Volume 32: Number 15
Tue, 28 Jan 2014
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Message: 1
From: Esther and Aryeh Frimer <frim...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:07:01 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] R. Tully Harcsztark's letter on Women and Tefillen
The letter which Rabbi Harcsztark publicized recently is a somewhat
shortened and modified version of the original letter written to me.
Attached below is my response to him.
From: Aryeh Frimer
To: Tully Harcsztark
Sent: Thursday, January 23, 2014 11:30 PM
Subject: Re: Women and Tefillen.
Dear Tully,
I thank you for your honest letter and do understand your educational
considerations. You may appreciate that I have studied the various issues
of women and Halakha in great depth and have tried to be lenient when I am
convinced that the sources support such action.
As you know, Rama in Shulkhan Arukh 38:3 says explicitly that we object
(mohin be-yadan) to women wearing Tefillen. The Pri Megadim (to Taz 38:2),
Ma'amar Mordechai and other Poskim explain that the reason is that women
will not careful about "Guf Naki" (see below for discussion) because they
are not obligated.
While there may have been a machlokes on this matter in Talmudic times
and even through the Rishonim, the clear consensus of pesak following the
the Rama's ruling in Shulkhan Aukh is stringent - and almost unanimously
accepted by Ashkenazim and Sefaradim alike. [See R. David Yosef's Halakha
Berura to OH 38:3]
It is true that in nearly all other cases where a women is exempt from a
mitsva we allow, even encourage her, to fulfill it. But That is because
there is no down side in their fulfillment. This is not the case, however,
with Tefillen. Wearing tefillen is like wrapping yourself up in a Sefer
Torah where a "guf Naki" is required. One is forbidden in hesech ha-da'at
(distracting thoughts) and Kalut Rosh (light-headedness). One must be
careful about cleanliness, not to pass gas etc. In the case of men who are
absolutely obligated, we make dispensations, but limit the time of tefillen
to Shaharit - not all day. But those who are not obligated like women are
told NOT to put on tefillen. That is what the Rama means when he say "Mohin
beYadan". Mohin means that we object to her practice even if she has been
doing so for a long time. [This is the famous story of the Maid of Loudmir
who wore Tefillen in Yerushalayim and was instructed to stop - which she
did.]
This is an issue of obedience to halakha, and yes it takes priority to
"feeling good" or "spiritually uplifted." That is something that you as an
educator should have emphasized. The Halakha guides us in Hashem's will and
how to come close to Him. {This was the sin of the ma'apilim who were
punished for trying to enter Erets Yisrael after the sin of the Meraglim -
contrary to Hashem's instructions.} If the student wanted to put on
Tefillen at home, that would have been her decision. And I doubt anyone
would have made a fuss. But by officially bringing the practice into
school - you legitimized it! And what was the message you transmitted to
the other students? That they can ignore the Rama when it is not to their
liking? You certainly were not Mocheh as the Rama requires. Little wonder
that the international press carried the story. Considering the fact that
the law has been on the books for at least 5 centuries, I would have
consulted with some major poskim before proceeding. [Rav Nachum Rabinovitch
comes to mind.]
I do not envy your position on the front lines - and it's always easier
being a back seat driver. But I believe you erred on this call both
halakhically and pedagogically.
I wish you well in your future educational endeavors.
Aryeh Frimer
--------------------------------
Prof. Aryeh A. Frimer
Chemistry Dept., Bar-Ilan University
Ramat Gan 5290002, ISRAEL
E-mail (office): Aryeh.Fri...@biu.ac.il
Go to top.
Message: 2
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:33:57 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] My Hiddur vs Enabling Orthers to do the Mitzvha;
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:59pm EST, I posted the beginning of
http://beisvaad.blogspot.com/2014/01/yisro-mitzvos-according-
to-ramban-ahava.html
by R' Eliezen Eisenberg "Barzilai" (CC-ed). I've been sitting on some thoughts.
The topic is the Magen Avraham's pesaq what one should enable others to do
the basic mitzvah before looking at your own hiddur -- so, buy someone else
an esrog rather than worrying about finding a mehudar, if others can't light
on Chanukah, buy them oil even if it means not doing mehadrin or mehadrin
min hamehadrin, etc...
The Shaarei Teshuvah writes about two people who each had a chatzi-kezayis
on the first night of Pesach. He says that a chatzi-kezayis is sufficient
to fulfil a mitzvah, if not satisfy the chiyuv. Still, he says that
rather than each eat their half, they should have a goral to see who
could fulfil the chiyuv with a full kezayis.
