Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 085

Friday, December 29 2000

• Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• RE: Dor Revi'i and TSBP
• RE: menorah lighting
• RE: Toras Imecha and tallis
• RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• Re: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• RE: Dor Revi'i and the TSBP
• Re: Tzelem Elokim
• RE: menorah lighting
• Re: menorah lighting
• RE: menorah lighting
• RE: menorah lighting
• Re: menorah lighting
• RE: menorah lighting
• RE: menorah lighting
• Chassidim and Z'man Tefilah
• Re: Chassidim and Z'man Tefilah
• Hein Hayu Be'Oto HaNess

Instead of dealing with ever-growing posts, I'm going to try to present
my tzad without directly quoting. Although I made a list of questions,
and hope I cover everything.

Let's start with Seifer haMitzvos. The Rambam classifies the mitzvos in
the following categories:
I- Di'Oraisa
    1- Those that come from the pasuk
    2- Halachah liMosheh miSinai
    3- Conclusions reached from 1, 2, and earlier halachos of this category
       via derashah and sevarah.
II- Di'Rabbanan
    4- Siyag
    5- Dinim Dirabanan
To be complete, I'd add a non-halachic category,
6- Minhag (either creation or ratification, RCB and I are choleik)

(BTW, I could see understanding the pasuk mipi has'mu'a, such as "ayin
tachas ayin" according to the Rambam as being either 1 or 2. Is the
ikkar that this is what we always knew the pasuk to mean, or that the
p'shat in the pasuk has a mesorah back to HlMmS?)

All di'Oraisos come from Sinai -- Hashem only gave the Torah once, and
since then lo bashamayim hi. However, those in category three were only
given in potentia. We had to deduce them from what we were explicitly
given. This is the territory of eilu va'eilu, where contradictory valid
deductions could both be Torah.

To explain the Rambam, he holds that halachos that come from pisukim
(1) or are hlMmS (2) are immune from machlokes. There is no Rabbinic
input. So, when he addresses the authority of a beis din, as in Hil
Mamrim perek 2, he can only be talking about 3 - 6.

Li nir'eh that 2:1 can only refer to derashos, possibly the entire
category 3, sevara as well. The words "shedarshu bi'achas min hamidos"
is pretty clear, both in using the word "derashah" and in speaking of
"middos". Yes, the second beis din may disagree for reasons other
than a different derashah, any "ta'am acheir listor", but they are
still being soseir the derashah of the first beis din. It's a machlokes
about derashah. The latter beis din is followed, regardless of chochmah
or minyan.

2:3 opens by limiting 2:2 to 5 and 6, dinim dirabbanan and minhagim. 2:2
tells us that in these two categories, a later beis din needs greater
chochmah and minyan.

2:3 itself addresses siyagim, which the Rambam holds are totally
immutable. (Second BTW: note that the Tif'eres Yisrael breaks down #4
into siyag vs. cheshah; IOW, dinim created to prevent misunderstanding of
halachah (siyag) vs those that prevent situations of accident or habit
(cheshash). The latter is relatively easy to overturn if the metzi'us
is that the danger is gone.)

I also noted that since derashos don't come up, 2:1 has no equivalent
in the current period. Perhaps I need to reneg this point, if 2:1
includes di'Oraisos that are based on sevara from other di'Oraisos
(or pesukim). 

Another issue (in addition to deductions made about di'Oraisos
based on sevara) that the Rambam doesn't touch is interpretations of
diRabbanan's. Two batei din disagree about a takkanah of a much earlier
one. (Say, two shitos about chalav yisra'el.) Does it have the same
rules as overturning a takkanah, or is it less problematic because they
are preserving what they believe the original takkanah to have been?



This is a severe limitation to "Shemu'el bidoro kiYiftach bidoro" since
it means that a later "Yiftach" couldn't overturn any diRabbnan's or
minhagim that are products of earlier "Shemu'el"'s. I was arguing that the
equivalence implied is in cases of derashah (2:1), or where the earlier
beis din doesn't give a p'sak that covers all of klal Yisra'el lidoros,
for example, if it is two lower courts. The two have equal power to
follow the halachic process, but that process includes the notion
of precedent.



