Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 156

Wed, 05 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Tisha b'Av and Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: A 9 Days Shower - The Navy to the Rescue? (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: we live in good times (Marty Bluke)
• 4. Re: ?????: medieval jewish history (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 5. Re: ????ory (Micha Berger)
• 6. david and batsheva (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Chana Luntz)
• 8. Niskatnu Haddoros (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: some halachot of moser (Zev Sero)
• 10. Re: Who Wrote 2nd Luchos (Zev Sero)
• 11. Re: Niskatnu Haddoros (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (David Riceman)
• 13. Re: we live in good times (Marty Bluke)
• 14. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 15. Who Wrote 2nd Luchos? - Revised (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 16. Re: Who Wrote 2nd Luchos? - Revised (Zev Sero)
• 17. Re: ?????: medieval jewish history (Daniel Israel)

On Fri, Jul 31, 2009 at 01:40:47PM -0400, Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer wrote:
: The answer is rooted in the Cheit HaMeraglim, the "original sin" of Tisha
: b'Av in which all the day's later tragedies are rooted. What was the
: cause of that sin? As I heard many years ago from Mori v'Rabi Rabbi Shimon
: Zelaznik zt"l, the Zohar HaKadosh explains that, great individuals that
: the Nesi'im who were sent to be the Meraglim were, they were concerned
: that upon entering Eretz Yisroel all Jews would be holy and lofty,
: and their nesi'us would no longer be necessary. This negi'a led them
: to mistakenly conclude that it would be better -- not only subjectively
: but even objectively -- for Am Yisroel to remain outside of the Land of
: Israel, so as to benefit from the leadership of the Nesi'im.

To reinforce the point:

Why did Yehoshua need a berakhah to stay on-course but Kaleiv did not?

Yehoshua was the naar who told Moshe about Eldad uMeidad saying nevu'ah
about Moshe not reaching EY. Yehoshua wanted his rebbe's leadership as
long as possible, which meant he had a vested interested in not seeing
EY and BY fit for eachother, just yet.

Kaleiv, OTOH, was to be the 2nd nasi of sheivet Yehudah. Had we entered
EY wth "vayehi binsoa ha'aron ... veyafutzu oyevekha ..." Kaleiv could
have been melekh. His personal interest was in favor of being a proper
merageil.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:37:09PM -0400, Michael Poppers wrote:
: I think the concept is, in the absence of mitzva-directed intent (e.g.
: k'vod Shabbos), to do without.  What RRW describes is not "doing without"
: but rather is the proper method for that place (minimizing water usage)...

But for you or I to shower that way would be to keep clean by 21st cent
standards while "doing without" more than the minimum necessary.

The definition of an istinis is someone who bathes daily. As RYBS noted, we
all qualify. I'm not sure how it can be argued, me'ikkar hadin, that
there is a problem showering. (In terms of the 9 Days. If someone else
wants to open a discussion of ecology and halakhah, that would be fine
-- but I don't know anything about the topic to be the one to do so.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Between stimulus & response, there is a space.
mi...@aishdas.org        In that space is our power to choose our
http://www.aishdas.org   response. In our response lies our growth
Fax: (270) 514-1507      and our freedom. - Victor Frankl, (MSfM)

On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Daniel Israel<d...@hushmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 03 Aug 2009 09:46:37 -0600 Marty Bluke
> <marty.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>The Minchas Chinuch is bothered by a number of questions.
>>...
>>He answers that the Navi never set a specific day for the fast
> only a
>>month. That is why the pasuk only mentions months. After the
> churban
>>bayis sheini, chazal decided to set specific days for the fasts.
>
> Where is this M"Ch? ?I'm curious, does he hold that before this it
> was not a ta'anis tzibur?
>
I believe it is Mitzva 301.

RSP:
> and
> one should wean himself from using an outdated encyclopedia.  Just because
> it's on the web doesn't make it an authority any longer...

Imagine this paraphrase:
"and
one should wean himself from using outdated Talmud and Rishonim.
Just because it's out there  doesn't make it an authority any longer.."

