Avodah Mailing List

Volume 31: Number 19

Thu, 31 Jan 2013

• 1. Re: Mitzvos are not for Hashem (Kenneth Miller)
• 2. Birchat Ha Gomel (martin brody)
• 3. Re: Mitzvos are not for Hashem (Micha Berger)
• 4. Re: Birchat Ha Gomel (Micha Berger)
• 5. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Micha Berger)
• 7. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Lisa Liel)
• 8. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Zev Sero)
• 9. Re: Birchat Ha Gomel (Zev Sero)
• 10. birkhat hagomel (Eli Turkel)
• 11. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Birchat Ha Gomel (Micha Berger)
• 13. Re: Kabbala at Odds with Torah (Micha Berger)
• 14. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 15. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Zev Sero)
• 16. Re: tfilat haderech and birchat hagomel (Micha Berger)
• 17. Re: Final letters in Hebrew and ksav ivri vs ksav ashuri (Micha Berger)

R' Micha Berger wrote:

> The chazal usually cited to teach that mitzvos are for our
> benefit, not HQBH's, is Bereishis Rabba 44:1:
>    Rav says: The mitzvos were only given letzareif bahem
>    es haberios. ...

I would like to suggest that this cite from Rav teaches some other things, in addition to R' Micha's point.

Besides teaching that mitzvos are for our benefit, not HQBH's, Rav also
teaches us that mitzvos are for our *benefit*, not for our *enjoyment*.
Further, they are not for the enjoyment of our guf, and not even for the
enjoyment of our neshama. 

"Benefit" and "enjoyment" are both legitimate translations of "hanaah" in
various contexts, but unfortunately that often leads to choosing the wrong
one, and this time, Rav makes it it clear which is the intended meaning:
Mitzvos are for our *refinement*. This improvement might be enjoyable on
occasion, but if one is so fortunate, he should realize that it is a side
benefit. The ikar is "letzareif bahem es haberios", which is an improvement
(in the long term) that may or may not be enjoyable (in the short term).

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
One Trick to Stay Asleep
If you struggle to fall asleep, or stay asleep, try this&#8230
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/51095504535a055047f60st03vuc

"It is likely wider than the path of Qeri'as Yam Suf, which is what
this instance of Birkhas haGomel commemorates.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha"

Can't remember who now said it, but it makes a good Seder side (it's fast
approching!) point anyway,
that the 4 instances when re recite Birchat Ha Gomel  are all from the
Exodus.
Crossing  the sea =Red Sea
Crossing the desert  = Sinai
Released from captivity = Enslavement
Recover from illness = Idol worship

Best
Martin Brody
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130130/a41c74a2/attachment-0001.htm>

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 05:13:23PM +0000, Kenneth Miller wrote:
: Besides teaching that mitzvos are for our benefit, not HQBH's,
: Rav also teaches us that mitzvos are for our *benefit*, not for our
: *enjoyment*...

I blogged about this a couple of weeks back, blaming a pagan-esque
mentality for
    - the refocusing of religion on segulos and
    - performing mitzvos for their metaphysically caused outcomes (eg
      Kupas haIr ads) or of
    - kiruv selling Judaism as the only path to real happiness,
    - miracles stories in which the only planes missed are ones about
      to crash,
    - books in our sefarim stores that carry the same self-help message
      as those in Barnes & Noble, but quote chazal and other baalei
      mesorah, and finally
    - invoking HQBH primarily for things science can not explain, to
      the extent that scientific explanations are seen as challenges to
      emunah (which plagues both sides of the creationism debate).

Paganism is worship "lehisyaher bo" (BB 10b).

See <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/01/pagans-in-our-midst.shtml>.

To this list, I think I can also add the shift in girls' education (in
many circles) from being "Chesed and 612 other mitzvos" to being centered
on tzenius. (Or mussar from being

Also related is R' Shlomo Wolbe's (derogatory) definition of "Frumkeit",
in Alei Shur II pg 152-155 <http://www.aishdas.org/as/frumkeit.pdf>.
He calls it observance through instinct, which like all instincts is truly
about self-preservation and thus I-centric. RSW gives the example of the
person who makes sure to practice ahavas Yisrael for its mitzvah value,
rather than because they actually love others. One must approach a
mitzvah to see the deed done, not because on has some self-interest
in being a mitzvah-doer.


Still, as a side-effect.... There is a personal benefit to doing His
Will. "Asei Retzono keretzonekha, kedei sheya'aseh retzonekha kiRtzono"
(Rabban Gamliel son of Rebbe, Avos 2:4 -- the last mishnah of the
cronological sequence beginning at 1:1).

