Avodah Mailing List

Volume 25: Number 429

Mon, 22 Dec 2008

• 1. women lighting candles (Eli Turkel)
• 2. Re: women lighting candles (T6...@aol.com)
• 3. Re: women lighting candles (Eli Turkel)
• 4. Ishto keGufo by Hanuka Lighting (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 5. Kolech calls for dayanot (Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer)
• 6. Chevra Kadisha Fast Day today, 15 Kislev (Cantor Wolberg)
• 7. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (Zev Sero)
• 8. Re: Yosef Kappara and Tamar (Ilana Sober Elzufon)
• 9. Re: Did RSRH Write LH about Shimon and Levi (T6...@aol.com)
• 10. [Areivim] Rabbi Broyde responds (Chana Luntz)
• 11. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Re: How small is a Kad Katan? (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Zev Sero)
• 14. Re: chanukah candles and women (Danny Schoemann)
• 15. Re: Kolech calls for dayanot (Micha Berger)

<<Most Jewish women in the liberal denominations (Conservative,
Reform, Reconstructionist), as well as in modern Orthodox communities,
are delighted to light the candles (even though this means more melted
wax to contend with later).>>

melted wax ?? use oil


<<Read her arguments and you will see that in today's day and age,
for women to take upon themselves the lighting of Chanuka lights -- if
they do not already have a family mesorah to do so -- is a symbol of
leftist politics rather than religious devotion, and should be
studiously avoided by Torah-loyal women. >>

The gemara says explicitly women are required in chanukah candles.
Should women stop listening to shofar or sitting in the
succah if it becomes a woman's lib thing? Ra. Aaron Lichtenstein takes
the opposite view and says that since the gemara states explicitly
that women are obligated there has to be a VERY good argument why they
don't ligt and he finds all the arguments presented not
very convincing. Hence the women in his family light candles.
BTW he does not say that was what happened in his father's home.

-- 
Eli Turkel

 
 
In a message dated 12/22/2008, elitur...@gmail.com writes:

>>  The gemara says explicitly women are required in chanukah candles.  <<



>>>>
We do not pasken from the Gemara.  The  time-honored psak is that women are 
yotzei with their husband's lighting and  must light only if alone.
 


--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't  read the newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed."
--Mark Twain

Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 




--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/3a3856f3/attachment-0001.htm>

First of all we do pasken that women are required to light chanukah
candles as per the gemara.
Second much depends on minhag ashkenaz or minhag sefard whether each
person in the family
lights according to mehadrin min hamehadrin

Finally as to time honored pask R. Aaron Lichtenstein has an article
explaining why women light in
his home

http://www.vbm-torah.org/chanuka/chan67-ral.htm


On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 8:21 AM,  <T6...@aol.com> wrote:
> In a message dated 12/22/2008, elitur...@gmail.com writes:
>
>>> The gemara says explicitly women are required in chanukah candles. <<
>
>>>>>
> We do not pasken from the Gemara.  The time-honored psak is that women are
> yotzei with their husband's lighting and must light only if alone.
>



-- 
Eli Turkel

From: "Eli Turkel" _eliturkel@gmail.com_ (mailto:elitur...@gmail.com) 

>>I still  do not understand why wives generally do not light chanukah candles
according  to the Ashkenazi custom that each person lights separately.... 

2. If  ishto kegufo why can;t the wife light even lechachtila for the husband 
 and why if he is absent does he need to appoint her as a shaliach?  <<

The explanation I heard was that this was a conscious demonstration against
"Tiba'el la-hegmon Tehilla" which attempted to separate between a husband a
wife.  Hence, davka here the custom wants to emphasize Ishto keGufo.  This
would, however, not exempt the daughters.

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/d334950b/attachment-0001.htm>

Reb Yitshak's  <cele...@gmail.com> arguements in favor of Kiblu
Alaihu are correct.  But to the best of my understanding, Kiblu Alaihu
would work only in money matters - not in dinei Nefashot, Geirut or gittin,
Halitsa etc..  Is that correct?

--------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 52900, ISRAEL
E-mail: Fri...@mail.biu.ac.il



------------------------------------------
Original Message
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 2008 21:04:27 -0500
From: Celejar <cele...@gmail.com>

On Fri, 19 Dec 2008 08:50:47 +0200 someone on Avodah characterized the
possibility of women serving as Dayyanot in the event of "kiblu
aleihem" as "a minority opinion".