As to where doubt comes from: I didn't yet get to the peirush haMishnayos
and the Chavos Ya'ir about forgetting. However, we find in M. Megillah
the concept "shachachum vichazar viyasdum" applied to both k'sav ashuris
in general and to the sofios in particular.

But there is a much better source of doubt than any I've thought of until
now -- machlokesin that they never bothered resolving. For example, Rashi
vs Rabbeinu Tam tefillin were both nohug for much of Jewish history,
and it has been argued on these (web) pages that the machlokes is as
old as matan Torah. Rather, there was never a Sanhedrin that paskened
once and for all. Similarly, even if there were Mo'avios before Rus
who wanted to convert, perhaps each sheivet or each kehillah within a
sheivet had it's own policy, with no central intervention.


How does any of this translate to z'man hazeh? I would argue that a seifer
like mishnayos, Shas, SA with mapa (and nosei keilim?), because is is
accepted by the hamon am of shomrei mitzvos, have the authority of a
Sanhedrin. It's not writing it down that solidifies the halachah, it's
the acceptance of what was compiled. Which makes mishnayos binding before
there was a Shas. The authority of the Sanhedrin to pasken is derivative
of their role as representatives of klal Yisrael (which we see in their
purchasing of korbanos hatzibbur and in kiddush hachodesh). Without
Sanhedrin, it reverts to consensus.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Gil.Student@citicorp.com:
> The Maharatz Chajes ...          says that once an halachah is argued
> amongst all the gedolei hador, and they all have the opportunity to
> convince each other with their arguments, the majority rule obligates
> even the minority to follow it and makes the halachah immutable. In
> Rebbi's day, he convened a gathering of all of the gedolim and they all
> had a chance to convinve each other...

This is a point I made on this distinguished list many times, ie. a
halacha remains in flux for a while and is then settled.

Illustrations:
Tefilin of RT vs. Rashi
Electricity on Shabbos
Rambam's 13 Ikkarim (vs. Albo's 3 etc.)

I'm sure that I got this from the Maharitz Chayes, albeit indirectly.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Stein, Aryeh E.
> How is the public menorah lighting any different than the menorahs that are
> lit in shuls?  The person lighting the menorah makes a bracha in shul, even
> though he will be lighting again at home.  As for the propriety of the
> bracha in shul:

The pashut answer is that there was a takkana to light in shul there
was no takkanah to light in a public square.

If pirsumei nissa were sufficient to require a bracha, then we could make
a good svara for making a bracha on electric monorahs, too. Rather we
follow the halachah within a certain framework and guidelines. In this
case, the basic halacha is neir, ish, uveiso, with an exception for shuls.

I see no hashkafa problem lighting publically per se, the problem aisi
is with making a bracha.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

sethm37@hotmail.com:
>  (R. Shternbukh among others has noted that
> the Yishm'elim never covered their face and this is clearly not what
> the Ari meant.)

iirc Chabad does NOT cover the face either, though they do wrap around
the back. RYZK can you confirm?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> What do you mean by *Sinaitic*  in "sinaitic rules of hermeneutics" Are they 
> HLMM? 

Yes.

> If so how do we deal with the disputes re: Ribuy miut ribuy vs. klal prat 
> uchlal?

Excellent question.  I don't know.  The Maharatz Chajes writes in his Mevo 
HaTalmud (ch. 3) that all of the hermeneutic rules are Sinaitic and explicitly 
includes kelal uperat and ribuy umiyut.  I don't know how he can do that.

Gil Student

Gil.Student@citicorp.com [mailto:Gil.Student@citicorp.com]
>> If so how do we deal with the disputes re: Ribuy miut ribuy vs. klal prat 
>> uchlal?

> Excellent question.  I don't know.  The Maharatz Chajes writes in his Mevo 
> HaTalmud (ch. 3) that all of the hermeneutic rules are Sinaitic and
> explicitly includes kelal uperat and ribuy umiyut...

