Avodah Mailing List

Volume 10 : Number 048

Thursday, November 7 2002

• Re: Atzas Gedolim
• Kaddish is in Aramaic
• RE: Astrology
• [Areivim] aleynu leshabeach
• [Areivim] Yekkes and head covering
• Re: [Areivim] Head covering for Men
• Zecher
• Hanoukah away from home
• tosafot and minhagim
• pasukim that begin and end with the first and last letter of your name
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Astrology inquiry by a still boggling mind
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Intellectual abilities and spirituality
• Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• Re: Spiritual superiority of women:A false teaching?
• RE: handshaking
• superiority of women

> If anyone has suggestions for useful sources, especially, but not
> exclusively, by the Ramban, I would be glad to hear about them.

Concerning Ruach HaKodesh - the best source book I have found is "Emunas
Chachomim by R' Eliyahu Bokobza " explains the subject of Ruach Hakodesh
and prophetic revelations to tzadikim and chachomim in every generation
including our present generation and the severity of the prohibition
of disagreeing with our poskim... It was written by a Lubavitcher who
holds that the Lubavitcher Rebbe "Is a navi without any doubt".

A good companion volume is Ahl HaTzadikim - also a Lubavitcher -
concerning the "greatness of tzadikim in general and in particular the
subject of G-d being in them.

A full range of Chazal, rishinonim achronim etc are cited. In particular
Emunas Chachomim discusses fully the gemora in Bava Basra concerning
the difference between the prophetic abilities of a prophet and that of
a chachom. The analyses presented can be questioned [SEE Prof Berger's
criticism] but the sources are very useful.

                                                    Daniel Eidensohn

From: RabbiRichWolpoe@aol.com
> Bepashtus the entire Kaddish is in Aramaic. Oseh Shalom is not.

What about the words 'yisgadal veyiskadash'?

SBA

RYGB
>RYGB:(in an exchange with someone else) <<..So irrelevant the mind
>begins to boggle. Chazal often dismiss astrology themselves. The leap
>from there to rejecting a Beraisa in..>>
RMF
>This unfootnoted assertion is interesting, since I know of no chazal's
>which "dismiss astrology" but am eager to learn of such. Of course there
>are a number of chazal who dismiss the notion that astrology controls the
>destiny of Israel (ein mazal l'yisroel) but not even they dispute the
>"normal" efficaciousness of astrological enterprise -- say as applied
>to goyim. But, perhaps RYGB could cite one and demonstrate that I'm wrong?

RYGB

Sanhedrin 65b, Lo T'onenu
Pesachim 113b, Tamim Tihyeh

See the famous Tiferes Yisrael on mazal, end of Kiddushin in the Boaz
and Margaliyos ha'Yam to Sand., ibid. #36.

 Me
I haven't yet looked up the Tiferes Yisrael. However, the two hazal
sources cited refer to potential halachic (meonen) /spiritual (tamim
tihyeh) with using astrology - they do not address the issue of the truth
value of astrology - or as RMF puts it - "normal" efficaciousness
of astrological enterprise", at least for goyim, which was the
question. Indeed, the sugya in sanhedrin immediately above seems to accept
the efficacy of a ba'al ov, even though it has halachic issues (similar
to the one that rav akiva raises for astrology as meonen), so whether
they are true or whether we may use them are clearly distinguished as
separate issues in the gmara. Any sources about the truth of astrology??

Meir Shinnar

[I can't figure out why this was sent to Areivim. -mi]

continuing with some of R. Zilberstein's stories on the parsha

1.  Maharit in kiddushin discusses kinyanim and adds that he had more 
things to add but he forgot them.
RZ asked R. Eliyashiv why the Maharit would write down that he more 
to add but forgot them, what is the purpose.
RYE answered so that people who learned the sefer could pray for the 
Maharit (obviously while he was still alive) to Hashem to have his 
loss returned.

