Avodah Mailing List

Volume 27: Number 140

Tue, 13 Jul 2010

• 1. Re: Mining on Shabbos (Zev Sero)
• 2. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: anti-meat rhetoric "according to Judaism" (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: Tzedaka & middot Q (Elazar M. Teitz)
• 5. Re: Tzedaka & middot Q (Jacob Farkas)
• 6. Chassan Vekallah: Retaining an Aura of Tznius ? Modesty (Prof. Levine)
• 7. Nesi'im Missing Yud (Meir Rabi)
• 8. 8 legged camel (Micha Berger)
• 9. Rashi in Devarim (Gershon Dubin)
• 10. Re: Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, hashgacha pratit, and free will (Micha Berger)
• 11. Re: Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, hashgacha pratit, and free will (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: The Rav on the Ordination of Women (Chana Sassoon)
• 13. Re: Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, hashgacha pratit, and free will (rabbirichwolpoe@gmail.com)
• 14. Re: Bilvavi Mishkan Evneh, hashgacha pratit, and free will (Micha Berger)

Micha Berger wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2010 at 12:40:26PM +0000, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> : If the melachos are derived or defined as those actions which were
> : necessary for building the Mishkan, and the Mishkan used a lot of gold,
> : silver, and brass, then wouldn't the acquiring of such metals be an
> : Av Melacha?
> 
> Lemaaseh, weren't they acquired from the Mitzriyum before leaving, rather
> than from gold, silver and copper and tin or zinc mines in the midbar?

I thought of that too, but then lema'aseh they didn't go fishing for
chilazon either, or crack them open and boil them; they either brought
their dyed wools from Egypt, or bought them from traders.  Nor did they
grow their own flax.  So why are all those melachos listed?


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

On Sun, Jul 11, 2010 at 11:30:32AM +0800, I. Balbin wrote:
: Sure, but is there a need/chiyuv for a Kehila to actively seek meat
: that is known to be produced in farms that are more "animal friendly"? ...

I was arguing that given the low threshold for the definition of
unnecessary pain in the din of tzaar baalei chaim, the fact that we
are already worried about stretched budgets may mean that no, there is
no such chiyuv. The point is not being pointlessly cruel. Keeping meat
affordable, particulary given the dinim and minhagim of Shabbos and YT,
would appear to make any additional pain to be cruelty with a purpose.

OTOH, I encountered this interesting Y-mi this morning...

Kelaim 9:3 42a tells us that Rebbe considered his 17 years in Tzipori[n]
to be like "Vayechi Yaaqov beEretz Mitzrayim seva-esrei shanah". Meaning,
he finally felt at peace and accomplishing, after being reunited with
Yoseif. Even though for 13 of them he had an excrutiating toothache. (The
Bavli's version has it that he had a stomach ailment.)

R' Yosi bei R' Bun said that due to the kaparah caused by his suffering,
no nursing mother died in Israel, nor were their any stillbirths in the
land of Israel during those 13 years.

And why did he have that toothache?

Because one time he passed a calf going to slaughter. The calf begged
him, "Rebbe, save me!" Rabbi Yehudah answered "This is what you were
created for."

It ended when Rabbi Yehudah saw an exterminator going to kill termites,
and Rebbe pleaded that he spare them, because HQBH is "verachamav al
kol maasav" (Tehillim 145, "Ashrei").

But I don't think anyone would argue that tzaar baalei chaim *requires*
giving up one's home to termites!

On Sun Jul 11 19:25:57 PDT, Jacob Farkas replied:
>: 1) While Judaism mandates that people should be very careful about
>: preserving their health and their lives...
>: 2) While Judaism forbids tsa'ar ba'alei chayim, inflicting unnecessary pain
>: on animals...
>: 4) While Judaism mandates bal tashchit..

> I will agree that argument #1 (and to some degree #3,#4,#5, and #6)
> cited is hyperbole, argument #2 is mostly accurate. The key issue is
> factory farming though, and not necessarily the eating of meat. The
> overwhelming majority of meat in this country is available through
> this channel, and Kosher meat is no different.

There appears to be a mismatch between my discussion of the relatively
small size of necessary benefit to man, and RJF's response addressing
of the amount of avoidable pain to the animals being greater than most
people assume.