That would be hilchessa kebasrai on steriods! :-)

So if academics TODAY trash what was out there 100 years ago, then in
one hundred years should we expect to trash current prevailing academic
opinions?

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, Aug 03, 2009 at 09:13:31PM +0300, Shlomo Pick wrote:
: one should wean himself from using an outdated encyclopedia.  Just because
: it's on the web doesn't make it an authority any longer.

I dunno. I said I posted because no one chimed in on RETurkel's question
using more solid sources. And I did manage to wake up the thread. So,
I have no regrets.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

for a summary of different approaches to david and batsheva
see

http://www.etzion.org.il/vbm/search_results.php?subject=%
FA%F0%EA+%F9%EE%E5%E0%EC&;koteret=%F9%E9%F2%E5%F8%E9%ED+%E1%F1%F4%F8
+%F9%EE%E5%E0%EC

http://tinyurl.com/lc7a6l

shiur 83 from
shiurim of R. Bazak of the Gush on sefer Shmuel

-- 
Eli Turkel

I wrote:

> The modern aspect of this approach is  the "for both parties 
> to the marriage".  The Rambam is,  when he mentions "adam" 
> only refering to the male of the species.  In many societies 
> that indeed was the model - in fact as late in my husband's 
> parent's circles in Egypt that was indeed the model
> - there was typically an age gap of at least 10 years between 
> the husband and wife, because the husband needed to build up 
> his parnassa first, but a woman needed to be married off as 
> soon as possible.  And then he molds her.

In the interests of fully covering the topic as set out in the heading (ie
Tzenius and gender roles), and especially given the discussion on domestic
abuse taking place on Areivim, I should probably comment that, at least
according to my understanding, a lot of professionals who work in the area
of domestic abuse among the Orthodox community have a very negative view of
concepts such as kol kavuda bas melech penima because they see such concepts
as tools that are extremely open to, well, abuse.  The line between
"molding" as I have described it above, and "controlling" can be somewhat
fine - and ideas that a woman ought to be confined within the home and that
they are "in the wrong" for stepping outside it or of turning to the outside
world is clearly going to be of immense help to a husband or father engaged
in domestic abuse.  RMB is hence likely to find, among many (perhaps more
often women, but not always) a knee jerk negative reaction when they see a
man lecturing women of the virtues of tznius or bas melech penima.

That does not mean that such ideas and concepts should not be discussed -
but as part of the grappling that I am asking RMB to do, he probably needs
to consider the way that concepts can, and perhaps are (depending on the
extent to which anecdotal evidence is to be regarded as real evidence)
misused.  Note that we do have some history of the abandonment of not only
ideas but halachic concepts when they were being abused - such as the
situation with yibum and chalitza, where it is clear that the Torah
preferred the former, but that the later is now mandatory because, while the
ideal may be great, given that significant numbers are incapable of living
up to the ideal, the consensus is now that we do not allow it.  However this
is quite an extreme response, and one would need to consider whether the
concept was being abused sufficiently to require such abandonment.  It is
however yet another factor to consider - especially as a number of the
options I have provided to RMB as methods that counteract some of the modern
pressures (such as early marriage, limited exposure outside the family,
large age gaps between spouses, molding expectations etc) are often
precisely the factors highlighted by professionals as those that are risk
factors for domestic abuse.

Regards

Chana

Re: Qabbalah

If RaShbY follows R. Akiva; would it not make sense to consider R. Akiva
the greater master of Qabbalah? (Aside from the 4 nichnesu lepardes...)

Similarly
If R Moshe Cordevero preceded the Arizal wouldn't the same logic apply -
viz. That the Remak was the greater master?

KT
RRW 
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Daniel Eidensohn wrote:
> Zev Sero wrote:
>>
>> The Ramo permits the *victim* of a violent crime to masser his
>> assailant.  I'm not sure that other people are included in this heter.
> 
> I don't understand why you would think that possibly only the victim can 
> report his assailant to the secular authorities.

