Avodah Mailing List

Volume 26: Number 161

Mon, 10 Aug 2009

• 1. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Ken Bloom)
• 2. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 3. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Jonathan Baker)
• 4. Re: Lecha Dodi (Ben Waxman)
• 5. Re: Lecha Dodi (Micha Berger)
• 6. lecha dodi (Eli Turkel)
• 7. Re: Lecha Dodi (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 8. Re: lecha dodi (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 9. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (Micha Berger)
• 10. Re: School Tuition + Fundraising (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 11. Re: School Tuition + Fundraising (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: naval birshus Hattorah land (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)
• 13. Re: (no subject) (Daniel Israel)
• 14. Re: Tzeni'us and gender roles (rabbirichwol...@gmail.com)

On Mon, 2009-08-10 at 16:33 +0100, Chana Luntz wrote: 
> > You raise some very cogent points about a woman's relationship with a
> > rav, and I thank you for the insight. I'm going to suggest that the
> > third option is best (having a female role model), but 
> > discuss how this relates to Mahara"ts further down.
> 
> But if this is the best approach - how are such role models to be developed
> and made accessible, and should there be any form of more centeralised
> quality control?  If so, how do you get it - or is it just a matter of a
> particularly charismatic woman attracting a following (as, for example we
> saw recently in relation to this woman who advocated the wearing of burkas).
> In particular, how is it to be developed in the more MO setting, where girls
> are not necessarily in seminary, but in non Jewish universities and in the
> non Jewish workplace (or do we try and ensure that girls only go to
> seminaries, where the role models will be provided by those who teach
> there)?

> > Here's where I think the issue is. I think R' Weiss is being
> > disingenuous about how he presents this. He wants to create a 
> > woman who
> > can be the sole leader of a community, and he's not doing it 
> > because he
> > thinks that people can improve their halachic observance that way. 
> > AISI, R' Weiss wants to build a female pulpit rabbi so that 
> > he can show
> > the world we have gender equality. His constituency is so 
> > enamored with
> > the idea of gender equality that they're willing to pay for this.
> 
> OK, but again what you appear to be identifying is a public need, or perhaps
> we should say desire (whether R' Weiss pursuaded his constituency or his
> consituency pursuaded him) for gender equality, or showing the world we have
> gender equality.  That may be a bad desire on their part, but it is no
> longer a private one.  One might have a discussion about not pandering to
> bad public desires, but that is a totally different question - this isn't
> about individuals, it is about a community and communities and the way they
> want to present themselves.  RMB's thesis about the tznius of individuals no
> longer has any relevance.
>  
>  "In England, different members of the clergy (not all
> > of whom even have semicha) go by distinctly different titles, 
> > reflecting different roles: reverend, minister, rabbi, and dayan; maybe
> that is a
> > fine idea worth importing to America." 
> 
> But none of these are open to women, and I am not sure how any of these
> could be converted into a role that provides role modelling for women - if
> you agree this is desirable.  The only example we seem to have developed as
> a reaction to modernity, is the head of seminary/teacher in seminary role
> model, who can reasonably be compared to a Rosh yeshiva or mashgiach in a
> yeshiva.  But a) you have to be in seminary to get these (as you have to be
> in yeshiva to get the rosh yeshiva and the yeshiva maschgiach); and b) there
> is really no quality control (my son was being taught kodesh by a Beis
> Ya'akov graduate last year in first grade, and as one of his friend's mother
> put it ""X" is coming home with some really strange things" - now the fact
> that my son, male is being so taught is unusual, that being a product of
> being in a co-ed school - but it would be normal for my daughter to be so
> taught.  Truth is, my major frustration was not mostly that she was teaching
> strange things, which he can probably grow out of, but that she was teaching
> Sephardi boys in a Sephardi school Ashkenazi minhagim - I don't mind her
> doing both, the school is very mixed, so she should be doing both, but the
> fact that I had to have a fight with my son about getting his hair cut
> during the three weeks but before shavuah shechal bo is very frustrating.
> It is the usual thing about a little bit of knowledge being a dangerous
> thing).  But it seems to be what we have.  What else should we be doing?  

