Avodah Mailing List

Volume 12 : Number 100

Tuesday, February 24 2004

• Re: Yom HaShishi in Kiddush
• Assistance, perek Haroeh
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Giyur
• Re: Slavery in the Torah
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Hanufa
• Re: Learning as much as possible
• Re: Assistance, perek Haroeh
• Re: Assistance, perek Haroeh
• Re: Learning as much as possible
• Eye Surgery (d'Oraysa) on Shabbos
• Re: Dishwashers on Shabbos
• Re: Waving at Candles
• Re: Censored Stanzas from Dror Yikra
• Smoking and nishtanah hateva
• Re: kol isha al hayam?
• Re: Rambam and the Creation of the world
• RE: Smoking and nishtanah hateva
• Yibum (was Re: kol isha al hayam?)
• Re: Yibum (was Re: kol isha al hayam?)
• Women Reading Megillah - R' Shlomo Aviner's Position

David Riceman <driceman@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> R Harry Maryles wrote:
>> Most Poskim say that we should start Veyhi Erev which is the beginning of
>> that Pasuk because of the Halacha of Kol D'Lo Pasik Moshe, Anan Lo Paskinan.

> I am aware that some poskim say that, but was unaware that most did.
> Literally it's not "paskinan" anyway, since we don't stop it before the
> end, we just start it after the beginning.

It probably works both ways. We may not sever a Pasuk except the
way Moshe Rabbenu did. I believe there is agreement about the rule as
mentioned by the Gemmarah but that Poskim differ as to when to apply it.

HM

Can anyone help with an understanding of how the Gemara segues into
discussing dreams (especially beginning with Rav Chisda's "kol chalom
velo tavas")? I don't see the connection to the previous Gemara and
haven't seen anything in the mefarshim.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Two more sources concernng the Rambam's view of teaching Torah to
non Jews.

1) Chasam Sofer (Chullin 33): It would appear from the language of the
Rambam(Melachim 10:9-10) that he distinguishes between non Jews who are
idol worshipper and those who are Ben Noach. A Ben Noach is a non Jew
who has decided not to worship idols. The Ben Noach - according to the
Rambam - would be allowed to keep Shabbos as well as other mitzvos. A Ben
Noach can also have animals sacrificed in the Temple, can be taught Torah
and can donate charity to Jews. ... It would appear that the Rambam's
lenient ruling is based on Nedarim (31a). He apparently followed this
text rather than the one's that prohibited Torah learning because it is
a later text than the rest of the Talmud.

2) R' J. David Bleich (Contemporary Halachic Problems 2:16 p311-340):
The prohibition against teaching Torah to non-Jews is well known to
students of Jewish Iaw. Equally well known is the role of Abraham as
the "father of the multitude of nations" entrusted with the sacred task
of carrying the teaching of monotheism to idolatrous people" A person
unfamiliar with the extensive rabbinical literature devoted to his
topic may perceive a certain tension, and perhaps even contradiction,
between a recognized need to disseminate religious truths and an almost
xenophobic reluctance to share the greatest repository of such truth - the
Torah. Yet even a cursory examination of the relevant sources dispels the
notion that while the community of Israel jealously guards its spiritual
wealth, it refuses to share these riches with others. On the contrary,
it is unique among western religions in its willingness to share its
teachings without seeking to impose its observances.... . Nevertheless
in some contexts it is permissible to teach Torah to non-Jews, in others
it is even praiseworthy to do so. The matter is greatly complicated by
numerous disagreements between halachic authorities with regard to the
precise parameters of this prohibition. Thus numerous scholars permit the
study or teaching of the Written Law, others permit forthright responses
to inquiries with regard to any facet of Torah study and/or instruction
to correct erroneous views, while still others permit the teaching
of Torah but not of its "secrets or reasons." In the medieval period
no less a personage than Rambam entirely excluded Christians from this
prohibition, while in the last century R. Israel Salanter, the acclaimed
founder of the Mussar movement, actually mounted a campaign for the
incorporation of Talmudic studies in the curricula of European schools
and universities. With regard to some points there emerges a consensus;
with regard to others, controversy remains. In order to understand
properly how it may be that for some authorities and under conditions
an act may constitute a violation of a divine command, while for other
authorities or under other circumstances the deed may be meritorious, it
is necessary to undertake a careful examination of the halachic sources.

