Avodah Mailing List

Volume 24: Number 44

Mon, 05 Nov 2007

• 1. Re: Yarmulke: A Historic Cover-Up? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (JRich@Sibson.com)
• 3. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Kaddish (was: Shabbas he mi lezok) (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Women's zimun (Meir Shinnar)
• 6. Minhag Yisroel (Jonathan Baker)
• 7. Re: Just what ARE the rules of p'sak anyway? (Richard Wolpoe)
• 8. Re: Mikveh l'zona (hankman)
• 9. Re: Minhag Yisroel (David Riceman)
• 10. Re: patch from malach was: women learning Torah (Sarah Green)
• 11. Traditions Should not be Altered (Meir Rabi)

On 11/4/07, Yitzchok Levine <c> wrote:
>
>  From http://www.hakirah.org/Vol%204%20Rabinowitz.pdf
>
> The Gra disagreed with R. Yosef  Karo's ruling [that one must wear a head
> covering] and countered that one is *never* obligated to wear a head
> covering, even while  participating  in a religious event.
>
> See the URL above for more.
>
>
The story is told that once R. Yerucham  Gorelick took off his yarmulka and
continued to give a shiur in order to make a point.

I'm not clear on the particular point that he was making;  but knowing him I
suspect he was - kedarko bakodeh -  eshewing "hitzoniyos."

That said: We know the Talmud requires NOT changing the "Jewish way" of
strapping one's how straps [arkesa demisani].  So it is arguable that if
Jews by custom demonstrate their Jewishness by means of a head covering, it
would be problematic to NOT cover one's head under duress of a Gentile.

Temple Beth Israel [Reform] used to demand that people rmove all head
covering inside their sanctuary [at least until 1970's].  The sanctuary was
domed and the story goes that the dome was in lieu of a yarmulka. Such
Anti-Orthodox legislation is much less common today.  I wonder if they would
have asked Sikhs etc. to remove THIER head-coverings!

During the 1970's, a number of my frum colleagues in Data Processing were
given Rabbinical Dispensation to not wear a kippah whilst at work - except
perhaps to say a bracha. But, by the 1990's I would posit that since kippot
became relatively common, that heter was notquite so necessary, except
possibly in small, remote  communities.

Perhaps the bottom line ought to be:
No one should be forced to wear a yarmulka when the Halachah does not rquire
it [e.g. at work],OTOH No one should be forced  to NOT wear a Yarmulka

Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071105/9229d2ec/attachment.htm 

Is heuristic result reproduceable?  If so, imho it's a semantic difference between saying it's heuristic versus algorthmic.  If not, then you still haven't solved the indivudual 'random' issue.

Ktjoel 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.

On Mon, November 5, 2007 4:14 pm, JRich@Sibson.com wrote:
: Is heuristic result reproduceable?  If so, imho it's a semantic
: difference between saying it's heuristic versus algorthmic.  If not,
: then you still haven't solved the indivudual 'random' issue.

Heuristics do include Monte Carlo methodologies that would include a
random factor. But I didn't suggest that here.

So, they are reproducible. Two poseqim who assess the realia about
which and the halachic issues impacted equally would reach the same
result. There is individuality, since so much is assessment rather
than rules. But it's not random.

And there are limits. One can't pretend eishes ish or mamzeirus issues
aren't weighty ones. Or give weight to a "halachic issue" which one
invented out of whole cloth. Those limits, particularly the first one,
will have fuzzy edges; weighting systems that some judge okay, and
others would not -- but that too would be a difference in pesaq (in a
nice self-referential way).

For example, the problem nearly everyone has with hafkaas qedushin.
There is no textual basis for extending "kol demeqadeish adaas
derabbanan meqadeish" in an era where there is no institution one can
point to as being the locus of "daas derabbanan". Today, one would
have to ask, which rabbanan? (Looking at the rishonim, the machloqes
seems to be whether geonim had such authority. Hakol modim they
didn't.) There is no minhag avos support for such things, no historic
community which anulled qidushin - and the possibility for a
halachically married couple not being legally married has existed
since slightly before the Emancipation! At some point the weights are
beyond acceptability -- but that too becomes an eilu va'eilu.

Let's put it back in the Maharal's terms.

Someone who changes the weights to find a desired result is no longer
simplifying an Infinite Truth to fit it into this universe. Different
shadows of the same object are each valid. But if you trace the shadow
while changing the direction of the lighting mid-stream, you are left
with a picture something that isn't a shadow of the original. The
weighting can't simply be to justify the result; and in that sense
even including human cost is different than ends-driven decision
making.

The weighting system, the angle of the light, is the a priori -- and
must itself be a product of the halakhos of making halakhah.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

In his work on Qaddish, R' de Sola Pool argues the reverse of what has
been suggested here.