How does the Rambam deal with his shita that HLMM cannot have a machlokes?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 02:04:45PM -0500, Gil.Student@citicorp.com wrote:
:> If [they are HlMmS] how do we deal with the disputes re: Ribuy miut ribuy
:> vs. klal prat uchlal?

: Excellent question.  I don't know.  The Maharatz Chajes writes in his Mevo 
: HaTalmud (ch. 3) that all of the hermeneutic rules are Sinaitic and
: explicitly includes kelal uperat and ribuy umiyut....

RSRH, in his refutation of Graetz's history, writes that Hillel's 7
middos are identical to R' Yishma'el's 13. The difference is in taxonomy,
not substance. (He also shows how they were already known to the B'nei
Beseirah.)

Perhaps we can say the same thing here.

R' Yishma'el, who was more interested in semantics (because he held
nichtivah bilashon b'nei adam) organized his derashos based upon how
they relied on the meaning of words. R' Akivah, OTOH, organized them by
syntax, by the words themselves.

Alternatively, perhaps the MC is choleik with the Rambam. I don't know
anyone else who insists that HlMmS are immune from machlokes.

Although perhaps you can argue the reverse -- the difference between
stam a mesorah about a de'Oraisa and a HlMmS is that we only apply the
latter term to a din in which a machlokes has never yet arisen.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Rich Wolpoe wrote:
     
> How does the Rambam deal with his shita that HLMM cannot have a machlokes? 

That is gufa what this thread is about.  The Rambam himself is mekatzer.

Gil Student

Micha Berger:
> Alternatively, perhaps the MC is choleik with the Rambam. I don't know
> anyone else who insists that HlMmS are immune from machlokes.

If I understand this correctly, then according to MH, the controversial
Joesphus passage that mentions Torah's were written in gold ink that:

1) a HLMM but one in dispute (shelo k'Rambam) 
2) A dispute that was resolved by consensus later, but still in flux in
Josephus' era.

BTW, as per my LOR, I looked up the Tur/BY in YD on this ink business.

There are a lot of different categories (taxonomy) of Torahs
1) written by an apikoros - to be burnt
2) gold ink - to the gniza (implying BTW that using gold ink does not
make one an apikoros!)
3) Tanach or individual chumashim - like a printed chumash
4) colors than black or gold - k'chumash b'alma (iirc)

What makes gold different? Why gniza? Well how about if gold USED to
be an ok alternative according to some shitos, but later consensus/psak
put them out to "pasture"? There may be aother answers, but this one
is a good guess.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

At 11:12 AM 12/28/00 -0500, Micha Berger wrote:
>It would appear from the 2nd perek of Tanya that all Jews (regardless
>of tzidkus or lack thereof) and all chassidei umos ha'olam have a nefesh
>Elokis. In my huge ignorance of Chabad chassidus, I am reluctant to argue
>with a rav who lives it. However, I do not see how Chabad actually does
>teach what the correspondant's rav said it did.

Does he say that about Chassidei Ummos Ha'Olam?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On 28 Dec 00, at 10:18, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Q: If the neis Hanukkah was the miracle of the oil, then why no mention
> until the Gmoro in Shabbas?
> A: What the Gmoro was doing was making it normative in the post churban
> galus.

Two other answers. First, see the last mishna in HaKones (Bava 
Kama) which mentions Chanuka.

Second, AIUI, R. Yehuda HaNassi, who was from malchus beis 
David, limited the mention of Chanuka in the Mishna because he 
was angry at the Chashmonaim for having taken both Kehuna and 
Malchus.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 11:27:47PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
: > Q: If the neis Hanukkah was the miracle of the oil, then why no mention
: > until the Gmoro in Shabbas?

Yet another answer: there was mention -- in megillas ta'anis. Perhaps
Rebbe only codified those dinim that weren't already codified elsewhere.

