Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 102

Thu, 20 Mar 2008

• 1. Re: Sefer HaChinuch on why 2 weeks Nidah for a girl and only 1 (Richard Wolpoe)
• 2. Re: daas torah & history [& O vs. C methodology] (Richard Wolpoe)
• 3. Intermarriage in the Torah (Richard Wolpoe)
• 4. Re: Not Making Kiddush Between 6 p.m. and 7 p.m. (Richard Wolpoe)
• 5. Re: Intermarriage in the Torah (Daniel Eidensohn)
• 6. half shekel (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: half shekel (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: daas torah & history [& O vs. C methodology] (Michael Makovi)
• 9. Re: R' Angel & Geirus Redux (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 10. Re: Half-Shekel found from the time of Bayis Sheni (kennethgmiller@juno.com)
• 11. Re: half shekel (Michael Makovi)

On Thu, Feb 14, 2008 at 3:31 PM, <cantorwolberg@cox.net> wrote:

> That's not the reason that I teach.
>
> A boy is one week and the reason for 2 weeks for a girl baby is because of
> the potential life that girl will eventually give birth to. Hence, the extra
> week is added for the girl.
> ri
> ____



Question:
Why is Bis milah mentioned in this paragraph?
Answer:
The juxtaposition is there to teach us that the boy gets ONLY 7 days of
tum;'ah because the bris mitigates the damage.
The Daughter has no such mitgation

thus the intrinsic birthing is the same, it is the EXTINSIC bris that cust
the boys days in half and hence its position in Parshas Ssasria

Shamati

RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080320/18886dec/attachment.html 

On Tue, Mar 11, 2008 at 5:34 PM, Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
>
> RRW and I had a long discussion (which eventually reached my blog)
> which touched on why I think C was doomed to leave normative halachic
> process. Among the primary factors is that halakhah requires weighing
> factors, which in turn is a "feel" thing. C prises academic
> scholarship IN PLACE OF normative talmud Torah. This is how Historical
> School thought changed practice. Thus, they may know how to identify
> the things to be weighed (although the few C responsa I've seen were
> downright dishonest in this regard as well), but they perforce end up
> weighing them using their own priorities, not priorities taken from
> the Sinai culture. (Of course, without requiring belief in an actual
> revelation in Sinai, they have no notion of a Sinai culture anyway.)
>
> SheTir'u baTov!
> -micha
>
>

I do not dispute the Above
What I have added is that I have seen MANY Ortho responsa also abandon
Halachic proces in favor of reaching ad conclusion and retrofitting the
sources to fit, as opposed to honestly viewing sources.

Example, AFAIK ZERO Reishonim prohibit women reading for Megillah onbehalf
of other woemn and Rashi/Rambam EVEn permit it for me. Many acharonim
changed this [see Beis Yosef and Magen Avrahm]

I am NOT clainming tht C is rigth!  Chaas v'shalom, I am saying that many
Ortho's  are eqaully guiolty, and I AM accusing Ortho'ss of bashing
outsiders w/o the requistie introspection to see their own complicty in the
same game.  or IOW people in Glass houses....

Beore attacking C' REspnsawritten to a non-Hlachic Audience I would say
criticque Ortho REsponsa that ARE written to a Halchic audience for serious
misperceptions.  {se Zli keidar as another example of same imho]

Also see Noda Bihuda about matza ashir on Erev pesach [no in this case I am
AGREEING not criticquing!] The Noda bihuda says there is NOP REASON to be
machmir erev pesach on matza ashira but does not go all the way [lke Rabeinu
Tam] unlit the 10th hour, but compromises at noon.

Yes the Aruch hshulchan, the Chok Ya'kov the Derech Hachayim [aside from the
Noda bihuda above] all realize there is NO reason EVEN FOR THE REMA to be
machmir on Matza Ashira erev Pesach!  But the Rema has been twisted to
require not eating it after the 4th hour!

Someitmes when I give Hochah to O's some people misconstrue that as a
defense of C.  Aderabba!  I see that O's have at times not used discipline
to keep p'sak within the bounds!

I am also concern3ed that O abandonenmnet of [legitimate] Minhag Avos in
favor of certain textualism as a VERY dangerous precedent at times.   Yekum
purkan and the yehi Ratzon [i.e Tefillas Rav] before birchas haschodesh
[Aruch hshulchan jumps on this one, too!] are much more halachically
problematic than Baruch Hashem l'olam!


