Avodah Mailing List

Volume 28: Number 174

Thu, 25 Aug 2011

• 1. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Ben Waxman)
• 2. Re: moon and sun (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Fighting To Be Chazan? (Zev Sero)
• 4. Re: moon and sun (Simi Peters)
• 5. Re: tchiyas hameisim/which spouse (Hankman)
• 6. Re: moon and sun (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: moon and sun (Moshe Y. Gluck)
• 8. Re: Shelo Asani Ishah (Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer)
• 9. Re: moon and sun (kennethgmil...@juno.com)
• 10. Re: moon and sun (Zev Sero)
• 11. Chadash only in Eretz Yisrael (Micha Berger)
• 12. Re: moon and sun (Joel C. Salomon)
• 13. Re: THE HEAD MOVEMENTS OF SHEMA (D&E-H Bannett)
• 14. Re: Shelo Asani Ishah (Yaacov Shulman)
• 15. Re: Shelo Asani Ishah (Esther and Aryeh Frimer)
• 16. Re: She-lo Asani Isha (Chana Luntz)

The below only works if you assume that saying Kaddish is a magic formula. 
You either say it or you don't.

However if someone is mevateir, without fighting, to someone with a greater 
claim, preserves the peace (ie acts like a mensch), that also gets "credit".

Ben
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Zev Sero" <z...@sero.name>
  Or do you expect them to be happy that their
> parent or relative or whoever will miss out on the zechus just because
> someone else showed up with a greater claim?  "Oh, that's OK, tatty
> didn't really need my davening anyway, you go ahead, I'm sure your
> father needs it much more than mine does...." 

On 24/08/2011 3:05 PM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>>> What does it mean that moon and sun talked - they are inanimate

>> How do you know?  The Rambam says they are intelligent; what grounds
>> exist to question that?
>
> I am having trouble believing that Zev is serious. Does he know that men
> have landed on the moon and they did not talk to the moon.

And therefore?  *That's* your proof that it's not intelligent?!  That the
astronauts didn't talk to it?!


> The sun consists of gases undergoing various nuclear reactions.

Yes.  And therefore?  How does that prevent it from being intelligent?


> We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.

Why would it occur to us to question it?  If he says it then he must
surely have had it bekabalah; where else would he get it?


> The whole difference between modern and ancient science is that
> ancient science rested on authority while modern science relies on
> experimental evidence.

And exactly what experiment would you conduct to test whether the
celestial bodies are intelligent?


> My problem is that many meforshim take it literally.

Indeed; because there's no reason not to.


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

On 24/08/2011 3:18 PM, Ben Waxman wrote:
> The below only works if you assume that saying Kaddish is a magic formula.
> You either say it or you don't.

Isn't it?  That zechus is either there or it isn't.


> However if someone is mevateir, without fighting, to someone with a
> greater claim, preserves the peace (ie acts like a mensch), that also gets
> "credit".

He gets the credit of shalom, which is surely great, but he's still missing
the credit for kaddish.  "Keman de`avad lo amrinan".  Whereas if we are
mevater on the "grandeur" of one large minyan with one leader, then everyone
can get the credit for shalom *and* for being shliach tzibur *and* for saying
kaddish.  Win/win. How can that not be better?


-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

Just to point out:  all the meforshim you have quoted from the Meorot Hadaf 
are aharonim.  There is historically something of a change on this subject 
from the rishonim to the aharonim, with the rishonim overwhelmingly 
following the Rambam's approach and the aharonim backtracking away from that 
to more literal readings.  (I have always found that kind of intriguing, 
given that generally later sources are not holek on earlier sources unless 
they have an earlier source that provides validation for that challenge. 
Could it be that the aharonim were facing sociological problems that the 
rishonic approach gave them no help with?  Thoughts--or better yet, evidence 
for this, anyone?)  In any event, what do the rishonim say on this midrash?

