Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 315

Monday, January 24 2000

• Re: Histaklus
• Re: Mendelsohn and MO
• Re: Histakluth-3 additional comments
• Re: Histaklus BaNashim
• dud shemesh
• Hareidi Press (America and Israel)
• Bais yisroel vs. Bnei Yisroel
• Histaklus B'nashim
• OFF TOPIC - Baruch Yosef
• Administrivia
• Pharo's Intentions
• Quick Lesson By Example From Satmar Rebbe
• Re: MO vs RW
• Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re: Paraoh identity
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Re: On the importance of shoveling snow off your sidewalk
• Re: Women's position vis-a-vis husband
• Re: Paraoh identity
• Re: Histaklus b'Nashim

On 23 Jan 00, at 22:30, Sholem Berger wrote:

> 
> >Just to bring a proof from goyish society, which if anything is far
> >more "open" than fruhm society, all the controversies in sports
> >reporting are over women reporters being admitted to men's locker
> >rooms, where the men are running around unclothed. No one even
> >suggests that male reporters should be admitted to women's locker
> >rooms. To me, at least, that makes it apparent that the chashash
> >is only of men looking at women and not vice versa.
> 
> I think there's a couple of other reasonable explanations you have to 
> eliminate first:
> 
> 1. The controversy (actually only over a couple of reporters, I think) is 
> recent and coincides with the appearance of women sports reporters over the 
> last couple of decades.

It is true that women sports reporters have been a phenomenon of 
the last couple of decades. 

> 2. A lot fewer reporters cover women's sports than men's sports, and more of 
> those that report on the former are women. So you're less likely to hear 
> about any parallel incidents on the distaff side of the court.

Tennis anyone? 

> 3. Why couldn't the controversy be due to a khshash of "histaklus beanoshim" 
> by the women reporters?

IIRC (and I made aliya around the time that the controversies 
started) that is what some of the players claimed, but they were 
kind of laughed off. 

Bottom line, I don't think there is any women's locker room in any 
sport that admits men, while women reporters are admitted to 
men's locker rooms in just about every team sport. To me that 
says that goyim understand that women are better able to control 
themselves than are men.

Just to bring the discussion back into the realm of Torah, the 
halacha recognizes that it is men who need assistance in self-
control by placing most of the harchokos of Hilchos Nida on them.

-- 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 1/23/00 6:00:40 PM Eastern Standard Time, Jonathan Baker 
writes:
<< RYBS followed almost the same model, except that he was also a genius
 in Gemara and halacha.  Some have noted that the Rambam is known today
 for his Torah, while his philosophy (undeservedly) and medical writings
 (deservedly) lie neglected.  The Rav's Torah is accepted even in the RW
 world, as some have observed, while his philosophy and weltanschauung
 are glossed over.
 So yes, Mendelssohn is a model for MO.  He was just ahead of his time.
 The Jews of Muslim Egypt could accept a Rambam.  The Jews of Christian
 Western Europe were not ready to accept a Mendelssohn, but they were
 ready, by 1930, to accept RYBS, a (greater) man in the same mold >>
The point you seem to be making is that Mendelsohn is more or less the same 
as RAMBAM and RYBS except for the minor point that they were also great in 
Talmud and Halacha while he wasn't. To me this is a gross misunderstanding of 
both RYBS and the RAMBAM. Talmud was such an integral part of both of their 
lives that it is impossible to compare them with a relative ignoramus in 
Talmud, who never showed much of an interest in it.  While there is 
legitimate debate on which was the dominant feature of RYBS and RAMBAM, 
philosophy or Talmud, there is no question that Talmud and Halacha were very 
major part of their lives. RYBS was a traditional rosh yeshiva who spent most 
of his life giving shiurim and the Rambam wrote the greatest Halachic work 
ever. RYBS and Rambam were not just greater men in a the same mold, there all 
encompassing love of Talmud and Halacha make them entirely different. The 
fact that they share a point of agreement does not make them from the same 
mold.   

In a speech (printed in R. Rakefets book) RYBS clearly makes the point that 
although YU shares some ideas (secular studies) with German Orthodoxy, still 
in essence they are very different. For RYBS (and YU) Shas and posekim in the 
traditional manner of R. Chaim of Brisk, was of extreme importance. So RYBS 
is not even in the same mold as German Orthodoxy, kal vchomer Mendelsohn.