Because that's all the Rama says (at the end of se'if 7).   He doesn't
say anything about other people being allowed to inform on an assailant,
but he also doesn't say anything about the crime having to be regular
or habitual.  It seems to me just from the Rama's words that this may
be a privilege granted to the victim of an assault, because ein adam
nitpas al tzaaro.


> *Maharach Ohr Zarua^ **(#142): ? * [...] this will lead to murder.
> It is therefore  not only the victim who is allowed to file a
> complaint with the secular authorities, but it is in fact a mitzva
> for everyone to report to the judge that Reuven hit Shimon [...] so
> the situation will not escalate. [...]

This is something of a different situation, where we're trying to
prevent future assaults.  It seems to me from the Rama's language
that the heter for a victim isn't limited to such a situation; but if
so, then it makes sense that it *is* limited to the victim himself.


> If the assailant is someone who regularly hits others and has done
> it repeatedly and openly ? and from his actions it is clear that he
> will beat up anyone who disagrees with him ? then it is a clear
> mitzva for every Jew to report him [...]

This is another thing yet again; it seems to be what the Mechaber
says openly in se'if 12, that "kol hameitzer et harabim" is more
severe than doing it to an individual, and he may be handed over.


> Whoever is involved in improper behavior or with non?Jewish women or
> with anything which might bring harm to the community ? if the
> community warns him to stop and he doesn?t listen ? it is permitted
> to inform on him

And this would be what the Rama says in se'if 12, that a coiner may
be informed on, before he gets caught and the whole community suffers.
(This does *not* mean what people have been talking about lately,
that the reputation of O Jews has suffered, and people are slightly
more reluctant to do business with us.  In the Rama's time, if a Jewish
coiner was caught and the community had known about it and not handed
him over, they might all be killed or expelled, or suffer some other
severe punishment.)



> *Sema (C.M. 388:30)*:This that the abuser is not reported to the
> secular authorities is only when he is verbally abusive to the
> individual but if he causes financial loss and surely if he beats
> him or causes bodily suffering it is permitted to report him to the
> secular authorities as is stated in the Rema and the Darchei Moshe.

Sorry, you've mistranslated the Sema in several places.  There is
nothing in the Sema about "verbally abusive", or "causes financial
loss".   The Sema is commenting on the distinction between one who
causes distress to the community and to an individual, and the fact
that it is forbidden to inform on one who causes distress to an
individual; he points out that in order to reconcile this statement
with what was written earlier in the same siman this must be talking
about "mere distress" (*not* just "verbal"), but if the person has
informed on an individual, or has physically assaulted him, that
goes beyond "tzaar de'alma".   I doubt that someone who is merely
verbally abusive to a community may be informed on; this "tzaar"
that justifies mesirah only if the victim is a community must surely
go beyond mere words, but not so far as a mesirah or a physical assault.


 
> If this is based on din of not standing idly by the blood of your
> fellow. [...] If it is an aspect of rodef

But I don't think the Rama we're discussing, in se'if 7, *is* based
on either of these things.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> Then a rav gave a drasha that Moshe WROTE the 2nd luchos, too! I found
> this far-fetched at the time. Today I find it completely untenable.

Of course it is.  It contradicts explicit pesukim.  This rav should
be informed of his mistake so he doesn't repeat it.


> See parshas Eqev ch. 10:2-4 where it is clear that HKBH wrote on the
> 2nd Luchos.

Also Shemos 34:1, which we read at mincha on Tisha B'av.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:

> If R Moshe Cordevero preceded the Arizal wouldn't the same logic apply -
> viz. That the Remak was the greater master?

No, because all of the Ari's teachings were what he learned directly
from Eliyahu Hanavi.


-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

I fear that this post may be superfluous since I don't subscribe to 
Areivim, and all of these points may have been made before the thread 
moved to Avodah.