                     Daniel Eidensohn

[In reply to RSB. -mi]

You make good points but I am not clear to what end. That the middos
are Sinaitic is pretty much accepted, f.e, Teshuvos Radvaz 4, 232. That
does not mean that under the rubric of, say gzeirah shava, there are not
some asmachtos or some close comparative readings that are also called
gzeirah shava or hekesh (see my Midrash and Method on Mishpatim for an
example, aishdas.org/midrash).

There is an interesting discussion of this point in R. Reuven Margolius'
Mergalios Hayam to Sanhedrin 16a.

I attach a final version of Midrash and Method on Mishpatim. The version
on the site is still waiting to be exchanged for this version. Regards,

Meir Levin

In Avodah V12 #85 dated 1/29/04 , From: Chana Luntz <chana@KolSassoon.net>
> The issue of why the Torah does not impose such an obligation (and make
> it beis din enforceable in the way mezonos of a wife is) and the wider
> question of why the Torah seems to stand back and allow people to "get
> away with murder" as well as lesser crimes, such as the agony of agunos,
> is one of the fundamental moral questions that we all have to grapple
> with.

I recall my father zt'l saying that these "injustices" are part of the
sufferings of galus, of living in a world where Moshiach hasn't come
yet--and one more reason to long for his coming. Which doesn't mean you
don't do what you can to alleviate suffering, on a case by case basis
(my father helped many agunos, and no doubt would have helped slaves,
too, if any had appealed to him for aid). But a total, organic solution
to suffering awaits the final ge'ulah.

 -Toby Katz

I asked <<< Does anyone know of another case in Chumash where a mem
suffix is used for a group of women?>>>

My LOR, listmember Rav Elazar M Teitz, gave exactly what I was looking
for, by B'nos Tzlafchad: Bamidbar 36:6, "Latov b'eineihem tihyena
l'nasnim."

I can't imagine any way to understand "eineihem" in context other than as
"in the eyes of those women", despite the mem. Therefore, the "lahem"
by Miriam can also mean "to the women".

But now my question morphs into something else: How can it be that the
Chumash itself would use the mem to refer to women? It is one thing for a
modern-day author to make such a grammatical error, but to see it in the
Torah Sheb'ksav really bothers me. There must be a reason for the mem,
and I want to know what it is.

How's this approach: From time to time, people point out that it is
a mistake to understand Hebrew verb tenses as being for "past" and
"future", and that it is more accurate to call them "perfect" and
"imperfect", and this shows how (for example) the verb "hayah" can be
used for something which has not yet happened, if it definitely will
happen. It is possible that in a similar manner we might be mistaken to
understand the "hem" and "hen" suffixes as being masculine and feminine?
Maybe they are really for a different purpose?

Akiva Miller

From: "Meir Rabi" <meirabi@optusnet.com.au>
> Please help me find the RaMBaM referred to below
...

Re' Chanufa, See:
"Women's Prayer Services: Theory and Practice. Part 1 -- Theory," Aryeh
A. Frimer and Dov I. Frimer, Tradition, 32:2, pp. 5-118 (Winter 1998)
-- Addendum Part 2.

Journal article available at:
<http://www.edah.org/backend/coldfusion/search/otherworks.cfm?authorid=444>;
HTML file available at:
<http://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/tfila/frimmer1.htm#start>; Word file
<available at: http://mail-jewish.org/Womens_Prayer_Service.doc>.

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Ethel and David Resnick Professor
   of Active Oxygen Chemistry
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: FrimeA@mail.biu.ac.il

> I would think one needs to strive for well-roundedness.

The Vilna Gaon thought otherwise. In particular, he once remarked that
it is better to spend time learning Torah than to go out into the streets
looking to do mitzvot. I'm sorry I can't find the source right now.
If I come across it soon, I'll post it.

-AM

In a message dated 2/22/04 9:56:53 AM EST, gershon.dubin@juno.com writes:
> Can anyone help with an understanding of how the Gemara segues into
> discussing dreams (especially beginning with Rav Chisda's "kol chalom
> velo tavas")? I don't see the connection to the previous Gemara and
> haven't seen anything in the mefarshim.