In a message dated 1/23/00 2:50:09 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
rjhendel@juno.com writes:

>  1) There are precedents for personal experimentation if something
>  causes Hirhur

This is against Shulchan Oruch and a distortion of the Gemara Taanis 5b.

> All statements to the contrary in acharonim 

As allways we follow the ruling of our sages thrugh the sages!!!

>  The reason women are not considered to have hirhur 

This is not true!  See Chinuch end of Mitzvah 188, brought by many Poskim 
including Misgeres Hashulchan 151:1.

>  I believe this would remove some (not all) of the confusion on this topic

IMHO no one was confused, rather disscusing fine points of the Halacha, as 
brought in the Poskim.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

--- Chana/Heather Luntz
<Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>dispite your
> dislike of sources,
> to me you really need to go back to them to fully
> understand the issue.

I do not dislike sources.  I'm just lazy. 

> 
> The gemorra in Brochos 24a says that that histaklus
> is assur even in
> relation to a woman's little finger.  This is
> brought by the various
> authorities (eg Rambam issurei bi'a perek 21 halacha
> 2, Tur/SA Even
> Haezer 21:2).  That is, we have it on good authority
> (the
> gemorra no less) that some people can have hirhurim
> looking at a
> woman's little finger (not to mention her face). 

The Gemmorah you refer to states "whoever looks at the
little finger of a woman is like one who gazes at the
place of her nakedness" The Rambam brings this
statement down in a paraphrase and clearly qualifies
it by stating that the INTENT HAS TO BE TO HAVE
HANA'AH. This is brought down by the Mechaber in the
SA, 4th chelek (E.hE.) 21,1 as psak halacha l'maseh.
The clear implication is that it is not assur if there
are no hirhurim.

> Similarly, it is
> suggested in all the authorities, based on the
> gemorra, that a man run
> in front of a woman, or turn to the wall if he sees
> her in the
> marketplace.

Again, I submit, only if there are improper thoughts.
The tone of the Halacha as it is stated at the outset
is to distance oneself from women in any and all ways
as this can perhaps lead to Hirhur.

I further submit that Hirhur is realtive to the
conditions extant in one's environment.  That Gemorah
(24A)in Brochos clearly delineates which parts of the
female anatomy are considered Ervah. Hirhur and Ervah,
although related, are not the same thing.  Hirhur is
realtive. I believe the gemorah's point (as well as
the SA) is that one should distance himself from even
the minutest form of Hirhur even if it is something as
seemingly innocuous as the Etzbah Ketanah.  It is not
the Etzbah Ketanah we have to fear, it is Hirhur. The
Etzbah Ketanah is a symblolic example of something
that one might not consider a source of Hirhur and the
Gemmorah is telling us, Af Al Pi Kain we should stay
away from it if it causes Hirhur.

The famous Levush that you refer to, I do not have a
copy of.  As I recall he deals with the question of
whether we can say SheHasimcha BiMono at a mixed
seating wedding since such reference would be BeMakom
Ervah.  He Taynah's that since in his day and age
women and men intermingle socially on a more frequent
basis they were more used to being around each other
than was the case in the days of earlier generations
so, we no longer have Hirhurim and that removes the
quality of Ervah. It is then permissible to say
SheHasimcha BiMono. This Levush is clearly of the
opinion that Hirhur is subject to societal evolution. 

> This is why I say the position of those in Meah
> Shearim is totally
> consistent.  There is a risk that if a man looks at
> a woman's little
> finger, or her face, he will have hirhurim.  So, in
> order to avoid the
> possibility, such men do not look at either a
> woman's face, or her
> finger.  Such actions are a fence against the danger
> of stirring up
> hirhurim.


In meah shearim where societal norms have not evolved
in the same way as it has in Western society, one may
legitimately make the argument that looking at the
little finger of a woman may cause Hirhurim.  In any
case one can be as Machmir for himself as he wants to.
If a particular group accepts those chumros for
themselves as normative that is fine for them but in
no way can this be considered normative for the rest
of Klal Israel.

> What I am trying to understand is why those who hold
> that the reason to
> have separate seating or no possibility of viewing
> women dancing is a
> fence lest one might come to histaklus do not appear
> to hold that a
> similar fence needs to be made regarding seeing her
> finger or her face.
> And yet the actions of this particular olam appears
> to be in favour of
> just such a distinction.

