Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 11

Mon, 20 Jan 2014

• 1. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)
• 3. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (T613K@aol.com)
• 4. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Marty Bluke)
• 5. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Micha Berger)
• 6. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Micha Berger)
• 7. Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Eli Turkel)
• 8. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Marty Bluke)
• 9. Two Basic Facts in the History of the Jewish People (Prof. Levine)
• 10. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Lisa Liel)
• 11. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Zev Sero)
• 12. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Zev Sero)
• 13. Re: Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora (Micha Berger)
• 14. ...Religous Women in Army (Rabbi Y. H. Henkin)
• 15. Re: Chief Rabbinate Says No To Religious Women in IDF (Lisa Liel)

Are we distinguishing between what is permissable mishum milkhemes
mitzvah and what is permissable because of piquach nefesh?

There appears to be three milkhamos mitzvah: (1) 7 amim, (2) amaleiq,
(3) survival. In case #3, milkhemes mitzvah and piquach nefesh appear
very similar, with the caveat that going to war is really only to save
lives in a quantitative sense -- you're putting a smaller number of
lives on the line to reduce or eliminate the risk to a far larger number.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             "And you shall love H' your G-d with your whole
mi...@aishdas.org        heart, your entire soul, and all you own."
http://www.aishdas.org   Love is not two who look at each other,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      It is two who look in the same direction.

On 1/19/2014 7:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Are we distinguishing between what is permissable mishum milkhemes
> mitzvah and what is permissable because of piquach nefesh?

> There appears to be three milkhamos mitzvah: (1) 7 amim, (2) amaleiq,
> (3) survival. In case #3, milkhemes mitzvah and piquach nefesh appear
> very similar, with the caveat that going to war is really only to save
> lives in a quantitative sense...

Case #3 isn't anything close to pikuach nefesh. Arei sfar, for example.
That's not what most people would see as pikuach nefesh, which is
a din relating to yechidim. It's about national security/survival.
Milchemet mitzvah is a tzibbur thing. A whole other ball of wax.

Lisa

 
From: Lisa Liel <l...@starways.net>
>>I don't  understand how anyone can claim this isn't a time of war.
War doesn't require  an official declaration. We have a nation attempting
to destroy ours. In the  words of the Maharal MiPrague, "Ein lecha
milchama gedola  mi-zu".<<

Lisa





>>>>
 
I'm amazed that the Maharal weighed in on this discussion about women going 
 to the Israeli army.  I didn't even know he was still alive (except in the 
 "Yakov Avinu lo meis" sense). If he said this at a press conference, on a  
Meah She'arim pashkevil, in a Yated editorial, or in a posting to Avodah -- 
I  missed them all.
 
However, as I learned from a human encyclopedia whom I  consulted, Targum 
had previously made a statement on the same  subject.  Targum wrote that Yael 
killed Sisra with a tent peg and  not with a weapon, "in order to fulfill 
what is written in Toras Moshe, 'A  male utensil shall not be on a woman.'"  
It is just amazing that  Targum did not know that the war against Sisera was 
a milchemes mitzva and hence  Yael could have used a gun.  Well I guess 
that Maharal sure took Targum  down a peg.
 
 


--Toby Katz
..
=============


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

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140119/cac38106/attachment-0001.htm>

R' Micha Berger wrote:

On Thu, Jan 16, 2014 at 01:54:06PM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
: The fact that there is a fundamental dispute about the nature of dispute
: in Halacha is quite disturbing in and of itself...

Why? There could be dispute about the nature of gravity but that
doesn't shake my confidence in our ability to describe how it acts
(F = G m1*m2 / r^2).

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

That is a silly comparison. Matan Torah happened 3500 years ago and
Bnei Yisrael got the Torah including the Oral Torah and presumably at
that point it was revealed to them how the halachic system worked. In
fact, the nature of the revelation (everything, partial, no
conclusions) would have made it crystal clear what the nature of the
system was as the 3 options given are mutually exclusive and cannot
all be true. They also require different revelations at Har Sinai.
Therefore it makes sense to ask how was this forgotten? On the other
hand I don't think anyone claims that 3500 years ago God revealed to
us the nature of gravity.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140120/1cef7002/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:51:13AM +0200, Marty Bluke wrote:
:> Why? There could be dispute about the nature of gravity but that
:> doesn't shake my confidence in our ability to describe how it acts
:> (F = G m1*m2 / r^2).