As I understood it this Hemshech begins 54b, Omar Rav Yehuda Omar Rav
about 4, he then goes on to Memras of Rav Yehuda about 3 the last one
of Rav Yehuda's Memras regarding 3 is that 3 need Rachamim a good king a
good year and a good dream since this is Byadi Shel HKB"H, he therefore
brings in the Memra of Rabi Yochonon which is connected in 2 ways that
it has the number 3 and discusses that a Parnes Tov HKB"H is Machriz
Batzmoi, once he finishes with this, Rav Chisda returns to the last of
the 3 things which is Chalom Tov.

Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:59:40 EST Yzkd@aol.com writes:
<<As I understood it this Hemshech begins 54b, Omar Rav Yehuda Omar Rav
about 4,>>

SNIP.

Nikarim divrei emes.  Thank you very much.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

R' Micha Berger responded to my post <<< Are you saying that other mitzvos
that have no minimal chiyuv should only be done when one can't learn? For
example, if I can learn every evening, I shouldn't the volunteer for
tomchei shabbos deliveries? >>>

As I recall, there as halachos which focus on this exact question.
Something along the lines of if one is already learning, he should not
interrupt it to do these other mitzvos, provided that others can do them.
But if there are no others, or he is not interrupting his learning, then
he does have to do them himself. I don't remember exactly where I learned
this; probably Rambam Hilchos Talmud Torah, possibly Yorah Deah Hilchos
Talmud Torah, maybe both. Does this ring a bell with anyone? Let's find
the cites and look at it inside.

Of course, the application of these principles is a whole 'nother mess.
If I'm not in the middle of learning right now, but I'm in the middle of
deciding how to schedule a certain block of time for either learning or
some other mitzvah, how do the priorities work? Surely there are teshuvos
on this topic, but others can probably find them better than I can.

(Not that I going to pretend that I actually follow such halachos to
the letter, but it's still important for us to learn and clarify what
those chiyuvim are.)

Akiva Miller

I was wondering whether any of you have heard of any major poseq's opinion
as to being mechallel shabbos d'oraysa for the sake of saving an eye.

I heard Dr. Avraham speak a few weeks ago and he related that he had just
been involved in such a shailah and the Rabbonim (much to his chagrin)
poskened that it would be assur.

The case involved a man who was in Haddassah with a detached retina that
had occurred erev shabbos. The surgeon scheduled the repair for Shabbos
AM. The man's brother called two major poskim and they both said that he
may not have the surgery, even though it would lead to loss of vision
in that eye, as modern medicine would not consider an eye injury to be
a situation of sakkanas nefashos.

Dr Avraham related that he was extremely disturbed by this pesaq and
ultimately found someone (Rav Laizerson) who recalled Rav SZA having
paskened such a case -- and being matir. Then, with Dr Avraham's prodding,
one these major poskim (possibly) reversed himself.

He does not know, though, what happened to the patient, as all of this
extra investigation only occurred well afterwards. (Dr Avraham only
found out about the pesak on Shabbos, although he had been consulted
erev shabbos for his medical opinion. He was extremely puzzled as to
why his medical opinion would wipe out the chazal that says otherwise.)

"Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
> In v12n96, R Zev Sero <zev@sero.name> wrote:
>>> What about outdoor sprinklers....

>> Because everybody knows they're automatic. "Avsha milta" is not a new
>> issur, it's just a species of Morris Ayin.

> 1- Here on Avodah the norm would be *R'* Morris Ayin. <g>

Reb Morris doesn't sound right. If he wants a Reb, he'll have to start
calling himself Moshe. :-)

> 2- I actually thought the problem was one of shevus, not mar'is ayin.
> IOW, not a problem of how it looks, but of being something that feels
> like a workday.  The "everyone knows" would still work, though, because
> it means that it won't change the feel of the surroundings to be less
> Shabbosdik.

IIRC, the classic case of 'avsha milta', the mill run by a goyishe
contractor, is permitted if there are no Jews within the techum.
I suppose you could kvetch and say that the problem is that if a Jew
sees it it will disturb his shabbos, but it seems much simpler to me to
say that the problem is mar'it ha'ayin, but that this is a kind of MA
that is not subject to the rule of 'afilu bechadrei chadarim'.

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                        potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                        before the war.                         - David Kay

From: Yisrael Dubitsky <Yidubitsky@JTSA.EDU>
> Re RRF's "spiritual"
> explanation, I can do no better than quote Rabbenu Tam (in Sefer
> ha-yashar, helek ha-shu"t, 48:7, cited by TaShma) who was also baffled
> by the women's custom but ceded "im einan nevi'ot, benei nevi'ot hen."