-mi

On 28 Dec 00, at 10:18, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> First of all, the al hanissim makes no mention of the neis of the oil. As
> per my earlier hypothesis, what is normative is in the liturgy. If the
> Gmoro in Shabbas 21 were required belief then lich'ora it should have been
> in the al hanissim too. So as I see it, the al hanissim is THE definitive
> text of the story - i.e. from a halachically normative point of view.

FWIW, they put out a new edition of Yosifon here for Chanuka, and
we bought it for Avraham Yaakov (15) who is a history freak. When he
recounts the story of Chanuka, he also does not mention the neis pach
ha'shemen. There's a parenthese there with a note that says, "See Shabbos
21b. And it's a bit tamua that the neis of the pach ha'shemen and the
mitzva of lighting Chanuka candles is omitted, and it is also omitted
in Al HaNisim."

Could it be, however, that the neis pach ha'shemen was considered less
important than the neis of the war because we didn't really need the pach
ha'shemen? After all, there's the famous kashya of tuma dchuya b'tzibur
and why did they really need tahor oil? There are many teirutzim to the
kashya but the teirutzim don't really change the halachic metzius that
they could have used non-tahor shemen.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

On 28 Dec 00, at 9:03, Stein, Aryeh E. wrote:
> Perhaps, although the same way a women is yotzei with her husband's kiddush,
> she should be able to be yotzei with her husband's lighting.  

Why? Can she be yotzei with his achilas matza? Can she be 
yotzei with his drinking arba kosos? Granted, she doesn't have to 
drink the wine from Kiddush to be yotzei either, but there the 
source of the mitzva is not "af hen," it's "kol she'yeshno b'shamor." 
Different metzius.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

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.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 11:27:46PM +0200, Carl and Adina Sherer wrote:
:> Perhaps, although the same way a women is yotzei with her husband's kiddush,
:> she should be able to be yotzei with her husband's lighting.  

: Why? Can she be yotzei with his achilas matza?...

Neir ish ubeiso. The din is on the bayis, not the person (I originally
wrote "gavra", but it didn't seem to fit for a "she").

R' Aharon Soloveitchik commented (Chanukah 5753? '54?, JCC of
Passiac-Clifton) on the connection between Chanukah and Succos. RAS noted
the historical reference in seifer haMacabiim. He also commented on Beis
Shammai's connection in their comparison of the number of neiros to the
parim of musaf of Succos.

R' Chaim Soloveitchik's shitah on "kidshah lisha'ata vikidshah li'asid
lavo" is that bayis sheini was mekudash in a different way than bayis
rishon. Bayis rishon was through kibbush, and once acquired by kibbush
could be lost by kibbush. Bayis sheini was through chazakah, people
settling in the land and living there (largely) kahalachah.

(Kibbush vs chazakah is a recurring theme in RAS's thought. He dates
them back to "ru urvu umil'u es ha'aretz vikivshuhah" and "li'avdah
ulshamrah".)

Chanukah was about exactly that -- their right to live during bayis sheini
according to das Mosheh viYhudis. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) According
to halachah. Chanukah is about chazakah.

RAS compares this to the notion of Succah -- also a mitzvah focussed on
"dwelling". Succah, he holds, is a din of "geir vitoshav", the dialectic
of permanence and self-sufficience on on hand, and dependence on HKBH
on the other.

Geir vatoshav gets us back to how to relate to living in E"Y, and therefor
to Chanukah.

So, I would like to suggest, unless RES did and I just forgot, that
the bayis of "neir ish ubeiso" is for the same reasons as Succah.

Yeish harbei od mah liha'arich.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On 28 Dec 00, at 10:18, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Q: If the neis Hanukkah was the miracle of the oil, then why no mention
> until the Gmoro in Shabbas?
> A: What the Gmoro was doing was making it normative in the post churban
> galus.

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> Two other answers. First, see the last mishna in HaKones (Bava 
> Kama) which mentions Chanuka.

> Second, AIUI, R. Yehuda HaNassi, who was from malchus beis 
> David, limited the mention of Chanuka in the Mishna because he 
> was angry at the Chashmonaim for having taken both Kehuna and 
> Malchus.