It is *not* a minority opinion:

1)  The principle that Kabalas Pesulin works is an undisputed Halachah
Pesukah (SA HM Siman 22)

2)  While AFAIK, the SA and the major commentaries don't specifically
apply the principle to women, many Poskim, Rishonim and Aharonim, do,
and I'm aware of no dissenting view.  See Hilchos Dayyanim (Im Halachah
Pesukah - Machon Harry Fischel) Siman 7 n. 97 for many sources, and
note also Hasam Sofer (cited in Pis'hei Teshuvah HM 22:5) and Sefer
Ha'Maor (R. Elazar Meir Preil, (listmember?) REMT's grandfather) #55 p.
254.

3)  The question of whether the community or its government may appoint
women to permanent positions as Dayyanim(-ot) is admittedly much more
doubtful; see Hilchos Dayyanim ibid. n. 98 and Sefer Ha'Maor ibid. p.
256.

Yitzhak
--
Bein Din Ledin - http://bdl.freehostia.com
A discussion of Hoshen Mishpat, Even Ha'Ezer and other matters



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/79ba3c67/attachment-0001.htm>

RTK:
>> But what happened on 15 Kislev ?


A pagan altar was set up in the Beit Hamikdash in 167 B.C.E. on the  
15th of Kislev.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081221/b62ce8fa/attachment-0001.htm>

Ilana Sober Elzufon wrote:
> RMR: Why did Tamar wait until her pregnancy was
> obvious?
> 
> There were no pregnancy tests at that time - she could have strongly 
> suspected a pregnancy but wouldn't have known for sure until she was 
> showing.

Yes, but why wait for pregnancy at all?  Surely if her goal was to get
Yehudah to marry her, her best shot would have been to go straight to
him and confront him with the signs that he had given her, and force
him to consider his options.  That way she would have the advantage,
and if he agreed to marry her nobody would ever have to know what had
happened.

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

More on RMR's question: Why did Tamar wait until her pregnancy was obvious?

I already mentioned that she couldn't have been sure of the pregnancy - she
would have strongly suspected, but many women have done pregnancy tests when
they were pretty certain of a positive result, and gotten a negative. Also,
miscarriages are more common in the first trimester.

One possible direction for thinking :Tamar seems to be a bit like Yosef -
inclined to create dramatic confrontations and situations rather than deal
with things quietly behind the scenes. Did Yosef really HAVE to accuse the
brothers of being spies, hide the payment in the sacks of grain,
mysteriously seat them in order of age, plant the cup with Binyamin and have
his men dramatically discover it, etc?

I haven't thought through Yosef, but I do have a possible answer for Tamar.
With her last minute presentation of the evidence, she put Yehuda into a
situation where he had two choices. (1) Go through with the execution,
realizing that she had been justified in her actions, and he had wronged
her. (2) Publicly acknowledge that the child (actually children, as it
turned out) was his.

She risked her life - correctly as it turned out - on the understanding that
Yehuda would have the courage and decency not to choose (1). In that way,
she bore children who were ACKNOWLEDGED descendants of Yehuda.

Had she chosen to send him a quiet message before anyone else suspected a
pregnancy, he might have been tempted to send her away to bear the child in
secret, offering to turn a blind eye to her z'nut in exchange for her
continued silence regarding paternity.

- Ilana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/b35502a9/attachment-0001.htm>

 
 
From: Yitzhak Grossman _celejar@gmail.com_ (mailto:cele...@gmail.com) 


>> You  *still* have given no compelling reason for this 'clarity';  you
just  keep declaring it to be so, without giving any logical basis for
your  view.  <<
 
 

>>>>>
I guess "compelling" is in the eye of the beholder.  I have  explained my 
position in ever greater detail, looking closely at the relevant  pesukim, Rashi, 
Ramban and common sense, and at this point there is nothing left  for either 
of us to say without simply repeating ourselves.  Anyone who  doubts that I 
have made a strong case for the proposition that Dinah was  kidnapped and raped 
need only re-read everything I've written on the subject  over the last few 
days.  In a way it's a foolish exercise since the pasuk  itself says she was 
raped -- "vaye'anaha"  -- and all other readings are  forced and must be 
defended.  It isn't (or shouldn't be) the pshat that  needs defending.  The one who 
wants to read Chumash in a less-than-obvious  way is the one who needs to make a 
compelling case -- and that you have not  done.  