Shouldn't that be 'benot neviot hen'???

SBA

"David Cohen" <ddcohen@verizon.net> wrote:
> My Machzor Vitri (a reprint of ed. Nurnberg 1923) has two separate
> piyutim by Dunash ben Labrat, as simanim 195 and 196, both of which
> have the D-V-N-Sh acrostic for some stanzas and not for others....

Speaking of hidden acrostics, I haven't seen anyone else note that in
the 4th verse, which does not have the DUNSh acrostic, there is another
one in the names of the four trees listed.

> If anybody is interested in the actual text, I would be happy to send
> it to you once I get around to installing some Hebrew fonts on my new
> computer.

Yes, please.

[Perhaps you can mail it to me for inclusion in the archive's misnamed
"faxes" folder? -mi]

> As a side point, the Machzor Vitri has the words "vegam Edom asher
> gaverah," which makes sense as the stanza is a reference to Yesha'yahu
> 63:1-2 (as evidenced by the mention of "Botzrah" and "derokh purah").
> So I had assumed that these were probably the original words, and that
> the censor changed "Edom" to "Bavel." However, with the news coming
> from southern Iraq last year, I became aware that there is a "Botzrah"
> (=Basra?) in Bavel after all, so now I wonder...

It seems clear to me that Botzrah is indeed the city in Edom, the one
from which the angel of Edom mistakenly took refuge, thinking that it
was identical with the Chumash's Betzer, and that it has nothing to do
with Basra. However, it also seems to me that '*vegam* Bavel' cannot
refer to Edom; the payyetan is praying that Hashem punish both Botzrah
(i.e. Edom) *and* 'Bavel which has (lately) become strong', and again
that He demolish his *enemies* (plural).

-- 
Zev Sero               I must say, I actually think what we learned during
zev@sero.name          the inspections made Iraq a more dangerous place
                        potentially than in fact we thought it was even
                        before the war.                         - David Kay

On Sun, Feb 22, 2004 at 08:04:46AM +0200, Akiva Atwood wrote about
nishtanah hateva as a reason to now ban smoking:
:>                    It has many practical applications. In this case, it
:> appears to be stated in the way of informing the charedi world that
:> scientific advances affect the previously stated psak about smoking on YT.

: I don't think so. I think they mean that, in the past, smoking wasn't
: harmful -- but WE have changed (or tobacco has) and now it IS harmful.

R' Avraham ben haRambam defines nishtanah hateva as being about theory
changing, not reality.

: After all, science NEVER trumps a Gadol...

How can the two conflict. One analyzes metzi'us in olam hazeh
scientifically, the gadol analyzes the consequences of that knowledge
in our avodah Hashem.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger             When we long for life without difficulties,
micha@aishdas.org        remind us that oaks grow strong in contrary
http://www.aishdas.org   winds, and diamonds are made under pressure.
Fax: (413) 403-9905                        - Peter Marshall

> I asked <<< Does anyone know of another case in Chumash where a mem
> suffix is used for a group of women?>>>

> My LOR, listmember Rav Elazar M Teitz, gave exactly what I was looking
> for, by B'nos Tzlafchad: Bamidbar 36:6, "Latov b'eineihem tihyena

> I can't imagine any way to understand "eineihem" in context other than as
> "in the eyes of those women", despite the mem. Therefore, the "lahem"
> by Miriam can also mean "to the women".

How about Shemos 1, 21 -vayas lahem batim.

> But now my question morphs into something else: How can it be that the
> Chumash itself would use the mem to refer to women? It is one thing for a
> modern-day author to make such a grammatical error, but to see it in the
> Torah Sheb'ksav really bothers me. There must be a reason for the mem,
> and I want to know what it is.

But..you also find reverse, when men are referred to as lahen.
F.E.- Rus 1,13. Halahen tisabeirna.

There often is a derash to this, or , at the very least, an implication
to communicate a point. At times, as with Bnos Tsalaphchad, it underlies
their active role, a more masculine role - ditto by Miriam. In Rus,
on the other hand, it underscores the passive role of the yibumim who
would have had have to grow up before allowed to perform yibum.