I think you have to ask "this particular olam".

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

I have been fascinated by recent postings which discuss the Shabbos
permissiblity of these solar heaters. Some have mentioned aspects of how
they work, but the majority seem to have skipped over this all-important
point.

In any question of any sort of technological device, it is extremely
important to consider that there are varied ways of manufacturing it, and
that these technologies can change over time, often with a significant
halachic impact. Two simple examples come to mind:

(1) I can't find sources for this one, but I remember, once upon a time,
being told that if I had to use the telephone on Shabbos to call an
ambulance for pikuach nefech, it would be mutar to hang up afterwards,
because otherwise, the open line would prevent the ambulance people from
being able to use their phone. I've heard that this has changed, and that
nowadays, most phone systems clear the line a few seconds after either
party hangs up. Thus, the medics would be able to use their phone even if
I do not hang up, and so I have a heter to hang up only if there is a
chance that they might call me back for some reason.

(2) My favorite machlokes between Rav Shimon Eider and the Shmiras
Shabbos K'hilchasa concerns putting soup nuts into ones soup on Shabbos.
Rav Eider (pg 262) allows it only if the soup is a kli sh'lishi, but the
Shmiras Shabbos (1:61) allows it even in a kli rishon off the fire.
Reading the respective texts explains their reasonings, but it still
seems to be a wide divergence of opinion --- until one realizes that
American soup nuts are baked, and Israeli ones are deep-fried!

Akiva Miller

________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0093_01BF6645.63BFBD30
Content-Type: text/plain;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Shalom

As frum frensh citizen, we haven't hareidi press in France.

Is it possible to have a list with the title, phone and fax (e-mail ?) =
of hareidi press in America, England and Israel ?

It will be a great Nachas for me and my familiy.

Thank you.





------=_NextPart_000_0093_01BF6645.63BFBD30
Content-Type: text/html;
	charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 5.00.2314.1000" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>Shalom</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>As frum frensh citizen, we haven't hareidi press =
in=20
France.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Is it possible to have a list with the title, =
phone and=20
fax (e-mail ?) of hareidi press in America, England and Israel =
?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>It will be a great Nachas for me and my=20
familiy.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial>Thank you.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>
<DIV>&nbsp;</DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0093_01BF6645.63BFBD30--

 
______________________________________________________________________________
Si votre email etait sur iFrance vous pourriez ecouter ce message au tel !
http://www.ifrance.com : ne laissez plus vos emails loins de vous ...
gratuit sur iFrance :  emails (20 MO, POP, FAX), Agenda, Site perso 

It struck me this past shabbos that the term bais yisroel ( as opposed to
the more widely used B'nei Yisroel)  is used with regard to the Manna. I
also forund it at the end of Pikudei and in Shiminee (vi'achaychem kol
bais yisroel yibku ess hasireifah...)  I found a few unsatisfying
explainations. Is there a good unifying P'shat out there? (it is used
quite extensively in N'ach, but not in the torah)

Kol tuv, Shmuel Akiva Drebin
________________________________________________________________
YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET!
Juno now offers FREE Internet Access!
Try it today - there's no risk!  For your FREE software, visit:
http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

It is my understanding that one suggestion in Gemara Berachos 48b clearly
indicates that Hazal believed that women find men attaractive and desire to
gaze at them. In trying to explain why the young women at the well (Shmuel
I:9) engaged in lengthy conversation with Shaul (who was just asking for
directions), the Gemara suggests "Kdei Lehistakel Byofyo shel Shaul".

I was once told that the Satmar Rebbe brings that Gemara as a source for
building Mechitzos such that the women cannot see the men, just as the men
cannot see the women.

Shalom Berger
Yerushalayim

I guess that at least some of you might have been wondering what 
ever became of Baruch Yosef's second MRI that was postponed at 
the beginning of the month. Well, it was postponed for so long that 
we decided not to bother anyone with it until the date was much 
closer. The date is coming.