--Toby Katz
=============
"If you don't read the  newspaper you are uninformed; 
if you do read the newspaper you are  misinformed."
--Mark Twain

Read *Jewish World Review* at _http://jewishworldreview.com/_ 
(http://jewishworldreview.com/) 




--------------------------
**************One site keeps you connected to all your email: AOL Mail, 
Gmail, and Yahoo Mail. Try it now. 
(http://www.aol.com/?optin=new-dp&;icid=aolcom40vanity&ncid=emlcntaolcom00000025)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/c6e84e01/attachment-0001.htm>

RMF forwarded us a comment written by RMB as follows:

> Everything I have published on the topic of the obligation of 
> married women to cover hair has been in the context of 
> explaining the practice in Lithuania for decades of married 
> women not covering their hair.  It is a form of a limud 
> zechut, which I am always happy to provide, and it explains 
> why wives of eminent torah scholars -- leaders of Torah 
> Judaism both in Europe and America -- were comfortable with 
> their wives not covering their hair.

And then quotes RMB's posting in: 

> http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol06/v06n092.shtml

This posting does not (not unreasonably given that it is a complex argument)
set out the full basis for the limud zechut, but elsewhere RMB explains that
first one needs to understand the obligation to cover hair as being, despite
what appears to  be the simple pshat of the gemora in Kesubos, a rabbinical
obligation not a Torah obligation, daas Yehudis, not daas Moshe.  Because if
it is daas Yehudis then one can say it is based on time and place, ie what
other people do, and if nobody is acting in this way, then it would not be
considered improper, whereas if the obligation is a Torah obligation then it
applies regardless of time and place (ie, as RMB has indicated, the
overwhelming majority view).

RMB's analysis involves looking at the Tur and others and attempting to
detect an interpretation that indeed the obligation is rabbinic rather than
d'orisa.  I have wondered for a while though whether there is not a more
straightforward way of getting to the limud zechus than RMB has taken, by
going  back to the words of the gemora in Kesubos. The mishna in Kesubos on
daf 72a gives a list of what is daas yehudis, and the first of these is
"yatzei v'rosha peruha".  And the gemora there 72a-b asks how the Mishna can
say this (ie that it is a rabbinical prohibition, daas yehudis)- "rosha
peruha d'orisa hi?"  It then gives two explanations.  The first is that
while going out without anything at all is a violation of the d'orisa, what
the mishna is referring to is going out with only a "kalsa" on her head (ie
some form of lesser headcovering).  The second explanation is that while
going out to the shuk with rosha peruha is a d'orisa prohibition, and while
rosha perhuha within a woman's chatzer is permitted (otherwise, according to
the gemora, you would not have a bas avraham remaining with her husband)
what the Mishna is talking about vis a vis daas Yehudis is going  "m'chatzer
l'chatzer v'derech mabui".

And I confess this language set me wondering, - if one is looking for a
limud zechus - which RMB characterises as "A limud zichus is a plausible
path not taken by the poskim" - and to which I would add - in the context
where otherwise observant people appear to be consistently behaving against
those poskim (RMB says this too I am really just summarising, and he cites
the limud zechus of the Magen Avraham for women not to daven twice a day) -
I wondered would it not be more straightforward to look closely at this
wording in Kiddushin?  The second explanation of the gemora seems to
differentiate between the level of prohibition dependent upon the nature of
the place, with there being a d'orisa prohibition in the "shuk", a
d'rabbanan prohibition in a "mabui" and it being mutar in a "chatzer".  Why
could this not be understood as basically saying that it is a d'orisa
obligation in a reshus harabbaim d'orisa, a d'rabbanan obligation where the
reshus is reshus harabbaim d'rabbanan, and mutar where we are talking about
a reshus hayachid?  In the gemora the general assumption is that when people
went out to places such as the shuk, they were dealing with reshus harabbim
d'orisa.  On the other hand, in Ashkenaz, we know that the general view
taken was that it was hard to find a reshus harabbim d'orisa (hence the
frequency of town eruvin).  So if you wanted a limud zechus, why could you
not say that everybody agrees (and agreed) that there is a d'orisa
obligation to cover the hair in a reshus harabbim d'orisa - meaning one does
not need to go against the Shulchan Aruch or anybody else (and obliviating
the need for much of the fancy analysis produced by RMB).  Rather just
understand all these sources to be talking about the d'orisa situation (just
as most sources discussing hilchos shabbas generally set out the basic
situation vis a vis carrying on shabbas as the d'orisa reshus harabbim
situation).  But, in Lithuania, given that finding a reshus harabbim d'orisa
was (according to the majority poskim) close to impossible, the prohibition
could thus be held only to be rabbinic - in which case all of the
limitations on daas Yehudis that RMB brings would apply (and query whether
the existence of eruvin could be argued to further impact on this).