: That is a silly comparison. Matan Torah happened 3500 years ago and
: Bnei Yisrael got the Torah including the Oral Torah and presumably at
: that point it was revealed to them how the halachic system worked...

Again, you ask based on a "presumably".

:                the nature of the revelation (everything, partial, no
: conclusions) would have made it crystal clear what the nature of the
: system was as the 3 options given are mutually exclusive and cannot
: all be true....

But my comparison to gravity does not assert otherwise!

I am saying it's possible to work the halachic process without knowing
whether one is recovering halakhos lost somewhere between Moshe and
their generation, whether they are deducing laws inherent in the original
giving, or empowered to create and define the law.

One doesn't need a philosophy behind the process for the process to work.
Nothing about our lack of knowledge about how much was revealed at Har
Sinai shakes confidence in the halakhah as we have it today.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The trick is learning to be passionate in one's
mi...@aishdas.org        ideals, but compassionate to one's peers.
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 10:38:09PM -0500, T6...@aol.com wrote:
: However, as I learned from a human encyclopedia whom I consulted, Targum 
: had previously made a statement on the same subject. Targum wrote that Yael 
: killed Sisra with a tent peg and not with a weapon, "in order to fulfill 
: what is written in Toras Moshe, 'A male utensil shall not be on a woman.'" 
: It is just amazing that Targum did not know that the war against Sisera was 
: a milchemes mitzva and hence Yael could have used a gun. Well I guess 
: that Maharal sure took Targum down a peg.

Was Yael eishes Chever haQeini even Jewish?

It may have been that she was overzealous, not being all that educated
in halakhah. It may have been lifnim mishuras hadin.

It might also be subject to the distinction I tried to make between the
different kinds of milkhemes mitzvah. It depends whether Yavin melekh
Kenaan's "lachatz es BY chazaqah" (c.f. 4:3) cost lives.

I am leaving Lisa's question of whether a milkhemes mitzvah is distinctly
for national survival until I can think of a case of national destruction
that wouldn't involve piquach nefesh. Can you attack *a* people without
attacking *its* people? The other milkhamos mitzvah require a willingness
to be the aggressor.

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

<<Yes, it is a stretch, if you're using it be matir things which would be
assur in a non-milchemes mitzvah situation. Not to say that it isn't
necessary to have trained soldiers, just that it isn't wartime now >>

As far as I know the IDF rabbinate allows all sorts of chillul shabbat by
soldiers on duty.
I dont recall that they say that this applies only when there is an actual
war happening

-- 
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140120/653950ab/attachment-0001.htm>

On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

>
> But my comparison to gravity does not assert otherwise!
>
> I am saying it's possible to work the halachic process without knowing
> whether one is recovering halakhos lost somewhere between Moshe and
> their generation, whether they are deducing laws inherent in the original
> giving, or empowered to create and define the law.
>
> One doesn't need a philosophy behind the process for the process to work.
> Nothing about our lack of knowledge about how much was revealed at Har
> Sinai shakes confidence in the halakhah as we have it today.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>

And I don't disagree with you on that point, of course you can work the
halachic process today without understanding the origins. That was not my
point. My point was, how could we lose this information? How can it be that
3500 years ago the halachic process was revealed and today we don't know
what it is? Especially when the origin of the process dictates what was
revealed at Sinai.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140120/83ef55dc/attachment-0001.htm>

The following is from part of RSRH's commentary on  Shemos 20: 12

12 Honor your father and your mother, so that your days may be long 
on the land that God, your God, is giving you.

God based Jewish beliefs and convictions, and our acknowledgment
of Him as Master of our fate and Director of our actions, not on the
results of our research into nature, but on the historical experiences of
our people, by which God revealed Himself to us and revealed to us
His Will. Heaven and earth had spoken in vain to mankind; what is
worse, their pronouncements were twisted into polytheistic conceptions.
Only the revelations of God in the history of the Jewish people restored
to man's mind the monotheistic idea, enabling him to understand the
workings of nature and history on a monotheistic basis.