Also, both the Maharitz Hajes and the Hatam Sofer are reading the midrash in 
a way that does not *necessitate* a literal understanding, though the Lev 
Arye does indeed seem to be taking it quite literally. (Please bear in mind 
that I have seen none of these sources inside and am only responding to R' 
Eli's presentation of them.)

I would be interested in R' Zev's take on midrashic sources to the effect 
that animals sing shira to God (e.g., the midrash about the cows in Sefer 
Shmuel).  Once again, I understand these sorts of statements to mean that 
when we contemplate the beauty of nature and its workings we experience it 
as a form of song or poetry, not that animals literally and consciously 
sing.  The message is in our minds, not in the animals' actions.  Why can't 
the speaking of the moon be understood the same way?  The moon 'speaks' to 
us, i.e., it conveys a message to us because of what it symbolizes or the 
ways in which we relate to it associatively.

A lot of the midrashim that feature arguments between God and the malakhim 
can be understood this way as well--the perspective of the malakhim 
represents some of the questions or problems we have with His conduct of the 
world or are a way of presenting a different perspective (Hazal's thought 
experiments) to explore.  Consider, for example, midrashim on malakhim 
arguing with God about bri'at ha'adam or the midrash in which the malakhim 
ask why God saves am Yisrael at Yam Suf, but kills the Egyptians, given that 
they are all idol worshippers.  The midrash about the malakhim weeping at 
akedat Yitzhak is clearly anthropomorphism, because malakhim can't cry.  We 
might even argue that there is no other way to read midrashim of this type, 
since malakhim don't have behira hofshit and hence could hardly question 
God.

Kol tuv,
Simi Peters

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Eli Turkel" <elitur...@gmail.com>
To: "avodah" <avo...@aishdas.org>
Cc: "Micha Berger" <mi...@aishdas.org>; "Simi Peters" 
<famil...@actcom.net.il>
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 10:05 PM
Subject: moon and sun


>> What does it mean that moon and sun talked - they are inanimate
>
> How do you know?  The Rambam says they are intelligent; what grounds
> exist to question that?  >>
>
> I am having trouble believing that Zev is serious. Does he know that men 
> have
> landed on the moon and they did not talk to the moon. The sun consists
> of gases undergoing
> various nuclear reactions.
>
> We can ask a question on the Rambam what is the origin of his theory.
> The whole difference between modern and ancient science is that
> ancient science rested on
> authority while modern science relies on experimental evidence. I
> understand that Zev
> prefers ancient science where we prove scientific facts by quoting a 
> Rambam.
>
> Micha and Simi both intreret the midrash metaphorically which I
> personally agree with.
> My problem is that many meforshim take it literally. From the recent
> Meorot Hadaf
> Maharatz Chajes explains that because the moon was diminished it
> caused people to worship the sun
> because now the sun is special. Thus we bring a "sair" on rosh chodesh
> to stress our worship of G-d.
> The Chatam Sofer explains that because of the sins of the Jews the
> galut is lengthened causing the
> moon to have to wait longer to regain its size and so the Jews need a 
> kapparah.
> Also Lev Aryeh has a discussion why we need to worry about the moon
> since it was diminsihed because
> of its own argument and hence it is the moon's fault. He answers the
> sun originally was much bigger
> but was diminished by G-d because the world didnt need it (chagigah
> 12a). As a consequence the moon
> was diminished. The moon's request was that the sun be restored to its
> original size and then the moon could keep its original size.
>
>
> -- 
> Eli Turkel 

The interesting case at Techias HaMesim is if one married his wife's sister
when the 1st wife dies. At Techias HaMesim he is now presented with both
wifes who are now both living sisters. I vaguely recall some differing
discussion of how this works out. Anyone recall who holds what? If I have
the time I will check on Bar Ilan etc.

One of the teirutzim for Yaakov Avinu marrying sisters was that this was
kodem matan torah. But after Techias HaMesim that answer won't work - so
does Rachel or Leah (if I recall correctly Bilah and Zilpa were also
sisters lefi some medrashim) get her man? You might want to say that after
geirus (matan Torah or their own in their lifetime?) they are kekatan
hanolod dami and retain that status after Thechias HaMesim as well, so they
both may get him.

