Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 47

Thu, 24 Mar 2011

• 1. kol isha question (Chana Luntz)
• 2. Re: Sobering Thoughts for Purim (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Eliyahu Grossman)
• 5. Re: Dating the Zohar (Zev Sero)
• 6. kol isha (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 7. Re: Dating the Zohar (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: who is going to Gehenim (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Zechor/zachar (Hankman)
• 10. Re: kol isha (Zev Sero)
• 11. Nisht Yoshon/Not Yoshon (Prof. Levine)
• 12. Dating the Zohar (Prof. Levine)
• 13. Re: Nisht Yoshon/Not Yoshon (Danny Schoemann)
• 14. the treyfe minim (Saul.Z.New...@kp.org)
• 15. Re: Dating the Zohar (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: Dating the Zohar (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Chumros (Doron Beckerman)

>
>  RSZN writes:
>


> >are viewers/ listeners  who are meikel/don't hold from  kol isha  issues
> >bound  by the request of  performers  who don't want  their own psak of
> >kol isha issues violated?
>
> Well leaving aside dina d'malchusa dina issues (after all, there may be
copywrite issues if a performance is used in a way that the performer
specifically does not wish) there is a concept at the beginning of Baba
Basra as to whether hezek riya shmei hezek or lav shmei hezek, ie does
violation of a right to privacy constitute a form of damage or not?  That
is, if you can see into my courtyard does that damage me, and can I act to
prevent this.  However, I am not aware of this concept ever being used
beyond questions of physical property (except perhaps as a grounds for
divorce without kesuba, and even there, it would seem that it is the
attitude by the woman not the fact of inappropriate viewing, that is
problematic, as otherwise strictures would apply in cases of ones).

But this is part of the problem.  Tznius has taken on a life of its own, and
seems to be being treated as a halachic entity in its own right, a bit like
privacy, but aside from this one example in Baba Basra, and the grounds for
divorce in Kesubos, I personally can't think of a situation where mere
seeing is regarded in halachic terms as violating the rights of the one who
is seen (or their husband perhaps) - and certainly not of a case where one
is considered violating the rights of one who is merely heard.

Of course, if you understand prohibitions like kol isha operate vis a vis
women as a form of lifnei iver, then we can have a fruitful halachic
discussion.  Given that today a man is quite capable of finding many
opportunities to hear a woman sing on film, it would seem that the biblical
prohibition of lifnei iver, requiring two sides of the river, would not be
applicable here.  So the real discussion is about mesaye lei, the rabbinic
version of lifnei iver, and presumably it would need to centre on the
machlokus between the Shach (Yoreh Deah siman 151 si'if katan 6) and the
Magan Avraham (Orech Chaim siman 347 si'if katan 4) as to whether mesaye lei
applies to a mumar or somebody who is sinning b'mezid, the Shach holding
that it does not (see eg Iggeros Moshe Yoreh Deah chelek 1 siman 72 for the
understanding that when the Shach referred to a mumar, he was including
anyone sinning b'mazid) , whereas the Magan Avraham holds that it does.

If you hold like the Shach therefore, then if a man b'mazid, after having
been warned, goes to a film like this, then there should be no violation of
mesaye lei on the part of the women, even if they do hold that watching such
a film by a man is assur.  On the other hand, according to the Magen
Avraham, arguably were such a man to go, the women would end up being in
violation of mesaye lei according to their lights, if not according to his.
However, given that lifnei lifnei iver even at the d'orisa level is mutar, I
doubt that mesaya mesaya is assur, assuming that you hold that the ikar act
is mutar.  So while, if the women follow the Magen Avraham, they may feel
the need to go to great lengths to make sure that a man is not able to come
and see the film, because of mesaye lei, and by going a man might cause such
films to be even less available to women and girls in the future, so it
might be wise to desist, I can't see the halachic basis on which he would be
required to desist, if his position is, eg that recorded singing is mutar.

But this is part of the ironies that comes into play every time tznius comes
up - halachic thinking and its categories appear to go out of the window and
people stop thinking in halachic terms (probably because the people doing
most of the thinking, ie women, have generally not been trained to think in
halachic terms).  So you almost never see these kind of analyses.