To clarify, there seems to be two different issues here: one is that of
having proper training and credentials for women who are going to be
role models for other women. The other is having a "female Rabbi" to
hold up and show the rest of the world how much gender equality we have.

I think that the first issue (proper training and credentials for women)
is a good thing, and it can be done without creating the title of
"Rabbi" for women. Given that we teach women torah to begin with,
teaching them the Torah necessary to advise other women on personal
halachic issues, and then giving them credentials that indicate they
have this knowledge (calling them e.g. yoatzot) is a good thing.

I think we'd be better off still if we could do the same kind of thing
with men's titles, so that it's clear what their credentials are as
well.

I think, however, that the second issue (having a "female Rabbi" to show
how much gender equality we have) is the distortion of values by
modernity that should not be accommodated (in RMB's terms).

One more thing, I notice that you haven't addressed another aspect of
the cheshbon. What happens in a society with yoatzot, when women go to
their yoatzot for things they should be going through their husbands
for? If it is possible for women go to their own halachic advisors, does
this weaken the idea that the whole family should be a single unit that
is on the same page in terms of psak?

Maybe in a community where women are married at relatively young ages,
the only kind of yoatzot we need are ones that specialize in niddah, and
deal with questions that the husband could not handle properly because
he doesn't have the appropriate understanding of the physiology (so he
either mangles the question or doesn't ask the right followups).

--Ken

Meir Shinnar:
> This is reflective of mch of the discussion on "feminist" issues - people
> are willing to acknowledge a problem, are willing to acknowledge that
> the solution proposed answers the problem and is within the parameters of
> halacha, do not have a better solution - and yet are opposed to it because
> they ascribe impure motivations to either the male rabbis endorsing the
> proposal or the women involved - wihtout any evidence that they exist,
> nor, even if they did, that they should matter....

Conversely I have hears things like:
Since Behag will not allow women to read the Megilla 
Or since Rema prohibits women getting qabbalh on shechita
Or Since Rav Shaul Lieberman prohibited Semicha for women
Or Since Rav X prohibits women from saying Qaddish

Therefore they have a misogynistic agenda.

With no regard to their halachic analysis

So this works both ways.

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RRW:
> Meir Shinnar:

[redacted for space]

>>[some oppose theoretically correct solutions to feminist issues because]
>> they ascribe impure motivations to either the male rabbis endorsing the
>> proposal or the women involved - wihtout any evidence that they exist,
>> nor, even if they did, that they should matter....

That's the R' Tendler expansion on RMF's letter that theoretically
allows women's tefillah groups. RMF allowed them if the motivations of
the women were pure, not driven by feminism. RMT clarified that this
was pure theory, that RMF didn't believe such women could exist.

> Conversely I have hears things like:
> Since [X Rishon, Acharon or Rav] will not allow women to [do Y].

> Therefore they have a misogynistic agenda.
> With no regard to their halachic analysis
> So this works both ways.

Perhaps, but such criticism tends to come more from outside the OJ system
than inside. At which point, their motives become suspect. Esp. if
it's an ad-hominem like "misogynist", rather than "society drove them
to it, but society has changed". That's at least a debatable point.
The other is just personal insults tossed at Chazal or Rabbonim.

-- 
jon baker         |   blog: http://thanbook.blogspot.com
tha...@gmail.com  | web: http://www.panix.com/~jjbaker

Sorry I didn't read the letter carefully. You're talking about KS on special days, not stam Fridays.

Ben
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20090810/59f1f6c0/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 08:37:25AM -0700, Simon Montagu wrote:
: Is the `ikar to turn to the entrance to the shul? I understood that it
: was to turn to the west, "haShechina beMa`arav".

In one shul in my neighborhood (YU-Brisker LOR), they all turn 90deg
from the usual southern orientation of the shul to maarav; although the
shul has a side-exist (nearly never used) on that wall.

I wondered about how we knew that haShechinah beMaarav was a compass
point, picturing something more along the lines of a reference to Maaravah
(EY). Then I learned that the quote is from R' Avohu (BB 25a), and that
he is also called R' Avohu miQisrin (Caeseria). The only thing to the
west of him was the Mediterranian, Tunisia, Algeria, Morocco, and the
US. The maqom hamiqdash was to his east.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Despair is the worst of ailments. No worries
mi...@aishdas.org        are justified except: "Why am I so worried?"
http://www.aishdas.org                         - Rav Yisrael Salanter
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Lecha Dodi is said Shabbat Evening but not Yom Tov Evening.
When the two coincide there are various customs of what to eliminate.