Kol tuv

Chaim Manaster
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20110824/029522c5/attachment-0001.htm>

On 24/08/2011 4:24 PM, Simi Peters wrote:

> I would be interested in R' Zev's take on midrashic sources to the
> effect that animals sing shira to God (e.g., the midrash about the
> cows in Sefer Shmuel).

I'm sorry, which midrash is this?

We know animals and have a lot of experience with them.  We run
psychological experiments on them, and have a pretty good idea of what
they're capable of.  We have no such knowledge of the celestial bodies.


> Once again, I understand these sorts of statements to mean that when
>  we contemplate the beauty of nature and its workings we experience it
> as a form of song or poetry, not that animals literally and consciously
> sing.

Why "we experience it"?  Why not "it *is* a song"?  Why does the song
need an observer in order to exist?

> The message is in our minds, not in the animals' actions.

I'd say the exact opposite; the song is in their actions, not their
minds.  They may not be conscious of their Creator, but their very
existence and every one of their actions sings His praise.


> Why can't the speaking of the moon be understood the same way?

Because there's a whole conversation, with consequences.


> A lot of the midrashim that feature arguments between God and the
> malakhim can be understood this way as well--the perspective of the
> malakhim represents some of the questions or problems we have with
> His conduct of the world or are a way of presenting a different
> perspective (Hazal's thought experiments) to explore. Consider,
> for example, midrashim on malakhim arguing with God about bri'at
>ha'adam or the midrash in which the malakhim ask why God saves
> am Yisrael at Yam Suf, but kills the Egyptians, given that they
> are all idol worshippers.

How about the malachim wanting to join us in singing shira at the Sea,
and Hashem telling them that we were to sing and they were not to?
How is that happening in our minds?  How is that a lesson to us,
considering that we *were* to sing?


> The midrash about the malakhim weeping at  akedat Yitzhak is clearly
> anthropomorphism, because malakhim can't cry.

Why not?


> We might even argue that there is no other way to read midrashim of
> this type, since malakhim don't have behira hofshit and hence could
> hardly question God.

How does that follow?  They may not have freedom of action, but they
clearly do have minds of their own.



-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

R'n SP:
I would be interested in R' Zev's take on midrashic sources to the effect 
that animals sing shira to God (e.g., the midrash about the cows in Sefer 
Shmuel).  Once again, I understand these sorts of statements to mean that 
when we contemplate the beauty of nature and its workings we experience it 
as a form of song or poetry, not that animals literally and consciously 
sing.  The message is in our minds, not in the animals' actions.  Why can't 
the speaking of the moon be understood the same way?  The moon 'speaks' to 
us, i.e., it conveys a message to us because of what it symbolizes or the 
ways in which we relate to it associatively.
---------------------


no textual basis for doing so), as referring to the Malachim who are charged
with the conduct of the sun, moon, animals, etc. Just as the Gemara makes
clear that the various nations have Sarim who are to some extant responsible
for/charged with/lead the conduct of the nations, and just as we have Chazal
telling us that every blade of grass has a Malach standing over it
commanding it to grow, so too it is possible that the sun and other
inanimate objects, as well as animate but unintelligent objects (like in
Perek Shirah), have Malachim associated with them, and it is those Malachim
who say Shirah and have the other interactions mentioned in the Midrash.

Thoughts?

KT,
MYG

On 8/24/2011 3:07 PM, Esther and Aryeh Frimer wrote:
> Also in the brachah of Shelo Asani Ishah - even though she is also a
> daughter of Israel, but in account of Hashem exempting her from
> learning His holy Torah, and that she is also exempt from time-bound
> mitzvos, therefore this brachah was enacted to give Hashem powerful
> praise and thanks in his mind, for the Creator having sanctified him
> more than a woman with mitzvos and the study of the holy Torah.