Also, a machine runs more smoothly when it is utilized for the function
which it was designed. Knives do better when they aren't drafted for
screwdriver duty. And people do better when we do what Hashem made us
for.

And then there's the whole idea of sekhar as a consequence of the
mitzvah. <http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2013/01/pagans-in-our-midst.shtml>
pp 41-46. Along the way, I cite two causal approaches: (1) a person's
sins scar his soul [R' Yonah, Ramchal, R' Chaim Volozhiner] or (3)
dirty it [Ikkarim, Ran]. This broken soul or soul that has a blockage
from receiving Hashem's Good therefore suffers.

But while true, it can't be the goal. And mitokh shelo lishmah ba lishmah
is only when one doesn't make the "al menas leqabel peras" one's new
"lishmah".

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             With the "Echad" of the Shema, the Jew crowns
mi...@aishdas.org        G-d as King of the entire cosmos and all four
http://www.aishdas.org   corners of the world, but sometimes he forgets
Fax: (270) 514-1507      to include himself.     - Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:31:53AM -0800, martin brody wrote:
: the 4 instances when re recite Birchat Ha Gomel  are all from the Exodus.
: Crossing  the sea =Red Sea
: Crossing the desert  = Sinai
: Released from captivity = Enslavement
: Recover from illness = Idol worship

Tehillim 107 lists these four elements of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, which
Berakhos 54b has R' Yehudah tying to [Qorban] Todah and Abayei links to
birkhas haGomel.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 05:50:22PM -0500, I wrote:
: On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 09:42:57AM -0500, Prof. Levine [quoted
: a poat by Rabbi Marshall Gisser <mgis...@nydesign.com> on LookJed]:
: ...
:> Today's Judaism ignores God's words, and instead, favors 
:> incomprehensible and heretical notions found in man-made works like 
:> Kabbala, Tanya, Breslov and other works that assume an identity 
:> similar to Christian doctrines. When the priority of God's words is 
:> rejected, this is no longer Judaism.
: ...
:> A reliable resource to assist in this need:  <http://www.mesora.org/>

And then R/Prof YL added:
:: I cannot agree more with what Rabbi Gisser wrote about this topic.

To which I replied (in part):
: How can we say that Qabbalah is "incomprehensible and heretical"
: when we all rely on the work of Maran Bet Yosef? Are we to exclude both
: Chassidus as well as the Gra and RCVolozhiner from the mesorah? The Ari,
: the Maharal and the Ramchal?
...

R' Moshe Ben-Chaim, who recently joined the list, sent me this via
FaceBook in reference to either this discussion or a similar one,
and asked me to post to the list:

    Dear Rabbi Berger;

    In light of your recent comments on my earlier essay against
    Kabbala, I invite you and your readers to read my latest
    essay "The Flaws of Zohar" in the current Jewishtimes:
    http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes444.pdf

    Thank you,
    R. Moshe Ben-Chaim

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The Maharal of Prague created a golem, and
mi...@aishdas.org        this was a great wonder. But it is much more
http://www.aishdas.org   wonderful to transform a corporeal person into a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      "mensch"!     -Rav Yisrael Salanter

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 03:26:23PM -0500, I forwarded from RMBC:
: In light of your recent comments on my earlier essay against
: Kabbala, I invite you and your readers to read my latest
: essay "The Flaws of Zohar" in the current Jewishtimes:
: http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes444.pdf

Before we get there, I want to share thoughts I already had collected
recently on the topic.

The assumption that the Rambam had the last word in theology was
very wrong. Moreso than R' Yehudah haLevi (who preceded him)? Or R'
Chasdai Crescas or Rabbeinu Yonah? You presume your conclusion with that
assertion. Besides, the Leshem's entire project is showing the unity of
[his understanding of] the Gra's qabbalah and ideas in the Moreh.

Second, one should really see the Gra's 10 Kelalim
<http://www.hashkafacircle.com/Asarah_Klalim.pdf>. The first explains
that all of Qabbalah is not a description of Atzmuso yisbarakh, but of His
Ratzon to be Meitiv. Thus, all this talk of sephiros and partzufim are no
more problematic than the Rambam's notion of attributes that describe how
Hashem's actions appear to us or R' Saadia Gaon's concept of attributes
of Hashem's relationship with us in contrast with those of Hashem Himself.