2.  Maharshal paskens that given two equal chazzaning (Shatz) one 
chooses the one with yichus (Tzaddik ben Tzaddik and not Tzaddik be 
Rasha). The Taz disagrees and says to choose the Tzaddik ben Rasha 
seens hashem chooses the Rachok over the Karov

Was does the Taz do with Rashi in our sedra that says Yitzchak was 
answered over Rivka because he was a Tzaddik ben Tzaddik?
(see Torah Temima)

RZ answers that with regard to ones personal prayers a Tzaddik ben 
Tzaddik is answered first but for a Tzibbur a Tzaddik ben Rasha is 
prefered since he had to elevate himself from his background

3.  Esau wanted to kill Yaakov during the Aveilut over Yitzchak when 
Yaakov could not learn. However, this is difficult since even during 
aveilut one can learning things connected with aveilut?

RZ answered that if one has to go to a different sugya than his 
current preoccupation than his concentration is not the same.
He once visited RYE during "ben hazmannim" and saw that he was 
learning Mishne Lemelech.  RYR explained that he very much likes the 
Mishne LeMelech. However, during the Zman he prefers to learn Gemara 
with Rishonim. However, during "ben hazmannim" when he needs some 
relaxation he learns Mishne Lemelech !!
Similarly during Shabbat afternoon RYE would learn "eretz zvi" which 
he said had hints to all of Shas. This would provide oneg shabbat to 
RYE.
Similarly the Gemara says that one stops learning for Mikra Megillah. 
But why is Megillah itself not consdered Limud Torah? The answer is 
compared with the concentration needed to learn Gemara megillah would 
be considered bitul limid.
--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/07/2002

[Areivim thread drifted into Avodah territory. -mi]

From: "Michael Frankel" <michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com>
>refugee german community -- RSHR's transplanted q'hilloh -- and can assure
> you that these yekkish chareidim (they were also solid aguda supporters)
> generally did not wear any head covering in the workplace. I can also
> assure you that r moshe had nothing to do with it... 

Thanks for that information.

Now another question - which may or may not be as easy to answer.

The relaxation of head covering by Yekkes - did this happen following the
advent of Reform there and not changed even after fightback by Orthodoxy,
or was this an accepted minhag Ashkenaz even earlier - lemoshol in the
days of RN Adler, Haflo'o the CS exc?

SBA

SBA <sba@iprimus.com.au> wrote:
> The relaxation of head covering by Yekkes - did this happen
> following the advent of Reform there and not changed
>  even after fightback by  Orthodoxy, or was this an accepted
> minhag  Ashkenaz even earlier - lemoshol
> in the days of RN Adler, Haflo'o the CS exc?

This thread raises an interesting question. Does anyone have any idea
when the practice of head covering became a universal practice. I am
virtually certain that this has not always been the case. I remember
coming across certain Gemmaros that indicated that only certain Chashuveh
people covered their heads on a regular basis. At some point in history
it became the accepted norm. Now there are written Teshuvos about when
it is ever even permissble to walk around without a head-covering. Can
anyone trace how and when this happened?

If I am not mistaken bareheadedness has more to do with Chukas HaGoy then
anything else. If so, it must not have been considered Chukas HaGoy to
walk around bearheaded. When did this change?

I wonder if JFK's discarding the tradtion of wearing hats in his 1960
inaugural co-incided with the Yeshivishe community adopting the wearing
of them?

HM

There was a recent discussion on Arevim about the meaning of the word
"zecher".

I beleive that "memory" refers to one's ability to remember, and so it is
*not* a good way to translate "zecher".

See Rashi (Dvarim 25:19) on "timcheh es zecher Amalek", who says that
"zecher" refers to objects which remind us about Amalek. An object which
you can touch and say "This was Amalek's" - that, says Rashi, is a 
"zecher". My favorite translation, therefore, is "souvenir". (Or, if that
sounds too pretentious, try "reminder". But never "remembrance", which is
an incident of remembering.)

This translation also resolves the oft-asked contradiction, "How can we
both remember Amalek and also destroy the memory of him?", because we
only destroy the tangible objects.

In addition, I think this is a great way to understand the phrases
"zecher l'maaseh vreishis" and "zecher l'yetzias mitzrayim" - Shabbos and
Yom Tov are souvenirs, tangible reminders of places and times we once saw
and knew.

Akiva Miller

What is the halakhah regarding a person in such a situation.