RYBS explains that the essence of shabbat is welcoming G-d into our home
and this is the essence of kabbalat shabbat and lecha dodi.

However, the essence of YomTov is bet hamikdash centered ie we are going
to meet G-d rather then G-d coming to us. Hence when the two coincide
there is a mixture of the two.
Nusach Ashkenaz stresses the yomtov side and so minimizes kabbalat
shabbat and lecha dodi.
Nusach Sefard is willing to make a bigger compromize and so says
mizmor shor and the first 2 and last 2 stanzas of lecha dodi

kol tuv

-- 
Eli Turkel

R Simon M
> Is the `ikar to turn to the entrance to the shul? I understood that it
> was to turn to the west, "haShechina beMa`arav".

I was taught to turn to the entrance to greet the shabbos malkah -
even to take a step in that direction where feasible.

Caveat: I am not denying the validity of other possible "why's" such
as turning to maariv to greet the Shechina. Just relating the dynamic
I learned

And so says artscroll
    Turn to the entrance to face the bride..

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

RET
> RYBS explains that 
> the essence of YomTov is bet hamikdash centered ie we are going
> to meet G-d rather then G-d coming to us.

FWIW IMHO
The above better explains the Minhag of Duchaning on YT - I.2. even RH +
YK and NOT on Shabbas ChhM - better than the Rema's stated reason.

As a corollary
It also explains the shift in bracha to "she'oscha levadcha" since YT
Mussaph - as well as YK Mussaph - is Miqdash-Centric!

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Thu, Jul 30, 2009 at 10:30pm EDT, R Dr Meir Shinnar replied to my
post:
: 3.   Women's roles.  One of the things that has clearly changed in the  
: twentieth century is the public role of women...
: As part of that discussion, RHS made the following argument(?psak):
: There is an inherent conflict between the value of modesty (he used  
: tseniut, but that is also used in terms of the pritzut connotation -  
: and the part of tzeniut that he was emphasizing is better translated  
: by modesty) and public actions.  This is suggested by the rule that  
: someone asked to be a shliach tzibbur is supposed initially to  
: refuse.  What is mattir (and his argument was essentially a brisker  
: argument) us to transgress the value of modesty is that there is a  
: hiyuv inherent that someone has to fulfill a role /do the action - but  
: absent this mattir, one should not violate modesty.
: As women do not have such a hiyuv (for many of the actions  
: contemplated), therefore they should not violate their modesty - and  
: not assume a public role.

: You adopted this argument, and out of this Brisker argument developed  
: a far reaching theory of modesty - and one practical implication of  
: this is the consequence for women - and positions such as maharat.

I didn't really extend RHS's argument as much as shift it. RHS argued in
Brisker terms of chalos, and thus stating it directly in the language
of pesaq (although one shouldn't confuse a parashah sheet essay with
a teshuvah). I was adopting in more Telzher terms, or perhaps more
accurately outright mussar terms, and therefore was stating in terms of
the need for a "political pesaq" to preserve Jewish norms. The difference
in worldview between a Brisker and myself meant that the notion was
severely recast in translation from RHS's statement to mind.

FWIW, I think the practical implication on men is far greater. Because
it implies that men, who already occupy leadership positions, are called
upon to make sure that their leadership is really warranted. Do they
bring something to the table that others can't or aren't, or is much of
it a pursuit of kibud?

...
: Objections.
:       a) This model of modesty is one that in practice is not followed by  
: the general Jewish community. (I and many others have pointed out many  
: examples)

I don't consider this relevent.

:       b) Not only is it not followed in practice, it is not viewed as an  
: ideal that we are unable to fully implement, and there is literature  
: against it.