Third: Li nir'eh, Qabbalah is like lomdus. Even what wasn't revealed
explicitly, it's a theory that succeeds in explaining what we already
know. I don't think the Rambam had very many if any of these Brisker
chiluqim in mind when he wrote the Yad. But R' Chaim did succeed in
providing a theory that more elegently describes and explains the Rambam's
"data".

Similarly, Qabbalah got more complicated over time. But each step
succeeded in getting accepted to the extent that it explained and gave
meaning to things known al pi nigleh.

(And from this perspecive, the question of whether Rashby wrote the
Zohar, something from which grew the Zohar, an oral tradition that
became the Zohar, or etc... is secondary.)

Fourth... It's all a bunch of metaphor used to stretch how much theology
we can understand by use of analogy. See the Gra's comments at the
beginning of Idra Rabba, and the letter by R' Avraham Simcha citing R'
Chaim Volozhiner saying something similar besheim both the Gra and
the Ramchal. (Found in the intro to Seifer haKelalim, Friedlaner ed
pg 236.) But then, you can't learn much Ramchal and not see this;
arguably explaining Qabbalah's mashal to nimshal is his central theme.

Fifth, this whole debate was played out quite well between R'
Yichaya el-Qafeh (the first "R Kapach") in his Milkhamoth Hashem
and R' Dovid Cohen "the Nazir" in his Emunat Hashem.

Sixth, I mentioned the overlap the Leshem works with between Qabbalah
and the Rambam. There are Neoplatonic elements in the Rambam -- Yesodei
haTorah 2:5, Moreh Nevuchim 3:51, and his identification of Cause and
Agens (ie G-d as Maker / Borei / Yotzeir vs G-d as Emanator / Mamtzi)
in MN 3:49. It is also in his explanation of prophecy. (And as I wrote in
the past, I think it has to do with Ibn Rushd (Averroes) including parts
of Plotinus's Enneads in his translation of Aristotle's Metaphysics,
and that's what the Rambam had in front of him.)

Still, the Rambam was far from the final word on Jewish Thought. The Vilna
Gaon attacks his rejection of sheidim, kishuf, astrology, etc... Rav
Hirsch (letter #18) considers the Rambam's emphasis of knowledge over
ethics to be indicative of the latter's embracing of Greek Thought to the
extent of distorting the Torah. Rav Yehudah haLevi, the Raavad, Rabbeinu
Yonah, the Ramban, Rav Chasdai Crescas.... most rishonim rejected the
Aristotelian approach of R' Saadia and the Rambam.

So, when looking at the hashkafah of the majority of shomerei Shabbos
and the acharonim and rishonim they follow, perhaps citations of the
Rambam aren't a sufficient yardstick. And perhaps we should be using
their givens to judge whether the Rambam shaved off too many maamerei
Chazal to fit his philosophical bent.

Last, there is the overlap of halakhah and hashkafah -- defining
apiqursus, meenus and kefirah. When challenging the opinion of the
vast majority of poseqim about whether an opinion they consider true
by saying it's not only false, but heretical, halachic process must
also be met.

These last two points bring us to the thread titled "Mesorah",
and my post at
<http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol31/v31n009.shtml#10>.
And a blog post which I have been working at on-and-off since.
Hopefully to be completed soon.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "I think, therefore I am." - Renne Descartes
mi...@aishdas.org        "I am thought about, therefore I am -
http://www.aishdas.org   my existence depends upon the thought of a
Fax: (270) 514-1507      Supreme Being Who thinks me." - R' SR Hirsch

On 1/30/2013 2:26 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> R' Moshe Ben-Chaim, who recently joined the list, sent me this via
> FaceBook in reference to either this discussion or a similar one,
> and asked me to post to the list:
>
>      Dear Rabbi Berger;
>
>      In light of your recent comments on my earlier essay against
>      Kabbala, I invite you and your readers to read my latest
>      essay "The Flaws of Zohar" in the current Jewishtimes:
>      http://www.mesora.org/jewishtimes444.pdf
>
>      Thank you,
>      R. Moshe Ben-Chaim
>    
The article badly misrepresents both the Zohar and the practices of 
those who accept the Zohar.  I've often told atheists, "The God you 
don't believe in, I don't believe in, either."  Something similar 
applies here.  He's beating up a strawman.  Though if there are people 
for whom his descriptions are accurate, then I agree with his 
conclusions about them.