The man and his wife will be in a Jerusalem Hotel from a couple of days
before Hanoukah. When Hanoukah begins on Friday night this couple will not
be permitted to light a Menorah in their room as per hotel regulations.
There will be no one back home that will be lighting for this couple to rely
upon.
Should they make the berakhah of Shehehiyanou upon seeing any menorah lit on
the streets of Jerusalem or rather wait till they return home in the middle
of the holiday to begin lighting and say all the berakhot at that time?

Thank you,
Joseph Mosseri

I am currently reading Grossman's book on "chachmei Zarfat 
haRishonim" and he makes a few comments

1. Before Rashi that general attitude was not to question customs at 
all. There is a statement in Sefer haMichiri (Mainz a little before 
Rashi) about questions about some questions. The tone of the answer 
is that if all Gedolim allowed or established a minhag who are we to 
question it  no matter what the problem is. Who are we to investigate 
old customs

2. Rashi himself was more critical of customs when they contradicted  
a gemara.  There is a story that the custom in Troyes was 2 take 
pieces out challah and 2 make 2 berachot, challah and terumah and to 
give it to a cohen to eat. 
Rashi went to the machzor in the community, crossed it out and wrote 
"sheker" in the machzor and allowed only one piece to be taken.

Similarly, Rashi would not say "Yismach Moshe" in Scharit on Shabbat 
and said instead Ata Bechartanu because he logically saw no 
connection between Shabbat and Yismach Moshe. Hence, based on his 
personal logic he changed the local custom (Rabbenu Tam reinstituted 
it)

3. Rabbenu Tam, Ri and other tosaphot took this a step further and 
were more critical of many customs based on their analysis of the 
Gemara. Perhaps the most famous is Rabbenu Tam changing the Nusach of 
Kol Nidre but there are many more
--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/07/2002

Hi

Does anybody have a good source to find the pesukim one recites at the
end of Shmoneh Esrei that begin that refer to ones name.

Please dont send me to the artscroll siddur as I need a source for names
not mentioned in the artscroll.

Regards
Shaul Bacher
sbacher@icon.co.za

> In response, let me posit first that any source we will find will not
> claim that women are spiritually superior to men across the board;
> rather, as R' Micha Berger intimated in this thread, they are superior
> in some respects while men are superior in others. [And in still other
> respects the two may be equal.]
>
> With that in mind, please examine Derashos HaMaharal (printed at the
> end of Be'er HaGolah, pp.27-28 in the popular London edition) and R'
> Samson Raphael Hirsch to Leviticus 23:43, end. Each makes the point that
> women are spiritually superior to men in some way.

"Male & Female He created them" does discuss the above sources. He points
out that neither of them indicate that women are spiritually superior
to men in some way but only that they have different characteristics
than men.

p138 ...Rav Hirsch [Vayikra 23:43]...describes the "greater fervour
and more faithful enthusiasm for their G-d serving calling of Jewish
women. And Rav Hirsch says as well that "in all the sins into which
our nation has sunk, it has been the faithfulness of our women to their
convictions and sense of duty which as preserved and nurtured the seed
of revival and return"...

p140, "These statements of Rav Hirsch, the Maharal...do not seem to
contradict the Maharal on this subject, nor do they contradict Rav
Hirsch's own description of the Jewish man as the "depository of the
Divine revelations and the spiritual attainmentsof the human race [Judaism
Eternal vol II p 51]. ...HaShem created men and women to carry different
aspects of the monumentally challenging Jewish mission. The male is the
more direct agent....However the masculine nature needs to be accompaned
by the stabilizing and nurturing aspects of the female nature. The
"tranquility"[Maharal] and the "faithful enthusiasm" [R' Hirsch] of the
Jewish female are ideal counterparts to the vigorousness of the male....

P220 "...men are obligated in commandments becaue of special qualities of
men [Tiferes Yisrael 4...] and women are exempt from these commandments
and enable men to perform them because of special qualities of women [Rav
Hirsch Vayikra 23:43...]. Perhaps the summary can be phrased as well by
saying that men excel in performing the positive time-bound commandments,
and woman excel in enabling others to perform those commandents.

