Avodah Mailing List

Volume 5: Number 7

Wed, 13 Dec 2006

• 1. Re: [Areivim] URL: article about halachic infertility and proposed changes to hilchos nidah (A & C Walters)
• 2. Dvar Torah for VaYeshev/VaYechi: Magical Protection (from Harry Potter and Torah) (Krulwich)
• 3. chanukah (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (David Riceman)
• 5. Re: Rambam on Prophecy (dfinch847@aol.com)
• 6. Nevuah/Psak (Rich, Joel)

This argument is flawed. The case is not necessarily similar to rediyas
hapas, but maybe be similar to yibum. The man has a mitzvah of yibum, which
is overrides the issur of ashes ach thorough the din of "asei docheh loy
sasey". The problem is, though, is that the mitzvah of yibbum is only chayav
on the man, whilst the issur (kores) is on both. Nevertheless we do see a
din of ADL"S and it is obviously mutur. The gedolei Achronim ask the
question and one answer (from memory R' Elchonon Wasserman Hi"d in K"H) is
that one person's dechieh HER issur too. Therefore by our case too. And is
not at all similar to Rediyas HaPas, which involves no ADL"S only a possible
solution to fix the problem lemafreia.

However, it is obvious that by this case there is no heter for the man
either, and it is not at all a case of ADL"S. All I am saying is that if
there WAS a ADL"S, there would be no further issur of the part of the woman.

The other arguments (shev veal taaseh) are definitely valid, as are the
other arguments presented.


A Y Walters
Beis Shemesh

> In any case, both women and men are obligated by the laws of nidah and
> zivah, while only men are obligated by pru urvu, which means that the
> woman would have to break a law, even if only a light derabanan, in
> order for her husband to fulfil a mitzvah; this reduces the question
> to the already-solved one of rediyat hapat, where the psak is that
> "we do not tell one person to sin so that another person will benefit".
> (The chumra of 7 nekiyim seems analogous to the issur of rediyat hapat,
> which is not even a shevut; and the benefit to the second party in this
> case is only an asei, rather than being saved from an issur karet.  So
> it seems to me to be a kal vachomer.)

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Click for quotes on adjustable mortgages, $0 down, low rates:
http://tagline.bidsystem.com/fc/KCuXzzTxgFvQuujou5fd5xqY7EHE00/

Magical Protection
Related to the Torah portions VaYeshev and VaYechi

The Dvar Torah below is exerpted from the book Harry Potter and Torah
by Dov Krulwich http://www.harrypottertorah.com/ The book contains more
than twenty similar chapters, containing Torah insights related to themes
from the Harry Potter series.

Below is the first portion of the Dvar Torah, the rest is available on-line at the site above.


Magical Protection

At the end of Harry Potter and The Sorcerer's Stone we learn of
the magical protection that Harry received from his mother's love,
particularly from her having sacrificed her life to save his:

"Why couldn't Quirrell touch me?"  [Harry asked].
[Dumbeldore answered] "Your mother died trying to save you. If there
is one thing Voldemort can't understand, it is love. He didn't realize
that love as powerful as your mother's leaves its own mark. Not a
scar, no visible sign ... to have been loved so deeply, even though
the person who loved us is gone, will give us some protection forever."
(The Sorcerer's Stone, chapter 17)

This concept is described later, in the 4th book, by Voldemort himself:

"You all know that on the night I lost my powers and my body, I tried to
kill him. His mother died in the attempt to save him - and unwittingly
provided him with a protection I admit I had not foreseen ... I could
not touch the boy. ... His mother left upon him the traces of her
sacrifice ... this is old magic, I should have remembered it, I was
foolish to overlook it ...." (Goblet of Fire, chapter 33)

We see this discussed throughout the Harry Potter books, how Harry has
magical protection imprinted on him from his Mother's act of love and
self-sacrifice.

Might anything like this "old magic" appear in the Torah?

We see an interesting analogue to this kind of magical protection at the
end of the Torah portion of VaYechi. After the death of Jacob (Yaacov)
the Jewish Patriarch, Joseph's brothers were afraid that Joseph would
take revenge on them for their having sold him into Egyptian slavery.
He comforts them by reiterating that all the events had been orchestrated
by G-d to bring him to Egypt for a Divine purpose:

"You decided to do bad to me, but G-d thought of it for good, to cause the
events on this very day (Hebrew: KaYom HaZeh), to keep the nation alive."