Yetzias Mitzraim  and Matan Torah are the two basic facts in the history of the
Jewish people that form the foundation of our allegiance to God as the
Master of our fate and the Guide of our lives. These two facts are historical
truths. However, the sole guarantee of their authenticity is tradition,
and tradition depends solely on its faithful transmission from parents to
children, and on its willing acceptance by children from the hands of their
parents.

Thus, the survival of the great Divine institution that is Judaism
rests entirely on the theoretical and practical obedience of children to
parents. Accordingly, K'bud Av V'Am is the basic condition for the eternity of
the Jewish nation.

Through the father and the mother, God gives the child more than
just his physical existence. Parents are also the link that connects the
child to the Jewish past and enables him or her to be a Jewish man
or woman. From the parents the child receives the tradition of the
Jewish mission, which is shaped by knowledge, a code of conduct, and
upbringing. The parents transmit to the child Jewish history and Jewish
Law, so that eventually he, in turn, will pass them on to his own
children. Just as he looks up to his parents, so will his own children
someday look up to him. Without this connection between parents
and children, the chain of generations is broken, the hopes of the
Jewish past are lost for the future, and the Jewish nation ceases to
exist.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140120/a6d6d18c/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/20/2014 2:51 AM, Marty Bluke wrote:
>> Why? There could be dispute about the nature of gravity but that
>> doesn't shake my confidence in our ability to describe how it acts
>> (F = G m1*m2 / r^^2).

> That is a silly comparison. Matan Torah happened 3500 years ago and Bnei
> Yisrael got the Torah including the Oral Torah and presumably at that
> point it was revea led to them how the halachic system worked. In fact,
> the nature of the revelation (everything, partial, no conclusions) would
> have made it crystal clear what the nature of the system was as the 3
> options given are mutually exclusive and canno t all be true. They also
> require different revelations at Har Sinai. Therefore it makes sense
> to ask how was this forgotten? On the other hand I don't think anyon e
> claims that 3500 years ago God revealed to us the nature of gravity.

You're right. That was kind of a silly comparison. But let me ask
you: are you unaware that pieces of mesorah were lost during times of
oppression? That this was one of the reasons the Mishnah was compiled in
the first place? Theoretically, it should never have been committed to
writing. We had to rely on eit laasot l'Hashem in order to do it at all.

But God is omniscient. He knew what kind of holes we'd wind up with, and
He set the system up so that we'd stay on track despite those mistakes.
To suggest that God gave us a system that was supposed to be eternal and
didn't provide for human error would imply He wasn't omniscient at all.

Your kasha is a good one. And yes, it's disturbing. And I'm even more
disturbed by all of the appeals to authority and flights of fancy that
you've gotten in response. Answers like that would certainly have kept
me from ever becoming frum in the first place. But it's mima nafshach.
If God is omniscient, He set the initial conditions to ensure that we'd
be able to keep what we needed to, and if He isn't, the whole thing is
a crock, so it doesn't matter.

Lisa

On 20/01/2014 7:10 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
> <<Yes, it is a stretch, if you're using it be matir things which would be
> assur in a non-milchemes mitzvah situation. Not to say that it isn't
> necessary to have trained soldiers, just that it isn't wartime now >>
>
> As far as I know the IDF rabbinate allows all sorts of chillul
> shabbat by soldiers on duty. I dont recall that they say that this
> applies only when there is an actual war happening

What has that got to do with anything?  They're not permitting it because
of milchemet mitzvah, they're permitting it because of pikuach nefesh, so
it's irrelevant.


-- 
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 19/01/2014 8:27 PM, Lisa Liel wrote:
> On 1/19/2014 7:23 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
>> Are we distinguishing between what is permissable mishum milkhemes
>> mitzvah and what is permissable because of piquach nefesh?

>> There appears to be three milkhamos mitzvah: (1) 7 amim, (2) amaleiq,
>> (3) survival. In case #3, milkhemes mitzvah and piquach nefesh appear
>> very similar, with the caveat that going to war is really only to save
>> lives in a quantitative sense...


> Case #3 isn't anything close to pikuach nefesh. Arei sfar, for example.
> That's not what most people would see as pikuach nefesh, which is
> a din relating to yechidim. It's about national security/survival.
> Milchemet mitzvah is a tzibbur thing. A whole other ball of wax.