Doens't it sound rather petty and vindictive of R. Y. Hanassi to omit
Hanukkah based upon the evils of later Hashmonaim and what they did to
HIS family?

How about this? After the Churban Hanukkah went into flux, it was
unclear if it was still applicable at sheba the Gmoro in Shabbos.
That dovetails well with the theory posted.

So now how about the R Y hanassi story? Well, I'm not sure how it
developed. But it might have been a plausible explanation that also taught
us a history lesson etc. But I find it most unflattering towards Rebbe.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

From: Carl and Adina Sherer [mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il]
> Why? Can she be yotzei with his achilas matza? Can she be 
> yotzei with his drinking arba kosos? Granted, she doesn't have to 
> drink the wine from Kiddush to be yotzei either, but there the 
> source of the mitzva is not "af hen," it's "kol she'yeshno b'shamor." 
> Different metzius.

(That's why I said "perhaps".)  The fact remains that a women _is_ yotzei
with her husband's lighting.  And again, according to RSZA, the ikar appears
to be saying "haneiros hallolu...."

IIRC, he also mentions a shita which holds that, if a person is unable to
light neiros chanuka and is unable to even see someone else's candles
through their windows, he should still say the bracha of she'osoh nisim.
This also appears to indicate that neiros chanuka is, in certain ways,
different than matza and the arba kosos.

KT
Aryeh

Someone emailed me:
>based on your discussion of the hanhagos of skver of minchs on erev
>shabbos, and shabbos itself, i was wondering if you have ever heard an
>explanation as to why they daven shachris past the 4th hour. it can not be
>that they are too tired from the tisch the night before, as they have a
>2-2.5 hour "seder" of tehillim before davening which takes place before the
>zman expires.

Chassidim place great emphasis on hachana l'tefillah, especially
learning before davening and this is given as the primary reason for
davening after z'man tefilah.

Someone once explained to me that most b'dieved's in halacha are also
things that can be done b'shas hadchak. The idea is that a higher
quality davening after z'man tefilah is preferable to a lower quality
davening before.

I heard that the Klausenberger, z'l, ( I think) said "Those who daven
without learning first are not really davening but merely uttering
words".

Also that one of the previous Karliner rebbes, perhaps the Bais
Aharon, said " Don't come to bais medrash  and scream [1] if you
haven't first learned for four (?!) hours!!"

Interestingly, Stolin and quite a few other chasidim, including Ger,
Belz and Biyan [2] do daven before z'man tefilah.  At least in the
case of Stolin, however, the time available between when the tisch
ends Fri. night and when shacharis starts on Shabbos morning probably
comes out to being equivalent as they finish the tisch on Fri. night
much earlier.

R' Chaim Leib Katz, shlita, rov of Kehilas Sardihil, known for being a
machmir, is mapkid on davening before z'man tefilah. A Talmid of his
told me that he argues that the practice of davening later is abused
today b/c many people do not learn before davening first.

Someone also told me that once when he davened by R' Katz on Shabbos
morning, he even rushed to make the Magen Avrohom z'man tefilah when
he saw that he could.

>atleast the shabbos i was there, thats what happened. the
>shabbos i was there,

It is every Shabbos.  The minhag goes back to Chernobyl, I think,
where Skver is descended from.

>i found put, too late of course, that the kollel davens bizman.

When I was there around 7-8 years ago, I recall being told that the
Kolel davened earlier because the Dayan of Skver ( I think ) was not
well and needed an earlier minyan. Unfortunately, I have not been to
Skver since then and I don't know if they still have that minyan and
what the health status of that Dayan is.


[1] Stoliner (Karlin-Stolin) Chassidim literally scream the tefilos
(except shmoneh esrai, of course).

[2] At least today; this wasn't always necessarily in the case during
the reign of previous rebbes.

On Thu, Dec 28, 2000 at 03:53:27PM -0500, Noah S. Rothstein wrote:
: Chassidim place great emphasis on hachana l'tefillah, especially
: learning before davening and this is given as the primary reason for
: davening after z'man tefilah.