Regards

Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110323/e7a138d1/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 06:14:21PM +0200, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: But most people don't finish the sentence "until you don't know the
: difference between...", and the reality is that there is no difference! ...

... between "arur Haman and barukh Mordochai".

I think there is. See the signature quote in this email (below).

"Arur Haman" is chasing the darkness,
"Barukh Mordochai" is lighting a candle.

(Yes, I mean "Mordochai", with a chataf-qamatz under the dalet, transliterated
with an "o" because the chataf-qamatz appears to be related more to the
qamatz qatan.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             When you come to a place of darkness,
mi...@aishdas.org        you don't chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org   You light a candle.
Fax: (270) 514-1507        - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:49:21AM +0200, Danny Schoemann wrote:
: I had an interesting thought. Japan had made their country "earthquake
: proof" and AFAIK nobody got killed because of the quake - almost the
: biggest ever recorded.
...
: Sort of "Tower of Babel" like; you think you can outsmart the RBSO, do you?
: That could be a lesson we can "take home"

Only if you could somehow show this was the Japanese mindset, and that
the people taking that lesson were well aware of that fact. Otherwise,
I don't think we can simply dismiss the importance of hishtadlus.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

While there are some Midrashim that say that the Tower of Bavel was built as
a rebellion, the actual language of the text in Berashit doesn't say it at
all. Would one say that Avraham was rebelling against Him, since it says
that EVERYONE was participating, so Avraham was making those bricks just
like everyone else? (Which is why some Midrashim have Avraham discover G-d
late, and some early in life). From the simple reading, they chose to build
something great, a common project, and G-d doesn't get angry, but says "Nah,
it's not appropriate at this time - zap!" Although the implications of why,
while embellished in stories, certainly give a lot of food for thought!

All the best.

Eliyahu Grossman
Efrat, Israel

Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:53:50 GMT
From: "kennethgmil...@juno.com" <kennethgmil...@juno.com>
Subject: Re: [Avodah] who is going to Gehenim


>--------------[Snip from Original Post]--------------<

R' Danny Schoemann wrote:

> I had an interesting thought. Japan had made their country "earthquake 
> proof" and AFAIK nobody got killed because of the quake - almost the 
> biggest ever recorded.
> What killed them was the Tsunami that followed, then the nuclear 
> trouble then the volcano that erupted and finally snow.
> Sort of "Tower of Babel" like; you think you can outsmart the RBSO, do 
> you?

RAM: I strongly disagree!!!

By the Tower of Bavel, they were explicitly rebelling against Hashem. I am
not aware of any such thing regarding Japan. On the contrary, making their
country earthquake proof is an admirable goal for the protection of their
countrymen.

Akiva Miller

An amora means someone who remembers mishnayos and braisos and recites
them on demand.  They had amora'im in Rashbi's day.  So this is no proof.

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

in re  kol isha  question  r ZS    states--
 So it's just not mentchlich to violate their wish
in this way.

--    1] it's not  clear  the performers  will ever know  who is  watching 
it   [ nodifferent  than performers whose  records say  dont  play on 
shabbat/holidays, which  i don't doubt  are gracing shabbat tables in 
non-O  settings .  that doesnt  stop the performers from performiing]

       2] from the perspective of the listener who is meikel on kol isha, 
i don't see that they would find an issur  in 'not being menshlich'  over 
something that is muttar to them.....


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110323/0cc68df5/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 03:16:02PM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> An amora means someone who remembers mishnayos and braisos and recites
> them on demand.  They had amora'im in Rashbi's day.  So this is no proof.

"Tanna", from the same word as masnisa, originally referred to the
rav doing the repeating, and only later evolved to mean the rav being
quoted. In the days of the amoraim, both senses were used. The memorizers,
the "Sinai"s, who *repeated* (thus the shoresh).

More literally, an "amora" is a speaker (as in "amar"), interpreter,
or expounder. Same etymology as meturgeman. It wasn't the person who
repeats exactly, it's the person who embelishes and explains as he goes.