                                                            Daniel Eidensohn

At 06:16 PM 10/31/02 -0500, Michael Frankel wrote:
>RYGB:(in an exchange with someone else) <<..So irrelevant the mind
>begins to boggle. Chazal often dismiss astrology themselves.  The leap
>from there to rejecting a Beraisa in..>>

>This unfootnoted assertion is interesting, since I know of no chazals
>which "dismiss astrology" but am eager to learn of such. Of course there
>are a number of chazal who dismiss the notion that astrology controls the
>destiny of Israel (ein mazal l'yisroel) but not even they dispute the
>"normal" efficaciousness of astrological enterprise -- say as applied
>to goyim. But, perhaps RYGB could cite one and demonstrate that I'm wrong?>>

RYGB:
<<Sanhedrin 65b, Lo T'onenu
Pesachim 113b, Tamim Tihyeh
See the famous Tiferes Yisrael on mazal, end of Kiddushin in the
Boaz and Margaliyos ha'Yam to Sand., ibid. #36.>>

Whew. This is one tough bunch, at least at literary fisticuffs. Here I go
challenge RYGB to produce even a single citation of a counterexample and
he immediately hits me with four from all over the place. Guess you gotta
be careful what you ask for. Unfortunately, each and every one of his
citations is wrong, i.e. completely irrelevant to the issue at question.

First, I remind RYGB that the issue was whether chazal really did "dismiss
astrology" as he claims, (or not, as I intimated). Now for RYGB's sources,
in no particular order:

1.P'sochim 113b. d"h Tomim Tihyeh: quite irrelevant. It reiterates
a prohibition of consulting astrologers (chaldeans). There is not the
slightest hint of suggestion that it thinks astrology inefficacious. only
that jews may not indulge.

2.Sanhedrin 65b, Loa S'oneinu: also irrelevant. This either doesn't
involve any astrology at all -- there is a machloqes (at least lichoroh,
but see d'roshos haran) on whether loa s'oneinu refers to an "achizas
einayim", i.e. cheap parlor tricks (note, NOT astrology), or involves
people who who "m'chasheiv ittim", i.e. make pronouncements whether
certain days or times are propitious or not -- this latter might --
or might not -- have an astrological component to it, but in any event
there is again no suggestion that astrology itself is not efficacious.

3.Tiferes Yisroel: whatever TY thought of astrology need I really point
out that the Tiferes Yisroel is not a card carrying member of chazal? He
is an acharon and missed his shot by well over a millennium. Indeed the
TY did hold like the rambam (essentially the only rishon who am broadening
my original assertion that none of chazal "dismissed astrology" as RYGB
asserts to include the expanded assertion that neither did any of the
rishonim outside the rambam's circle -- giving RYGB a much larger and
perhaps softer target to hit with counterexamples). BTW it is interesting
that when TY quotes rambam's (Yochin) letter to Marseilles, he censors
the original by leaving out rambam's suggestion that perhaps individual
members of chazal simply got it wrong -- "she'nisaleim mi'mennu dovor". TY
goes on at excruciating length in Boaz to define an innovative taxonomy
for understanding different categories of "mazal". But in the end this
has absolutely nothing to do with chazal's belief in astrology.

4.Margolias Hayyom: Sanhedrin 65b, par 36. I suppose I also don't have
to remind anyone that practically contemporary R. R'uvain Margolis z"l
was also not a member of chazal. However, it is actually worse than
that. If you will check the end of par 36 which you cite, you will see
that R. Margolis actually distinguishes, (b'sheim a r. dovid whom I don't
recognize) between nichush of the d'vorim b'teilim variety and itztagnos,
the latter which we may infer involves real chokhmoh.

Mechy Frankel			H: (301) 593-3949
michael.frankel@osd.mil		W: (703) 845-2357
mfrankel@empc.org
michaeljfrankel@hotmail.com

RMB wrote:
> Note his statement: the Law distinguishes between Jew and non-Jew,
> slave and freeman, man and woman, but his new religion doesn't.
>
> Same three contrasts, made about how many mitzvos one has.