He holds that Qaddish emerged from the practice of trying to end every
derashah with an aggadita about le'asid lavo. (Just as we do today,
where half of all derashos end "bimheirah beyameinu amein!") IOW, the
first role qaddish served, leshitaso, was that of Qaddish deRabbanan
(not meaning with the full QdR text initially, just used at that
time). The role of Qaddish yasom was initially -- to get aveilim into
shiurim! From that Qaddish expanded to marking the close of sections
of tefillah, not just learning.

(RDdSP also has some interesting ideas about the origins of Qaddish
among the Chaddisim haRishonim, before the split into Perushim and
Issiim, and part of a lineage that lehavdil elef alfei havdalos
mutated into the Xian Paternoster. Complete with historical examples
of the genre to make his argument.)

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             One who kills his inclination is as though he
micha@aishdas.org        brought an offering. But to bring an offering,
http://www.aishdas.org   you must know where to slaughter and what
Fax: (270) 514-1507      parts to offer.        - R' Simcha Zissel Ziv

RMB
> Looking at an example we are discussing on Areivim, zimun for women.
> (For a good survey, see RAZZ's
> <http://www.ou.org/publications/ja/5760fall/legal-ease.pdf>.) Your
> choices are: don't, may, and must -- all three of which have support.

> The formalist's answer would depend on whether he emphasizes Shas
> (must) or BY (may) or MB (ought not).

No one has brought any support from any classical source for don't -
only that it wasn't done - but without the leap that therefore it
shouldn't be done.

The MB never says it shouldn't be done - he brings down that the
minhag is not like the gra - who requires it.  Empirically he was
right - and as one who believes in the power of mimeticism, those who
follow their family's minhag of not saying don't have to change.
However, the leap that therefore one shouldn't (rather than that one
need not) change is just not there.....


Meir Shinnar

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
> On Wed, October 31, 2007 9:35 am, R Jonathan Baker wrote:

> : Or is it that the MOTHERS teach the daughters Torah, in which case they
> : too are making the diyuk that Micha and I see in the text - it's not
> : the FATHERS, it's the MOTHERS.
 
> RJJB and I are making very different diyuqim.

Well, that was an offhand guess at the end.  I was making what I thought
was the usual diyuk: father no, third party yes.  This was just an
extra thought bringing in the old text/mimetic thing - that absent
the male text-study orientation, there's still the matrilineal mimetic
training.  Which would go entirely around any question of "limud Torah"
qua quantitative text study (there are texts, they have structure, and
content, etc.).
 
[tzivu thing snipped]

> I do not see how the rationale of the content being tiflus would make
> this an inyan gavra rather than cheftza, and therefore don't see a
> reason for RJJB's diyuq, actually. (He must be more of a "formal
> process" man than I.)

I don't know, since I'm not trying to pasken, rather to rationalize
what we do.

But I don't see anyone saying that the *content* is tiflus.  Rather,
the clear sense of the mishnah, is that by teaching her Torah as 
some object, regardless of content, teaches her tiflus, because of 
the bitter-waters protection.  

1. If a father teaches his daughter, she will have Torah learning.
2. A woman who has learned is protected from the bitter waters test
3. One who is protected from the bitter-waters test can stray without
consequences.

Therefore, if a father teaches his daughter Torah, he gives her the
tools to allow her to stray without consequences.  Not that learning
"when it says min hatzon, it means tzon that have not been used for
mishkav beheimah" or "elu metzios shelo elu chayav lehachriz" is
specifically tiflusdic content, but the fact of the teaching indirectly
allows her to stray without consequences.

That's what I see as part of the usual diyuk, perhaps it's only used
in the post-Bais-Yaakov era, but it seems to be the plain sense of the 
mishnah, without the mishnah being reused to ban all women's Torah learning.

And it seems that this diyuk would NOT distinguish between the father
and the third party as teacher.  Nor would it actually be operative since
300 BCE or whatever, when the bitter-waters test stopped working.

--
        name: jon baker              web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker
     address: jjbaker@panix.com     blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com

On 11/5/07, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> Let's put it back in the Maharal's terms.
>
> Someone who changes the weights to find a desired result is no longer
> simplifying an Infinite Truth to fit it into this universe. Different
> shadows of the same object are each valid. But if you trace the shadow
> while changing the direction of the lighting mid-stream, you are left
> with a picture something that isn't a shadow of the original. The
> weighting can't simply be to justify the result; and in that sense
> even including human cost is different than ends-driven decision
> making.
>
> The weighting system, the angle of the light, is the a priori -- and
> must itself be a product of the halakhos of making halakhah.
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
> --
> Micha Berger


And the aforementioned Rabbi ABC posits that:

Since  Behag and Tosafos areby using a Tosefta against an n explict Bavli to
remove the right of women to read Megillah on bahalf of men, is distortiion
the weights and is in efffect - if not in intention - promoting a
misogynistic agenda!

