Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 273

Monday, January 10 2000

• Prayers of Anguished Woman
• Re: Avodah V4 #271
• Kavanah and Shelo Asani Isha
• Women Davening
• Metzuva veoseh
• Re[4]: Fwd (micha@aishdas.org): Re: Wearing a tallis gad
• Re: Regular Shul Attendance and Talking
• Re: Re[4]: value of shas
• Re: How is Rav Soleveitchik ztzl considered modern Orthodox?
• Re[6]: value of shas
• Re: Re[6]: value of shas
• Re: Rav Soloveitchik
• Re: Kavanah and Shelo Asani Isha
• MO:definition
• gadol hametzuveh v'oseh
• Re: Avodah V4 #269
• Re: Intrinsic value, kashrus vs arlah

> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 13:20:18 -0500
> From: Russell J Hendel <rjhendel@juno.com>
> Subject: RE: Prayers of Anguished woman
> 
> Richard Walpoe writes
> >>>>>>>
> <snip>.
> 
> Al kol panim, let's look at some of the things the Malbim does not 
> say.
> 
> 1. He discusses neither tenants nor agunos.
> 2. He assumes that the employee whose salary has been withheld will call
> out. 
> But he does not say that employee will call out for revenge against his 
> employer. <snip>
> - -- Carl
> >>
> 
> And since she has a CHOICE of how to call out, why not take the "win win"
> choice
> and pray for her own relief and NOT for the death of her opressor?
> 
> Using this "win-win", she is invoking Hashem's Rachmonus and not His din.
> 
> Shouldn't we always encourage invoking Hashems' rachmonus on us rather
> than His 
> din upon others?  
> 
> Rich Wolpoe
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> 
> I clearly stated that
> 	>I agree with Rich/Carl IN THE BEGINNING (LCHATCHILAH) that she should
> 	>be advised to seek human intervention, just pray for her relief etc
> 
> 	>HOWEVER (and this is has not being answered yet) if her anguish is 
> 	>so great (after trying other methods) that she has symptons of eg
> 	>depression, withdrawal etc then we SHOULD advocate her praying ON
> 	>THEM to use the Biblical term

This has been answered at least three times. You have provided 
absolutely NO sources, for saying that the woman's having 
depression or withdrawal (whatever those terms mean) give her a 
right to pray against ANYBODY. You provide no sources for 
determining when her anguish is considered "so great" that we can 
advocate her praying in the manner you propose. All you have given 
us is your own interpretation of a pasuk from which you are trying 
to make a binyan av that has no basis in the Meforshim, in the 
Rishonim or in the Poskim.

And the only reason I am continuing to argue with this is to be 
mocheh against your "original" derivation of halacha from psukim, 
which goes against things written explicitly in Chazal, lest any 
lurkers out there think there is any basis whatsoever to what you 
are saying.

See, for example, the Gemara in Gittin 7a starting "Shalach lei Mar 
Ukva" (ten lines from the top) and especially a few lines later where 
he says "Metzarei Li Tuva v'Lo Matzina d'Akum Behoo" and the 
answer is "DOM LAHASHEM V'HISCHOLEL LO, DOM 
LAHASHEM V'HOO YAPILEM LECHA CHALALIM CHALALIM." In 
other words, keep silent.

See the Gemara in Bava Kama 93a: HaMoser Dino laShamayim 
HOO NEENASH TCHILLA. And the Gemara also says there 
"Tanya Nami Hachi Echad HaTzoek v'Echad HaNitzak b'Mashma 
Ela SHEMEMAHARIN LATZOEK YOSER MIN HANITZAK," i.e. the 
person who cries out gets punished first." (And yes, I know Tosfos 
there says that it means that Hashem will answer the person who 
cries out first but he does NOT say that Hashem will not answer 
the person who does not cry out (he says exactly the opposite), 
nor does he say that it means that it's okay to cry out against 
another person).

> Richard should also note that the Biblical phrase does not say
> 	>lest she PRAY
> but the Biblical phrase says
> 	>lest (s)he PRAY **ON** them
> 
> This is the same question I asked Carl (who conceded that PRAY ON
> probably
> does mean something but he is not yet sure what). 