As I wrote above, I think that one can establish that factory farming
is needful.

Ideal as a lifnim mishuras hadin? Perhaps not. But in terms of issur,
I would (if I were a poseiq) argue that cost is sufficient for the tzaar
not to be simply assur as cruelty.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Micha Berger wrote:


> It ended when Rabbi Yehudah saw an exterminator going to kill termites,
> and Rebbe pleaded that he spare them, because HQBH is "verachamav al
> kol maasav" (Tehillim 145, "Ashrei").

Termites?  Surely it was baby mice who were being swept out.

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

 
RToby Katz writes:

<Tzedakah is the /opposite/ of socialism.  Tzedakah means it is your  money 
and you voluntarily give it to beneficiaries whom you consider  worthy.   In 
the case of terumos uma'asros, you have the halachic  right to decide which 
kohen and levi you will give to and the kohen can't come  to your house and 
take his donations by force -- even though you do have a  general 
obligation to give and he does have a general right to receive.   The kohen therefore 
has an incentive to make himself agreeable and useful to his  fellow 
citizens -- rather than coming at them with "attitude" and "es kumt  
mir.">

     T'rumos and ma'asros are _not_ tzedaka.  They are the price a grower
     pays for having land on which to grow.  And while the Torah gave him
     the right to choose which kohein or leivi should get it, it is not his
     -- it is mamon hasheivet. Collectively, "es kumt zei yuh."  There were
     also the various mat'nos aniyim (leket, shichcha, peiah, peret,
     ol'los), where the poor came into the field and took, even if they
     came with "attitude" and "es kumt mir."


     As for actual tzedaka, in Talmudic times it was not "your	money and
     you voluntarily give it to beneficiaries whom you consider  worthy." 
     It was collected by gabbaim from each city resident according to his
     means, and distributed by gabbaim to each poor person according to his
     needs.   Of course, many gave to individuals over and above their
     assessment, but the basic system was far from the opposite of
     socialism. 

EMT
____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Soaring 3000%
Sign up for Free to find out what the next 3000% Stock Winner Is!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3141/4c3b6a5371f0420e544st06vuc
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100712/51536ded/attachment-0001.htm>

Rn Toby Katz:

> Socialism is the opposite -- it's not  your money, the government  takes it
> away from you and decides who to give your money to, whether you think
> those recipients deserve it or not.

Rambam in Hilchos Matnos Aniyim (Pereq 7) has a similar model when
discussing someone who refuses to "volunteer" his money to Tzedakah
(or gives less than deemed his share). This model includes beatings
and confiscation of property.

> Socialism is attractive to many people
> for the very reason that it /frees/ them from the obligation to give tzedakah
> --  cleanses their conscience -- so they can look at a poor person and say,
> "You're  not my problem, go to the welfare office and leave me alone."  This
> is, for  the same reason, the big attraction of voting Democat -- it
> enables you to feel  charitable because you voted to redistribute /other people's/
> money, and frees  you of the obligation to give away your own money.   Once
> again,  socialism is the opposite of tzedakah.

I think you are confusing Socialism with redistribution. I also think
that Tzadekah is the Torah's vehicle for redistribution in ensuring
that everyone gets Dai Machsoro (...to each according to his need?)

--Jacob Farkas

The following is from today's email 
from  http://jewishvalues.us/Welcome.html   Daily Hilchos Bein Adom L'Chavero

While all agree that there is a mitzvah to dance before

the kallah, there are different minhagim regarding

a male relative or Rabbi dancing (?mitzvah tantz?) with

the kallah ? with the separation of a handkerchief, of

course ? in order to endear her to the chassan. According to some opinions

it is prohibited to do so, and a talmid chacham should be stringent

and refrain. In communities where this is the norm and the intentions

of those participating are lesheim Shamayim, one should not protest the

minhag, but where it is not the accepted minhag, such dancing is forbidden.

In any case, the poskim prohibit men gazing at the kallah.

At wedding celebrations we should be careful to ensure complete

separation between men and women, especially during the dancing. If,

chas veshalom, there is any mixing between boys and girls at the time of

dancing, many issurim are violated, including: ?Lo sikrevu ? ? Do not

approach ?? (Vayikra 18); ?Lo sasuru ? ? Do not turn after your eyes?