Anyhow, I have been mulling over this one for a while and wondered whether
anybody had any thoughts. I too share RMB's concern of writing off "the
practice in Lithuania for decades of married women not covering their hair.
... it explains why wives of eminent torah scholars -- leaders of Torah
Judaism both in Europe and America -- were comfortable with their wives not
covering their hair" - but wondered if there was any particular reason not
to take what seems to me on the face of the gemora to  be a more direct
path.

> Michael Broyde

Regards

Chana

 

        Reb Yitshak's  <cele...@gmail.com> arguements in favor of Kiblu
Alaihu are correct.  But to the best of my understanding, Kiblu Alaihu
would work only in money matters - not in dinei Nefashot, Geirut or
gittin, Halitsa etc..  Is that correct?
        
        --------------------------------------------------------
        Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
         
         
        I would assume so in the "normal" application, yet those who see
the source of dina dmalchuta as being from the consent of the governed
(similar to malchut) would seem to have a much broader scope of "kiblu"
and this would better fit with those who explain Devora based on kiblu?
        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/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20081222/a365d157/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, December 22, 2008 5:38 am, R Danny Schoemann wrote to Areivim:
: IIRC a quantity of 0.5 log of oil was required in each lamp to last
: the entire winter night.

You do recall correctly, Menachos 88b.

Given the volumes suggested for a revi'is (= 1/4 lug, as the name
suggests), a lug would be 12-21.2 oz (the usual RCN to CI spread),
with RMF holding 13.2 oz. Multiplying that out by 3.5 and converting
into liters, I get 1.24 - 2.19 liter. Or, as RDS skipped ahead:
: In that case we're talking about ~1.5 liters of oil! Makes one
wonder : how such a quantity managed to remain hidden.

In an area the size of a mountain top? Picture losing a 2 liter bottle
of Coke (lehavdil) amidst the entire Har haBayis. Add to that lots of
chaos and rubble (destroyed pagan stuff). I'm not surprised at all.

: Why are the kids taught about a Kad katan? 1.5 liters doesn't really
: qualify...

I was taught it was a pach shemen. I don't know where you got the "kad
qatan" from. In fact, the Yalqut Re'uveini makes a whole thing about
the pach shemen.

Yaakov went back for pachim qetanim. One of which ended up in the
hands of Shemu'el, who used it to annoint Shaul. This in turn got
handed down the chain of nevi'im to Elisha, who had it on hand when he
needed to support the Shunamit. Of course you see what's coming, the
same berakhah for the Shunamit was the neis Chanukah -- same pach
shemen!

What's the point of the medrash? I hope to find time to blog it.
Beqitzur -- why did Yaaqov go back? Because memonam shel tzadiqim. And
why is that money chaviv lahem? Because they engage in masa umatan
be'emunah. Which earns the berakhah of always having enough, thus
Yaaqov's pach is the basis for the nissim of the Shunamit and neir
Chanukah. In addition, there is a connection to Esav, who should have
been the Am Qadosh's fiscal arm, and thus via Amaleiq, to Shaul. Edom
in turn failed by looking to emulate Yavan. Look at their empires;
Rome was a shallow imitation of Greece. The Chashmonaim unified Torah
and a holy utilization of wealth, which is how their leadership
devolved into becoming melakhim in addition to the kehunah. And also
why binyan bayis rishon fell to David, not Sha'ul, and chanukas
hamizbei'ach to the Chashmona'im.

SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of
Novarodok Fax: (270) 514-1507



SheTir'u baTov!
-micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Man wants to achieve greatness overnight,
mi...@aishdas.org        and he wants to sleep well that night too."
http://www.aishdas.org     - Rav Yosef Yozel Horwitz, Alter of Novarodok
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Rich, Joel wrote:
 
>> Reb Yitshak's  <cele...@gmail.com <mailto:cele...@gmail.com>>
>> arguements in favor of Kiblu Alaihu are correct.  But to the best of
>> my understanding, Kiblu Alaihu would work only in money matters -
>> not in dinei Nefashot, Geirut or gittin, Halitsa etc..  Is that correct?

> I would assume so in the "normal" application, yet those who see the
> source of dina dmalchuta as being from the consent of the
> governed (similar to malchut) would seem to have a much broader
> scope of "kiblu" and this would better fit with those who explain
> Devora based on kiblu?

How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
"Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot, and every single example
of DdMD is about determini

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

From: "R' Eli Turkel" elitur...@gmail.com

>> I still  do not understand why wives generally do not light chanukah candles
>> according  to the Ashkenazi custom that each person lights separately....

According to the Chasam Sofer (Shabbos 21b: Vehamehadrin) [1] the
reason is, that since the original Mitzva was to light outdoors,
therefore women did not light Chanuka candles unless they had no other
choice, because of "Kol Kevudoh... Pnima. As a result, the
Mehadrin-min-Hamehadrin never included the women.

>> 2. If  ishto kegufo why can't the wife light even lechachtila for the husband

See above. But who says she cannot? See MB 675:3 (9) that a husband
may appoint the wife to light for all present. He doesn't say it's not
Lechachtila .

>>  and why if he is absent does he need to appoint her as a shaliach?

Source please. See ibid, as well as the KSA 139:16 and SA OC 677:3
which do not mention this. Only if the husband is home is shlichus
mentioned.

[1] Source for the CS comes from RYY Neuwirth's "Din Achsana'i
B'Chanuka", Kol HaTorah; Yeshiva Kol Torah's "Chanuka Torah compendium
5769". He says "many reasons are given for this (see CS ibid)".

- Danny

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 10:13:20AM -0500, R Zev Sero wrote:
: Rich, R Joel wrote:
:>> Reb Yitshak's  <cele...@gmail.com <mailto:cele...@gmail.com>>
:>> arguements in favor of Kiblu Alaihu are correct.  But to the best of
:>> my understanding, Kiblu Alaihu would work only in money matters -
:>> not in dinei Nefashot, Geirut or gittin, Halitsa etc..  Is that correct?

:> I would assume so in the "normal" application yet those who see the
:> source of dina dmalchuta as being from the consent of the
:> governed (similar to malchut) would seem to have a much broader
:> scope of "kiblu" and this would better fit with those who explain
:> Devora based on kiblu?

: How is the scope of DdMD broader than the scope of ordinary kiblu?
: "Dina" is by definition a matter of mamonot..

Perhaps when it comes to seeking shalom or having to settle for
arbitration of division of assets, the role of BD is that of a posheir,
and kibelu alaihu would apply. But the get itself is ishus, EhE, with
possible agunah or mamzeirus as an outcome; it's not just a matter
between the baalei din alone.

RSZ and I have had heated disagreements about the scope of DdMD, but
here we are in agreement. (He champions like R' Barukh ben Yitzchaq's
mesorah as to what Tosafos' shitah is; I -- being the product of RYBS
based upbringing -- argue that lehalakhah we're supposed to hold like
the Shach, who in turn is following the Ramban.)

In particular, Reform did away with gittin (1869, and again by Samuel
Atlas of HUC, the friend of the Seridei Eish), claiming that DdMD gave
a civil divorce Jewish import. DdMD, though, isn't a relevent factor
WRT issurin.

The basic problem would again be cultural and largely inhere in how we
set up perception and labeling. To call a mixed-gender pesharah body a
"beis din" would be ziyuf haTorah, no? It's like women's tefillah groups
-- they can't be honestly called minyanim, and those who think they're a
bad move for societal / Torah imekha/umasekha reasons will have similar
qualms against this pesharah body as well.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Spirituality is like a bird: if you tighten
mi...@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


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 25, Issue 429
***************************************

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..."