I never said I wasn't sure what it meant, and if you're going to 
continue to try to argue with me through Richard and not argue with 
me directly, please at least don't put words into my mouth.

What I said regarding the Sifra was:

"1. He discusses neither tenants nor agunos.
2. He assumes that the employee whose salary has been withheld 
will call out. But he does not say that employee will call out for 
revenge against his employer. Rather, that employee could be 
calling out to have his schar paid. He can call out to Hashem to 
make the employer pay the schar, and to the extent that the 
employer is at fault for not paying the schar, then the employer 
would be harmed derech agav. This fits in with the maamar chazal 
we find in many places that one is not permitted to daven for the 
death of his enemies. He is not davening for something bad to 
befall his employer - only for his salary to be paid. If Hashem 
decides to punish the employer for withholding the schar, that is 
Hashem's initiative.
3. Even if one is permitted to daven in a certain way, doesn't mean 
that he should or that it will not have adverse consequences 
against him if he does. There are many things that I am permitted 
to do that Chazal tell me not to do. I can eat like a gargaran and I 
am not necessarily over an issur in doing so, yet Chazal say that I 
should not. I can have relations with my wife three times a day, and 
assuming that she is tehora I am not over an issur, but Chazal tell 
me I should not. So too, it may be that I can daven that something 
bad happen to my employer for withholding my salary, but Chazal 
have told me that I should not."

So I ask Richard also
> (and
> anyone else) what the phrase PRAY ON means. Thruought tnach it is used
> for
> praying AGAINST/ON somebody.
> 
> To summarize my whole position I am **only** talking about the case where
> the woman is suffering severely and has withdrawal symptoms etc. In such
> a case I see a clear Heter to pray on her anguisher. 

Who is to determine when this "Heter" exists? You or the 
Rackman "Beis Din"? What can she daven for? Until now, you have 
told us that she can daven for her husband's death R"L. On what 
basis? Who decides when she can daven like that? The Supreme 
Rabbinical Court of America? You? Her?

> The numerous statements (some cited form the Gmarrah) to the contrary are
> not being disputed by me since they apply to MOST OTHER SITUATIONS. 

Then WHAT is the basis for your argument? Now you're arguing on 
the Gemara????? You against Rav Ashi?

> I perhaps could make this clearer by rephrasing the issue as 
> 	>Do we have here a heter for certain types of abnormal prayer 
> 	>when a person is so emotionally anguished that it has 
> 	>adversely affected their personality (This is what is being
> 	>discussed)

NO NO NO NO NO NO! CHAS V'SHALOM!

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 1/10/00 2:43:47 PM Eastern Standard Time, Joel Rich 
responds to what I wrote with regard to metsuva veose 
 >>Which gemora?
And Micha Berger wrote
>>I know mefarshim say this, I agree with the earlier comment that I think
it post-dates the gemara, though.

You are right. I had remembered it as being a Gemorah, but really the Gemorah 
in Kedushin 31a just says that metsuva veoseh is greater and Tosfos on this 
Gemorah gives the reason. This Tosfos is qouted by both the Shach and the Taz 
in Hilchos Talmud Torah. In general I appreciate the correction. It is very 
important to be precise when something is from the Gemorah and when it is 
from a Rishon. 

--- Tobrr111@aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 1/10/00 10:40:53 AM Eastern
> Standard Time, Harry Maryles 
> writes:
> << If women DO have more kavanah when they
>  Daven,  Why is that so?  Is it because they are
> Aino
>  Metzuveh VeOseh? And Why would that be a reason? >>
> 
> The Gemorah and meforshim explain that a metsuva
> veoseh is greater because he 
> has a greater yetser hara opposing him. Not that the
> gemorah needs my 
> haskomo, but as a sociological observation this
> definitely seems to be true. 
> It is much easier to  do something on your own free
> will then if you are 
> forced to do it. 

I know the above statements from my own learning and
experience to be true as well. I was simply asking a
question as to what motivates women, at least the ones
that I know about, to daven with more Kavanah then
Men, as a rule.