(Bamidbar 15); and ?Venishmarta ? ? Keep away from all evil thoughts?

(Devarim 23). In fact, if men and women sit together during the wedding

meal, the meal loses its designation as a seudas mitzvah, and we do

not add the brachah of Shehasimchah bime?ono with the bentching, since

Torah obligations are likely to be violated at such a gathering. Whoever

is in a position to influence the baalei simchah should do whatever is in

his power to prevent this practice.

When a sheva brachos takes place in a private home, with the participation

of only close family, in some places the custom is for men and

women to sit separately in the same room, without a mechitzah separating

them, and still say the brachah of Shehasimchah bime?ono. However,

if there are young men or women from outside the family present, such

as friends of the chassan and kallah, then there should certainly be a

mechitzah. (Mishpetei Hashalom 16:12?13)



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100712/7703b17a/attachment-0001.htm>

The Nesi'im lost a Yud as a signal of Gd's displeasure since they did not
participate as they ought to have in donating for the Mishkan.
Firstly, why was this not seen as a gesture of great support. I reckon most
fund collectors would be delighted to hear someone make such an offer.
Secondly, why were they "rewarded" by being the only named people to be
distinguished by having a particular item of the Mishkan identified as
theirs?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100713/dd64bb17/attachment-0001.htm>

RSZN wrote to Areivim:
: http://parsha.blogspot.com/2010/07/rav-yaakov-emdens-eight-leg
: ged-camel.html
: the [mythical?] origin  of r yakov emden's pshat....

RYE points ot Kelaim 8:5, which Y-mi daf yomi covered recently enough
(8:4 as the Vilna edition divides the mishnayos, 39b) for me to have
remembered. I do not understand how to explain this mishnah if you
translate "ramachim" as dromadary (the two-humped camel).

The previous mishnah was about kalayei beheimah following the mother,
in terms of horses and donkeys. Then we have this mishnah opens with
"Haperutiyos asuros" -- mules where you don't know of either of them
whether their mother or father was the horse or the donkey, can't
be mated.

And now, what appears to be a contrast paired to the previous issur
"veharamakh mutar".

So, the rishonim all assume the ramakh is either a breed of equine
that looks mulish or a similar hybrid. As for Megillas Esther 8:10,
the word Persian word "rammakha" and the Syriac "ramka" is the Tarpan
(a/k/a "Eurasian Wild Horse"). A picture on wikipedia shows something
pony sized. (They went extinct in 1909.)

But in any case, it would break the flow to assume we're now taking
about a kind of camel.

Although, the list would end here either way, the next animal under
discussion is "adnei hasadeh" (orangutans?).

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

Does anyone have a good explanation for the order of the tochachos, according to Rashi, that are represented in the first pasuk of Devarim?

Gershon
gershon.du...@juno.com

____________________________________________________________
Get Free Email with Video Mail & Video Chat!
http://www.juno.com/freeemail?refcd=JUTAGOUT1FREM0210
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20100713/1c6d5914/attachment-0001.htm>

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
: How am I to understand Rav Schwartz in light of these issues with his
: conception of free will and hashgacha? (And how does he understand the
: Ramchal, and REED?)

I presume as you do, that he doesn't claim to be following REED. I
also am enthralled with Dr Nathan Birnbaum's idea of Tif'eres, where
one's mind is so unified that there is no clear line even between one's
yir'as Shamayim and one's choice of living room end table. Everything
is influenced by one's Jewishness - even aesthetics. (Which we don't
need to revisit yet again.)

The problem you hit WRT the amendation to Chullin 7b "No one bruises
(or even lifts) a finger down below unless a proclamation is issued from
above" is one I hit chasing a few of RIS's quotes.

I also have a problem mapping a large number of his many quotes of the
Ramchal to the way the texts appear to me when I read them. My first
example (and the only one I bothered keeping track of) from 1:7
(cut-n-pasted from <http://bilvavi.net/content/view/280/32>):
    As the Ramchal wrote in Mesillas Yesharim (Ch. 1), "The truth is
    that the only true perfection (the true perfection of every single
    person without exception) is deveikus to Hashem." And he concludes,
    "Anything else considered good by people is vanity and deceptive
    emptiness."