But in any case, in the days of the amora'im, the word "amora" was
not used for the repeater. The repeater, like the one being quoted,
was a "tanna". As in "tani tanna kameih deRav Nachman" (Megillah 27b),
".. deRava" (Pesachim 113b, Kesuvos 65b), "... deRav" (Chullin 15a),
etc, etc...

(Also, BTW, indication for Tosafos's shitah that Rebbe's and R' Chiya's
compositions were not yet committed to writing. The Mishnah and Tosefta
were compiled and organized, but not transcribed.)

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             For a mitzvah is a lamp,
mi...@aishdas.org        And the Torah, its light.
http://www.aishdas.org                   - based on Mishlei 6:2
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 09:26:43PM +0200, Eliyahu Grossman wrote:
: While there are some Midrashim that say that the Tower of Bavel was built as
: a rebellion, the actual language of the text in Berashit doesn't say it at
: all...

But in terms of drawing a lesson for ourselves, this is a distinction
without a difference. Both are sources.

:      Would one say that Avraham was rebelling against Him, since it says
: that EVERYONE was participating, so Avraham was making those bricks just
: like everyone else?

If you're working with the text itself (as you did before), the word
"kol" isn't there. So it needn't have been all the "benei adam".

If you're drawing lessons from maamarei Chazal, see the first paragraph
of Yonah Rabba. According to this, two patriarchs didn't participate in
Migdal Bavel -- Avraham and Ashur. Ashur was rewarded in two ways: First,
the gift of the holy script, Kesav Ashuris, was given to the nation he
founded. Second, that nation was given a second chance when Hashem sent
Yonah to their capital, Nineveih.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

RDB wrote:

And if you want to double read zeikher/zekher, the words, 
the phrases or the sentences, please do not read zeikher 
first because you are then going to "correct the error" by 
reading it the wrong way the second time.

If your megilla is an Ashkenazi one with the incorrect 
bivneihem/laharog, correct yourself by repeating. If your 
megilla is correct, there isn't much in read as written and 
then "correct" with the incorrect. There would be even less 
sense in reading incorrectly first  and then correct by 
reading as it is written.

CM notes:

That sort of makes sense if you approach this with a correction model - the
latter reading being the correction. Of course if you know the right and
the wrong of it, then why bother with the wrong at all? This approach makes
sense for the bal korei who makes a real mistake and then repeats with true
correction, but not much sense here.

On the other hand if you approach this with a safek model - with both
readings being al tenai that the correct one counts, then the order of the
two readings should not matter at all!

Kol Tuv

Chaim Manaster


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110323/61c3ea70/attachment-0001.htm>

On 23/03/2011 3:12 PM, Saul.Z.New...@kp.org wrote:
>
> in re kol isha question r ZS states--
> So it's just not mentchlich to violate their wish
> in this way.
>
> -- 1] it's not clear the performers will ever know who is watching it
> [ nodifferent than performers whose records say dont play on
> shabbat/holidays, which i don't doubt are gracing shabbat tables in
> non-O settings . that doesnt stop the performers from performiing]

They won't know if a man sneaks into the theatre, or watches a bootleg
recording at home; but they certainly will know if the theatre openly
sells tickets to men.  Which is why the producer had no choice but to
withdraw it from the film festival.  And why the film festival should
have made that unnecessary, by complying with the actresses' wishes.



> 2] from the perspective of the listener who is meikel on kol isha, i
> don't see that they would find an issur in 'not being menshlich' over
> something that is muttar to them.....

Huh? Mentchlichkeit is confined to those who are strict with kol isha?!
There are no mekilim, non-observant, or even goyim, who are mentchen
enough to respect these women's feelings and their integrity?!


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

At 03:17 PM 3/23/2011, R. Simon Montagu wrote:

> > A different question is, how they can print a label whose accuracy will be
> > undermined by the mere passage of time?? In a few weeks it will be yoshon.
> > (It will of course be Pesach by then and the ziti will still be chometz
> > but....)
>
>I assume the label also specifies a date, no?