Lisa

On 30/01/2013 3:59 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Second, one should really see the Gra's 10 Kelalim
> <http://www.hashkafacircle.com/Asarah_Klalim.pdf>. The first explains
> that all of Qabbalah is not a description of Atzmuso yisbarakh, but of His
> Ratzon to be Meitiv. Thus, all this talk of sephiros and partzufim are no
> more problematic than the Rambam's notion of attributes that describe how
> Hashem's actions appear to us or R' Saadia Gaon's concept of attributes
> of Hashem's relationship with us in contrast with those of Hashem Himself.

Or, using the light metaphor that Chabad chassidus is so fond of, imagine
the sun shining through a stained glass window; it's the same sun, emitting
the same light, but the light coming through each panel is different; the
difference is in the filter (keilim), not in the source (or).


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On 30/01/2013 1:00 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 09:31:53AM -0800, martin brody wrote:
> : the 4 instances when re recite Birchat Ha Gomel  are all from the Exodus.
> : Crossing  the sea =Red Sea
> : Crossing the desert  = Sinai
> : Released from captivity = Enslavement
> : Recover from illness = Idol worship
>
> Tehillim 107 lists these four elements of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, which
> Berakhos 54b has R' Yehudah tying to [Qorban] Todah and Abayei links to
> birkhas haGomel.

The origin of the four is of course from that capittle, but I don't see
anything explicit in there about Y"M.  That's a very plausible *drasha*,
explaining where David Hamelech got the idea, but it isn't in the words.


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

see

http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak66/25halak.htm

and
http://vbm-torah.org/archive/halak66/26halak.htm

for an in depth discussion of birkhat hagomel all the cases
-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20130130/888847e8/attachment-0001.htm>

On 30/01/2013 5:16 AM, Rich, Joel wrote:
> Didn't RYBS get all upset at the idea that the chazakah of "tav lemeitav
> tan du" is only valid in certain cultures, and not an eternal statement
> on the nature of female humans?  So how is "kol hadrachim bechezkas
> sakanah" different?
> Zev Sero
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> If I had to guess- tan du was inherent in creation based on nachash story, drachim just a contemporary reality chazakah.

Where does the gemara relate tan-du to the nachash?  Surely that's RYBS's
own chidush; so relying on it to distinguish the two chazakot would be
begging the question.

-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:24:16PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Tehillim 107 lists these four elements of Yetzi'as Mitzrayim, which
>> Berakhos 54b has R' Yehudah tying to [Qorban] Todah and Abayei links to
>> birkhas haGomel.
>
> The origin of the four is of course from that capittle, but I don't see
> anything explicit in there about Y"M.  That's a very plausible *drasha*,
> explaining where David Hamelech got the idea, but it isn't in the words.

The Alshikh explains that we commemorate these four forms of yeshu'ah
in particular, because if Chazal didn't set rules, we would need to
say birkhas hagomel perpetually. Therefore they limited it to yeshu'os
that remind on of yetzias Mitzrayim.

The Gra is quoted (Seder haArukh II) as taking this for granted. From
it he also said "vekhol hachayim yodukha sela" is notrikon:
    ch: choleh shenisrapei
    y:  yoredei yam
    y:  yotzei mibeis asurim
    m:  midbaros
And the 4 kosos are keneged these for as well. Which are the 4 leshonos,
etc...

There are also hints of yetzi'as Mitzrayim elsewhere in the pereq:
    2 Yomeru ge'ulei H' asher ga'alam miyad tzar (tzar = shoresh of Mitarayim,
      even)
    4 Ta'u bamidbar
    6 Yayitz'aqu el H' batzar lahem

Rashi clearly takes it generically, not any particular ge'ulah. But if
it's a derashah, it's not mine.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I always give much away,
mi...@aishdas.org        and so gather happiness instead of pleasure.
http://www.aishdas.org           -  Rachel Levin Varnhagen
Fax: (270) 514-1507

In seifer haYetzirah, the mention of sefiros could simply refer to
the digits.

But sefiros as identified with Qabbalah is spelled out in seifer haBahir,
before the Zohar. The Bahir was circulated in Provence as a manuscript in
1174, and thus at the very latest was very slightly before the Moreh
Nevuchim.

Traditionally, the Bahir was believed to be pieces of a book by R'
Nechunya ben haQaneh, who lived through the churban. Current academic
opinion is that it's based on seifer Raza Rabba, which we no longer have.

The Bahir assumed both Bavli and Tiberian niqud, e.g. "Hashem put
the patach above, and a segol beneath." There is no segol in Bavel,
it's a patach qatan, and drawn just like a patach -- above the letter.
(Rashi calls a segol a "patach qatan", BTW.) This gives academics rason
to date it to the 9th or 10th cent CE Bavel, to the time when the segol
was first being accepted as a distinct vowel there.