What do you mean by this?   The law of protecting border cities is
*exactly* about pikuach nefesh, ordinary pikuach nefesh as everyone
understands it.   It has nothing whatsoever to do with milchemet mitzvah,
or "a tzibbur thing"; its place is in hilchos shabbos, not in hilchos
milchama, and it applies equally in EY and in ChuL.  In fact it is
specifically talking about Nehardea, which is in ChuL.


-- 
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 Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 10:25:04AM -0600, Lisa Liel wrote:
: You're right. That was kind of a silly comparison...

I think it's valid to draw a distinction between assuming Hashem gave
us a base set of laws and a process and assuming He also told us why
that process works. And so our not knowing *why* the process is valid
is less related to fears about the reliability of mesorah than is the
question of all the halakhos lost the day Moshe died.

We know we lost data, but about situations that weren't arising. It
wouldn't involve our topic -- the machloqes Rashi and R' Tam (and the
Raavad and the Rosh or the ga'on whose work he redacted) about the order
of parshios, which we know from evidence was open for at least 1200
years by Rashi's day, and not because we didn't have tefillin available
for those rishonim to check. So it does stand as evidence that Sanhedrin
didn't rush in and close every open machloqes; multiple tefillin orderings
were around for centuries before the Sanhedrin folded. (Presumably in
the 5th cent under Rabbi Hillel II.) Or perhaps the Sanhedrin tried,
but no pesaq was nispasheit; either way, plurality existed.

Interestingly, those cases of lost halakhos would pose a difference
between the Rambam on one side, and the geonim and other the rishonim
on the other.

The geonim would say that a machloqes in the recreated din would be a
typical machloqes, and presumably eilu va'eilu applies. And the majority
of rishonim wouldn't care whether a halakhah existed before or not,
as the halakhah is created by following the process.

But the Rambam would not consider this a true mahchloqes in sense that the
process was built with. Rather, it's ignorance that needs repairing. One
side is deep down right, and the other wrong. And if he could prove to
a point he considered conclusive which was which, perhaps the Rambam
would even hold like the minority over the majority. After all, gadol
mimenu bechokmah uveminyan is only for true machloqes, not an argument
over uncertainties.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             A sick person never rejects a healing procedure
mi...@aishdas.org        as "unbefitting." Why, then, do we care what
http://www.aishdas.org   other people think when dealing with spiritual
Fax: (270) 514-1507      matters?              - Rav Yisrael Salanter

In Techumin vol. 28 pp. 271-5, I bring from geonim and rishonim why women carrying weapons in today's Israeli army would not violate beged ish.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140118/7a4726cf/attachment-0001.htm>

On 1/20/2014 5:32 AM, Micha Berger wrote:
> I am leaving Lisa's question of whether a milkhemes mitzvah is distinctly
> for national survival until I can think of a case of national destruction
> that wouldn't involve piquach nefesh. Can you attack *a* people without
> attacking *its* people? The other milkhamos mitzvah require a willingness
> to be the aggressor.

Arei sfar yochichu. If they even demand hay from border communities,
we go out to fight them. It's milchemet mitzvah without any immediate
threat against the lives of anyone on our side.


On 1/20/2014 11:56 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> What do you mean by this? The law of protecting border cities is *exactly*
> about pikuach nefesh, ordinary pikuach nefesh as everyone understands
> it. It has nothing whatsoever to do with milchemet mitzvah, or "a tzibbur
> thing"; its place is in hilchos shabbos, not in hilchos milchama, and it
> applies equally in EY and in ChuL. In fact it is specifically talking
> about Nehardea, which is in ChuL.

What makes you think milchemet mitzvah only applies in Eretz Yisrael?


On 1/20/2014 11:48 AM, Zev Sero wrote:
> On 20/01/2014 7:10 AM, Eli Turkel wrote:
>> As far as I know the IDF rabbinate allows all sorts of chillul shabbat
>> by soldiers on duty. I dont recall that they say that this applies only
>> when there is an actual war happening

> What has that got to do with anything? They're not permitting it because
> of milchemet mitzvah, they're permitting it because of pikuach nefesh,
> so it's irrelevant.

Says who? What makes you think they're permitting it in all cases
because of pikuach nefesh? Rather than having someone standing in a
three story tower with a rifle, just get everyone inside. If pikuach
nefesh is what you're interested in.

Lisa


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


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 32, Issue 11
**************************************

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