HM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com

In message , Tobrr111@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 1/10/00 10:40:53 AM Eastern Standard Time, Harry Maryles 
>writes:
><< If women DO have more kavanah when they
> Daven,  Why is that so?  Is it because they are Aino
> Metzuveh VeOseh? And Why would that be a reason? >>
>
>The Gemorah and meforshim explain that a metsuva veoseh is greater because he 
>has a greater yetser hara opposing him. 

While this is true, it is interesting that you and Harry bring this in
connection with the matter under discussion, namely women's davening.
This is interesting for the reason that, while just about everybody (eg
Mishna Brura, Aruch HaShulchan, Shulchan Aruch HaRav, not to mention
those on whom they base themselves) holds that women are obligated in
davening - meaning shmoneh esrei (as opposed to shema or tephilla
b'tzibbur). 

The fascinating thing about women's davening is that it is perhaps the
prime example of a  case of the divergence of the mimetic tradition
(from what I can gather it was pretty much only the exceptional woman
who davened as a special act of piety, something that has flowed through
to the majority of frum women today) and the textual tradition (clearly
chayav). You appear to be suggesting that the statement in the Gemorrah
works even in circumstances where the person may really be chayav, but
doesn't know they are chayav - and by extension that the yetzer hora
lays off a person if they don't know they are chayav and think they are
doing it voluntarily. (Tosphos's explanation in Kidushin, about the
worry that being chayav generates may fit with this better than a
straight yetzer hora explanation).

Kind Regards

Chana



-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

In message , Joelirich@aol.com writes
>In a message dated 1/10/00 10:51:07 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
>Tobrr111@aol.com writes:
>
><< 
> The Gemorah and meforshim explain that a metsuva veoseh is greater because 
>he 
> has a greater yetser hara opposing him. >>
>Which gemora?
>

Kedushin 31a and the Tosphos there s'v "gadol" - or for a more explicit
reference to the yetzer in the tosphos on Avodah Zara 3a s'v "gadol".
Note the place of "worry" in the equation according to tosphos though.

>Kol Tuv,
>Joel Rich
>

Regards

Chana

-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

imho

1) Those who follow the Brisker derech should be choshiesh

2) Those who do not shouldn't bother

IOW I would NOT recommend adding a chumro to non-Briskers based upon what a 
mountst o be a Brisker Daas Yochid

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: Re[2]: Fwd (micha@aishdas.org): Re: Wearing a tallis gad



--- richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:
> Is it R. Aaron's shito to be chocheish for view of a 
> Meiuta?

No.  I believe that R. Aaron just follows the Shitos 
of Beis Brisk (who are their own miyut).

HM
__________________________________________________ 

On 10 Jan 00, at 15:20, Joelirich@aol.com wrote:

> I've noted the same wrt weddings in frum communities - the greater the 
> frequency of attendance, the more talking during the chuppah( I suspect that 
> this can be as disconcerting to the chatan and kallah-who are told this is a 
> particular eit ratzon- as talking in shul is to those who are trying to have 
> a dialogue w/HKBH).  

Talking during the Chupa? Here you generally can't see or hear the 
Chupa because *everyone* is standing around talking. When I went 
to a wedding in the States six weeks ago, I almost forgot to stand 
for the Chosson and Kallah because I had not seen it done in so 
long.

-- Carl (who got married in Israel with a bunch of shell-shocked 
Israelis sitting for the Chupa)


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

On 10 Jan 00, at 15:36, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> Correction: re: Kodshim, indeed I should have stuck with Zeroim and Taharos.
> 
> Carl, got all the trees right but looked right past the forest.
> 
> The point I was attempting to make was that IF the Bavli were designed to be the
> BE all and END all of TSBP, they woulda/shoulca/coulda included all 63 
> masechtos.  TB did not.  Which implies to me that the Gemoro did not consider 
> itself as  nigmar (lo loech hamlocho ligmor)  and threfore it was never designed
> as a stand-alonge sefer (unlike the Rambam's Yad!)  Adn therefore one was 
> expected to do Mishanyos and possibly Tosefta etc. in order to round out TSBP, 
> and perhaps even Yreshulmi (certainly for Sheklim) but possibly for Zeroim too. 
> Which leads me to conclude that the TB was never intended as a "totality" just 
> the first and foremost amongst "equals".