REE asks:
: 2. Does the Magen Avraham depend on whether hiddur is part of the mitzva
: or a separate mitzva? It seems to me that if hiddur is a separate mitzva,
: then it is no different than any other mitzva kiyumis, and I highly doubt
: that the Magen Avraham would say that given a choice between fulfilling
: your own mitzva kiyumis or funding someone else's mitzva chiyuvis,
: that is is good to fund the other guy. Somehow, I think that he's only
: talking about hiddur. And so the Magen Avraham has to hold that Hiddur
: is part of the mitzva, not a separate mitzva.
OTOH, even if hiddur part of the same mitzvah, it's not me'aqev -- the
hiddur in a chiyuv isn't itself mechuyeves. Otherwise, it would be iqar
hadin, not hiddur. So how would it be /less/ dispensible than adding
another mitzvah qiyumis?
: 5. According to the Ramban, since mitzvos Asei are based on ahava, is
: the Magen Avraham (and the Shaarei Teshuva's gorel) not indisputable? In
: other words, if it was yir'ah, then all I care is to protect myself. If
: it's ahava, what difference does it make if I do the mitzva or someone
: else does the mitzva- if my motive is to do Hashem's will because I love
: Him, all that should matter is whether Hashem is pleased, not whether I
: get a bigger mitzva reward. Or am I making a mistake by conflating the
: Ramban and Shimon Hatzadik in Pirkei Avos 1:3,
I think this analysis confuses yir'as Shamayim with yir'as cheit. Yir'as
cheit is fear of punishment, which would imply I'm better off giving
priority to my own mitzvos. But as the Mesilas Yesharim writes, stam
"yir'ah" is yir'as hacheit -- which is different than yir'as ha'onesh.
It's fear of the sin itself, of Hashem's Will being violated. Which would
operate much like ahavah in the above. (And indeed yir'as hacheit is
inseperable from ahavas H'.)
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger You will never "find" time for anything.
mi...@aishdas.org If you want time, you must make it.
http://www.aishdas.org - Charles Buxton
Fax: (270) 514-1507
Go to top.
Message: 3
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 20:44:11 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Daf Yomi raises doubts about the mesora
On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 4:28pm EST, Prof. Levine replied to R Marty
Bluke's 4:00pm Areivim post:
...
>> There are disputes galore about historical facts, some examples that
>> pop into my head, there is a machlokes Tannaim was there 1 curtain
>> separating the kodesh hakodashim from the Heichal or 2. There is a 3
>> way machlokes about the path that the Kohen Gadol took to go to the
>> Kodesh Hakodishim, there are various disputes about the order of teh
>> Avoda and how the Kohen Gadol did the Avodas Haketores on Yom Kippur. ...
>> If this is the case regarding the Avoda why would it no apply to other
>> parts of Torah as well...
So, we discusseed RMBluke's basic question, and in the meantime I missed
a problem I would have with RYL's proposed answer:
> According to RSRH, there is no need to take midrashim literally. See...
First, are these medrashim? I thought these are halachic disputes on a
matter that we hope will soon again be lemaaseh.
Second, even so, there are rules to myth-making. A myth still isn't
stam a story. They may have repeated stories for the sake of their
underlying message rather than engaging in preserving history, but the
halachic details and (other) moral implications in their stories had
to be consistent with Torah. E.g. a medrash about Avraham may never had
happened, but if it weren't historical it would even be less likely to
be retold in a way that had Avraham sinning.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
--
Micha Berger "As long as the candle is still burning,
mi...@aishdas.org it is still possible to accomplish and to
http://www.aishdas.org mend."
Fax: (270) 514-1507 - Anonymous shoemaker to R' Yisrael Salanter
Go to top.
Message: 4
From: Chana Luntz <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 13:52:30 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Translation - was Chief Rabbinate
I wrote:
> >One should not witness [tedah] a woman with the witnessings [edei] of a
man
>> [...] and one should not witness a man with the witnessings of a woman
And RZS replied:
>Mistranslation alert. The word used here means to wear; it has nothing to
do
>with the word for witness. I'm sure you knew that, and were just
translating
>on autopilot.
Actually, it was slightly more than that - and perhaps those on this list
with a better grasp of linked shoreshim can comment. One of the things I
have found myself doing quite a lot recently with my kids, is tryng to
explain to them differences in Hebrew words that seem to translate the same
in English (ever noticed how many different words there are for live or
dwell in Tanach Hebrew, compared to English (or at least to frequent use
English).) And I have been trying to explain the differences to my kids -
eg shachan has the associated noun shochen, a neighbour, and that is why
the implications of shachan is to "live nearby" not just to live. Gur is
temporary living (sojourning, but that is a hard word for my kids) etc
I was wondering why it was that the Rambam, who tends to use simple Hebrew,
had not used lavash, which is surely the most straightforward form, and
whether in fact by not doing so he was pointing to what one might call
"statement apparel" ie that might be considered to witness to something (in
this case the gender of the person). As in, what would the Rambam say,
hypothetically, about a woman wearing men's underwear or vice versa
- assuming nobody ever saw ie was he only considering public apparel? The
examples he brings are all very public - and I thought I might be missing
an association if I just translated it as wear. Do others on this list
agree or was I barking up the wrong tree?