This I think is due to an oversimplification of my position. As is this:
:       c) Not only is it not viewed as an ideal, it actually represents an  
: ideal that is profoundly immoral, dangerous to the Jewish community,  
: and of foreign origin.  ((t is this last point that made the  
: discussion so heated - and I confess that I find it difficult to  
: understand how someone so morally sophisticated and sensitive adn  
: Micha could adopt such a position)


And the bottom line about what's missing from RMS's depiction of my
position is that I agree with:
:       d) Even if one were to accept this definition of modesty with its  
: restrictions as an ideal, it actually doesn't solve the issue of  
: women's roles - because the underlying issue of public roles for  
: women, such as yoetzet halacha, to'enet, high school tanach teacher,  
: or maharat (all revolutions in some form or other), is not satisfying  
: the base need for public adulaton of the individual - as viewed by  
: some of the critics - but satisfying a communal need that has been  
: identified by its leaders.  The question then becomes of what are the  
: needs of the community.

Very much so. I'm saying that such decisions need an active encounter
with the change, and a real assessment of pros vs cons. I am saying that
while RHS presented the notion in Brisker terms, the idea of tzeni'us /
anavah / avoiding kibud is an identified and significant "con".

Also, that this worldview is diametrically opposed to the western one
where significance is too often identified with prominence. And third,
that much of feminism derives from this identification as well.

So the question for every step that changes the role of women, from Beis
Yaakov to seminaries to yoatzot to WTGs to Maharat, is whether we can
define an offsetting pro. And moreso, a positive associated with that
claim that doesn't presume the conclusion.

And so, it's not placing personal development ahead of the kelal until
one decides that the con of pursuing kibud outweighs the pro of serving
the kelal -- and I never said anything remotely like that!

Rather, I said that one must actually identify a pro of equal import
to the negative of making major societal changes to accomodate a value
directly derived from a person's right to assume prominence.

(This being the distinction between encountering an idea and accepting it,
this time on the side of whether one grapples with tzeni'us or simply
follows it, rather than on the side of confronting moderinity rather
than assuming it as a given.)

It is unsound to say that we should accomodate rather than work to
remove a desire for Maharatot because there are women who feel they
belong in the role and women who feel they want to turn to someone in
that role. That circularly presumes that the religious desires involved
are positive ones -- the very notion under question!

Speaking of which, I feel to see the distinction recently posted by
RJJB in the name of RMT:
> That's the R' Tendler expansion on RMF's letter that theoretically
> allows women's tefillah groups. RMF allowed them if the motivations of
> the women were pure, not driven by feminism. RMT clarified that this
> was pure theory, that RMF didn't believe such women could exist.

Isn't that a false dichotomy? Let's assume, since we have no reason not
to, that the motives are purely religious. (It's unfair to assume we're
dealing with women who care more about making some feminist point than
tefillah.) However, those motives are based on a particular worldview. If
the worldview is suboptimal, then the purity of the motive doesn't redeem
it from being consequentially suboptimal.

On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 11:46pm BST, Rn Chana Luntz replied to my post:
: So, I was asking you to do that - and specifically about the change that has
: gone on in the lives of young women -prior to their marriage.  As I tried to
: indicate, the reality is in non charedi circles, young women are spending a
: decade or two post puberty but prior to marriage.  Obviously at least the
: first two to four years of that is indeed forced upon us (depending on the
: dina d'malchusa dina of wherever it is you live - in England you need to be
: 16, but other parts of the world differ).   Please explore whether the rest
: is indeed forced upon us?  Do the pros of later marriage outweigh the cons?
...

Yes, this determination has to be made. (You invoked my children, but
that just demonstrates that you don't have children of that age yourself,
yet. My daughter came back from sem, and all I can do is give points of
information, not make decisions.)

I find this and your post in general off-topic, since there are different
pros and cons with each change. Saying that we need more yoatzot doesn't
mean we need Maharatot, and saying that girls need more role models of
their own geneder doesn't imply we need more of either.

The Maharat is a unique invention in that it intentionally shadows
the rav in both education and future job. It is on those criteria in
particular that I question its net positive value. If the woman would be
a yoetzet, or give classes to the women in shul with no more a title than
Nechamah Leibowitz's, would anything be lost? Would she be any less of
a crush-proof (for the girls and single women in her class) role model,
any less of a contributor?