And MY point was that TB was meant to be the be all and end all 
with respect to those things that are lemaaseh after Churban 
HaBayis. You might ask, if TB is limited to things that are 
lemaaseh after Churban HaBayis, then why Kodshim? I can think 
of a couple of reasons. Some Kodshim still have their kdusha (e.g. 
bchor). Or you could argue that the Kapos Tmorim is correct when 
he argues that you could bring Korbanos today (in theory) even 
without a Beis HaMikdash.

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

In a message dated 1/10/00 12:46:05 PM US Central Standard Time, 
katzco@sprintmail.com writes:

<< From where do you learn this? It's nice to spout off opinions but for this
 discussion you need sources. Is this based on what you read, if so where? Is
 this based on what you heard, if so from whom? Or maybe this is something 
that
 the Rav zt'l said in shiur and you heard it or it was reported to you, if so 
by
 whom?
 To say that the Rav zt'l was influenced by German inteligentsia is quite a
 stretch and an insult to a gadol. >>

Read, e.g., Moshe Sokol's essay "Ger ve-Toshav Anochi," published in a book 
edited by Marc D. Angel, "Exploring the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. 
Soloveitchik" (Ktav, 1997). This essay discusses the role of secular patterns 
of philosophical thought in some of Rav Soloveitchik's thinking, particularly 
that displayed in his "The Lonely Man of Faith." There's no reason to be 
polemical about it. The Rav's thinking was highly sophisticated; there's no 
reason to believe he could wash his mind of his very thorough secular 
learning even if he'd wanted to. He thinking was also emotionally tortured, 
which is a big part of its contemporary appeal. This, too, reflects the 
dissonant impact of what he learned in the outside world.

David Finch

If TB was meant lema'aseh what's the point of Aggedito?

And if theory is as important as lemaaseh, why not Taharos?

And if lemaaseh is ikkar, then what's wrong with Tur?

Rich Wolpoe




______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

And MY point was that TB was meant to be the be all and end all 
with respect to those things that are lemaaseh after Churban 
HaBayis. You might ask, if TB is limited to things that are 
lemaaseh after Churban HaBayis, then why Kodshim? I can think 
of a couple of reasons. Some Kodshim still have their kdusha (e.g. 
bchor). Or you could argue that the Kapos Tmorim is correct when 
he argues that you could bring Korbanos today (in theory) even 
without a Beis HaMikdash.

-- Carl

On 10 Jan 00, at 18:16, richard_wolpoe@ibi.com wrote:

> If TB was meant lema'aseh what's the point of Aggedito?

I don't think we truly understand much of Aggadita. I think there are 
(particularly musar) lessons there that go way beyond the pshat of 
the words that we just don't get.

> And if theory is as important as lemaaseh, why not Taharos?

Much of Kodshim is more than just theory. Bchor still has kdusha 
today. Even in Chutz LaAretz. But Taharos involved (principally) 
questions of being able to EAT Kodshim and Truma and that we 
cannot do today.

> And if lemaaseh is ikkar, then what's wrong with Tur?

It wasn't around when Talmud Bavli was finished. If I understand 
correctly, what we are discussing is whether TB was intended at 
the time it was finished to be the sum of TSBP (as was the Yad).

-- Carl


Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

n a message dated 1/10/00 12:46:05 PM US Central Standard Time, 
katzco@sprintmail.com writes:

<< From where do you learn this? It's nice to spout off opinions but for this
 discussion you need sources. Is this based on what you read, if so where? Is
 this based on what you heard, if so from whom? Or maybe this is something 
that
 the Rav zt'l said in shiur and you heard it or it was reported to you, if so 
by
 whom?
 To say that the Rav zt'l was influenced by German inteligentsia is quite a
 stretch and an insult to a gadol. >>

Read, e.g., Moshe Sokol's essay "Ger ve-Toshav Anochi," published in a book 
edited by Marc D. Angel, "Exploring the Thought of Rabbi Joseph B. 
Soloveitchik" (Ktav, 1997). This essay discusses the role of secular patterns 
of philosophical thought in some of Rav Soloveitchik's thinking, particularly 
that displayed in his "The Lonely Man of Faith." There's no reason to be 
polemical about it. The Rav's thinking was highly sophisticated; there's no 
reason to believe he could wash his mind of his very thorough secular 
learning even if he'd wanted to. He thinking was also emotionally tortured, 
which is a big part of its contemporary appeal. This, too, reflects the 
dissonant impact of what he learned in the outside world.