Micha Berger wrote:
> One of the facets of our encounter with modernity is how we respond to
> modern values. As Jews in the modern world, we have to decide, hopefully
> consciously and willfully, which of those values to absorb, and which
> we need to take efforts to eschew.
>   
I think one of the problems here is, in the mythical saying of Tonto, 
"Who do you mean by we, paleface?" In the mythical past all Jews in one 
small town followed the same customs and consulted the same Rabbi.  Ever 
since 19th century Warsaw, if not earlier, and certainly nowadays in the 
US and Israel, we live cheek by jowl with lots of different types of 
Jews as well as non-Jews.  Expecting conformity beyond halachic norms 
strikes me, in our context, as both unjust and absurd.

As a tangent, I sometimes wonder if "Yerushalayim lo nitnah l'shvatim" 
implies that it is impermissable to have a "minhag Yerushalayim".
> Once dealing with these three questions, the rav has to render pesaq. As
> I wrote a while ago on this thread, this can mean what RYBS would call
> prohibiting something for "political" reasons. And although I don't like
> the word "political" to describe it, as "doing something for political
> reasons" sounds less-than-idealistic, I am in full agreement with the
> notion that some ideas may be mutar in perat, but assur because of where
> they take us. Actually halachically assur, even though we're applying
> the law to something non-legalistic.
>   
But something may be assur for one person and muttar for another (see 
Hovoth HaLevavoth part 3 chapter 4, p. 216 in Hyamson's edition).  If a 
rav does "render pesaq" in a case like this he has to delineate exactly 
whom he is paskening for, and whom he isn't paskening for.  A lot of the 
problems of "our encounter with modernity" exist because psak has leaky 
boundaries.
> As for the first question, the specific halakhos: I think it could be
> argued that there is nothing about being a Maharat that is inherently
> different than being a yoetzet, or just being a knowledgable neighbor
> who I call when I am stuck on something.
But don't you give the same kavod to your knowledgeable neighbor whether 
or not she is titled? If kavod is the problem, shouldn't having a 
knowledgeable neighbor be troubling regardless (though, in your defense, 
see Rashi on this week's parsha 11:13 s.v. "L'ahavah es hashem").

I think this partly depends on whether you consider "assur l'lamed es 
bito Torah" an expression of an ideal or a concession to unfortunate 
reality (and don't forget that the halacha itself is a machlokes 
Tannaim).  I suspect that contemporary Jews differ on this question.  If 
you think it is an ideal, and your knowledgeable neighbor doesn't, do 
you still respect her scholarship? More leaky boundaries.
> Change is inherently dangerous. We are a society that transmits many
> truths culturally, and if we tamper with that culture, we weaken the
> vehicle of mesorah.
The move to big cities and the transition to a modern economy have 
profoundly changed cultural transmission, so that it depends much less 
on "community" and much more on family and formal institutions.  If 
you're afraid of change you need to invent a time machine very quickly.
> The western worldview has an entire constellation of values based
> on something I consider a fallacy; the confusion of promin[e]nce with
> importance.
>   
Take another look at that Rashi.  Admittedly he was a westerner, but, as 
usual, he's quoting Hazal (Sifrei ad. loc., Piska 41, p. 87 ed. 
Horowitz/Finkelstein).  This attitude is as old as the hills, and your 
contention that it can be prohibited institutionally is very difficult 
to take seriously.
> WRT gender differences, the assymetry is created by chiyuvim. Men are
> mechuyavim in mitzvos asei shehazman gerama and in talmud Torah. These
> reflect a different prioritzation of tzeni'us in relation to other values,
> and HQBH thereby forces us to act on a different prioritzation.
>   
This strikes me as weak apologetics.  There are plenty of forms of kavod 
not at all related to mitzot, and plenty more related to mitzvot which 
are applicable to men and women (like tzedaka), and I have never heard 
of anyone prohibiting them.  Have you? When you start telling me that 
it's assur to have fund drives honoring particular people, and that your 
shul and your children's schools have prohibited them, I may begin to 
take you seriously.
> In order to say that these pros outweigh the cons, you have to demonstrate
> that these are actually pros, rather than giving up an essential element
> of traditional avodas Hashem as a Jewish woman before that battle is
> actually lost?
>   
Just because some woman is knowledgeable doesn't imply that every woman 
has been forced to abandon her traditional role.  It merely means that 
now she has a choice.  It's one thing to argue that she should choose 
not to become knowlegeable (and I know you haven't said that, but it 
does follow inevitably from your treatment of kavod), and quite another 
to argue that she shouldn't even have that choice.
> To summarize: My biggest complaint is that I do not see anyone exploring
> whether the change is forced upon us, and if so questioning if it's
> a positive value. I don't see the active conscious confrontation with
> modernity, the whole thing RYBS describes in terms of the tension of
> the dialectic.
>   
But wouldn't doing that publicly be a negation of tznius? How do you 
know it's not being done privately?