> I guess the Maharsha and Rav Reuven Margaliyot whom I cited Just
> disagree with him!!!!

I don't feel a necessity to deal with RRM, as kevodo b'mekomo munach,
he is practically contemporary.

As for the Maharsha, you did not quote him in context. He is not
coming to explain the mindset with which the brachah should be made,
but why it is not necessary, once one has said Shelo asani Ishah,
to also say Shelo asani Boor.

KT,
YGB

R' Eli Turkel asked:

> What does it mean that moon and sun talked - they are inanimate

R' Zev Sero challenged:

> How do you know?  The Rambam says they are intelligent; what
> grounds exist to question that?

RET responded:

> I am having trouble believing that Zev is serious. Does he
> know that men have landed on the moon and they did not talk to
> the moon. The sun consists of gases undergoing various nuclear
> reactions.

Akiva Miller now says:

My first reaction was that RET's evidence ought to be enough to convince anyone. But on second thought, I'm not so sure, and I'd like to explain why.

It is quite true that we are the first generation (or, for you young 'uns,
the second) who can point to fellow humans who have actually visited the
moon, and can testify to its inanimate state. But "ain chadash tachas
hashemesh." Is the testimony of these astronauts really that much stronger
than what our fathers saw with their own eyes?

The sun, moon, planets, and stars never stray from their respective paths.
Not much expertise is needed to know where they'll be in the sky at any
given time. And people who *do* have this expertise can calculate these
things years - or even centuries - in advance. And people have actually
been doing this for millenia.

The moon in particular is such that we can see details of its surface, even
with the naked eye. And people have been doing this too, also for millenia.
And although different parts are lit at different times of the month
(leading some to think that it is growing or shrinking), the features which
are seen on the left side always appear on the left side, and the features
which are on the top, bottom, or right also always appear on those sides.

The moon also seems to wobble in its path. This is called "libration", and
a great animation of it is in the Wiki article "lunar phase". I don't know
if the ancients noticed this; if they didn't then it doesn't matter, but if
they did, then they surely noticed that it is regular and predictable.

Besides the moon, the other celestial bodies don't have features which can
been seen without a telescope. But their sizes and colors were still
noticeable even to the ancients. Jupiter was markedly larger than the
others, and while "the red planet" is merely a nickname in English, Lashon
Hakodesh gives that as Mars' proper name: Maadim. Before we began to suffer
from light pollution (see Wikipedia: "skyglow"), people knew their orbits,
recognized them, and gave them names like "the morning star", "the evening
star", or "the north star" -- because they could be found at specific
places and times.

What I've been describing are NOT the characteristics of thinking beings. They are characteristic of objects. Dull, dead, inanimate objects.

The ancients -- a term by which I mean to include Chazal, but also the
chachamim of the nations -- surely knew all the above. And I think they'd
be insulted if I claimed they did not notice these things. Yet despite this
evidence, some of them still considered the sun, moon, et al, to be
thinking and conscious beings. Beings whose appearance and location never
changed, but thinking beings nevertheless.

WHY did they think this? To my mind, it is utterly incomprehensible. Why
didn't they look at those unchanging things and realize that they are mere
objects? Granted that they move, but the river moves too. Do we find
anywhere that they thought the river was a living, thinking being (other
than in a poetic or rhetorical sense)?

I don't know. I have no answer. But there must have been *something* to make them think this way.

They were a lot smarter than I am. And if a reliable calendar was not
enough to convince them that the moon is dead, then a shovel of moonrocks
is not enough to convince *me* of it.

Akiva Miller

____________________________________________________________
Penny Stock Jumping 3000%
Sign up to the #1 voted penny stock newsletter for free today!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/4e55a868ea93687d290st03vuc

On 24/08/2011 9:40 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:

> The sun, moon, planets, and stars never stray from their respective
> paths.  [...]

True. And of course everyone has known this since before mattan torah,
and there are several references to it in Tanach.