David Finch

On Mon, Jan 10, 2000 at 02:45:46PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: I know the above statements from my own learning and
: experience to be true as well. I was simply asking a
: question as to what motivates women, at least the ones
: that I know about, to daven with more Kavanah then
: Men, as a rule.

It's a self-selected set. Those who don't feel motivated to daven tend not
to. Or daven only when the motivation hits. The male counterparty is far
more likely to daven even while feeling undermotivated, since he is mechuyav.
Therefore the average kavanah of a woman who does daven is going to be higher
than that of the average man, since these men pull down the average.

About women being mechuyavos bitifillah... My understanding is that they are
not mechuyavos in any particular matbei'ah. Therefore, saying "Modah ani"
(no, I didn't mean "ModEH") daily might be sufficient.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 10-Jan-00: Levi, Bo
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 97a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

at various west coast OU conventions, I have heard MO defined as  all of
halacha  PLUS

1---strong secular educ [ university]
2---value of parts of secular culture
3---religious significance of Medina

and maybe  4----more forward role of  frum women in society, either
professionally, or jewish organizationally  [ this one was added by a
rebetzin; the first 3 by the male speakers..}

In a message dated 1/10/00 7:03:43 PM Eastern Standard Time, Rabbi Feldman 
writes:
<< Re: gadol hametzuveh v'oseh: the gemara is in Kiddushin 31a, but a cursory
 look at the text does not give the "yetzer hara" as the reason. Tosefos
 there says that he is greater because he is constantly concerned as to
 whether he is doing the mitavah properly, whereas one who is not mezuveh
 always has the option not to perform the deed.
 - -emanuel feldman >>
While Rabbi Feldman, Shlita, is correct that Tosfos does not clearly mention 
the reason of metsuva veoseh, the TAZ in Yoreh Deah hilchos Talmud Torah 
explains that Tosfos means because "yitzro masiso." So the TAZ does 
understand the reason to be Yetser hara. Looking back at Tosfos it is not 
clear to me how the Taz fits it into Tosfos words, but in any case the TAZ 
does say it.   

Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 00:06:58 -0500
From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
Subject: Yichus data base

> Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 20:13:57 -0500
> From: "S Klagsbrun" <S.Klagsbrun@WORLDNET.ATT.NET>
> Subject: Re: Yichus Data Base

<<The opinion of the leading rabbinical authority in Anglo - Jewish
history concerning the proposed database should not be hard to
extrapolate from this incident.>>

>I would be very hesitant to put words into Rav Moshe's mouth.  Each
>situation was treated by him on an individual basis and generalizations
>on his psokim in dvorim ha'omdim berumo shel olam are fraught with
>danger.  For this reason,  ein lecha elah shofet shebeyamecha.

I was not offering a p'sak halachah. I merely used this story (and there are
many others) to arrive at what his hashkofah would be on this issue, and
therefore what ours should be.

<<Let us not overlook the fact that most of our ancestors lived for
hundreds of years in societies where the 'first rights' of the local lord
was taken for granted, v'hamaivin yavin.>>

>That this was the gezera is true;  I don't know that it existed for
>hundreds of years.  Also,  it was not uniformly carried out,  see Gemara
>beginning of Kesubos.

See history after the close of shas.

Simcha

http://www.bereshitsoftware.com/gila/main.html
a little Torah, nature, humour, environmental concerns and memoirs.

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2000 2:30 AM
Subject: Re: Intrinsic value, kashrus vs arlah


> On Wed, Jan 05, 2000 at 02:00:09AM +0200, Mrs. Gila Atwood wrote:
> : GA Point taken, but if it's not metzuveh, it's not a mitzvah-  by
> : definition.  In a sense,  the halacha defines the reality.
>
> MB- The problem is that this explains too much. Avraham Avinu kept kashrus
> before it was metzuveh, yet he did not keep b'ris milah. Lishitasach,
> how do the two differ?