Regards
Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140127/5d2527e2/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 5
From: Eli Turkel <elitur...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 22:27:07 +0200
Subject: [Avodah] Stam Gemara
>
> << But the Stamim are not Amoraim. Yet in the Rambam's introduction to
> his Mishanah Torah he writes that:
>
> [As to] all of the matters in the Talmud Bavli, all of Israel are
> obligated to follow them and we force every city and every province to act
> according to all of the customs that the sages of the Talmud
> instituted...as all of those matters in the Talmud were agreed upon by all
> of Israel. [my translation]
>
> Does the above mean the matters up to and including those codified by Rav
> Ashi and Ravina or would those matters going further and including those
of
> the Stama De-Gemorah? >>
>
This is a subject of discussion in much of the modern academic talmudic
departments. I am far from an expert but as far as I know no rishon
explicit states that we dont account for a stam in halacha.
Since Rambam doesnt bring sources for his psak it has led to myriads of
divrei torah trying to find the basis for some of the more controversial
halachot. In particular some would claim that he accounted for stam gemarot
For a more traditioal approach I suggest an article by Rav Gutel in BDD
volume 15 (2004) about the "revadim" controversy. He points out that there
are certainly layers within the gemara. Perhaps the most famous sugya is
the beginning of kiddushin. Both Rav Hai Gaon and Rambam on the Mishna
state that the gemara is from the sobariaim. Ritva even says it is from Rav
Yehudai Gaon - much later. Rif and others (including Rambam ina teshuva)
state at times that the answer of the gemara is "a kvetch" (my language)
and so pasken like the simple pshat of a Mishna.
However all examples in classical meforshim deal with a few isolated cases.
Modern academic talmudic studies have greatly enlarged what they claim is
"stam" including many examples that include the names of Amoraim.
--
Eli Turkel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140127/72ec0331/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 6
From: saul newman <newman...@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 21:33:49 -0800
Subject: [Avodah] geula numbers /long leaps
http://yeranenyaakov.blogspot.com/2014/01/rav-fish-quoti
ng-gra-on-long-leap-years.html
for those who put credence in this sort of thing....maybe if it inspires
our behaviour....
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140127/44ee1437/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 7
From: Chana Luntz <ch...@kolsassoon.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:41:58 +0000
Subject: [Avodah] Fwd: [Areivim] Avoiding Religious Hubris
Moderator of Areivim has directed that this be sent to Avodah
RMS wrote on Areivim:
> >Similarly in a variety of public practices where one shows that one is
> more religious than the norm ( I am told thath this >used to be applied at
> YU to walking around with tzitzit out- which was not the litvak norm) -
>
Walking around YU (assuming a male only environment) with tzitzis out might
well have been yehura, but surely a man walking around in the presence of
women with his tzitzis out is loeg l'rash?
Or at least, if you hold that tzitzis is a normal mitzvah aseh shehazman
graman, then a woman has an option to keep it, so there is no loeg l'rash
issue. But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis,
then why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just
as much as it is in the presence of the dead? Of course in shul, no men
are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the fundamental
requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus. However in a modern
eg working environment, where's the heter?
Regards
Chana
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20140128/6410fa66/attachment-0001.htm>
Go to top.
Message: 8
From: Ben Waxman <ben1...@zahav.net.il>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 17:52:14 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Avoiding Religious Hubris
On 1/28/2014 5:41 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> But if you hold that it is forbidden for women to wear tzitzis, then
> why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a woman's presence just
> as much as it is in the presence of the dead? Of course in shul, no
> men are by definition "in a woman's presence" given that the
> fundamental requirement of mechitza is to create a separate reshus.
> However in a modern eg working environment, where's the heter?
But if someone isn't "in the inyan" than what is the problem? A cohen
does the work in the Beit HaMiqdash in front of all those non-cohanim
who are forbidden to do those tasks. What could be the problem? If
someone can't, they can't.
Go to top.
Message: 9
From: menucha <m...@inter.net.il>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:10:52 +0200
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Avoiding Religious Hubris
Chana Luntz wrote:
> Or at least, if you hold that tzitzis is a normal mitzvah aseh
> shehazman graman, then a woman has an option to keep it, so there is
> no loeg l'rash issue. But if you hold that it is forbidden for women
> to wear tzitzis, then why is it not loeg l'rash to wear them out in a
> woman's presence just as much as it is in the presence of the dead?