What does Joseph mean by "on this very day?" The most straightforward
understanding is that Joseph went to Egypt as part of a Divine plan for
the entire region to be saved from the famine, and for the Jewish family
to be able to relocate there.

The commentary Be'er Moshe, however, presents a very interesting
alternative explanation, perhaps not as a literal understanding but as
an allegorical lesson. The phrase "on this very day" ("kayom hazeh")
is used in only one other place in the Torah's story of Joseph and his
brothers, during Joseph's temptation by the wife of his master Potifar:

"And it came to pass, on this very day (KaYom HaZeh), that he went to
the house to do his work, and none of the men of the house were home,
that she (Potifar's wife) grabbed him by his cloak, saying 'come with
me.' And he left his cloak in her hand and escaped (Hebrew: VaYanas),
running outside."

What does the phrase "on this very day" of Joseph's temptation by
Potifar's wife have to do with the same phrase discussing the Divine
reason for Joseph's going to Egypt? Be'er Moshe explains:

"The righteous Joseph (in his reassurance to his brothers, that G-d had
sent him to Egypt to keep the Jewish nation alive) wasn't referring to
physical survival, for G-d had already promised (Abraham) that they would
have a remnant (that would always survive). Rather he was telling them
an amazing thing, that the hidden purpose for which he had been brought to
Egypt first ... was to face the enormous challenge (with Potifar's wife),
... because by withstanding the temptation he established the purity of
life of all the Israelites, that they could resist the impurity of Egypt."

Rabbi Matisyahu Solomon uses this to illustrate a fascinating principle.
Anytime a person overcomes a temptation to violate a Torah commandment,
and manages to act in accordance with the Torah despite the temptation, he
infuses his location, the ground or area he's on, with a spiritual energy
that will help others succeed in carrying out G-d's will in that location.

Joseph was sent to Egypt by G-d so that he would face a strong temptation
to do something immoral, and overcome it, thereby infusing Egypt with
enough spiritual energy to enable the Jews to survive 400 years of
slavery with their Jewish morality intact.

...

(The rest of this Dvar Torah is available at
http://www.harrypottertorah.com and is exerpted from the book Harry
Potter and Torah.)

Questions or comments can be sent to the author at
author@harrypottertorah.com

I recently saw in Halichot Shlomo that RSZA paskened that when lighting
chanukah lights one should have in mond that it celebrates mainly the victory
in the battle. Even though we light for 8 days we remember the miracle of the
oil to remind us that the physical victory was from Hashem. This is why
al Hanisim stresses the victory in the war.

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>

> Intervening in politics i.e., making prophetic pronouncments that impact 
> society or government is not being a political leader.

This distinction is too subtle for me.  Could you give a concrete example of 
something the Rambam would think inappropriate for a prophet and the Ramban 
would think appropriate?

David Riceman 

R. Daniel Eidensohn writes:

"My suggestion is that the Rambam views the prophet in the same way as 
we
view a mashgiach - in relationship to to a rosh yeshiva or a magid in
relationship to a rav. Someone who advises or suggest rather than 
having
a position of leadership. Someone who is sensitive, wise and insightful 

- but doesn't have political or decision making power. . . .
 The Minchas Chinuch (#516) asserts that the Rambam only requires
obedience to a prophet when he says that Gd has commanded the action. 
In
contrast the Chinuch seems to require that everything that a prophet
says must be obeyed."

I agree. Rambam was a rationalist who, according to one commentator, 
viewed prophecy as a projection of the human intellect. Yehudah ha-Levi 
and others saw prophecy as a supernatural gift. By Rambam, the prophet 
is a prescient intellectual who would know when to invoke G-d's command 
and when to invoke the lesser province of reason and argument. By 
ha-Levi, the prophet may be a charismatic tzaddik who speaks for HaShem 
automatically.



David S. Finch
dfinch847@aol.com









The information contained in this communication is intended only for 
the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and may 
contain information that is privileged, confidential, and exempt from 
disclosure under applicable law. If the reader is not the intended 
recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the 
message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication is 
strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, 
please notify the sender at dfinch847@aol.com. Thank you.