But in general, each such decision is unique. You're grouping them all
together as though the pros of education for college-bound women are the
same as the pros of some of those Jewishly educated women becoming toanot
leBD legeirushin. If I were to address the other questions you raise, my
original point would be lost in the volume of the numerous issues in each.

BY had a simple pro-vs-con -- either educate the girls who were getting
a secular education, or lose them to yahadus. Very straightforward. The
CC, BTW, phrased his endorsement in pesaq terms -- that learning what
was necessary to be a shomeres Torah umitzvos is defined in part by
this reality, and thus the original pesaq is now broader than just
learning pragmatic halakhah due to this change in metzi'us.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 02:55pm EDT, R David Riceman joined the conversation:
: 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.
...

And yet, we're discussing a societal change. I see only three outcomes
for the future of American O on this question: either we accept the
institution of Maharatot, we do not, or we end up two movements.

(BTW, I'm not that pale.)

...
: 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").
...

There is a fundamental difference between my obgliation to give kavod,
which includes kibudim, and the value of my not pursuing kibud -- and
thus not institutionalizing yet another way in which people can fall
into that trap.

See my earlier post on prominence vs substance, and besokh ami anokhi
yosheves. (You're coming in weeks after this thread left Areivim for
Avodah on Jul 9th; I can't repeat points made a couple of times prior.)
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/getindex.cgi?section=T#TZENIU
S%20AND%20GENDER%20ROLES>
or <http://bit.ly/2hfeJ9>.

On Thu, Aug 06, 2009 at 12:14pm BST, Rn Chana Luntz wrote in reply to
RAM:
: My reference to a generic "man lecturing women" was wider than that, I'm
: afraid.  I agree totally with this idea about focussing on one's OWN
: obligations and responsibilities.  The issue that arises, however, is often
: the kind of husband who may perhaps have tendencies towards abuse, may well
: also not always be clever enough to think up these things himself.  Nor will
: he necessarily have the authority to speak them solely by himself. He will
: seek to source them and buttress from others, particularly authoratative
: others.  The man lecturing women is, of course RHS and RMB himself.  Because
: while there is an attempt to argue, in these theses, that these concepts
: apply to men as well, because of the "but men are commanded", part of it,
: the message that is very easily taken is fundamentally about men lecturing
: women.

As above, I think the advantage of RHS's formulation that it's not about
"man lecturing woman". It has as much to say to someone like myself, who
manages to work bragging about my teaching gigs into more conversations
than necessary -- as you yourself pointed out earlier in this thread.

Second, I am nervous when I hear someone turning this into a gender-war
thing, that turning to a rav for hora'ah is somehow related to abusive
men who use gender norms to self-justify their controlling natures.

After all, when all is said and done, the baalei hora'ah and dayanim
will still be exclusively an all boys club.

: And I agree with RMB's example about OCD and the fact that Torah observance
: itself is open to abuse.

My example was actually about extra-halachic customs in hand washing. I
thought that some Qabbalah-based practice is closer to our case than
asking about din. After all, we can't ask questions about the viability
of following a halakhah.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The waste of time is the most extravagant
mi...@aishdas.org        of all expense.
http://www.aishdas.org                           -Theophrastus
Fax: (270) 514-1507

R' Rich Wolpoe asked about how many schools structure their fees:

>Instead of asking for a lump sum - say $10,000, you sometimes get
> $500 journal ad
> $1500 "scholarship" donation
> $500 registration
> $2000 "scrip" obligation (worth $100)
> $500 raffle
> Etc.
> And finally the remainder is the "tuition"
> But any "honest" accountant will tell you it's all tuition
> and none is deductible.
> So what's the point? 

There are several points. Just as the city, state, and country tax you in
many different ways in order to achieve some sort of fairness, schools also
try to do that sort of thing.

One simple example is an attempt to have a discount when a family has more
than one child in the school. Some schools do that by offering an outright
discount.  Others charge full tuition for all students, but also imposing
some other fee (such as the journal ad) upon the whole family only once.
This accomplishes the same thing as charging more for one child and less
for the others, but to many people it can appear more palatable.

Registration fees help offset the costs of a student who applies, but does
not attend. Outsiders don't realize how much work goes into procesing all
that paperwork, and it's gotta get offset somehow. Ditto for the fee to
apply for a scholarship.