> The moon in particular is such that we can see details of its surface,
> even with the naked eye. [...] The moon also seems to wobble in its path.
> [...] the other celestial bodies [...] sizes and colors were still
> noticeable even to the ancients.

All true, of course.


> What I've been describing are NOT the characteristics of thinking beings.
>They are characteristic of objects. Dull, dead, inanimate objects.

HUH?!  How do you draw that conclusion from those premises?  How do those
premises even hint at a slightly elevated probability of that conclusion
being correct?  What is it about intelligent beings that would prevent
them from obeying the laws of gravity and motion, or from having visible
features, sizes, and colours?!  It seems to me that this describes every
single one of us!




-- 
Zev Sero        If they use these guns against us once, at that moment
z...@sero.name   the Oslo Accord will be annulled and the IDF will
                 return to all the places that have been given to them.
                                            - Yitzchak Rabin

                    
                

Here is some evidence that points toward the notion that the tannaim in
Bavel did not observe chadash.

The Y-mi, Pesachim 6:1 (vilna 39b-40a), lists 3 derashos that Hillel
wanted to make, that he had to go to EY to have an audience assess:

1- Tahor hu vetiharo hakohein -- a metzorah must be both physically healed
   and declared tahor by a kohein in order to be tahor. Healing without
   proclomation or a proclomation by the kohein not based on fact are
   not mitaheir.

2- Vezavachta Pesach Lashem E-lokekh tzon uvaqar -- uvaqar must refer to
   the chagiga, not the qorban pesach, since "min hakevasim umin ha'izim
   tiqachu"

3- "Sheishes yamim tokhal matzos" (Devarim 16) vs "Shiv'as yamim matzos
   tokheilu" (Shemos 12) can be resolved by saying the pasuq in Devarim
   refers to the 6 days in which one can eat matzos made of chadash
   in particular.

All three are topics learned in EY and not in Bavel -- and centuries
later are in mesechtos not in the Bavli. Implying that tannaei Bavel
didn't consider chadash to be halakhah lemaaseh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The mind is a wonderful organ
mi...@aishdas.org        for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org   the heart already reached.
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 08/24/2011 09:40 PM, kennethgmil...@juno.com wrote:
> What I've been describing are NOT the characteristics of thinking
> beings. They are characteristic of objects. Dull, dead, inanimate objects.

Not quite.  Inanimate objects stay put, or move in straight lines & fall
when thrown.  Even assuming that the heavenly bodies have circular
motion as their ?natural state?, or that the stars are fixed in place on
a giant sphere, the motions of the seven planets? are complex. 
Predictable, yes, but so is the motion of the guards at Buckingham
Palace.  This complex behavior may be exactly why some (most?) of the
ancients believed the planets to be intelligent beings, that they were
literally ????? ?????? ????? ???? ????? in their motion.

?Chesky

1: Sun, Moon, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Venus, & Saturn

It appears that I was not folllowing this thread very well 
as I do not know or do not remember what article RMP quoted 
from in the following:
<<it also noted the mandate to spend twice as long on the 4 
"daled" movements as on the 2 "ches" movements and how one 
can do this by pronouncing the daled rafeh as "th" rather 
than "d."  I'm curious whether the chevrah thinks (and in 
the past have discussed this issue with my Rav, bcc:ed) that 
emphasizing the "cha" (ches/qamatz") without pronouncing the 
daled as if it had a sh'va na' is the way to fulfill that 
mandate.>>

I do remember that I have written before (perhaps in the 
Mesorah list rather than the Avodah) that before most people 
forgot how to differentiate between bg"d kf"t with and 
without dagesh there was no question how to "fulfill the 
mandate".

Rashi, who knew how to pronounce the consonants, explains 
the gemara in Brakhot 13b "In the dalet, and not in the 
chet, for  as long as one says echaaa without a dalet he has 
not said a word  What value is there in the prolonging. 
Rather, lengthen the dalet ...

The Bet Yosef quotes this Rashi so I would assume that he 
too knew how to pronounce the  dalet lo d'gusha.