======================================================

-----Original Message-----
From: avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org
To: avodah@lists.aishdas.org
Sent: Tue, 12 Dec 2006 4:22 PM
Subject: Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6

   Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
    avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
    http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
    avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
    avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Micha Berger)
   2.  Fwd: Kissing Places In A Sefer Torah (SBA)
   3. Eidut (Shoshana L. Boublil)
   4. Yaakov's division of his family into two camps
      (Elchanan Schulgasser)
   5. Re: Yaakov's division of his family into two camps
      (Moshe Yehuda Gluck)
   6. Re: [Areivim] Halachic Infertility, or,   Abolishing Shivah
      Neki'im (Micha Berger)
   7. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
   8. Fwd: Reminder - Monday evening begin Prayer forRain (Aryeh Stein)
   9. Re: [Areivim] URL: article about halachic infertility and
      proposed changes to hilchos nidah (Zev Sero)
  10. Halachic Infertility, or, Abolishing Shivah Neki'im (Ilana Sober)
  11. Re: [Areivim] Halachic Infertility, or,   Abolishing Shivah
      Neki'im (Rich, Joel)
  12. Re: Prophet - mashgiach or godol hador? (Daniel Eidensohn)
  13. Halachic justification for short sleeves (Moshe Feldman)

I didn't yet read RDE's post, nor this recent e-shiur from YHE (by R' 
Eli
Hadad). But I think the two are related
<http://vbm-torah.org/archive/rambam/07rambam.htm>.

On the web page (which I got as email), all I noticed was a chart which
indicates that a good king receives an overflow of imagination (really 
koach
hadimyon, I presume), and a good philosopher receives an overflow of
intellect, but a navi has gotten an overflow of both.

I just wanted to send this out before Shabbos, so that people (perhaps 
only
the single-email subscribers) can print up the web page and read it.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

--
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

From: RallisW@aol.com
Does anyone know where the Lubavitch minhog of touching one's tzitzis  
to
both the begining and end of an Aliyoh comes  from?
>>

Presumably you are referring to sweeping the Tallis over the
section being layned - before and after the brochos.

AFAIK, this is not an excludive Lubavitch minhag, but done by all.

See Shaarei Efrayim (Shaar 4:3 - and also mentioned in 4:17
giving a  reason for it)  saying that it is a 'minhag vasikin'.

However it seems to mention this only before the first brocho -
and not the last.

The Munkatcher Rav zt'l in his Nimukei OCh (s.139) strongly
disapproves of this, vezeh leshono:
"...aderaba gorem harbeh kilkul leST..." and
"...kamo pe'amim biseforov hayekorim mevi minhagim she'einom
rak minhag am haaretz me'iroy...bimechilas kevod Toroso...gormo
lehachriv harbeh ST ulemoch'kon ad sh'hevion liy'dei psul, Hashem
yatzileinu.."

SBA

Halachically, is a victim of a crime supposed to go to a Beit Din and 
report the
crime?

Does it change things if he knows who performed the crime?

Does it change things if he doesn't have a witness to back him up vs. 
if he has
a witness to back up his claims?

Is reporting the crime part of mitzvat Eidut?  If a witness to the 
crime does
not come forward, is this a transgression of Mitzvat Eidut? of "Lo 
Ta'amod Al
Dam"? or is he guilty of Lashon HaRa if he is the sole witness?

When we say that we need two witnesses, do the witnesses have to come 
together?
Do they have to know about the existence of each other?

Shoshana L. Boublil

Does anyone know how Yaakov Avinu divided his family before his 
encounter
with Eisav? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anyone who addresses
this specific question (although there's an intriguing Ohr HaChaim 
HaKadosh
which explains that he armed one camp and left one unarmed, ibid.)

Some suggestions might be:
Rachel in one camp, Leah in the other, each with her respective 
shifchah.

Leah in one camp, the other wives in the other camp (balance of numbers)

Representatives from each maternal family in each camp (to preserve 
elements
of each family if one camp is wiped out.)

Etc.

Has anyone seen a p'shat?