David Riceman

> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 10:55 PM, Daniel Israel<d...@hushmail.com> wrote:
>> Where is this M"Ch? ?I'm curious, does he hold that before this it
>> was not a ta'anis tzibur?
>>
> I believe it is Mitzva 301.
>
Interestingly enough the Minchas Chinuch (301) says that before Chazal
set a specific day, you could fast on any day that month. The notes on
the bottom point out that the Ritva in R"H 18b holds this way as well.

RDR:
> But something may be assur for one person and muttar for another (see 
> Hovoth HaLevavoth part 3 chapter 4, p. 216 in Hyamson's edition).  If a 
> rav does "render pesaq" in a case like this he has to delineate exactly 
> whom he is paskening for, and whom he isn't paskening for.  A lot of the 
> problems of "our encounter with modernity" exist because psak has leaky 
> boundaries."

Actually this might be superfluous on Avodah itself. :-)

I.E. I posted about 2 weeks ago that the Daf specifically mentioned Rav
Ashi pasqening "lav aliba kehichesa" because it involved avadim

In fact IIRC Rav Papa also did the same in that sugya BEFORE Rav Ashi.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

Originally I posted:

"...Then a rav gave a drasha that Moshe WROTE the 2nd luchos, too! ..."

I'd like to revise my remarks in order to reframe this post.

'Vechein sh'nei ch'suvim hamach'chishim ze es zeh..'

Shnei Ch'suvim:

1  Shmos 34:1 HKBH is Writing 2nd luchos
"V'chasavti al halluchos"


2. Sh'mos 34 "K'sav lecha.." Moshe is writing on {luchos? Or something
else?}

Hakkasuv hashlishi:

3. Dvarim Eqev Ch. 10:2-4 "v'echtov al halluchos" where it is clear that
HKBH wrote on the 2nd Luchos.

I think this structure is clearer

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:


> 2. Sh'mos 34 "K'sav lecha.." Moshe is writing on {luchos? Or something
> else?}

"...Et hadevarim *ha'eleh*".  That would be the list of mitzvos that
follows, what Bible critics call "the other 10 commandments".  Moshe
is presumably writing them on parchment, or on whatever he had to hand
up there; maybe a rock.

-- 
Zev Sero                      The trouble with socialism is that you
z...@sero.name                 eventually run out of other people?s money
                                                     - Margaret Thatcher

rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
> RSP:
>> and one should wean himself from using an outdated encyclopedia.
>> Just because it's on the web doesn't make it an authority any
>> longer...
> 
> Imagine this paraphrase: "and one should wean himself from using
> outdated Talmud and Rishonim. Just because it's out there  doesn't
> make it an authority any longer.."

Torah and academia use different models of how knowledge is acquired.

> So if academics TODAY trash what was out there 100 years ago, then in
> one hundred years should we expect to trash current prevailing
> academic opinions?

Not sure what your point is.  In any case, this seems to be driving 
towards a pet peeve of mine.  The scientific model is not that 
subsequent models trash previous models, rather subsequent models refine 
previous models.  Yes, there are times when a revolutionary new advance 
means reversing previous understanding, but e.g., Einstein proved Newton 
wrong doesn't mean things fall up.

-- 
Daniel M. Israel
d...@cornell.edu



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 156
***************************************

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..."