Only our modern Jews who have long forgotten how to 
pronounce the dalet rafa could develop, or invent, the 
meaningless echaaaaaa before adding a dalet d'gusha.

This evidently happened some hundreds of years ago. Perhaps 
RSM could tell us when, why, and how. But I've commented in 
the past on the many changes in custom that have developed 
during my lifetime.

And on the subject of Sh'ma': When I was a kid and davened 
in Ashkenazi shuls, when the chazan completed the b'rakha 
before sh'ma', some said amen and some didn't but all 
started immediately to say Sh'ma'. I understood that this 
was being somekh ahava lit'filla.  Nowadays, there is 
usually a break of complete silence before starting Sh'ma'. 
Is this to avoid being somekh ahava lit'filla?


David 

Perhaps a useful approach to dealing with shelo asani ishah, for those
who are troubled by it, is not to skip it or replace it but to recite
some additional material at that point, such as chazal's statement that
women have binah yeteirah or the statement from Tana Devei Eliyahu that
everyone has access to ruach hakodesh.

-- 
Yaacov David Shulman
Translator; Editor; Ghostwriter
Specializing in Torah and literary texts
shulman-writer.com

From: Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer 
Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2011 12:09 AM
> I don't feel a necessity to deal with RRM, as kevodo b'mekomo munach,
> he is practically contemporary.

> As for the Maharsha, you did not quote him in context. He is not coming
> to explain the mindset with which the brachah should be made, but why
> it is not necessary, once one has said Shelo asani Ishah, to also say
> Shelo asani Boor.

Dear RYGB,

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. The "Hayav" of Rabbi
Meir is Hayyav. I believe we are obligated to learn Pshat in the Bavli,
Yerushalmi and Tosefta that is not motsi La'az on Hazal. The explanation
of Maharsha and Rav Reuven Margaliyot Ring true to me - and hence that
is the one I will continue to champion. Kabel et haEmet mimi she-amaro.

    Yiyasher Kochaha
            Aryeh

[Email #2. -micha]

In continuation of my ongoing discussion with RYGB re' Shelo Asani Isha,
RYGB has maintained that the Berakha is a reshut. I have maintained that
the language of Rabbi Meir is "Hayyav", hence the berakha is obligatory.
I've just noted that both the Tur and Shulhan Aukh use the language
"Tsarikh" (needs to). Most Rishonim merely quote the Gemara as is, but
the Meiri, Berakhot 60b, s.v. Berakhot, does not - yet he too uses the
word Hayyav.

Regarding My comments to Chana Luntz Sasoon that an eved is considered
much lower than a woman because he is not only patur from MASh"G,
but lacks kedushat Yirael and cannot marry a Jewess - Kivanti le-da'at
haAbudarham, Birkhot haShahar. He adds that an Eved also lack Zekhut
Avot and lack ne'emanut

 --------------------------------
Dr. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il or Fri...@biu.ac.il
E-mail (home): Frim...@zahav.net.il

I wrote:
> >"But I can see no way that the level of obligation in commandments of a
> >woman can be said to be greater than that of a (male) eved... "

And RAF replied

> I don't understand your problem. An Eved is worse than an Isha because
> it lacks the Kedushat Yisrael of a Jew!!?

No.  An Eved Ca'nani goes through the same conversion process as a ger,
except that he toyvels l'shem avdus. As a consequence he becomes chayav in
(at least) the mitzvos of a woman, although he remains exempt from mitzvos
aseh shehazman grama.  He is therefore forbidden to marry a non Jew, and if
his master chooses to free him (by means of a get shichror, not any
conversion mechanism, nor does he have any say in it) he then becomes chayav
in all the mitzvos of a free born Jew.  Nor is his master permitted to sell
him to a non Jew, because there he might have problems keeping the mitzvos
he is obligated to keep.

