that since fish were blemished by the sin
of 
Adam ha'Rishon and their blemish was *not* corrected by the offering of a

Korban (since one cannot bring a Korban from fish), therefore they became

permitted to be eaten immediately after the sin, in order to provide them

with a spiritual rectification, and they never again became Asur to man.)


Mordecai Kornfeld

>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<
<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

For information on joining the Kollel's free Dafyomi mailing lists,
write to info@dafyomi.co.il, or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel(IL):02-652-2633 -- Off(IL):02-651-5004 -- Fax(US):603-737-5728
	

--part1_0.b0631389.255b2499_boundary
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I hope it is OK 

--part1_0.b0631389.255b2499_boundary
Content-Type: message/rfc822
Content-Disposition: inline

Return-Path: <owner-daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com>
Received: from  rly-zd02.mx.aol.com (rly-zd02.mail.aol.com [172.31.33.226])
	by air-zd02.mail.aol.com (v62.15) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Nov 1999
	12:55:22 -0500
Received: from  teves.jen.co.il ([209.88.196.10]) by rly-zd02.mx.aol.com
	(v62.10) with ESMTP; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 12:54:50 -0500
Received: from jen.co.il (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by teves.jen.co.il
	(8.8.4/8.7.3) with SMTP id TAA22795; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:21:58 +0200
	(IST)
Received: from mailgw1.netvision.net.il (mailgw1.netvision.net.il
	[194.90.1.14]) by teves.jen.co.il (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id
	TAA22648 for <daf-discuss@jencom.com>; Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:20:09
	+0200 (IST)
Received: from kollel2510 (RAS7-p51.jlm.netvision.net.il [62.0.165.51])
	by mailgw1.netvision.net.il (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id TAA24147;
	Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:21:37 +0200 (IST)
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:21:37 +0200 (IST)
Message-Id: <199911101721.TAA24147@mailgw1.netvision.net.il>
From: Mordecai Kornfeld <kornfeld@netvision.net.il>
X-Priority: Normal
Content-Type: text/plain
To: "Kollel Iyun Hadaf's Dafyomi discussion group"
	<daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com>
Subject: Moed Katan 013b: Noach eating fish
X-Mailer: Pronto Mail [ver 3.04 (1006)]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Reply-To: kornfeld@netvision.net.il
Sender: owner-daf-discuss@shemayisrael.com
X-Listprocessor-Version: 8.2.07 -- ListProc(tm) by CREN

(Please include the header and footer of this mailing when redistributing.)
_________________________________________________________________

               THE DAFYOMI DISCUSSION LIST

      brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf of Yerushalayim
          Rosh Kollel: Rabbi Mordecai Kornfeld
                  daf@dafyomi.co.il

 [REPLY TO THIS MESSAGE TO DISCUSS THE DAF WITH THE KOLLEL]
_________________________________________________________________

Moed Katan 013b: Noach eating fish

Shabtai Nachshon <snacson@barringer.com> asked:

The end of the Perek discussed eating of fish etc.... which happened to fall 
during the parsha of Noah.

Rabbi Eisenberg raised the kasha regarding the heter for Noah to eat fish. 
Why was Noah permitted to eat fish? He was permitted to eat animals because 
he saved them and consequently was allowed to eat meat (and so too we). What 
about fish (which he did not save)?

--------------------------------

The Kollel replies:

According to the view of the RAMBAN, your question is an excellent one. The 
Ramban (Bereishis 1:29) asserts that the only Heter for Noach to eat meat was 
that he saved them from the Mabul. As such, there would seem to be no reason 
to permit eating fish. (We cannot answer that Adam ha'Rishon was permitted to 
eat fish, but not other animals, because the Gemara in Sanhedrin (59b) states 
clearly that fish were also prohibited to him.)

The PARDES YOSEF asks a similar question to yours (Parshas Noach, 9:4). I 
then found that the KLI CHEMDAH (Parshas Bereishis, #3) asks your question. 
It must be that fish were made subordinate to all other animals, so that once 
man was permitted to eat the other animals, he was also permitted to eat 
fish.

(The MARGOLIOS HA'YAM (Sanhedrin 59:18) cites from the SEFER OLAM BARUR in 
the name of the ARIZAL that meat was forbidden to Adam ha'Rishon because the 
animals were perfect from their creation and they did not require a "Birur" 
(a special rectification) through being eaten by man. However, Adam ha'Rishon 
blemished the animals when he made them sin by feeding to them the forbidden 
fruit. Until the Mabul, though, the animals still did not need a spiritual 
rectification, since Adam ha'Rishon brought from them a Korban and through 
that their blemish was corrected, but at the time of the Mabul the animals 
sinned again (by being influenced by the morally corrupt ways of man), and 
therefore Noach and his descendants were permitted to eat the flesh of 
animals, in order to provide them with a spiritual rectification. 

According to this, it could be that since fish were blemished by the sin of 
Adam ha'Rishon and their blemish was *not* corrected by the offering of a 
Korban (since one cannot bring a Korban from fish), therefore they became 
permitted to be eaten immediately after the sin, in order to provide them 
with a spiritual rectification, and they never again became Asur to man.) 

Mordecai Kornfeld

>>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><<<
The *D*AFYOMI *A*DVANCEMENT *F*ORUM, brought to you by Kollel Iyun Hadaf

For information on joining the Kollel's free Dafyomi mailing lists,
write to info@dafyomi.co.il, or visit us at http://www.dafyomi.co.il
Tel(IL):02-652-2633 -- Off(IL):02-651-5004 -- Fax(US):603-737-5728


--part1_0.b0631389.255b2499_boundary--

Akiva Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com> writes in v4n124:
: May I suggest we use     M'     for this purpose?