    This is all a Jew really has in life - closeness to Hashem and
    deveikus to Him....

Here's part of MY ch 1 (from <http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/1.htm>,
I think it's R' Shraga Simmon's translation, but my confusion stemmed
from reading it in the original, and is not due to translation
subtleties):
    Our Sages of blessed memory have taught us that man was created
    for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God and deriving pleasure from
    the splendor of His Presence; for this is true joy and the greatest
    pleasure that can be found. The place where this joy may truly be
    derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created to provide
    for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this world,
    as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Avorh 4:21), "This world
    is like a corridor to the World to Come."

    The means which lead a man to this goal are the mitzvoth, in relation
    to which we were commanded by the Lord, may His Name be blessed. The
    place of the performance of the mitzvoth is this world alone.

    Therefore, man was placed in this world first - so that by these
    means, which were provided for him here, he would be able to reach
    the place which had been prepared for him, the World to Come, there
    to be sated with the goodness which he acquired through them. As
    our Sages of blessed memory have said (Eruvin 22a), "Today for their
    [the mitzvoth's] performance and tomorrow for receiving their reward."

So, as I read the Ramchal, a Jew does NOT really have in life - closeness
to Hashem and deveiques to Him". That's what he has in Olam haBa. In
life, all a person has is the opportunity to become the kind of person
capable of that closeness, and capable of enjoying it.

I hit upon a number of these, and not having someone who could get me
into his paradigm so that the Ramchal and other citations made sense, I
just gave up on the Bilvavi series.

I intend this to be read as an appeal for assistance.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Thu, Jul 08, 2010 at 04:08:38PM -0500, Chanoch (Ken) Bloom wrote:
: How am I to understand Rav Schwartz in light of these issues with his
: conception of free will and hashgacha? (And how does he understand the
: Ramchal, and REED?)

I presume as you do, that he doesn't claim to be following REED. I
also am enthralled with Dr Nathan Birnbaum's idea of Tif'eres, where
one's mind is so unified that there is no clear line even between one's
yir'as Shamayim and one's choice of living room end table. Everything
is influenced by one's Jewishness - even aesthetics. (Which we don't
need to revisit yet again.)

The problem you hit WRT the amendation to Chullin 7b "No one bruises
(or even lifts) a finger down below unless a proclamation is issued from
above" is one I hit chasing a few of RIS's quotes.

I also have a problem mapping a large number of his many quotes of the
Ramchal to the way the texts appear to me when I read them. My first
example (and the only one I bothered keeping track of) from 1:7
(cut-n-pasted from <http://bilvavi.net/content/view/280/32>):
    As the Ramchal wrote in Mesillas Yesharim (Ch. 1), "The truth is
    that the only true perfection (the true perfection of every single
    person without exception) is deveikus to Hashem." And he concludes,
    "Anything else considered good by people is vanity and deceptive
    emptiness."

    This is all a Jew really has in life - closeness to Hashem and
    deveikus to Him....

Here's part of MY ch 1 (from <http://www.shechem.org/torah/mesyesh/1.htm>,
I think it's R' Shraga Simmon's translation, but my confusion stemmed
from reading it in the original, and is not due to translation
subtleties):
    Our Sages of blessed memory have taught us that man was created
    for the sole purpose of rejoicing in God and deriving pleasure from
    the splendor of His Presence; for this is true joy and the greatest
    pleasure that can be found. The place where this joy may truly be
    derived is the World to Come, which was expressly created to provide
    for it; but the path to the object of our desires is this world,
    as our Sages of blessed memory have said (Avorh 4:21), "This world
    is like a corridor to the World to Come."

    The means which lead a man to this goal are the mitzvoth, in relation
    to which we were commanded by the Lord, may His Name be blessed. The
    place of the performance of the mitzvoth is this world alone.

    Therefore, man was placed in this world first - so that by these
    means, which were provided for him here, he would be able to reach
    the place which had been prepared for him, the World to Come, there
    to be sated with the goodness which he acquired through them. As
    our Sages of blessed memory have said (Eruvin 22a), "Today for their
    [the mitzvoth's] performance and tomorrow for receiving their reward."