No it does not!!!!  YL


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110323/ff1a6855/attachment-0001.htm>

R. Micha Berger [quoted R. Jon Baker's blog]:
     If Rashb"i lived in the late Tannaitic period (according to the
     JE article on Simeon ben Yohai, citing Graetz, he fled to the cave
     c. 161), it had to have 50-100 years after his time that this story
     took place. Thus, this part of the Zohar necessarily postdates
     Rashb"i.

I have posted the following about when the Zohar was written on Avodah
before.

R. Avraham Yari in his sefer Toldos Chag Simchas Torah comes to some
interesting conclusions about when the Zohar was actually written.
His conclusions are based on when the name Simchas Torah was first used
to designate the second day of Shemini Atzeres. See

http://www.stevens.edu/golem/llevine/rsrh/zohar_yaari.pdf

and, in particular, see what he writes on page 30.

Yitzchok Levine 

> On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 10:27 PM, ?<T6...@aol.com> wrote:
>> Many hold that the prohibition of eating chadash does not apply in chu'l.

R' Simon Montagu then asked
> Does this refer to the location where the chadash is eaten or where it
> is grown? AFAIK even in EY there is no flour and no products made from
> flour from wheat grown in EY

BTW: According to the Kitzur SA 172 - MOST Poskim hold it's forbidden.

Those that permit it, permit produce grown outside of E"Y irrelevant
of where it's been eaten.

But: This leniency only applies to produce from the field of a
non-Jew. Produce grown on on Jewish land or land being rented by a Jew
(in any country) is forbidden to be eaten according to everybody.

Source: Kitzur Shulchan Aruch 172

- Danny

http://www.rationalistjudaism.com/2011/03/camel-hare-and-hyrax.html  r 
slifkin's final chapter summary


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110324/9c6a3841/attachment-0001.htm>

>      Note that this passage, in addressing the students of the Amoraim,
>      is clearly set after the time of R' Shimon bar Yochai.

I just noticed that the reference to the Amoraim is in capitals, i.e.
the translator's interpolation.  So the entire premise of the post
collapses.  There is no problem to be resolved.  Move along, nothing
to see here.

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

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 11:05:41AM -0400, Zev Sero wrote:
> I just noticed that the reference to the Amoraim is in capitals, i.e.
> the translator's interpolation.  So the entire premise of the post
> collapses.  There is no problem to be resolved.  Move along, nothing
> to see here.

The rabbanim in question are criticized for invoking "chasurei mechasera
vehachi ketani" (CMVHK), which /might/ be usable before we had Rebbe's
standardized text (or even Rabbi Aqiva's initial work), it's bedochaq.

However, the previous paragraph, Tzav 29, refers to "tannaim va'amoraim",
so the unnamed rabbanim here who "pasqin lon bekhamah pesaqos" (30) and
"kemah de'iqemhuha zeh chaser min hamishnah (31) are most plausibly
the amoraim who came after "HAmishnah" (hei hayedi'ah emphasized for
a reason) and who are recorded invoking CMVHK on that compilation.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             It is harder to eat the day before Yom Kippur
mi...@aishdas.org        with the proper intent than to fast on Yom
http://www.aishdas.org   Kippur with that intent.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                       - Rav Yisrael Salanter

Rav Wolbe's piece on frumkeit is probably the most well-known Mussar essay
outside Charedi circles, because it is seen as a frontal attack on the
excessive Chumros being adopted by people who are not at the level where
they should, or for the wrong motives. True, and a very necessary message.

 But, I wonder whether some form of "frumkeit" is not a virtually inevitable
manifestation in one who strives for closeness to Hashem. (RYK went through
his own frumkeit stage, by his own testimony). The opposite of frumkeit
is Hiskarvus mitoch Daas - and how many people have sufficiently developed
their Daas to really honestly self-evaluate what is correct and what is a
"frumme Negi'ah"? How much of pulling out the red frumkeit card is not
merely a expression of one's own coldness and lack of progress and
enthusiasm. In some cases, perhaps even lack of Daas? IOW, how many people
calling out "frumkeit" are doing so due to their own "frumkeit" - expressed
by the need to show how true one's devotion is to Hashem is that he feels
the need to criticize others...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-ai
shdas.org/attachments/20110324/b6d7a89b/attachment.htm>

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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 47
**************************************

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..."