 An eved is forbidden to marry
> a Jewess for this reason

It is true, an eved is forbidden to marry a Jewish woman, other than a
shifcha (ie a woman who has also toyvelled leshem avdus or is the child of
someone who has), but an amoni and moavi (not to mention a mamzer) are also
forbidden to marry a regular Jewish woman, and it does not impact on
kedushas yisrael.  Note by the way that a regular Jew, who sells himself as
an eved ivri, is also permitted to marry a shifcha during the period of his
avdus (does his kedushas yisrael diminish?).  Once an eved is freed, then he
is permitted to marry a regular Jewess.  You seem to be assuming that the
kidushas yisrael is chal by means of the get shichror, but I don't think
that can possibly be understood to be the case anymore than a get isha
creates a greater level of kedusha because she is then free to marry any
man.  The kedushas yisrael is chal by means of the tevilla, as it always is,
just that the tevila comes with certain special restrictions, which include
marriage limitations, and even more critically, mitzvah obligation
limitations, for so long as his master does not free him.

This is why the case of the eved is so interesting.

An eved clearly (in terms of social status and the way you can treat him -
you can work him b'farech, for example) falls below that of a woman.
However, if you look at the matter purely in terms of obligations vis a vis
mitzvos, and do it by way of mitzvah count, then a male eved would seem to
rank at least equally and probably above a woman albeit below a free man.  

Now the Yerushalmi and the Tosephta, when they deal with the three brochos,
just don't touch on the question at all, because they do not bring a brocha
vis a vis an eved, their third brocha is vis a vis a bor - for the reasons
they give (a bor has no fear of sin).

And it is clear even from our Talmud that indeed this was the matbeiah that
the Tanaim were saying.  It is only that the amoraim in Bavel felt
uncomfortable/unable to say shelo asani bor.  But it is also clear that it
is important to retain three brochos - as can be seen not only from the
discussion but from the surrounding context there in Menachos, which is all
about the need to say 100 brochos a day.  Just dropping one is not ideal as
it creates an additional obligation to find another brocha in the day.

So shelo asani eved was proposed.  However, that creates a problem if the
rationale for saying shelo asani isha is, as the Yerushalmi and Tosephta say
it is, the number of mitzvos performed.  According to one view they are then
exactly the same, and you have a duplicate bracha, so how can you use shelo
asani eved to make up the three (ie in the language of the Maharsha if you
are blessing because of the greater opportunity you have to perform mitzvos,
there is no need to say both eved and isha, as the same level of opportunity
to be righteous applies to both)?  There are two answers to this - the first
is that actually these brachos can be understood to be all about shibud, in
which case the shibud of an eved is greater than that of an isha (or in
other words, an eved is worth less than an isha). Thus a man can bless shelo
asani eved, I didn't get the greater  burden of shibud, and then go on to
bless shelo asani isha. The second is that indeed an eved has more mitzvos
and therefore can be added, although then the order ought to be, goy, isha,
eved - because a man can bless, I have the greater opportunity to perform
more mitzvos than a woman, and even than a slave, but the reverse is
difficult.  That however is fine in the gemora in Menachos, that indeed
lists them in this order, ie goy, isha, bor or eved.  Indeed, to understand
the *gemora* using the first reason one has to assume that Rav Acha bar
Ya'akov was also telling his son to reverse the order and put eved before
isha.  That is the problem with Rashi's first reason.

Now given the order in our siddurim, I think that we posken fundamentally
like the first reason (which is also the first reason in Rashi) and not the
second reason.  Which is why bringing the second reason, despite its
history, seems to me to be apologetics (ie you are bringing a hava mina of
our gemora, based on a Yerushalmi and Tosephta, and not what seems to be the
maskana, because it is more palatable).  You can, of course, also argue for
the position of the Taz (which is clearly what the Italian siddurim that
have shelo asani ish did, it is the only way to get to shelo asani ish) and
just about get a reading of the gemora in Menachos of zil tfei, but that
tends not to be where the effort is expended.

> ??? ??? Aryeh (from home)

Regards

Chana




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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 28, Issue 174
***************************************

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..."