Elchanan Schulgasser
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/2006121
0/adc0ae8b/attachment.html

R' Elchanan Schulgasser:
Does anyone know how Yaakov Avinu divided his family before his 
encounter
with Eisav? I looked around a bit but couldn't find anyone who addresses
this specific question (although there's an intriguing Ohr HaChaim 
HaKadosh
which explains that he armed one camp and left one unarmed, ibid.)
<snip>

To add to the question, it seems that when Eisav finally did arrive,
Ya'akov's whole family was there to greet him. What, then, was the 
point of
dividing them earlier?

KT,
MYG

On Mon, December 11, 2006 4:57 am, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote to 
Areivim:
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

For a more serious discussion, see
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/77> -- Halachic Infertility - Diagnosis
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/63> -- Treatment

There are ways of shortening the time until a hefseiq taharah as well. 
But if
all else fails, there have been pesaqim lequlah -- at least before IVF. 
Now
that a couple can produce a baby without violating minhag yisrael, as 
IVF-H
involves simpler halachic issues (donation for the purpose of 
procreation)
than eliminating 7 neqiim, I do not know if those teshuvos are still 
applied.

But finding a doctor who wants to do away with minhag yisrael 
altogether is
just a Haaretzism, and an Areivim discussion if anywhere.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi

--
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
micha@aishdas.org        your grip on it, it chokes; slacken your grip,
http://www.aishdas.org   and it flies away.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                            - Rav Yisrael Salanter

R' David Riceman wrote:
>
> How do you deal with all the places in Tanach where the prophet
> intervenes in politics, or, for example, the Rambam's example in the
> introduction to PHM where the prophet commands people to fight a
> battle on Shabbat?
>
Intervening in politics i.e., making prophetic pronouncments that 
impact
society or government is not being a political leader. Commanding 
people
to fight on Shabbos is also not an example of leadership. I think there
were only two prophets who could qualify as leaders Moshe and Shmuel. 
In
fact they were both viewed as Prophet-Kings. The other prophets did not
serve the same function. I have not seen any statement of the Rambam
that he considers prophets to be leaders.

Regarding the  article from VBM by Rav Hadad who states that: " It 
seems
that Maimonides wishes to use this comparison to demonstrate that a
prophet is a combination of a philosopher and a political leader." He
cites no evidence at all for this hypothesis and I am not aware of any
sources that justify it.

Daniel Eidensohn

[from Areivim]

>>>It's the old minnek in general (as so often...). The "ve-imru
omein" seems to have crept in from the end of gantz kaddish both to
Eloukai netzour and the end of benshen. It doesn't make sense unless
it's said to somebody else, does it?>>>

============================================
I'm pretty sure we've discussed this on Avodah before, but RSZA
explains that when we say "v'imru amen" in our silent shemonah esrai,
we are asking the malachim (who escort us everywhere we go) to answer
amen.

KT and GS,
Aryeh

> http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

>  Within this situation is a failure of internal logic: It is
> unreasonable that a ruling that derives from a humra of Jewish women
> will produce a conflict with the first commandment in the Torah - to
> be fruitful and multiply.

Has this man never heard of "shev ve'al taaseh"?  Does he hear shofar
on RH which is on shabbat?

In any case, both women and men are obligated by the laws of nidah and
zivah, while only men are obligated by pru urvu, which means that the
woman would have to break a law, even if only a light derabanan, in
order for her husband to fulfil a mitzvah; this reduces the question
to the already-solved one of rediyat hapat, where the psak is that
"we do not tell one person to sin so that another person will benefit".
(The chumra of 7 nekiyim seems analogous to the issur of rediyat hapat,
which is not even a shevut; and the benefit to the second party in this
case is only an asei, rather than being saved from an issur karet.  So
it seems to me to be a kal vachomer.)

(And that's leaving aside the consideration that if the husband is so
concerned about the mitzvah he can fulfil it with another woman.)


--
Zev Sero               Something has gone seriously awry with this 
Court's
zev@sero.name          interpretation of the Constitution.
                                                  - Clarence Thomas

Moderators - this thread started on Areivim so I'm cc'ing both lists - 
feel
free to reject from Areivim.