So, as I read the Ramchal, a Jew does NOT really have in life - closeness
to Hashem and deveiques to Him". That's what he has in Olam haBa. In
life, all a person has is the opportunity to become the kind of person
capable of that closeness, and capable of enjoying it.

I hit upon a number of these, and not having someone who could get me
into his paradigm so that the Ramchal and other citations made sense, I
just gave up on the Bilvavi series.

I intend this to be read as an appeal for assistance.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

RAF responded to various of my postings as follows (although I have
rearranged the order somewhat of his comments):

I wrote:
> >"One other thing in the above piece puzzles me.  RAF writes that Rav
> >Moshe was "unaware that we indeed find the Rambam's formulation in the
> >Finkelstein edition of the Sifrei".  Given that Rav Uziel writing in 1920
in his
> > psak on women voting (Mishpatei Uziel 44) knew of this addition to the
Sifri,
> > it seems rather surprising to suggest that Rav Moshe, writing fifty
years
> > later, was ignorant of it."
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO Rav Moshe Feinstein was obviously unaware of the alternate Girsa
> in the Sifrei since he wonders where the Rambam got the idea that women
were
> excluded from all minuyei serara.  He concludes that there is indeed no
> source and it was Rambam's own logical extension -  presumably
> extrapolated from ger.  Clearly, RMF was unaware of an alternate girsa
which comes
> out just like the Rambam.

This is indeed true.  It is extremely curious, however, and gets even
curiouser when one reads the teshuva that is printed right after (Iggeros
Moshe Yoreh Deah 2:45) the original one on women and serarah (Iggeros Moshe
Yoreh Deah 2:44).  The second teshuva is written to defend what he wrote in
the first teshuva after encountering what seems to have been significant
criticism of the first, a) for potentially causing a michshol by telling
people that the majority do not posken like the Rambam, and b) on various
halachic grounds.  But the one criticism that does not appear to have been
put to Rav Moshe was this one, ie what about this discovered Sifri, and is
this not the source of the Rambam?    The first teshuva from Rav Moshe is
dated Purim taf shin kaf [ie Purim 1960] and the second, while not dated,
has to be later.  Rav Uzziel's teshuva was dated 1920, I believe, and he
quotes the additional piece of the Sifri as "coming from the geniza that was
revealed by HaRav Shlomo Aharon Vartanheimer".

I wrote:
>> "I cannot see anywhere where RYBS addresses the question of the
> >Levush's reason (ie that women faint)"
> 
And RAF responded: 
> Chana is correct.  I responded from memory and erred.  The Rav does not
> relate to the Levush and Fainting - only to the claim that lo rainu
> ra'aya.

Although to be fair, in the pages of Shiurei HaRav which relate to this
matter, and which RAF has now kindly sent me, the view of Tosphos in Chullin
(2a) and the explanation of the Beis Yosef on that Tosphos is brought in a
footnote, these almost certainly being the basis of the view of the Levush.
Not understanding this book, I don't know what to make of the footnotes.
Were these referred to in the shiurim, or are these additions by the author,
later? at the time?  In any event R' Gil did not translate these footnotes,
which is why I had not seen the reference previously. 
> 

I wrote:
>> ". whether RYBS held that the Rema was ruling like the Rambam in the
> >face of the majority of the rishonim."
> 

And RAF replied:
 
> I'm not sure Briskers were ever terribly concerned whether the majority
> of Poskim agreed with the Rambam or not. The Rambam was a Giant, and that
> was that.

This seems a little bit harsh on the Briskers.  As far as I am aware, they
are not Yeminites (whom, I believe, do indeed posken like the Rambam both
l'chumra and l'kula).  For example, in our recent discussion on this list
regarding bishul achar bishul on a d'var lach, if RYBS were simply to take
the view that the Rambam was a giant, and that is that, then he would never
have postulated what he postulated (in fact, the position of the Chazon Ish
discussed here is more compatible with a position that the Rema is following
the Rambam, given that the Rambam holds that ain bishul achar bishul on a
d'var lach).