GA- One possibility I could offer for what it's worth is that da'as
concerning tahor and non tahor animals was already revealed to Avraham
Avinu, but Bris was not yet revealed.

This could be because Avraham Avinu had to be at a particular place in his
spiritual development in order to take on this mitzva.  (If you're really
curious, you might want to check out a piece I wrote about the 10
isyonot  - in recent archives of my list- accessible from my website-  a
disclaimer- it is not a scholarly work but merely my understanding. )

Another question comes to mind-  even if we accept that Avraham Avinu was
makpid with regard to tahor animals-  did he also understand basar vchalav -
and what about trumos and ma'aseros?
>
> :> MBThere was a concept of "beheimah asher einenu tihorah" as far back as
> :> Noach. Why not say that until
> :> HKBH assured all but ma'alei geirah umafreses parsah there was no
concept,
> :> and therefore Avraham had no issur against eating pork?
>
> : GA-  He wasn't metzuveh, so it seems there would be no issur. However,
> : question is, would it still be preferable on a sod level?

GA - just to correct my previous comment-  obviously I meant "preferable to
refrain"!
>
> MB-  My point is that implied in the Brisker Rav's answer is that kashrus
has value
> to a non-metzuveh that milah does not. I don't think he paid attention to
> sod in formulating this answer, but the implication is that kashrus
operates
> on a sod level in ways that milah doesn't.

GA Probably.  I'd be very curious to know how the Brisker Rav arrived at his
conclusion.
>
> MB- Personally, I'm not comfortable with the idea that HKBH gave a mitzvah
that
> lacks content as "spiritual medicine" beyond "ana avda". IOW, I feel more
> at home with R' Chaim Vilozhiner's take on why Avraham Avinu followed kol
> haTorah kulah. But the Rambam does suggest it, and it does seem mashma
from
> this Brisker Rav.
>
> : GA Certainly, but is that perhaps in *addition* to an effect al pi sod.
> : Take the difference between the schar of someone who is "metzuveh" and
> : someone who is "aino metzuveh" - yours truly eating in a succa for
instance.
> : If I'm not mechuyav to do it, one would think there had to be some
intrinsic
> : value to sitting in the succa to have any schar at all.
>
>MB-  Nit: "mechuyeves".
GA touche. That's what comes from trying to combine English and Hebrew! -
using mechuyav as a general adjective:-).
>
> MB-  Or, that there's something about the neshamos of men that require the
work of
> certain mitzvos asei shehazman geramah that the neshamos of women do not.
> This would explain the lack of tzivui, as well as explain why an "einu
> metzuvah" would gain less from the mitzvah.

GA-  true-  but if we don't require it, what exactly are we getting from it?
We're clearly still gaining something.  Love of the mitzva itself, doing
ratzon Hashem? We're not metzuveh.
This tells me there's intrinsic value to the act of sitting in the succah.
This also brings us to the yes/no permission for the bracha.  How can we say
"asher tzivanu" ? We're talking about the mitzvah on Israel as a clal?
Could we say that BECAUSE the men keep the mitzvah of succa, all succot are
automatically imbued with kedusha and this kedusha has an effect on the
neshama of the woman?
>
> : GA- I learned that this was the difference between Yishmael's mila and
> : Yitzhak's mila. Anyone have a source?
>
> MB- Last amud of R' Eliezer d'Milah. I just attended a one-week Yarchei
Kallah
> on that perek of Shabbos. (It was great, btw. Broad spectrum of Rabbanim:
> we heard from R' Yonasan Sachs of RIETS discuss amud aleph, and R' Olshin
> of Lakewood discuss the amud beis. One disappointment is that R' Gelley
was
> sick the night he was supposed to speak. IY"H next time.)
>
> -mi
>
> --
> Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for  4-Jan-00: Shelishi, Vaera
> micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H
> http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 94a
> For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.
>

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


[ 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         ]