The seven clean days requirement is based on a SAFEK D'ORAITA. We can no
longer distinguish niddah from zivah, because we have lost the mesorah 
of
which precise four shades of red and one of black render a woman niddah
d'oraita. This makes it impossible to pinpoint the halachic onset of
bleeding, which means we can no longer keeep an accurate niddah-zivah
calendar. Based on this safek d'oraita, a woman needs to count six clean
days whenever she experiences ANY bleeding, and seven clean days when 
she
bleeds for at least three days. This is the takanah of Rebbi baSadot. 
The
chumra of b'not yisra'el, cited by Rabbi Zeira, is actually a rather a 
small
extension of that decree - she counts an extra clean day even if she 
bleeds
only for one or two days, so that she consistently counts seven no 
matter
what.

Dr. Rosenak sounds unusually cautious in his attitude towards hormones. 
I
cannot tell you how many kallot I have met who have been using birth 
control
pills since adolescence for acne, painful periods, and who knows what 
else.
Physicians are usually quite willing to prescribe hormones for 
"lifestyle"
concerns, and I don't know why religious concerns should be any less
serious.

In any case, physicians have no more business paskening halacha (which
requires a level of knowledge and shikul daat that Dr. Rosenak seems 
unable
even to conceive of - "research" is insufficient) than rabbis do 
prescribing
hormones. I am glad he trembles at the risk of a stroke from hormones 
(IIUC,
this risk is statistically quite low, especially with proper advance
screening for risk factors). Does he also tremble at the risk of 
violating
an issur karet if a woman who halachically really is a zavah immerses
without the shivah neki'im?

The problem of halachic infertility should certainly not be minimized.
Fundamentally, it is a result of churban, galut, the lack of a 
sanhedrin,
etc. No - the halachic system is not perfect and even causes suffering. 
Dr.
Rosenak is correct that in this case, as in others, the problem is not 
that
G-d designed an imperfect system, but that the system has deteriorated. 
He
misidentifies the cause of the deterioration as "the rabbis." The cause 
of
the deterioration is churban and galut - the rabbis are those who saved 
the
system from total disintegration. Perhaps, rather than secretly 
breathing a
sigh of relief that we are no longer burdened with primitive practices 
like
animal sacrifice, we should take note of the broader implications of
churban.

Yh"r sheyibaneh beit hamikdash bimhera b'yamenu.

Note: Any woman who suspects she has halachic infertility should confirm
that she is, in fact, ovulating early. Ovulation tests are commercially
available. If this does turn out to be the problem, there are some 
halachic
interventions that should be tried before medical interventions such as
hormones.
1) Asking a she'elah on attempts at a hefsek as early as day four/five 
(see
#2) - making sure that the Rav is aware of the halachic infertility 
problem.
A hefsek does not have to be pure white!!! Some browns are in fact
permissible, especially b'shaat hadchak. Similarly, questions should be
asked about any other problematic stains or bedikot during shivah 
neki'im.
2) Asking a she'elah about reducing the minimum days before shivah 
neki'im
from five to four, even for Ashkenazim. In extreme situations, it may be
possible to devise strategies for further reduction if bleeding stops 
early
enough.

- Ilana

On Mon, December 11, 2006 4:57 am, R Moshe Yehuda Gluck wrote to
Areivim:
: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/798797.html

For a more serious discussion, see
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/77> -- Halachic Infertility - Diagnosis
<http://www.yoatzot.org/article/63> -- Treatment

There are ways of shortening the time until a hefseiq taharah as well.
But if all else fails, there have been pesaqim lequlah -- at least
before IVF. Now that a couple can produce a baby without violating
minhag yisrael, as IVF-H involves simpler halachic issues (donation for
the purpose of procreation) than eliminating 7 neqiim, I do not know if
those teshuvos are still applied.

But finding a doctor who wants to do away with minhag yisrael altogether
is just a Haaretzism, and an Areivim discussion if anywhere.

Tir'u baTov!
-mi
==========================================
I thought the issue was the additional 5 days, not the 7 neqiim. IIRC
except for lo plug (I know that's a big except) there could be
circumstances where the logic of all the extra 5 days would not apply.