It also bridges the gap from heikhalos literature and the focus on
mal'akhim with sefiros and more recent mysticism. (Which may or may
not be "Qabbalah", I still didn't get to Jon and Lisa's exchange.)
That's an evolutionary point more consistent with the geonic dating.

So it is likely that even if not tannaitic, the Bahir is at least
geonic. And thus an authority by which we should assess the Rambam's
hashkafah, not the other way around!

But in any case, the concept of sefiros pre-dates the Maimonidian
controversy, as it was in print before the Moreh.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Life is a stage and we are the actors,
mi...@aishdas.org        but only some of us have the script.
http://www.aishdas.org               - Rav Menachem Nissel
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:17:55PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> Where does the gemara relate tan-du to the nachash?  Surely that's RYBS's
> own chidush; so relying on it to distinguish the two chazakot would be
> begging the question.

Is it an actual logical step to identify "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh"
with tav lemeisiv tan du? I am unable to imagine a way in which they
could be unrelated. Is there a definition of "teshuqah" that would not
imply that there will always be SOME ELEMENT OF HER DRAWN even to an
inferior husband over being alone?

(The all-caps phrase in the prior sentence is important. Tev lemeisiv
doesn't deny the possibility of levels on which she's happier to dump
the creep. Just that there is always some level on which it hurts in a
way it wouldn't otherwise (eg what "the creep" would be going through).

In 2009 <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol24/v24n096.shtml#11> you wrote
(in part):
> Only if you interpret "ve'el isheich teshukateich" that way in the
> first place.  RYBS's interpretation is not muchrach.  Rashi on chumash
> understands it differently.  (Rashi's explanation is also difficult
> to understand as an eternal and universal statement of human nature,
> since it seems contradicted by the metziut, but that's another
> discussion.)

I think you're referring to Rashi (Bereishis 3:16 "ve'el isheikh"),
which says:
    for tashmish, and even so, you will not have the brazenness to demand
    it verbally, but he will rule over you. Everything is from him,
    and not you.

But the next Rashi ("teshuqaseikh") says
    ta'avaseikh, like "a yearning/thirsty [fig.] soul" (Yeshaiah 29:8)

Rashi appears to be giving a Freudian explanation of RYBS's
point. Although RYBS is discussing existentialism, and Freud is speaking
on a more transitory, pyschological, plane.

In any case, the phrase is some kind of attachment even according
to the first Rashi, and thus I can't imagine how it wouldn't be
a cause of "tav lemeisiv".


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

On 30/01/2013 7:52 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 02:17:55PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>> Where does the gemara relate tan-du to the nachash?  Surely that's RYBS's
>> own chidush; so relying on it to distinguish the two chazakot would be
>> begging the question.
>
> Is it an actual logical step to identify "ve'el isheikh teshuqaseikh"
> with tav lemeisiv tan du? I am unable to imagine a way in which they
> could be unrelated. Is there a definition of "teshuqah" that would not
> imply that there will always be SOME ELEMENT OF HER DRAWN even to an
> inferior husband over being alone?

Actually I don't see a connection at all.  "El isheich teshukaseich" means
that she is (at least on some level) drawn to her husband.  She actually
wants to be with *him*.   Tav lemeitav tan-du doesn't imply any sort of
attraction; she just wants to be married, to be one of a couple.  If she
had someone else waiting in the wings she'd happily dump this guy and marry
the other one, but since she doesn't she'll stay with the one she has
despite not having a teshukah, because any husband is better than none.
As one woman put it, "you don't throw out dirty water until you've got clean".

If "tav lemeisav" *is* an existential statement, it would be not derive
from "el isheich teshukosheich" but from Chazal's observation of female
nature, that they relate to others more than men do, and therefore feel
loneliness more keenly.  This would be just as true today as it ever was.

But really it's easier to understand it as not being an existential
statement, but rather a statement of the economic reality in Chazal's time
and through most of history.   A woman is better off with any man than
with none, because most women find it difficult or impossible to support
themselves.  A typical woman produces less than she consumes.  That's why
Chazal assumed that it was in most women's interest to give up their
incomes in return for being supported, but provided that the unusual woman
for whom it was not a good deal could reject it.  Nowadays this doesn't
hold true any more, but even in Chazal's day it might not hold true of
a rich woman.  So one might say that this is a proof against this view;
if it were really about economics then Chazal should have qualified it
by excluding rich women.  OTOH how many rich women were there?  Did they
really have to qualify every general rule by excluding unusual exceptions?