Al pi pshat, one can consider dialectical differences that are being
used to communicate additional meaning. It is as if someone wrote in
standard Americal English but had one character speak British to suggest
sophistication or pomposity.

I heard a significant scholar suggest that the example in Rus follows
Moabite usage where, as we now know this language, there is no discinciton
between masculine and feminine pronouns. He said it in the name of Torah
Temima but I had not been able to locate it. If anyone knows where it is,
I would appreciate reveiving the reference.

M. Levin

Micha Berger wrote:
>Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
>>About a year ago there was an unresolved debate concerning whether the
>>Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:25) was asserting that if there was a clear proof
>>that the world was eternal he could readjust his thinking and accept it.

>Actually, I agreed that the Rambam said it. I disagreed with [the] assumption
>that the Rambam thought the antecedent were possible. He says that if they
>conflicted one would have to re-interpret the Torah, and the *text* admits the
>possibility of such a reinterpretation.
>....

>But my point wasn't about whether the reinterpretation was valid, but whether
>the opportunity would arise. Since Judaism can not contradict wisdom obtained
>in other ways, and (AIUI) the Rambam gives the consensus of "our nevi'im and
>zeqeinim" an inviolatability, the eventuality under discussion couldn't
>happen.

The issue is what to do when human knowledge - either in terms of
science, direct experience or philosophical proof - seems to contradict
mesorah. The Ralbag (Introduction to Milchemes HaShem) and the Rambam
(Morech Nevuchim 2:25) both indicate that theoretically they would have
to reinterpret the Torah position. I agree with you that neither seems to
view that in fact such a situation would occur. I recently found another
rishon who seems to be going a step farther and agree that such a conflict
might in fact exist and suggests a resolution of the apparent conflict.

"G-d forbid that there should be anything in the Torah which contradicts
the reality that we experience or that can be clearly proven by logical
proof. The miracles of the Torah do not violate this principle but
only demonstrate that G-d has the power to do what he wants with His
creation. However the question of whether the world is eternal or was
created is very difficult to resolve. In fact the proof for both positions
are equally strong. The reason that we chose the view that the world was
created is the result of the tradition we have received from the prophetic
tradition of Adam, Noach and Moshe. This tradition has greater credibility
than that of philosophical proofs. Nevertheless a person who believes in
the Torah might be forced to admit by logic concerning the primordial
hiyuli matter and the view that our present world was preceded by many
other worlds. However this acceptance would not indicate a lack of faith,
because he still believes that this world was created at a specific times
and the beginning of mankind was from Adam and Noach." [Kuzari 1:67].

Rav Neugeshal has a very interesting and extensive discussion of this
Kuzari.

In agreement with the Rambam, Ralbag and Kuzar we find the Ibn Ezra -
and the Sefer HaIkkarim - that also insist that there is no possible
conflict between knowledge and mesora.

Ibn Ezra (Introduction): The third approach is the way of darkness and
gloom. It lies outside of the circle. This is the approach of those who
invent secret explanations for everything in Scripture. They believe
that the laws and statues of the Torah as allegories. I will not expend
much time answering them for they are a people who do err in their heart
(Ps 95:10)_. The fact of the matter is that the laws of the Torah do not
disagree with what is right. (they must make sense) They are correct
in only one thing viz that every precept be it minor or major must be
weighed in the scale of one's heart wherein the Eternal has planted
some of his wisdom. Thus if there appears something in the Torah that
is intellectually impossible to accept or contrary to the evidence of
our senses then we must search for a hidden meaning. This is so because
intelligence is the basis of the Torah. The Torah was not given to
ignoramuses. Man's intelligence is the angel which mediates between him
and his G-d. Thus anything in the Torah which does not contradict reason
we must explain literally, take it as it is written and believe that it
is so. We should not grope walls as the blind do, and interpret verses
according to our subjective needs. Why should we turn what is evident
into mysteries. Now if there are places with two meanings both of which
are clearly true one referring to the body and the other to the mind
such as "circumcision of the flesh" and "uncircumcised of heart" and if
there is a secret to the meaning to the "tree of life" they are to be
taken literally as well. Now if anyone cannot accept what I have said,
if he be wise let him open his eyes. In nature, too, we find things that
serve more than one purpose such as the nostrils, the tongue and the legs.