Very interesting. IIRC, I saw it in this forum before. Rav Zecharya
Fendel's suggestion is very appealing, but for one detail: why was
she'asani kirtzono instituted for women? Memah nafshakh, if the point is
that we are different but equal in the eyes of the Law, then we should
revel in our Law abiding status, and bless she'asani ish/she'asani
ishah. If, OTOH, the point is the number of mitzvot, then a women should
skip the brakhah altogether.

Your insights shall be much appreciated.

[Email #2. -mi]

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> He also notes
> that our experience is that boys mature intellectually prior to girls
> in agreement with R' Eliezar not Rebbe in the gemora. Thus the verse is
> only an asmachta to reinforce something which in fact is halacha l'Moshe.

I believe this is factually incorrect, and that girls mature generally sooner 
than boys.

Arie

At 12:54 PM 11/5/02 -0500, HENOCHMOSHE@aol.com wrote:
>More fundamentally, one must keep the following in mind: In the Torah's
>description of the creation of the genders, we see that the female
>underwent more tikkun at the hands of the Ribbono shel Olam than did
>the male. I have to believe that this has profound implications in the
>spiritual dimension, but my am haartzius in the works of R' Tzaddok
>and the like denies me any sources. So here I appeal to my dear friend,
>R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, to enlighten us with any mareh mekomos on
>this point.

I am sorry to disappoint my good friend RHML, but R' Tzadok is pretty down 
on women and their character. This is one of the several reasons I am not 
about to become a chasid of R' Tzadok... Do you really want the mareh mekomos?

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

This statement of the Chasam Sofer to Maharetz Chajes seems to apply to both
the discussion of binah yeseira (cognitive or spiritual) and gedolim giving
advice from ruach hakodesh.

Chasam Sofer(I O.H. #208): "And this that you have written a number of times
concerning the issue of wisdom and prophecy and Azniel ben Kenaz who
restored the lost halacha by pilpul... You correctly explain that which the
Raavad said that there was ruach hakodesh in his beis hamedrash and similar
such expressions does not mean ruach hakodesh in the sense that Dovid
haMelech had. Rather it means the spirit of G-d for those who engage in
Torah for pure motivations who merit to ascertain the truth even if
according to the nature of their wisdom and intelligence they should be
incapable of comprehending it properly. Nevertheless G-d in His mercy gives
extra inspiration of wisdom for a limited time. In this manner Azniel ben
Kenaz merited to ascertain the truth through pilpul, kal v'chomer  and
gezera shaveh [Temurah 16a] that which his natural intelligence was
incapable of doing. This is similar to what it says in Bava Basra 12a that
even though prophecy was taken from the prophets but not from the sages. But
your understanding of this gemora to be that wisdom was not taken from the
sages is incorrect. Rather it is that prophecy was not taken from the sages.
In other words that type of prophecy which is attainable through the wisdom
of one who studies Torah for pure motivation merits many things [Avos 6:1]
with his intellect and his wisdom even though he doesn't have the natural
ability for it. The gemora wants to prove this from the common fact that a
talmid chochom comprehends something on his own which in fact is according
to the understanding of Rabbi Akiva. We know that this person's level is not
up to Rabbi Akiva's heels. This proves that it happened by the prophetic
ability we mentioned. And we also find that he says things which in fact are
Halacha L'Moshe m'Sinai. The gemora rejects this proof by saying that
perhaps this occurs by chance like a blind person groping through a window.
However the gemora concludes that it is not by chance since he gives
justifications for his views and thus it is like a prophetic form of wisdom.
This idea can explain the gemora in Megila(16a) Whoever says wisdom  even if
he not Jewish is called a wise man. The obvious question is why shouldn't he
be called a wise man. Don't we in fact even say a beracha on the wise men of
the goyim "who gives of His wisdom to human beings" (Berachos 58a)? The
answer is that without this gemora we would have mistakenly thought that
Divinely inspired wisdom only comes to Jews while if a goy said something
brilliant that seems to transcend his intellectual capabilities we would
have thought it was just blind chance.... "

                                                Daniel Eidensohn

From: HENOCHMOSHE@aol.com
<<R' Daniel Eidensohn <yadmoshe@012.net.il> cited "Male & Female He created
them" as follows:.
> 2) p 132 "A number of recent books in English propose this idea of women's
> spiritual superiority over men, and reportedly, the idea is taught as
> well in numerous schools for women. The reader should note that none of
> the books in question offer a classical source for the idea and none of
> the several teachers of the idea have been able to supply a source..."