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080320/db60ee0b/attachment.htm 

R' Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> . The Syrian community banned converts for
> > pragmatic reasons as did the Argentine community. Ezra
> > rejected the foreign wives and their children - and made no
> > attempt to convert them because of the danger they posed to
> > the new Jewish community in Israel.
>

Suggested experiment:

Read Just about Every parsha in the Torah as somehow an exhortation NOT to
intermarry.
See how many fit this mold/model.  You will be surprised. as part of this
mindset see this: Hazal's  criticisms  of Esav/Edom were PRIMALY about his
choice of wives [katzti bechayai..] and hence the midrash re: Dina.  IOW,
Esav's decendants might have been kosher if he had had a kosher wife.

It might give a new peshat in Yehuda and Tamar!  IOW Tamar was to be put to
death for going outside the family. But once she was found to be impregnated
from inside the family [ viz. a quasi-pre-Sinai Yibbum] she was now OK.


-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20080320/dff2065c/attachment.html 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2008 at 3:27 PM, saul mashbaum <smash52@netvision.net.il>
wrote:

>
>
> There is an interesting remez in Keil Adon to the "classical" 5 planets.
>
> After mentioning the sun and the moon, the paytan writes
>
> Shevach Notim-lo Kol Tzva Marom
>
> Sh = Shabtai (Saturn)
>
> N = Noga (Venus)
>
> K = Kochav (Mercury)
>
> Tz = Tzedek (Jupiter)
>
> M = Maadim (Mars)
>
> Conflating "notim" and "lo" is apparently poetic licence.
>
> Given the context of the piyyut (yotzer ha-meorot), its theme, and the
> mention of the sun and moon, it seems to me almost certain that the above is
> the conscious intention of the paytan.
>
> I saw this in Otzar HaT'filot, ayen sham.
>
> Saul Mashbaum
>
>
>
NB: The Old Brinbaum Siddur notes this!

-- 
Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com
see: http://nishmablog.blogspot.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20080320/187f0ed1/attachment.htm 

R' Richard Wolpoe wrote:
>
> It might give a new peshat in Yehuda and Tamar!  IOW Tamar was to be 
> put to death for going outside the family. But once she was found to 
> be impregnated from inside the family [ viz. a quasi-pre-Sinai Yibbum] 
> she was now OK.
>
*Yevamos[1] <#_ftn1>**(100b): *Rav Papa objected, if that is so than 
what is the significance of Bereishis (17:7), ?To be a G?d to you and to 
your descendants after you??  G?d was telling Avraham not to marry an 
idolatress or a maidservant in order that Avraham?s seed should not 
follow after her [and not after Him].


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


?????: (?????? ??:?) ????? ?? ?????? ?????? ?????, ??? ??? ?? ???? ??? 
?????? ??? ???? ???: ?? ???? ????? ?????? ?????, ??? ????? ???? ????.

*Avoda Zara[1] <#_ftn1>**(36b):*[[ Perhaps [the explanation is that] the 
Biblical ordinance is against intercourse [with non-Jews] through 
marriage, and they came and decreed even against immoral connection with 
them. But the decree against such connection had already been made by 
the Court of Shem, for it is written, And Judah said, Bring her forth 
and let her be burnt!


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


?????: +?????? ??+ ????? ????? ??????? ?????!

I'm not sure why the article makes the assumption that this particular
coin may have been involved in the mitzvah of machatzis hasheqel. But
if the probability is real, wouldn't it have to be treated as heqdeish?

from
http://begedivri.com/shekel/J-Tyrian.htm

Now the Rabbanim in the year 19/18 BCE had a serious problem. On the
one hand, the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel is a Torah Commandment.
The problem arises with the motif of the Tyrian Shekel. On the obverse
appears the image of Melkhart, known to us as Hercules, the god of the
Phoenicians. On the reverse, appears an eagle on the bow of a ship
with the legend: "Tyre the Holy and City of Refuge", and the date of
issue.
Reverse side of the the Tyrian shekel from the Second Temple period.
The Half shekel coin had the same motif The obverse and reverse of the
Tyrian half shekel from the time of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,
used for the mitva of the Holy Half-shekel

Both images, a foreign god (or any likeness of man) and an eagle, are
Torah prohibitions. And yet the Rabbanim decided that the importance
of the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel superceded the violations
incurred in using the Tyrian motif. More than this, these coins were
actually brought into the very Beit Hamikdash itself, a vault room
full of coins dipicting a foreign god, inside the very Temple. And the
sages went as far as issuing the decree, as recorded in the Talmud,
that only the Tyrian Shekel was acceptable for fulfilling the
Commandment of giving the Holy Half-Shekel (because of its silver
purity).