It seems that the Rishonim had a working assumption that there could be
no contradiction between reason and mesorah. If there was an apparent
contradiction it was assumed as the Ralbag stated that somehow a
reconciliation could be made between them.
 --------------

There seems to be another approach in which there is no concern at all
with what logic or science says. The only information relevant is that 
which mesorah teaches.

Prof Sternberg presents an example a different derech to an apparent 
contradiction between mesorah and science - one in which science is 
considered irrelevant. The Chachom Tzvi is going in the way of the 
rishonim while R' Yonasan is not.

Chachom Tzvi(#74): Question 74. A girl opened up the belly of a chicken 
to remove the intestines at the edge of the table, while a cat was 
standing below next to her, standing and hoping to eat whatever fell to 
the ground. The girl stated that she did not find a heart in the 
chicken.... Response. All those that say so [that the hen is forbidden] 
are in error. For it is clear to anyone that has a wise heart in his 
innards or a brain in his skull that it is impossible for any creature 
in the world to live even for a short time without a heart and be 
similar to any healthy living thing. It is impossible to imagine any 
case of a heart being removed [in such a way that the law quoted from 
Shulhan Aruch could apply] unless immediately after removing the heart 
from the animal they slaughtered it. As for a heart absent because of 
disease, it is impossible that a heart should decay' without the animal 
being in the lowest possible state, worse off than what we would 
characterize as an animal in imminent danger of death. As to this hen, 
who was not in imminent danger of death nor sick but rather good and 
fat, healthy and alert, it is clear that her heart fell out when her 
belly was opened and the cat ate It. Even though this is obvious on 
first principles and requires no proof, in order to shut the mouths of 
those fools who jump to render decisions here....

R' Yonasan Eiebschutz(Kereis Pleisi 2-4): Does he [Chachom Tzvi] have a 
tradition or even a hint for this position from the words of our Sages? 
It is just a construct of his own mind on the basis of a knowledge of 
science and reality that one cannot imagine that an animal can live 
without a heart. Is this sufficient to contradict our tradition and our 
Torah?... To the contrary, we must not follow the realia of nature but 
rather the Torah which we have as an inheritance. So what if it 
contradicts the laws of nature? Would this lead to a disaster such as we 
must worry the laws of nature? Would this lead to a disaster such as we 
must worry about if we dare contradict one of the principles of the 
Torah such as "a terefah may not survive" and so on? Especially since 
the foundations of science are based on experiment. Today there is 
agreement among men of science on some matter and when other men come 
and see the opposite they retreat from their position and make a 
different principle and so is it always; to such an extent that today 
they reject all the assumptions of Aristotle! Similarly they choose new 
foundations and assumptions. So how can we a1low even a doubtful terefah 
on the basis of "scientific reality"7

       Daniel Eidensohn

>: I don't think so. I think they mean that, in the past, smoking wasn't
>: harmful -- but WE have changed (or tobacco has) and now it IS harmful.

> R' Avraham ben haRambam defines nishtanah hateva as being about theory
> changing, not reality.

I realize that -- I was refering to contemporary usage.

R' Avraham's position would be problematic for many, because it would
require changing certain halachot brought down in the gemara. Therefore, I
suspect they prefer to ignore it rather than deal with it.

>: After all, science NEVER trumps a Gadol...

> How can the two conflict. One analyzes metzi'us in olam hazeh
> scientifically, the gadol analyzes the consequences of that knowledge
> in our avodah Hashem.

I forgot to bracket my sentence in <SARCASM>...</SARCASM>

But there are conflicts -- caused by the ignorance of members of both
camps.

Akiva

On 23 Feb 2004 at 10:10, Mlevinmd@aol.com wrote:
> But..you also find reverse, when men are referred to as lahen.
> F.E.- Rus 1,13. Halahen tisabeirna.

 In Rus, on the other hand, it underscores the passive
> role of the yibumim who would have had have to grow up before allowed
> to perform yibum.

Don't know why this never occurred to me before....

Even if Naomi were to have sons in the future, why would it matter? 
Yibum can only be performed by a brother who was alive at the same 
time as the niftar. Even if Naomi were to have further sons, for Rus 
(or Orpa, who was still there at the time) to marry them would be 
pogea b'erva. 

 - Carl

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.