IOW - why use Davka THIS Tosefta to overrule THIS Bavli unless one has an
inner prejudice that cause a special selectivity to take place?


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
Please Visit:
http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071105/05ec6a37/attachment.html 

A couple of points:
1) In addition to the points raised by R'nTK, I assume that Achashverosh (an absolute monarch) would consider any of his wifes found with another man as not merely adultery (from his perspective) but even worse as treason - so there was a very real risk of sakonas nefoshos to both Esther and Mordechai. How were they permitted to risk their lives in order to be together for these short periods? Futhermore, Esther's potential downfall under charges of treason could not only endanger M&E but could also put her nation at risk again and incur the renewed anger of Achashverosh against the Jews of his empire.

2) How did all the sources cited by RDE KNOW exactly who was the father of Esther's child? If you will answer that they knew with ruach hakodesh - then why are their answers not in agreement? I assume that they should have come up with a single consistent answer from a revelation by ruach hakodesh.

3) Finally the Zohar is completely problematic. If Achashverosh did not have relations with Esther (counter to everything I took for granted from the basic story of the Megila and Shas) then he knew that Esther's son was not his! Why did he not charge her with adultery and treason as soon as she became pregnant with Mordechai's child? Furthermore, why did he allow someone elses child to succeed him to the throne? He certainly had many other sons that were his from his other wifes and harem?

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster

Below are the quotes from R'nTK and RDE:
------------------------------------------
And if she was  having 
relations on a regular basis with Achashverosh, how on earth could she  have kept 
going back to Mordechai?  The logistics are difficult (as I  already 
mentioned) -- how would she sneak away from the palace?  Wouldn't  the palace guards 
stop her?  Wouldn't Achashverosh wonder where she was and  how she got out -- 
if he happened to want her one night and she wasn't  home?!
 
But even more difficult is the morality and the halachic aspect of  it.  How 
could she play with an issur kareis like that?  I know she  was "like karka" 
but come on, how many times could she be with one man and still  be married to 
another??   Why didn't Mordechai just give her a get and  at least take away 
the danger of kareis? 
 
Do we know for sure who was the father of her child -- Daryavesh/  Darius? 
 


--Toby  Katz

Vayikra Rabbah (13:5) says that he was the son of Esther and Achashveros.

 R. Judah b. R. Simon said: The last Darius was the son of Esther, clean 
from his mother [?s side] and unclean from his father [?s side].
Rashi(Ezra 1:1), Rashi(Ezra 4:24), Ibn Ezra (Daniel 9:1), Radak(Chaggai 
1:1), Ramban(Megila 11b)  agree.



Tosfos HaRosh (Megila 13b) says that Darius was the son of Esther and 
Mordechai and that he is referred to as the son of Achashveros because 
he was raised in his house.

It would also seem that since the Zohar states that there was no 
physical relationship between Esther and Achashveros he was the son of 
Esther and Mordechai.
....
Daniel Eidensohn
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071105/5798da27/attachment.htm 

Micha Berger wrote:
> I didn't see the CC in writing either. Did he write it?
>
>   
See the third footnote in Likutei Halachoth Sotah 11a, on Sotah 21.

David Riceman

"If girls don't learn Torah before they're born, why do they have a pinch under their noses?" 
By extension the same question can be asked ad to why all humans have that pinch mark "

I once asked this to a choshuva Rov.  He said if only Klal Yisroel had that mark it would detract from our bechirah.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071105/dd14ddc6/attachment.html 

 

In response to:  Even if there's no chiyuv, what's wrong with taking out a
sefer?  Even on stam a Wednesday, with no mitzvah whatsoever, can't one take
out a sefer torah just to learn chumash from it?

 

R' Moshe Y. Gluck posted:   She'eilas Aharon's Teshuva concludes, "Mikol
Hanal Nireh She'ein Laasos Milsa Chadata Ki Hai L'hotzi Sefer Torah B'shvil
L'hasmia Parashah Zu L'nashim She'karov Lihiyos Bizayon HaTorah." The
She'eilas Aharon is a Rav in Philadelphia, IIRC, his name is R' Felder. (If
you have the She'ilas Aharon, it's Siman 34.)

 

 

Is it reasonable to suggest a Kal VeChomer from the following? Reb Moshe was
asked about a Paroches that opened and closed from and to the centre. The
shoel thought there may have been a problem on Shabbos of Kosev and Mochek
with the writing on the Paroches. Reb Moshe though considered the entire
Paroches to be an unacceptable change from the ancient traditions and
instructed that the Paroches must be altered to the traditional single
curtain.

 

meir

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/private.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20071106/ea5ea134/attachment.htm 

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 24, Issue 44
**************************************

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..."