Can you imagine the Rabbanim today producing a religious item and
putting on it the image of a foreign god? Unheard of, right? And yet
that's exactly what we did. Under Roman Law, we had no choice if we
wanted to fulfil the Commandment, and so important was it deemed to do
so, that we entered the image of a foriegn god into the Holy Temple,
an act that only a few generations before sparked the Maccabean
Revolt!

-- 
Eli Turkel

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 11:51:28AM +0100, Eli Turkel wrote:
:> I'm not sure why the article makes the assumption that this particular
:> coin may have been involved in the mitzvah of machatzis hasheqel. But
:> if the probability is real, wouldn't it have to be treated as heqdeish?
:> 
: from : http://begedivri.com/shekel/J-Tyrian.htm

: Now the Rabbanim in the year 19/18 BCE had a serious problem. On the
: one hand, the giving of the Holy Half-Shekel is a Torah Commandment.
: The problem arises with the motif of the Tyrian Shekel...

I understood the same from A7's citation of the Tosafta (Kesuvos 13:20).

My question wasn't on the kind of coin, but on the particular coin
found. The writer (R' Ezra haLevi) starts with the milder claim:
> The ancient silver coin was discovered in an archaeological excavation
> that is being conducted in the main Second Temple-era drainage channel
> of Jerusalem. The foreign coin is of the denomination used during the
> turbulent Second Temple period to pay the Biblical half-shekel head-tax.

But then he quotes archaeologist Eli Shukron of the Israel Antiquities
Authority who speculates:
> Just like today when coins sometimes fall from our pockets and roll into
> drainage openings at the side of the street, that's how it was some two
> thousand years ago -- a man was on his way to the Temple and the shekel
> which he intended to use for paying the half shekel head-tax found its
> way into the drainage channel.

I do not know how compelling this scenario is for this particular coin.

I was asking, if it were sufficiently compelling for this to be a
cheshash, wouldn't the coin be heqdeish? Wouldn't it require guarding
by a kohein, etc...?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is a glorious thing to be indifferent to
micha@aishdas.org        suffering, but only to one's own suffering.
http://www.aishdas.org                 -Robert Lynd, writer (1879-1949)
Fax: (270) 514-1507

> Example, AFAIK ZERO Reishonim prohibit women reading for Megillah onbehalf
> of other woemn and Rashi/Rambam EVEn permit it for me. Many acharonim
> changed this [see Beis Yosef and Magen Avrahm]
> Kol Tuv / Best Regards,
> RabbiRichWolpoe@Gmail.com

Rabbi Henkin has an interesting article on this in Equality Lost (and
Bnei Banim). I forget all the details, but he says something about how
there are three shitot:
1) Women = men, b'klal
2) Women have mitzvah to hear, and a lesser obligation than men to
read. So women can read for each other, but not for men.
3) Women have only obligation to hear, and they cannot read even for other women

I think number 3 is Tosefta, either 1 or 2 is the Talmud, and I forget
what the other one is.

So, Rabbi Henkin brings many sources (Rishonim on 1, Gaonim on 2, if I
remember correctly). Then, he brings Tosafot and the Rosh who hold
number 2. But they were misunderstood by many (including Korban
Netanel and Mishna Berurah) to hold 3, but Tosafot haRosh (unavailabe
to KN and MB) clearly and undoubtedly holds 2, so women can most
definitely read for each other.

A primary issue for some, between 2 and 3, was kavod tzibur. Somehow,
many who held 3 held that it would violate kavod hatzibur for a
womens'-only group to be read to by women. Personally, this I cannot
understand (the women in Avodah, can you please pipe in: amongst you
all, who would be insulted for a woman to read the Megilla to you?),
and Rabbi Henkin seems to find this difficult too; he never says so,
but he says that surely it would less honorable for the women
(especially scholarly women learned in Torah) to be read to by a young
man than by a woman.

Mikha'el Makovi

R' Michael Makovi asked:

> Reb Moshe honestly expects these people to realize that
> Torah is true just because there are are rational and
> intelligent benei Torah? And there aren't rational and
> intelligent gentiles? ... If I have been raised in a
> non-Torah environment, why should I have any greater
> predisposition to Torah than the Christian Bible or the
> Koran or Kant or the Bhagavad Gita? Of course they see
> rational and intelligent benei Torah! But they have no
> reason to think more highly of them and their religion
> than they do of all the rational and intelligent
> non-benei Torah!

