Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 095

Saturday, January 6 2001

• RE: taleissim and atifas Yishmoelim (2)
• Shabbos: maculine or feminine?
• RE: Some Thoughts on Limud Zechut
• daf yomi
• Re: women davening
• RE: women davening

Micha Berger
> This doesn't require a fancy CD search, just look at tephillah:
> "Shabbasos limnuchah".

> OTOH, "Shabbos kodesh". The word itself is zachar, it just takes a "-os"
> in lashon rabbim.

Shabbos hu miliz'ok
or
Shabbos hi miliz'ok?
<smile>

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoe

> This doesn't require a fancy CD search, just look at tephillah: "Shabbasos 
> limnuchah".
> OTOH, "Shabbos kodesh". The word itself is zachar, it just takes a "-os" in 
> lashon rabbim.

Qodesh is a noun, and shabbas (with a pasah) is in s'mikhus to it, so
it proves nothing about the gender of the word. You would have to have
a form like Shabbos qadosh to prove that.

The proof from the davening would be when we say "shabbas qodshokh,
v'yonuhu vah Yisrael." The antecedent of vah is shabbas, showing it
is feminine. However, after the Avudarham introduced saying shabbas
qodshokh...vo " at Shaharis, which is now standard Ashkenaz and Sefarad
(but not Teimon), there is no raaya, because that would imply shabbos is
both/either masc. or fem. (For this reason, R. Hayyim Brisker used to say
"yom shabbas..." in shaharis. At any rate, the proofs that shabbos is
feminine come from a few places in leshon Hazal, from one place in the
TnaKh (IIRC, references later), and from linguistics/diqduq, where the
form shabbas and shabbatt -- (shabbas b'shabbatto) prove conclusively
that there was a -- t ending added on the root, and the -- t ending is
always feminine (v'hameivin yovin the proof; if not, ask and I will post
it later b'n.)

A guten shabbos (and don't tell me that should be "a gute shabbos;" shabbos 
is masculine in Yiddish),
Seth Mandel

Moshe Feldman:
> Not necessarily.  Poskim nowadays give little deference to minhag avos, so
> not surprisingly they favor "black-letter" halacha....
> Tosfos noting that we no longer do mayim achronim, though the reason they
> give contradicts the general rule that we do not undo halachos written in
> the gemara simply because their reason no longer applies)...

"...the general rule that we do not undo halachos written in the gemara
simply because their reason no longer applies)"

Have you a source for this rule?

Bepashtus I would say that since Tosfos was defending or rationalizing
the existing minhag, or iow making a limud zchus - he was note really
overriding a gmoro, just defending an old mesorah.

I would also speculate that this falls into the rubric of many minhagei
Ashkenaz that conflict with the Bavli, only Tosfos was - kdarko bakodesh
- trying to reconcile this apparent contradiction by offering a reason
or apologetics.

If this approach is correct, the objection of the Gra falls away.
It's not undoing a Gmoro by making a "ta'am" obsolete. It's a matter of
sticking up for a competing mesorah and giving that mesorah a rationale.

L'mai nafka mina?

Tosfos was defending a minhag that - as far as Ashkenazim go - had an
authority on par with the Gmoro. However, a later minhag would NOT have
that same weight. So we might want to be discerning which minhagim we
are defending.

Good Shabbos
Rich Wolpoerich       

Chaim Markowitz pointed out to me that R' tzaddok writes (pri tzaddik in
P' toldos?) that Eisav was endowed with innate chochma and comprehended
Torah that way while Ya'akov had to toil over it. Maybe that's pshat
in his head falling into m'aras hamachpeila - his head was kadosh,
his heart was not.

Good Shabbos,
-CB

I wrote:
> I happen to think that the sevara for women not having to daven is 
> fairly plausible as well.
     
Chaim Brown wrote:
> Just to clarify why many think it implausible-
> 1) It is only aliba the Rambam that it can work, and most Rishonim (Ramban, 
> Rashi, Tos.) are against the rambam.

Fahrkert!  If tefillah is only derabbanan then one can easily say "hem amru 
vehem amru."

> 2) Even within the Rambam you have to assume that it is sufficient for a woman
> to be yotzei tefilah d'oraysa and ignore the derabbanan (makor?) 

Yes, that is the point.  There is no makor, but that should not affect the 
plausibility of the *sevara*.  My whole point is that there are many occasions 
when sevaras without mekoros are used to justify widespread minhagim.

> 3) Even if you assume the d'oraysa is sufficient, many Achronim hold that the 
> formula of shevach- bakasha- hoda'ah is d'oraysa and a bakasha alone is 
> insufficient

That is a kashya, but not insurmountable.  There are other achronim who 
disagree.

> 4) m'tzad mussar (or perhaps it is m'dina) see R' Yona in Iggeres HaTshuvah 
> #79.

I'll have to look it up.  Is he talking about women?

> Also, even if you choose to pasken like the MG"A, you end up with two chumros 
> - 1)m'doraysa mitzvos tzrichos kavanah, hence acc. to rambam you need kavanah 
> (and I doubt just being aware that you are davening covers this) 2) Shabbos 
> morning a man may have coffee/water before davening as his chiyuv kiddush is 
> not chal, but a women may not as she has already been yotzei her minimal 
> chiyuv tefillah by saying berachos.

Ein hachi nami.

Gil Student

From: Chaim Markowitz:
> Also, even if you choose to pasken like the MG"A, you end up with two chumros 
<snip>
> 2) Shabbos morning a man may have coffee/water before davening as his
> chiyuv kiddush is not chal, but a women may not as she has already been 
> yotzei her minimal chiyuv tefillah by saying berachos.

Because I told her this, my wife makes kiddush Shabbos morning before
eating.  I thought it is an Aruch Hashulchan.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]