In response, let me posit first that any source we will find will not
claim that women are spiritually superior to men across the board;
rather, as R' Micha Berger intimated in this thread, they are superior
in some respects while men are superior in others. [And in still other
respects the two may be equal.]>>

Does that mean then that you concede that it is wrong to teach that women
are spiritually superior 'stam' (because such an unqualified teaching /
statement seems to imply across the board or overall) ?

<<With that in mind, please examine Derashos HaMaharal (printed at the
end of Be'er HaGolah, pp.27-28 in the popular London edition) and R'
Samson Raphael Hirsch to Leviticus 23:43, end. Each makes the point that
women are spiritually superior to men in some way.>>

The sefer 'Male and Female He Created them' (MAFHCT) by R. Yisrael ben
Reuven adresses the above. Before going further, I think it also should
be stated that when dealing with profound and prolific authors such as
Mahara"l and Rav Hirsch, who each left a voluminous multifaceted corpus of
Torah thoughts, it can be dangerous to attempt to divine their thoughts
on an inyan from one or two passages alone. Such would seem similar
to someone taking one statemement of Chaza"l - e.g. noshim da'atan
kalos....while omitting it's counterpart of 'binoh yiseiroh nitnoh
binoshim'. Only someone with a broad knowledge of all of Mahara"l's
or Rav Hirsch's writings should qualify to expound their positions,
IMHO. Isolated quotations can be dangerous (a little knowledge is
dangerous'). Anyway, MAFHCT states (p.77) that the Maharal's writings
contain numerous pieces where he attributes higher spirituality to the
masculine nature (e.g. Derech Chaim 2:9 - chidushei agodos makkos 23b
- derech chaim 1:5 - Tiferes Yisroel 4 & 28 - Nesivos Olom, hakdoman
(towards the end - ayin shom for more perotim).

Re Rav Hirsch - MAFHCT cites the passage of Rav Hirsch that you cite
above (from Vayikra 23:43) on p.100. However, he goes on to cite other
passages from Rav Hirsch which give a different impression (e.g. one that
states that the male sex is the depository of the divine revelations
and spiritual attainments of the human race - from Judaism Eternal,
volume 2, p. 51).

The point is, one can find isolated citations at times in writings of
gedolim - just as in the Talmud and elsewhere - but one should not jump
to conclusions hastily based on such.

<<More fundamentally, one must keep the following in mind: In the
Torah's description of the creation of the genders, we see that the
female underwent more tikkun at the hands of the Ribbono shel Olam than
did the male. I have to believe that this has profound implications in
the spiritual dimension, but my am haartzius in the works of R' Tzaddok
and the like denies me any sources. So here I appeal to my dear friend,
R' Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer, to enlighten us with any mareh mekomos on
this point.>>

MAFHCT states (p.164) Mahara"l in Gur Aryeh states that final formation
of man followed the formation of woman. The Mahara"l states (Gur Aryeh
Vayikra 12, d"h isha ki sazria) that man is on a higher level - and that
is why males become bar mitzvoh later than females (13 rather than 12)
- because something with greater completeness comes later.

AFAIK, MAFHCT is the only monograph on this subject - and should be
required reading for those interested in the inyan.

Recently certain aspects of the kiruv movement have come under scrutiny
(e.g. Torah codes, etc.) - and rightfully so. Just because something
seems to 'work' in 'kiruv' doesn't mean that it is right or should be
utilized. Our Torah is a Toras Emes - one cannot falsify Torah - even
for kiruv. So too, I think that it is about time that this questionable
teaching be reexamined to see if it is indeed fit for teaching and
dissemination. The fact that telling women in a feminist age that 'Judaism
holds you to be on a higher level than man' may have seemingly solved
some problems for some (at least temporarily) and made kiruv easier,
doesn't mean that it is right. OTC, that could raise suspicions about
it being used out of convenience.