But leaving the relationship between Rambam and ultimate halacha aside for a
minute, I did want to point out that if one was just learning the Rambam on
this, but with the knowledge of the Sifri from the geniza, it is possible to
come up with the kind of chiluk so beloved by Briskers.  This is due to the
differing language of the Rambam in relation to women and to converts, as
can be seen in the two halachos that follow each other, and which I quoted
in a previous post, namely:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 4 A king shall not be appointed from
the community of converts, even after many generations unless his mother is
from Israel, as it says [Devarim 17:15] do not put upon yourselves a
foreigner who is not your brother, and not to the kinship alone,  but all
"sareros"  in Israel, not a sar [ie prince] of the army, and not a sar of
fifty or a sar of ten, even the one given authority over the waters that
they divide from there for the fields, and it is not necessary to say a
judge or a nasi that he should not be except from Israel as it says "from
the midst of your brothers shall you place on yourself a king", all
appointments which you shall place shall not be except from the midst of
your brothers.

And then:

Rambam Hilchot Melachim perek 1 halacha 5 We may not appoint a woman to the
kingship as it says on you a king and not a queen, and so for all the
appointments [mesimos] in Israel we only appoint [maminim] to them a man.

Now Rav Moshe, who assumed that the Rambam got this second halacha from the
gemora regarding converts (and there is logic to that, as the language in
halacha 5 tracks that of Yevamos 45b and Kiddushin 76b regarding converts
"kol mesimos"), therefore applied all of the other aspects of serarah that
come up in the gemora.

But if you assume that the Rambam's source for halacha 5 was in fact the
[newly discovered] Sifri the language  of which is A foreigner:  from here a
man is appointed a parnes [community leader] on the community [al hatzibur]
and a woman is not appointed a community leader on the community [parnes al
hatzibbur]", you can then say that the fact that the Rambam did not repeat
all the portions about a sar of fifty and a sar of ten and the one who
divides the waters is in fact davka.

That the issue at stake vis a vis a ger is indeed serarah, in terms of
authority over somebody else (in the way that Rav Moshe understood it), but
that the issue at stake vis a vis women is something different, something
that could be summed up in the phrase minui hakahal - ie community wide
appointments.  Why? Because that is what the Sifri specifically refers to, a
parnes *al hatzibbur*.  And that is why the Rambam uses very different (and
more limited) language, because he is getting at different concepts.

Now if this was what RYBS was getting at, then that would answer at least
some of my questions - in particular the one about where did he get this new
concept about minui hakahal which he appears to layer on top of the general
prohibition of serarah, and for which there appears to be no source
whatsoever (it still does leave him relying on what appears to be the
minority rishonic opinion, although it may be possible, given this
alternative understanding, to bring more rishonim into line than one can
with the classic convert serarah definition).

However there are two reasons that one might not want to assume that this
was what RYBS was getting at:

a) it would mean that whoever wrote Shiurei HaRav did not understand RYBS,
because the language of these shiurim is clearly phrased as, serarah and
minui hakahal, ie that there is a dual problem for women, and that women
have a greater problem than converts, whereas this chiluk would suggest that
a) at most it is just a different problem and b) probably it is a lesser
problem; and

b) while if you took this chiluk and applied it to women shechting, then you
would indeed come to the conclusion that women could not shect as a matter
of halacha, *but only in the circumstance that RYBS refers to specifically
in the shiurim*, and here I quote RGS's translation:

"The Shulchan Arukh (Yoreh De'ah 1:11) wrote that if a community issued a
decree that only one butcher may slaughter but someone else did, his
slaughtered meat is forbidden. The Shakh (no. 34) explains in the name of
Rabbenu Yerucham that the reason is because he is considered suspect for
this matter. However, according to our idea above, even without this reason
we would still forbid his slaughtered meat. Since slaughtering is a communal
appointment, anyone who is not appointed by the community is excluded from
slaughtering and his slaughtering is forbidden., wrote that if a community
issued a decree that only one butcher may slaughter but someone else did,
his slaughtered meat is forbidden. ie where there is a community appointed
shochet, whose position is so secure that to eat from anybody else's
shechted meat is assur! "

Ie in a circumstance where a community appointed shochet's position is so
secure that to eat from anybody else's shechted meat is assur, then it would
be forbidden to allow a woman to shecht, as this is a community position.
But if the situation reverted to that prior to it (as indeed it has today),
where we eat from a range of different shochtim, then the Rema's prohibition
falls away.  That is, it actually works out to be a kula not a chumra.