Baruch Yosef will be having an MRI IY"H on Thursday, January 27 
between 12:30 and 2:00 P.M. Israel time (5:30-7:00 A.M. US 
Eastern time). Anyone who can say some Tehilllim for him then will 
be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

-- Carl


Carl M. Sherer, Adv.
Silber, Schottenfels, Gerber & Sherer
Telephone 972-2-625-7751
Fax 972-2-625-0461
mailto:cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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

I'm beginning to feel like the axe-man...

I had to (re)drop someone else from the list today. He had a habit of being on
the edge of the membership guidelines, and a recent post on the subject of
hirhurim crossed the border. In short, you shouldn't be writing an email about
hirhusim that would justify declaring the email *itself* as assur.

BTW, I'm having problems with home internet access. As I try to actually work
while at work (*) this means that I may fall behind until I get my home
computer replaced.

*) Speaking of which, a good friend and member of Avodah noted that Avodah's
volume goes down significantly on American legal holidays (such as last Dec
24th). Please check whether you are a po'el or an uman; and if your job really
is purely deadline driven, whether Avodah is causing you to let your deadlines
slip. To whatever extent that Avodah is a kiyum of limud Torah, it still has
no value if pursued as a mitzvah haba'ah ba'aveirah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Jan-00: Levi, Yisro
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

Question:  When Pharo finally lets the people go, does he do so
believing that they will be
returning after a few days?  I.e., does he believe that they are going
to do some sort of
worship in the desert and afterwards return?  Are these not the
conditions under which
the people are being allowed to leave even at the very end?  Or was this
just a useful, face saving,  fiction, and
everyone, Moshe, Pharo, and the people, all knew that they were not
coming back.
The scripture seems to support the latter view in the pasuk at the
beginning of B'shlach
[14:5], "and Pharo and his servants changed their minds..." The
implication  is that Pharo originally was not going to pursue the
fleeing Jews, and that it required a "hardening" of his heart to have
him decide to "change his mind", and try to get them back.  Hence he had
from the time of their leaving  resigned
himself to the fact that they were not coming back.
If so, was the talk of going out to the desert to worship known to be
fiction from the very begining?  And if not, when did it become so?


Moshe Nugiel

Quick Lesson By Example From Satmar Rebbe
===================================

     The editor of a journal that had slandered and ridiculed 
Rabbi Yoel Teitlebaum, the Satmar Rebbe, came to the 
[Satmar] Rebbe and told him about his daughter's financial 
difficulties. 

     She [the editor's daughter] was engaged to be married, 
but lacked sufficient funds to purchase an apartment. 

     After the Rebbe gave him a large sum of money, 
someone whispered in his [the Rebbe's] ear, "Don't 
you know who that is?"

     "Of course I do," replied the [Satmar] Rebbe, and 
after a moment's hesitation, called back the editor and 
gave him even more.

     Source: THE JEWISH OBSERVER, November 1979, 
being quoted by page 309 of GATEWAY TO HAPPINESS, 
by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin, 1983.

===============
END OF MESSAGE
===============

On Sun, Jan 23, 2000 at 03:53:38PM -0600, Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer wrote:
: I do not think the average individual associated with the MO viewpoint would
: take the PY as one of their ideologues.

To apply this to another thread, the same could be said of Mendelsohn. Having
an overlap in beliefs/practice doesn't imply a deeper connection.

(BTW, does the "average individual associated with" any movement even worry
about who their idealogues are?)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 24-Jan-00: Levi, Yisro
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 104a
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         

I have seen a number of sefarim by haredi authors in which they say that
a woman must give in to her husband's opinion (mevatel da'atah). These
sefarim also say that she is subservient. Even in some English sefarim this
is sometimes found. For Example, in the book Gefen Poriah there is a passage
(in the English notes to ch. 14 I believe) in which it states that a woman is
"subjugated" to her man. I don't think the Modern Orthodox believe this. Is
there a "Jewish" reason not to accept these views, or is it only our being
raised in America which makes us umcomfortable with these concepts, while
people in Bnei Brak, men and women, seem to have no problem with the notion
that women are subservient to their husbands, which is, after all, how the
rishonim viewed matters. The Torah also says that the man shall rule over
his wife. So why all the MO propaganda that men and women are equal partners
in a marriage? In fact, according to MO understanding, why should a wife who
is a niddah be permitted to cook for her husband. After all, she regards it
as derekh hibah, not "her job".