What many lists do, and I'm uncomfortable with, is not to use titles at all.
Or, to use titles on when the person refers to himself (e.g. in his signature
file) by title. Halachically this is problematic -- a neighborhood poseik
ought to be referred to by title by any member of kehilla, even in email.

OTOH, once some people get a title, not knowing someone has one can lead to
embarassing situations.

I had suggested C for all listmembers. Calling eachother our chaveir RXYZ
has become pretty common lately. So, why not abbreviate chaveir[ah] as a
social title?

The chaveir ba'avodah (fellow Oveid?) to whom I suggested it thought that our
Yekkish contingent might not appreciate our trivializing the title "Chaveir".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

Wonderful! We quote the grandson to address the grandmother's question!

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

Harry Maryles <hmaryles@yahoo.com> writes in v4n122:
: I haven't really been following this thread but it
: seems Pashut to me that the most correct
: pronounciation of the Cholem is the American Havarah -
: "Oh"
: 
: "Oy" would be "Cholem - Yud"
: "Ey" would be "Tzeray"
: "Ow" would be "Cholam - Shuruk" 

Or chalam vuv, assuming a /w/ sound for vuv. This is actually a closer fit than
shuruk as is pretty clearly what is literally written for cholam malei.

So I'd go with /o-/ as in "phone" for chaseir and /ow/ as in "blow" for malei.

Offline another chaveir/oveid/R' and I were discussing tenu'os.

I noted that tenu'os come in gedolah-kitanah pairs. For example, chirik malei
(g') vs chaseir (k'), tzeirei malei or chaseir (g') vs segol (k), kamatz gadol
(g) vs patach (k), cholam malei or chaseir (g) vs kamatz katan (k), and shuruk
doesn't fit.

Sepharadim tend to play down the differences across the pair. Kamatz sounds
like patach, tzeirei like segol, kamatz katan like cholam.

To better justify my pairing, note that kamatz gadol is often used for patach
to end a clause (muyim vs mayim) and kamatz katan is often used in a word
otherwise conjugated with a cholam (kol vs. kol -- sorry).

As to why both are called kamatz, if one grammatically relates to patach and
the other to cholam, I think it's the literal phonetic meaning. Both sounds
are to be made with sephasaim kamutzos. However, one is a kamatz formed by
making a patach more rounded, the other by making a cholam shorter.

The other conversant noted a pair of triads which I'm now expanding to
quadrupals: tenu'ah ketanah chatufah, tenu'ah ketanah, tenu'ah gedolah chaseir,
and t"g malei in <chataf-segol, segol, tzeirei, tzeirei malei> and
<chataf-kamatz, kamatz katan, cholam, cholam malei>. I saw in mod Hebrew
grammar books that a chataf-kamatz should be a short kamatz katan sound. Never
saw it in a primary halachic Hebrew source. However, this symmetry would
justify that assumption.

I know -- all conjecture, no sources.

Also, it doesn't explain why Palestinian vowel pointing would lump patach
and segol in a single symbol. We're describing them as totally unrelated.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote in v4n121:
:                                 eg one cannot expect/require a woman to
: come before a court and give eidus (an essential component of being an
: eid is that attendance is mandatory...) ...

I'm not sure how to generalize from this to why women can't be dayanos or
serve as kohanos, liviyos or malkos, or hold sherarah in general.

It's an interesting idea, that women aren't mechuyavos in outside but have
reshus to do so. This would explain "kevudah bas melech" (albeit not the
"kol") as being a statement of where bas melech has a chiyuv to show kavod.

It fits particularly well with RSRH's chiddush that limits the kelal of mitzvos
asei shehazman gerama to those mitzvos that also address relationships to
the outside or symbolize those relationships. Which is why it includes succah
but not korban Pesach.

This would suggest that outsideness for women (at prefixed times, at least)
is a mitzvas reshus, as you are claiming.

My open questions are:

1- Why did Shelomo write "kol kevudah", if she's allowed to explore kavod in
   other places if she wants?

2- Why no sherarah?

3- Why then if the primary criterion for pitur "shehazman geramah"? Why
   wouldn't the "outsideness" of the mitzvas asei be sufficient cause for
   a p'tur? After all, reshus but mitzvah is the relationship to "outside"
   in general.

4- Even if we say she may choose giving kavod to the Melech in "outside"
   venues, does that mean she *ought* to? IOW, wouldn't the difference between
   metzuveh vi'oseh and eino metzuveh vi'osah indicate that it's the things
   that are metzuveh that indicate primary focus for avodah?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@netmedia.net.il> in v4n120 quotes Prof Y Dan:
: It is interesting to note that he doesn't just attack Rabbi Yehuda HaChasid
: but was mainly concerned with attacking Rav Sadya Gaon and also the Rambam...
: It appears that he made no distinction - such as we do today - between
: mysticism and philosophy.

I don't see that conclusion from what you've quoted of the material. RYhC,
R Saadia Gaon and the Rambam have one thing in common -- they were
non-mimetic. In all cases it was masorah + something. I could see complaining
about all such mixtures as a class without caring what that "something" is:
be it philosophy or mysticism.

The difference between a philosopher and a mystic: The philosopher finds the
mishpat in every chok, the mystic finds the chok in every mishpat.

Unlike the citation here, I didn't find the Carlebach minyan phenomenon to be
driven by mysticism. Rather, the driving force is experientialism. There's a
difference between saying that the issue lies beyond our ability to comprehend
and saying that the issue isn't one of comprehension but one of experience.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Nov-99: Revi'i, Toldos
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 66b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-II 3

*********************


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]

Status: RO