Thank you for posting this. It is a question which has bothered me for a long time. I hope someone will suggest an answer to it.

> I also recall a story of Nechama Leibowitz being told by
> Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that she should definitely
> give directions to drivers on Shabbats, so that they
> could get to their destinations sooner, and minimize the
> chillul Shabbat - Reb Moshe would apparently disagree
> with this, as far as I can tell.

I have seen this in the Halichos Shlomo (but cannot find it now, so
unfortunately I am unable to cite the chapter and paragraph). But the logic
seems very simple to me, and I wonder why you think that Rav Moshe would
disagree with it.

> What I'm objecting to, is not whether or not we can trust
> R/C in religious matters, but rather, Reb Moshe saying
> that making an eruv for non-religious Jews, so that they
> don't do a melacha, is pointless - we don't care whether
> he sins or not, because he's already lost to us, and it's
> his own fault. How can he say this? Surely we want to do
> whatever we can to minimize their transgression, even if
> they have no appreciation for what we're doing!

Again, I think that you may be reading too much into Rav Moshe's words.
Yes, Rav Moshe says that they are deliberate sinners, and yes, Rav Moshe
says that it is their own fault. But where does he say that we don't care
whether he sins or not? Of course we *do* want to minimize their
transgression!

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Enter for Your Chance to WIN
TotalBeauty.com is giving away a trip to NYC plus lots of beauty produ
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/JKFkuJi7I77WpB2IPbyXcN637fM5tNTZvPENOEq1XmgwMLGo4FwF8e/

Regarding the article that R' Gershon Dubin posted to Areivim:
> http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/125612

R' Micha Berger asked two questions:

> I'm not sure why the article makes the assumption
> that this particular coin may have been involved
> in the mitzvah of machatzis hasheqel.

Because the article says that the coin "is of the denomination used during the turbulent Second Temple period to pay the Biblical half-shekel head-tax."

The photos of that coin don't seem to show any inscription which actually
says "chatzi shekel" on it, but I suppose this is the sort of thing that
coin collectors and antiquities mavens might be familiar with. Note, for
example, that the articles identifies exactly which deity's face appears on
the coin. To me, one Greek-looking sculpture is like any other, but the
mumchim, they know these things.

> But if the probability is real, wouldn't it have
> to be treated as heqdeish?

My first answer to this was to suggest that the denomination of the coin is
insufficient evidence to its being hekdesh. After all, when the Bedek
Habayis would spend the accumulated half-shekels on whatever, wouldn't it
lose the kedusha?

But the article itself offers even more evidence on this question:

> The ancient silver coin was discovered in ... the main
> Second Temple-era drainage channel of Jerusalem. ...
> "Just like today when coins sometimes fall from our
> pockets and roll into drainage openings at the side of
> the street, that?s how it was some two thousand years
> ago ? a man was on his way to the Temple and the shekel
> which he intended to use for paying the half shekel
> head-tax found its way into the drainage channel,"
> theorized archaeologist Eli Shukron of the Israel
> Antiquities Authority. 

According to this theory, the coin never became hekdesh to begin with.

Akiva Miller
_____________________________________________________________
Click here if you're tired of your job and want to increase your salary.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2121/fc
/Ioyw6i3l6JS2a4C7Ci33koX0l0hnMBPxKNK1lHb7f3PpC8cEb5OWSW/

>  Can you imagine the Rabbanim today producing a religious item and
>  putting on it the image of a foreign god? Unheard of, right? And yet
>  that's exactly what we did. Under Roman Law, we had no choice if we
>  wanted to fulfil the Commandment, and so important was it deemed to do
>  so, that we entered the image of a foriegn god into the Holy Temple,
>  an act that only a few generations before sparked the Maccabean
>  Revolt!
>  Eli Turkel

Is it possible that perhaps, part of the leniency was because the coin
wasn't itself an idol, but rather, a memorial to an idol? No one would
ever actually bow down to a coin, AFAIK. They believed that the statue
held a piece of the god's spirit (or something like that), and that
talking to the statue itself (yes, the statue per se) could pull
strings, but I don't know (AFAIK) that they believed such about coins.

When one takes an idol into the Beit haMikdash, there's an obvious
problem. But when you take coins in, no one suspects you of idolatry;
they just think you're taking money into it! Even if the coin has the
god's picture, they figure that if you really wanted to do proper
idolatry, you'd take the statue in, so surely, you must want the coin
and not the picture of the god thereon.

Do I have any basis?

Mikha'el Makovi


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 102
***************************************

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..."