Yes, this is eishes ach shelo haya baolomo. As I recall, a fetus is
still consdered that if the brother dies during pregnancy. I guess
she is just poetically talking about a possibility; what does it mean,
do I still have sons in my belly? How many sons could she mean?

M. Levin

A post on Mail-Jewish directed me to the following recent teshuvah from
R' Shlomo Aviner. My attempted translation loses some of the flavor of
his Modern Hebrew:

http://www.hazofe.co.il/web/katava6.asp?Modul=24&id=21201&Word=&gilayon=1887&mador=

I was asked a question in the following language:

We are a group of women who want to organize for Purim a megillah reading
only by women because we heard that it is permissible for a woman to read
for herself or for a friend. We do not want to be forced in a side but
in the center of the event, as it will be when a woman is the reader.
Particularly in these days, when women learn Torah, we see a blessing
in this. This new way of worshipping G-d is more appropriate for us
and better.

This is my answer to them:

1. Since you want to worship G-d [better] (and certainly not worse), you
must first know that when a woman reads megillah she enters a doubt over
how to recite the blessing: "al mikra megillah" or "lishmo'a megillah"
(Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim 689:1-2). And, as is known, a situation
in which there is a doubt over the blessing is not ideal because it
is possible that you are not reciting the proper blessing. Therefore,
the best way in the worship of G-d is that a woman should hear megillah
reading from a man.

2. Additionally, what is mentioned in halachah is that a woman should
read for herself or for another woman. It does not discuss her reading
for many women (Tosafos, Sukkah 38a sv "be-emet am'ru"; Korban Netanel,
Megillah ch. 1 nos. 40, 60; Sha'ar HaTziyun, 689:15; Kaf HaChaim, ad loc.
no. 17). The great R' Mordechai Eliyahu went so far as to say that
even bedieved one should be strict and hear [megillah] again from a man
(Sefer Hilchot Arba Parshiyot uPurim, p. 100 n. 5). The better worship
of G-d is to hear [megillah] from a man.

3. Also, the Magen Avraham cites the Midrash Ne'elam on Ruth that a woman
should not read [megillah] for herself but, rather, should hear it from
a man (Magen Avraham 689:6; A"B [???]; Gra; Mishnah Berurah, no. 8; Kaf
HaChaim, no. 18; Ba'er Heitev, no. 3). While there is no obligation to be
strict like the Zohar over the Shulchan Aruch, the Chida writes that we
do not find a custom of women reading the megillah (Machazik Berachah,
no. 2). In practice, it has been ruled that, if there is no man to read
[megillah] for her, a woman should read for herself but not if there
is a man to read [megillah] for her (Chayei Adam; Mishnah Berurah,
no. 8). Thus, if you are looking for the optimum
it is to hear [megillah] from a man.

4. Generally, one should not change the customs regarding the forms of
prayers (Responsa Rashba, vol. 1 no. 323. Cf. Orach Mishpat, no. 35). The
forms of prayers that extend [back] hundreds or thousands of years are
very good.

5. This brings us to the question of what urgency there is to establish
new forms. Do we think that the forms that we used constantly for
generations are not good? Do we have complaints against them? The great
R' Moshe Feinstein writes that even if there are new ways of prayer
that are not prohibited, but they come from complaints, are prohibited
because of the motive (Iggerot Moshe, vol. 4 no. 49). An example is when
the Children of Israel requested a king, of which they are commanded,
but they did so with complaints (Sanhedrin 20b); they [did so] with a
desire to imitate the nations.

6. This brings us to a more general point: We should not create new ways
to worship G-d, as the Netziv writes in his commentary on the Torah to
the verse "Do not follow after your hearts and after your eyes." If there
were additional good ways then the beneficient Master of the Universe
would not have hidden them.

Throughout all the generations there were women who were great in wisdom
and chessed, who reached great heights, but never attempted to read
megillah for themselves. Beruriah did not read megillah, nor Yalta,
nor the daughter of R' Shmuel ben Eli the gaon of Baghdad, nor Rashi's
daughter, etc. etc. In the ways that G-d has given us, 600,000 women
achieved prophecy. Therefore, if a woman wishes to rise in the worship
of G-d, praiseworthy is she and her portion. The path in which she will
see light is the study of Messillat Yesharim; from there she will rise
up high.

Rabb Shlomo Aviner

Gil Student
gil@aishdas.org
www.aishdas.org/student

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


[ 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         ]