-- 
Zev Sero               A citizen may not be required to offer a 'good and
z...@sero.name          substantial reason' why he should be permitted to
                        exercise his rights. The right's existence is all
                        the reason he needs.
                            - Judge Benson E. Legg, Woollard v. Sheridan

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 01:32:01AM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
>                                A woman is better off with any man than
> with none, because most women find it difficult or impossible to support
> themselves....

But then it would be a rov with known exceptions, even in Chazal's
day. Thee are enough stories of a matrionis discussing a matter with
a tanna. These estate-holding balebastas didn't need income at all.
(Barring the unexpected tragedy, like losing everything in the fall
of Y-m.)

The gemara makes an exception for such nashim chashuvos in requiring
them to do heseibah at the seider. (Pesachim 108a) And the Rashbam
talks of the general heter in terms of most women having a yir'ah for
and dependency on their husbands.

So why would tav lemeisiv not be treated as an umdena or rav, given the
identifiable exceptions, rather than a chazaqah?

Of course, this reopens the question of whether all chazaqos are
unchanging realities or situational. My current line of reasoning would
imply that all chazaqos disvara would be existential parts of human
nature. And that would be what makes them differ from a ruba deleisa
leqaman which is a kelal that only happens to be true.

But since RYBS does invoke a pasuq, and the argument above doesn't
entail one, it is my own thought/question about the existential nature
of chazaqos, not RYBS's.


Tangent on "thought/question": In the Y-mi, "ba'i" means either to ask
a she'eila (as in the Bavli) or to introduce a possible chiddush.

This makes for some interesting machloqesin among acharonim about how
to read the gemara. One could say "R' XYZ suggested from his own
logic that the halakhah ought to be P" while the other reads it as "R'
XYZ was asking if the halakhah is P" and a third, that we was asking
how it could be that the halakhah is P.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             I long to accomplish a great and noble task,
mi...@aishdas.org        but it is my chief duty to accomplish small
http://www.aishdas.org   tasks as if they were great and noble.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                              - Helen Keller

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 05:00:18PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: Recently the Daf Yomi (Shabbos 104a) learned about the letters that have
: final letters (mem, nun, tzadik, peh, chof)...

http://www.aishdas.org/asp/2011/07/holy-script-speech.shtml
Cutting through to the chase...

    ...

    The amora'im in mesechtes Sanhedrin take three positions:
    ...
    3- R' Shim'on ben Elazar, and a mass of others, give the final
    opinion. The two factors, number and finality, leads a few rishonim
    to decide that this is the gemara's conclusion.

Which is why I only included it in "the chase", and not the other 3.

                                                     The script was
    always used in sacred texts. Rather, it was only popularized for
    other writing in Ezra's day.

    The Radvaz..., in his commentary on the Yerushalmi, suggests that
    there is no dispute between the two talmuds on this point. The first
    luchos were in Ashuris, and after the loss of holiness caused by the
    Golden Calf, the second pair were given in kesav Ivris. The Bavli
    cited a quote about the former, the Yerushalmi, about the latter.

    The Radvaz's resolution would lead to the state described by Rav
    Shim'on ben Elazaer et al as well. It would mean that the sacred
    Ashuris was known to only a few. Only Moshe saw the first tablets
    unbroken -- possibly Yehoshua caught a glimpse. But the masses were
    given the second set, the one in Ivris.

    It would also explain the use of the words "nitenah Torah leYisrael"
    rather than simply "nitenah Torah". Because Mar Zutra in Sanhedrin
    is discussing how it was given to the masses, to "Yisrael" as a whole
    rather than only the intelligentsia. If understood this way, then the
    reference to Aramaic is that the masses in the days of Ezra, speaking
    Aramaic and not Lashon haQodesh, were given a targum. However, no one
    proposed changing the language of the text itself. (What would happen
    to derashos, the derivation of halakhah through textual analysis,
    if that really were the proposal?)

    Last, it would explain why Daniel would be able to read the writing
    on the wall, while most people could not -- it was in Ashuris!

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             Every second is a totally new world,
mi...@aishdas.org        and no moment is like any other.
http://www.aishdas.org           - Rabbi Chaim Vital
Fax: (270) 514-1507


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


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


End of Avodah Digest, Vol 31, Issue 19
**************************************

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..."


A list of common acronyms is available at at
        http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/acronyms.cgi
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)