> Of course in shul, no men are by definition "in a woman's presence"
> given that the fundamental requirement of mechitza is to create a
> separate reshus. However in a modern eg working environment, where's
> the heter?
According to the Pri Megadim (OC EA 23:2) it wouldn't even be loeg larash
in front of a kever of a woman.
menucha
Go to top.
Message: 10
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 16:24:03 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Upstart.com
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 07:57:17PM +0200, Liron Kopinsky wrote:
: https://www.upstart.com/how_it_works
: Heter Iska?
My understanding of heter isqa is that the matir is the presence of some
acceptance of a possibility of loss, no matter how small. If the investor
stands to make profit, but all achrayus belongs to the person utilizing
the money, it's ribis.
Anyway, I believe it's real isqa. But it does fit the above criterion.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 11
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 18:40:10 -0500
Subject: [Avodah] Rambam on Kishuf
Y-mi Yomi just passed Sanhedrin 7:13, which is 7:11 in the typical mishnayos.
The mishnah opens
Hamekhasheif: ha'oseh ma'aseh
*velo* ha'ocheiz es ha'einayim.
I looked up Peirush haMishnayos lehaRambam, wanting to see what kind of
"ma'aseh" he thinks kishuf involves that isn't achizas einayim.
Frustratingly, he's silent.
Anyone can think of somewhere else to look?
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
Go to top.
Message: 12
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 15:45:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Fwd: [Areivim] Avoiding Religious Hubris
On 28/01/2014 10:41 AM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> surely a man walking around in the presence of women with his tzitzis
> out is loeg l'rash? Or at least, if you hold that tzitzis is a normal
> mitzvah aseh shehazman graman, then a woman has an option to keep it,
> so there is no loeg l'rash issue. But if you hold that it is
> forbidden for women to wear tzitzis, then why is it not loeg l'rash
> to wear them out in a woman's presence just as much as it is in the
> presence of the dead?
AIUI, the issue of loeg larash is not that one is (literally) dangling
this specific mitzvah in their faces, but that one is figuratively rubbing
their noses in the fact that they no longer have *any* mitzvos (especially
now that they're in a place where they appreciate how precious mitzvos are
and wish they had done more while they were subject to them). A woman has
many mitzvos she can do, so if she sees a man wearing tzitzis and is
inspired to do a mitzvah too, she can easily do so.
Perhaps there is an issue of loeg larash in another case: While acharonim
struggle to find reasons to that a deaf-mute who is intelligent and aware
is chayav in mitzvos, the pashtus of the gemara and all rishonim is that
he is not, and that a normal person whose eardrums and vocal cords are
injured so he is now completely deaf-mute is patur from mitzvos, even if
he communicates fluently in writing and it's obvious that his intelligence
has not been affected at all. Perhaps doing mitzvos in front of such a
person is loeg larash. I have never seen this anywhere, but it makes sense.
--
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
Go to top.
Message: 13
From: Zev Sero <z...@sero.name>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 19:24:55 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Kishuf
On 28/01/2014 6:40 PM, Micha Berger wrote:
> Y-mi Yomi just passed Sanhedrin 7:13, which is 7:11 in the typical mishnayos.
> The mishnah opens
> Hamekhasheif: ha'oseh ma'aseh
> *velo* ha'ocheiz es ha'einayim.
>
> I looked up Peirush haMishnayos lehaRambam, wanting to see what kind of
> "ma'aseh" he thinks kishuf involves that isn't achizas einayim.
>
> Frustratingly, he's silent.
>
AIUI, the Rambam understands this literally, that kishuf means magic tricks
that involve an action, which is why they can be punished, and achisas einayim
means magic tricks whose "magic" involves no action at all, just words and
passive misdirection, so there's nothing to punish.
--
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
Go to top.
Message: 14
From: Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 21:50:32 -0500
Subject: Re: [Avodah] Rambam on Kishuf
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 07:24:55PM -0500, Zev Sero wrote:
> AIUI, the Rambam understands this literally, that kishuf means magic tricks
> that involve an action, which is why they can be punished, and achisas einayim
> means magic tricks whose "magic" involves no action at all, just words and
> passive misdirection, so there's nothing to punish.
I asked for help finding a source because I didn't want to guess at
an answer until we knew we had to. In any case, your understanding
would have the tana qama agreeing with R' Aqiva mishum R' Yehoshua as
both saying kishuf causes a chayav misah, but achizas einayim is patur
aval asur. (And the Rambam does make a point of making the "aval asur"
explicit.) I find that unlkely.
Tir'u baTov!
-Micha
------------------------------
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 15
**************************************
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.)