Note however that this chiluk does answer the question about school
principals. That is, if one says that there is in fact no problem with a
woman exercising serarah, then there is no problem with the Rav's wife
bossing around as many male pupils as she likes at a school like Maimonides,
regardless of whether or not they are halachic adults.  Because you can
indeed then say that school pupils are a section of the community, and not
the whole community (ie they are not analogous to a parnes al hatzibbur or a
community wide shochet who is the only one whose shechita is kosher).  But
again you end up with huge kulos compared to what has been proposed, because
given today's proliferation of shuls, the same would have to be said for any
given shul.  And yet where you would indeed find problems is in running for
Knesset, because those are indeed community wide appointments.

Note by the way that Rav Uzziel has not too dissimilar a chiluk in his
teshuva on women running for public office, but he focuses on the word
"appoint", which he understands to be by Sanhedrin or beis din, in
opposition to kabala or acceptance by the general populace (as I have noted,
however, this is very close to the chiluk that the Rashba brings, again in
the Rambam, as quoted by the Beis Yosef in Beis Yosef Choshen Mishpat siman
8 and which is quoted l'halacha by the Rema in Choshen Mishpat siman 8 si'if
1, so it personally seems to me to be better grounded.)

And finally RAF writes:

> It would seem to me that the Rav proposes the second approach because
> he is fundamentally unhappy with the proposal that inaction can create a
> minhag!
> This leads him to suggest what he thinks is a more satisfying answer.

I agree that the Shach is difficult (it is clear from his comments further
on in Yoreh Deah on this that he was seriously attacked for this
suggestion).  But what I don't have a feel for is the extent to which RYBS
believed providing a more satisfying answer intellectually is grounds to
abandon that which has been discussed by the achronim and the rishonim when
it comes to halacha l'ma'ase (especially as there may be other, even more
satisfying answers out there that we just haven't thought of).

As I have suggested above, the idea that RYBS was suggesting not serarah
plus minui kahal as the applicable prohibition in the Rambam, but minui
kahal instead of serarah is arguably far more intellectually satisfying and
works far more beautifully with the sources, if not with Shiurei HaRav.  How
far is one prepared to rely on the intellectually satisfying answer,
especially if it leads to kulos rather than chumros, is, of course, the
question.

Regards

Chana

> As the Ramchal wrote in Mesillas Yesharim (Ch. 1), "The truth is
> that the only true perfection (the true perfection of every single
> person without exception) is deveikus to Hashem." And he concludes,
> "Anything else considered good by people is vanity and deceptive
> emptiness."

> This is all a Jew really has in life - closeness to Hashem and
> deveikus to Him...?

My chavrusa in Nefesh hachayyim says that RCV opposes this d'veiqus uber alles.  
Are ramchal and RCV arguing?

[This is simple I don't know this stuff well no trick here]

Shalom
Rich.

On Tue, Jul 13, 2010 at 09:52:54PM +0000, rabbirichwol...@gmail.com wrote:
: My chavrusa in Nefesh hachayyim says that RCV opposes this d'veiqus uber alles.  
: Are ramchal and RCV arguing?

Well, the RCV, like both of the movements he spawned (Yeshiva and Mussar)
as well as his rebbe the Gra, defines the goal in life to be sheleimus,
not deveiqus. This was a key issue, and perhaps the key issue, separating
the Chassidim from the Litvaks.

From this deveiques-centric worldview comes the Chassidic focus on an
immanent G-d, which in turn demands a different understanding of tzimtzum
than that of misnagdim, etc...

However, as I already posted quoting MY ch. 1 (and I could have equally
cited Derekh H' ch. 4 or ch. 5, if they were as readily available for
cut-n-paste) the Ramchal places deveiqus as a goal for olam haba, and
olam hazeh is a place where one develops the sheleimus necessary for
that deveiqus to be possible.

So I disagree with your chavrusa's assumption about the Ramchal's
position. Yes, RCV says that this life is not all "deveiques uber ales".
Not no, that's not in opposition to the Ramchal.

-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Zion will be redeemed through justice,
mi...@aishdas.org        and her returnees, through righteousness.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 27, Issue 140
***************************************

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..."