I'm also curious about your calculus of "simpler halachik issues", I
agree that the vast majority of contemporary poskim allow it in cases of
infertility. IIRC at least some say there is no kiyum of pru urvu
("just" shevet) and in theory they are "allowing" the infertility
argument to overcome haschatat zera and identification of parents'
concerns.

What if a woman's cycle were such that if we shortened the 5 to 4 she
could get pregnant. I'm guessing that using some of the possibilities
alluded to above, a posek might well say not to go ivf but rely on such
a kula (especially given the cost of IVF).

Of course my memory on these items may be patchy, lmaaseh , and
especially in print, my recollection is that these types of issues are
all covered under consult your LOR.

KT
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination,
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the 
addressee is
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please 
notify us
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.
Thank you.

R' David Riceman wrote:
> From: "Daniel Eidensohn" <yadmoshe@012.net.il>
>
>> Intervening in politics i.e., making prophetic pronouncments that
>> impact society or government is not being a political leader.
>
> This distinction is too subtle for me.  Could you give a concrete
> example of something the Rambam would think inappropriate for a
> prophet and the Ramban would think appropriate?

My suggestion is that the Rambam views the prophet in the same way as 
we
view a mashgiach - in relationship to to a rosh yeshiva or a magid in
relationship to a rav. Someone who advises or suggest rather than 
having
a position of leadership. Someone who is sensitive, wise and insightful 

- but doesn't have political or decision making power. In contrast a
king or political leader is not necessary wise or sensitive but he 
makes
the decisions and sees that they are implemented. While there are times
when the prophet has a specific message or action that is required - 
but
he is not a leader.  In contrast we today view our gedollim as being
endowed with ruach hakodesh.

A specific example is that the Rambam does not allow the involvement of
ruach hakodesh in the Sanhedrin while the Ramban does. The Divrei Chaim
clearly states that each generations leaders are qualified by their
ruach hakodesh. Prophecy or ruach hakodesh seems to be an essential
characteristic for those who reject the Rambam's understanding of
prophecy and ruach hakodesh.

Another distinguishing factor between the Rambam's concept and others 
is
whether the prophet must be obeyed in everything he says or just what 
he
says in G-d's name.

Chinuch(516): We are commanded to listen to all the prophets in all 
that
they command us to do. They are to be obeyed even if they tell us to
temporarily do something against one of the mitzvos of the Torah or 
even
many of them - except for idol worship. Since he is a true prophet all
his intentions are for the good and whatever he does it is to 
strenghten
the religion and the belief in G?d. This is clearly stated in the Torah
(Devarim 18:15) and is explained in the Sifre (175). The basis of this
mitzva is that the ultimate level that a man can achieve is that of a
prophecy. Furthermore for a human being in this world, prophecy is the
highest level of knowledge of the truth possible. It is knowledge that
is not open to dispute since it comes from the fountain of truth 
itself.
Few people achieve the level of development that is required to reach
prophecy. The ladder needed to reach it is immense with its feet on the
earth and its top in the heavens. Who is the man with the proper fear 
of
G?d who has the merit to ascend G?d's mountain and stand in His holy
place? Only one of hundreds of thousands of men achieves this level and
only in a generation that is deserving of it. Therefore the Torah
commanded us that one who in fact achieves this ultimate level of human
achievement and he is known to us as having the spiritual qualities and
conduct of a true prophet ? he is to be obeyed in all that he commands.
That is because he is the one who knows the way of truth and therefore
he will guide us in it. We should not be so arrogant as to defy his
words and to disagree with him because any dispute with him on any
matter is a total error and can only be because of the lack of 
knowledge
of the truth.

 The Minchas Chinuch (#516) asserts that the Rambam only requires
obedience to a prophet when he says that Gd has commanded the action. 
In
contrast the Chinuch seems to require that everything that a prophet
says must be obeyed.

Daniel Eidensohn

Shu"t Bnei Banim III:26 par. 4 writes the following "limud zchus" on 
women
who wear short sleeves:
The Gemara Kesubos 72b writes that a woman who knits in public and 
shows her
elbows while doing so violates das yehudis.  The Gemara Gittin 90a 
refers to
a woman who knits in public and who is "fruma m'shnei tzdadeha," which 
Rashi
interprets as: one can see her armpits [MF: through the openings in her
sleeves].  He also cites the Teferes Shmuel on the Rosh Berachos 3:33, 
and
Divrei Chamudos there, and Yerushalmi [Gittin ch. 9 halacha 11] who 
make the
same point.  He then argues that the das yehudis is violated only if 
one can
see the armpits [through the openings in her sleeves], which occurs 
today
only when a woman wears a sleeveless dress.