Even secular feminists have recently been rejecting theories that posit
women as the 'superior sex'. If they are rejecting and reexamining such
simplistic and patronizing ideas, I think we should do the same and
rather develop a comprehensive Torah viewpoint on the inyan.

<<Henoch Moshe Levin
[This is my first post.]>>

Welcome R. HML. Boruch Habo. 

Mordechai

On Tue, Nov 05, 2002 at 02:44:19PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Blessed art Thou, Lord our G-d, King of the universe for not making
: me a woman.

: It is at least a Dochak to say that this is Pshat in the Bracha...

Then the burden would be to find what compelled the rishonim to offer
it. Never mind the rishonim, R' Yehudah (who knew R' Meir quite well)
in the Tosefta (Berachos 6:23).

...
: What is it about granting us a Chiuve that makes us thank G-d for not
: making us women thus (by default, as men) we are able to do more
: Chiuvim. If this is the greater good, isn't this patently unfair to
: women? ...

I addressed this. If the genders are each superior in different ways,
shouldn't we thank G-d for those superiorities?

Therefore, men thank G-d for the chiyuvim, and women for being
created desirable to Him. (To justify: ratzon means desirability, not
desire. [Thanks RMP!] As in "Yihyu leratzon imrei fi".)

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 For a mitzvah is a lamp,
micha@aishdas.org            And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                       - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (413) 403-9905          

Moshe Feldman wrote:
>Aha! Well, then, I would appreciate a sevarah grounded in
>gemara & rishonim for that hypothesis. As RYHHenkin
>pointed out, what is required is a maaseh that's derech kiruv
>basar (people do not shake hands as a warm-up to bi'ah).

I'm not so sure that RYHenkin's point is so pashut. I've definitely
seen this elsewhere but can't remember offhand, but the Od Yosef Chai,
in prohibiting hand-shaking, says that it is "os chibas shalom" and the
Sdei Chemed says that it is "be-derech chibah ve-rei'us". Evidently,
they do not require a "derech chibah" that will/can lead to relations.

Gil Student

 From Family Redeemed by RYBS (edited from speeches he gave):

Emil Brunner, (a Xtian theologian) stated that if human dignity were 
measured by intellectual accomplishments as the old Greeks thought, 
then the inferiority of women would, if determined by historical 
realities, be warranted. The Bible, however, sees the uniqueness of 
man expressed in passional experiences, in his ability to withdraw 
from positions conquered, in his readiness to sacrifice and to make 
the movement of recoil, in his giving to others, in his craving, as a 
lonely being, for communion with God; therefore, there is hardly any 
cogent reason to place the worth of man above that of the female. On 
the contrary,  sacrificial, passional action is more characteristic 
of woman than man. The mere fact that among our prophets we find 
women to whom God addressed Himself is clear proof that we never 
differentiated between the sexes axiologically.
Man and woman are both worthy of communing with God, the highest form 
of perfection and self-fulfillment. However, the Halakhah has 
discriminated between axiological equality pertaining to their Divine 
essence  and metaphysical uniformity at the level of of existential 
personal experience. Man and woman are different personae, endowed 
with singular qualities and assigned distinct missions in life. 
Hence, axiological equality should not level up the uniqueness of 
these sexual personalities. The contrast manifesting itself in 
tension and sympathy, in longing for and shying away from each other, 
and portraying a metaphysical cleavage in personal experience must 
not be eliminated.
If the distinctive features of bi-personalism are erased, the blessed 
existential polarity out of which a rich, fruitful marriage is 
dispensed with, a tragic event of tremendous significance for the 
welfare of society. If the woman does not experience the particulat 
and unique in her existential awareness, if the man fails to feel the 
paradoxical and strange in his being masculine, if both are not 
cognizant of the incommensurability of their ontic patterns, then 
this Gleichschaltung, this bringing into line, impoverishes marriage 
which was blessed by the Creator with richness and variety. The 
latter can only be obtained if man and woman complete, not duplicate, 
each other.
--
 Eli Turkel, turkel@math.tau.ac.il on 11/07/2002

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


[ 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         ]