On the presumption (ususally valid but not always) that families will be
spending a certain amount each month in certain stores, scrip is a way for
the school to profit without forcing the family to spend even a penny more
than they would have spent anyway. (Any listmembers who are not familiar
with how this works, write me offline.)

Regarding deductibility from one's taxes, I am not an accountant or tax
lawyer, but it is clear to me that the scrip fee and tuition are not
deductible. But I've heard arguments that under certain circumstances, the
"scholarship donation" very well might be. Similarly, I have vague
recollections (it was decades ago) that I was able to deduct the
afterschool fees.

So it seems rather simple to me that most of this itemizing is done for good reasons.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Save on Relocation Services - Click here.
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL21
31/fc/BLSrjnsEysXJAxLPrzVFvpaZq7B71lFpSBfmxIRVxa8e0CIgexFejoX0ftO/

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 05:50:22PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
: R' Rich Wolpoe asked about how many schools structure their fees:
...
: One simple example is an attempt to have a discount when a family has
: more than one child in the school. Some schools do that by offering an
: outright discount. Others charge full tuition for all students, but also
: imposing some other fee (such as the journal ad) upon the whole family
: only once...

It would be easier to publish as follows:
    1- First child: $x
    2- Second child: $y
    3- Third and subsequent children: $z
(Or perhaps 2 or 4 tiers, that's not the point.)
    4- Up to $300 can be paid off in vouchers.

That to my mind is yosher -- one is being very clear and up front about
charges, rather than burying it as a list of prices. But a half dozen
fees in the three digits hiding another couple to few thousand dollars?
Is there a reason other than trying to avoid putting a scary large number
in print?

I'm not saying wrong or assur, just that I agree with RRW that it doesn't
contribute to a culture of yosher.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
mi...@aishdas.org        exactly the right measure of himself,  and
http://www.aishdas.org   holds a just balance between what he can
Fax: (270) 514-1507      acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

Akiva Miller:
> Are you suggesting that the actions which certain NJites have been
> accused of are not blatantly assur?

Not necessarily

> Are you suggesting that such actions (if they were actually done)
> were done "birshus haTorah"?

Not really

> Are you suggesting that "head learning" is insufficient to tell someone
> that these actions are assur?

Lav davka :-)

Here is a simple model
First a student learns in his head W/O his heart. Text and no feeling.
Second he learns to beat the system using clever loopholes
Third he becomes the proverbial "naval birshus hattorah"
Fourth he becomes a stam menuval with a facade of Torah to hide behind

KT
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile

On Mon, 10 Aug 2009 10:30:09 -0600 Akiva Blum <yda...@gmail.com> 
wrote:
>> [mailto:avodah-boun...@lists.aishdas.org] On Behalf Of Zev Sero
>> Daniel Israel wrote:
>> > The opinion in the Gemara regarding the ben sorer umoreh 
appears to 
>> > be making an onological claim, namely, that it is 
intrinsically 
>> > impossible for such a case to happen.
>> 
>> There's nothing inherently impossible about the requirements 
being
>> fulfilled, and the gemara doesn't claim that they can't be, just
>> that they're extremely unlikely -- just like this case.
>
>See Sanhedrin 71a. Hagohos haBach learns that it is instrinsically 
>impossible.

The loshon in the gemara is "lo hayah, v'lo l'asid lihiyos."  It 
would seem to me that pshat in the gemara is that it is impossible. 
  If it is merely unlikely, how could the gemara know that it won't 
ever happen in the future?

The Bach simply gives a sevarh why it is impossible.

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

Micha [on Avodah]:
> Also, that this worldview is diametrically opposed to the western one
> where significance is too often identified with prominence. And third,
> that much of feminism derives from this identification as well.

A pardigm shift

When I was a kid TV biographies included subjects such as 
Lincoln
Einstein
Churchill
Babe Ruth
Madame Curie

Now it's about celebreties - actors, actresses

Thus, today equal "rights". is apparently also more about celebrity than
about "empowerment" or "greatness".

KT
RRW
RRW
Sent via BlackBerry from T-Mobile



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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 26, Issue 161
***************************************

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..."