I have a different limud zechus, based on the fact that showing elbows 
is
considered das yehudis.  Many years ago, I heard a shiur from Rav 
Mordechai
Willig (whom I believe was speaking in the name of RYBS) about shok 
b'isha
erva.  He noted that there is a machlokes achronim (Chazon Ish vs. 
Mishneh
Berurah) whether the shok goes to the knee or to the bottom of the 
foot.  He
said (IIRC based on a comparison to the location of shok in animals) 
that
there is a good argument that shok refers to the bottom of the foot, but
nevertheless, the gemara was not listing only places which are 
objectively
erva (in all societies), but even places which are "subjectively" 
erva-i.e.,
because people in the time of the gemara had the minhag to cover them, 
they
have the din of mekomos ha'muchusim.  However, in our time, when women 
do
not cover to the bottom of the leg, that part is not considered 
"subjective"
erva.  It would seem that the same reasoning should apply to elbows 
(esp. as
Bnei Banim notes that elbows are further from the makom erva than legs 
are).


I also note that Rashi Kesubos 72a explains "das yehudis" as "what women
were noheg even though it's not written."  It would therefore make sense
that das yehudis should be fluid and depend on the way women dress in 
any
particular locale.  I admit that theoretically, one could argue that 
once
something becomes das yehudis, it never loses that status, but from a
historical perspective, such an argument would be hard to make: it seems
that in the time of the Shulchan Aruch, single women covered their hair 
(as
is customary by Arab women today), yet that is not done today.   (The 
Magen
Avraham argues that the Torah merely requires that hair be braided, but 
that
does not deal with the fact that in practice, single "bnos yisrael" 
used to
cover their hair.)

I wrote the following at
http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n075.shtml#17:

) I believe that R Ovadia Yosef proves pretty convincingly that
) sheitels violated daas yehudis in the time of the gemara--the Aruch 
says
) that Kapaltin (the word used in the Yerushalmi instead of Kalsa, used 
by
the
) Bavli) means a wig in Latin (lashon Romi).  (My father told me that
) capilitium means little hair, or something like that.)  The Shiltei
) Hagiborim is shver (and I've read lots of the tshuvos--both pro and 
con
) dealing with the SHG).

) My chiddush on what ROY says is that because sheitels are in the 
realm of
) daas yehudis, society can decide to be meikel against the gemara's
) standards.

Has anyone heard whether Rav Lichtenstein says about short sleeves?  (I
heard third-hand rumors, but would like to confirm them.)

Kol tuv,
Moshe

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: winmail.dat
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 6594 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : 
http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/2006121
2/0a1775ca/attachment.bin


------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6
************************************


________________________________________________________________________
Check out the new AOL.  Most comprehensive set of free safety and 
security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from 
across the web, free AOL Mail and more.

An interesting article by R' Elman appeared in Tradition (Fall 1985)
which has a very different take on lo bashamayim hi (which iiuc
originally drives us to say these diyukim from nach are a different
level). He cites R' Tzadok as saying that until the anshei knesset
hagedolah (when prophesy stopped) people went to the navi to know the
dvar hashem (with certainty but only in their particular case). After
that , there is no true certainty. This would explain why we don't see
sanhedrin's footprints in nach and why lo bashamayim hi overruled a bat
kol (but perhaps wouldn't overrule true nvuah - see all the commentaries
on what bat kol is). It might also explain the mahartz chiyut's
understanding iirc of teiku - that eliyahu can be mvarer 'facts" but not
new dinim. 

It's a fascintaing , albeit nonstandard approach. Has anyone seen
anything else on this R' Tzadok?

KT
Joel RIch

THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20061213/397d721a/attachment.htm 

------------------------------


Avodah mailing list
Avodah@lists.aishdas.org
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 5, Issue 7
************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
	avodah-request@lists.aishdas.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."