In a d'var Torah for Lech Licha <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/lechLicha2.html>
I suggested that the reason for this is based on what RYGB later wrote up
as the fork in the Chassidish-Misnagdish road.

According to misnagdim (and I use the word loosely), the ikkar of avodas
Hashem is sh'leimus ha'adam. Therefore we are more likely to emphasize
z'manei tefillah, with its stress on zerizus and zehirus. These are
middos that are necessary prerequisites to achieving sh'leimus.

A chassid, however, is going to be looking at how to maximize d'veikus.
And that comes more from kavanah than davening bizman. Therefore, when
a conflict between the two arises, they are more likely to choose being
meikil on z'man than davening hurridly or without mental preparation.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

Following Micha's advice <g> I sat down for some learning time Erev
Chanukka on women and the holiday.

I started with the idea of looking into this sentence "that they were
also in the miracle" and tried to see where it led me.  Another aspect
of this was the special issue made that women should not work for at
least a half an hour after lighting, and the sources compare this to
Rosh Chodesh, though they emphasize the importance of not sewing and
washing clothes especially.  The following ideas are still rough and I
need help rounding them out.

Well here is what I found, and I need help to continue.

First, this is one of those instances where there is no machloket in
the G'mara.  The sentence is said 3 times:
1) 4 cups of Pesach
2) Mishloach Manot and mitzvot Purim
3) Chanukah lighting.

Looking at the Achronim on this sentence, I found that they tried to
use this sentence in the discussion of Tefillin, Zimune and a few
other mitzvot, but always with the meaning of "they were there when
the miracle occurred".   In the final analysis this sentence is not
used except in the 3 cases I indicated to rule that women are
obligated in connection to a specific mitzvah.

Going back to the sources (Shabbat, Rosh Hashana, Pesahim IIRC), Rashi
makes the following point:  "That they brought about the miracle".
The women, in these 3 miracles, were active.  They did something. To
try to understand this better, I looked again at who actually said
this sentence in the 3 cases:  I found that it was always  the same
rabbi -- Rabbi Yehoshua Ben Levi.

Now, I understood Rashi's point.  Rabbi Yehoshu'a Ben Levi is the
rabbi who went looking for Ge'ula at the Kever of Rashbi -- and he
found Mashi'ach in Rome.  One of the points of the story is that when
thinking of Ge'ula, Rabbi Yehoshu'a Ben Levi went looking for it where
it made sense -- among the Talmidei Chachamim who are separate from
the world and spend all their time studying Torah -- like Rash"bi.
There he meets Eliyahu who tells him that no, the Ge'ula will come
from Rome, from the world of action, from the political center, from
the financial center and not from the Torah center.

Rabbi Yehoshu'a Ben Levi (the story continues, but I'll leave off
here) is the person who quotes that the women are obligated in these
mitzvot b/c they were part of what brought about the miracle.  Rabbi
Yehoshu'a seeks the Geu'la, so Rashi tells us that the Ge'ula in these
three cases was brought about by women, and that is emphasized by the
fact that it is Rabbi Yehoshu'ah who tells us this halachah.

In Mitzraim, the tale of Miriam, Yocheved, Amram and the birth of
Moses is well known. (Pesach)
Also Queen Esther who stood for her people is just as well known
(Purim).
The tale of Yehudit is less known but is also recognized (Chanuka).

We too are seeking the Ge'ula.  In Kol HaTor, the GR"A is quoted as
saying that just as in the First Ge'ula women brought about the
miracle, so they will do so in the Last Ge'ula.

May Hashem grant us all His Blessing and that we take action in
positive ways LeShem Shamayim and that Ge'ula will come soon.

Shoshana L. Boublil

All work that is done, should be done out of love.
Then it ceases to be difficult, or boring, or embarrassing.
Even a cup or a plate can be washed with devotion until they shine,
out of aspiration for  perfection and completion.
                                                Rav A.Y. HaCohen Kook

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


[ 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         ]