              Zvi


LYCOShop. Thousands of products!  One location!
http://shop.lycos.com/

It seems that back in v4n134, when we were discussing that article in Ha'aretz
and Lisa Leil's theory about the identity of Par'o, someone forwarded a
comment that misrepresented the current views of Dr. Yehoshua Etzion. He
asked Lisa to send this correction to soc.culture.jewish. As he asks in its
body that this correction appear in Avodah, I'm forwarding it to the list.

-mi


*****************************************************
From: Yehoshua Etzion 

I just came across your correspondence of November 1999 (see below) which
concerns my 1992 book: "The lost bible". I found in your correspondence a
piece of misleading information that I would like you to correct.

I never backed off from the position advocated in The Lost Bible. I certainly
had nothing to do, what-so-ever, with Heinsohn's work. I do not know who
began spreading this wrong rumors, but will very much like to put an end
to it. Thus, I would very much appreciate it if you forwarded my response
to all the people you corresponded with on this matter, specially the Avodah
mailing list.

I am standing behind the ideas of The Lost Bible which became highly relevant
currently since the debate concerning the historicity of the bible has
opened up. I was happy to read that you liked my book and recommended
it to people of interest. You may find more material about the Lost
Bible and a new book of mine that has just been publish, in my web site:
http://www.geocities.com/lost_bible/

Thank you very much for your attention to this matter,
Yehoshua Etzion

In a message dated 1/23/00 2:18:37 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
cmsherer@ssgslaw.co.il writes:

<< If you shovel and you leave an ice patch and someone falls on it, 
 you're liable. If you left the walk alone and did not shovel it, the 
 snow is an Act of G-d for which you are not liable. 
 
 I know someone who successfully sued a store owner in Boston 
 because she fell on an ice patch caused by a poor shovelling job 
 and broke her hip. 
  >>

Oy, What a Country!

Jordan 

In a message dated 1/23/00 2:20:17 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< You only are liable for a bor b'reshus ha'rabbim if you are the one who 
digs
 it, not if it was placed there by the hand of Heaven. The snow is not yours.
 If, however, you shovel it, you become responsible for it.
  >>
The Bor part I got. It was the connection to the snow I missed.  Carl Sherer 
got there before you did. Somehow, the it sounds a lot better in Seder 
Nezikin then it does in American law. 

Jordan

In a message dated 1/24/00 9:57:08 AM US Central Standard Time, 
zvib@mailcity.com writes:

<< I have seen a number of sefarim by haredi authors in which they say that
 a woman must give in to her husband's opinion (mevatel da'atah). These
 sefarim also say that she is subservient. >>

This is a hen-pecked husband's piteous pipe dream. In real life, Jewish women 
are vocal, smart, and insistent. They are subservient to no one. They're 
tough, and they've held their families and the Jewish community as a whole 
together for thousands of years. (I was about to apologize for 
over-generalizing, but on reflection I'm probably being dead accurate.) 

One thing that should be said in favor of egalitarianism: If women wrote more 
of the books, we'd get fewer fantasies about the power of men and the 
weakness of women.

David Finch

In a message dated 1/24/00 11:21:38 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 I am standing behind the ideas of The Lost Bible which became highly relevant
 currently since the debate concerning the historicity of the bible has
 opened up. I was happy to read that you liked my book and recommended
 it to people of interest. You may find more material about the Lost
 Bible and a new book of mine that has just been publish, in my web site:
 http://www.geocities.com/lost_bible/ >>

The Lost Bible predates my membership on the list. Anyone care to update me?

Jordan

We could get an informal survey..
using David Finch's "freindly device" - why not ask our wives if their friends 
would find gazing at men dancing an "erotic experience" or not?

Rich Wolpoe
_____________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Histaklus b'Nashim 

R. Gershon Dubin wrote:

>         Human nature has not changed,  and women do not have hirhurim when 
> looking at men.

and R. Richard Wolpoe responded:

> Have you asked them?

Just to bring a proof from goyish society, which if anything is far 
more "open" than fruhm society, all the controversies in sports 
reporting are over women reporters being admitted to men's locker 
rooms, where the men are running around unclothed. No one even 
suggests that male reporters should be admitted to women's locker 
rooms. To me, at least, that makes it apparent that the chashash 
is only of men looking at women and not vice versa.

-- Carl

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


[ 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         ]