Avodah Mailing List

Volume 32: Number 150

Wed, 12 Nov 2014

• 1. Sefer HaChashmonaim (Rafi and Shifra Goldmeier)
• 2. Re: Oldest Sefer Torah (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Oldest Sefer Torah (Micha Berger)
• 4. Origin of The Yam Hamelach (Kenneth Miller)
• 5. Intent: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehudah leShitasam? (Micha Berger)
• 6. Sheilati u'Bakashati: A Review of Mah Sheilatech Esther (Chana Luntz)
• 7. Re: Intent: Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehudah leShitasam? (Simon Montagu)

my shiur is considering learning Sefer Hachashmonaim next..

I don't really know anything about this sefer so... my questions are:
1. is Sefer HaChashmonaim authentic?
2. I know it was never incorporated into Tanach. Is learning it 
considered Talmud Torah or is it just considered reading an interesting 
history book?

kol tuv
Rafi

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:10:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: See http://www.rhodesjewishmuseum.org/history/the-800-year-old-torah and
: the differences they list between this sefer and modern sifrei torah.

Somthing I noticed:
> Expert Analysis Confirms "800 Year-Old" Torah From Rhodes Has Sephardic
> Origins

The pen was held at a diagonal, making lines that diagonal down from right
to left thinnest. In Beis Yoseif [Ask] and Ari [Chassidish] kesavim, the
pen is held so that downstrokes are thinnest and strokes from side-to-side
are thickest. So, Ashk beis has a very thin line connacting the roof to
the floor (bayis wordplay intentional), whereas in Sepharadi -- and the
Rhodes -- kesav, it is thicker.

This also means the typical Seph sofer would curve the foot of the reish
slightly toward the right, so that the line not only curves near the
bottom, but also thins out. (Also seen in Rhodes.)

This difference is codified in the shape of the lamed, where Seph (and
Rhodes) have the bottom angle to make a thin line. And this is what
became the norm in most print fonts. Whereas Ashk has a flat base using
a wide stroke.

Similarlym the foot of the Ayin in Seph (and Rhodes) is downward in an
angle for maximal width (again, like most print fonts) not flat like
an Ashk ayin.

IOW, much of the rest of the kesav, as well as its basic look, is
dictated by pen angle. And in that, Rhodes is Sepharadi.

BUT...

The Rhodes sefer has an Ashkenazi qutzo shel yud in the lower left,
like a mini print ches.

And it has a zayin style head on all three forks of the shin (without
kesarim), whereas both Ashk and Seph use vav/yud type heads.

> All modern Torahs have 42 lines per column, while the 800 year-old
> Torah has 45 lines per column.

Minhag. Mes' Soferim gives a minimum of 42, like the masa'ot in the
midbar. The Keset haSofer gives a maximum of 60. The Rambam wrote his
sefer with 51 lines.

Can someone explain what was meant by:
> The "open" spacing between the words in the 800 year-old Torah show
> that it follows the Sephardic style of the Rambam called "petuhot". For
> the last 400 years all Torahs have been written with the "closed" style
> (called "stumot").

I know petuchos and setumos in terms of parashah types. Is that here too,
or did the reporter mangle something?

The gemara (Menachos 30a) says the width of a letter. which could mean
a single yud or vav, or what the Rambam does -- two skinny letters is
about the same as one average one.

Rambam Hil Stam 7:4 says the space between each word should be twice
that of a yud or vav. Which is about the width of a normal letter,
so perhaps that's how he reads the gemara.

MB 32:143 says a single yud or vav, which is narrower than the Rambam's
shitah.

Is this the intent?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

On Thu, Nov 06, 2014 at 11:10:36PM +0200, Eli Turkel via Avodah wrote:
: See http://www.rhodesjewishmuseum.org/history/the-800-year-old-torah and
: the differences they list between this sefer and modern sifrei torah.

Somthing I noticed:
> Expert Analysis Confirms "800 Year-Old" Torah From Rhodes Has Sephardic
> Origins

The pen was held at a diagonal, making lines that diagonal down from right
to left thinnest. In Beis Yoseif [Ask] and Ari [Chassidish] kesavim, the
pen is held so that downstrokes are thinnest and strokes from side-to-side
are thickest. So, Ashk beis has a very thin line connacting the roof to
the floor (bayis wordplay intentional), whereas in Sepharadi -- and the
Rhodes -- kesav, it is thicker.

This also means the typical Seph sofer would curve the foot of the reish
slightly toward the right, so that the line not only curves near the
bottom, but also thins out. (Also seen in Rhodes.)

This difference is codified in the shape of the lamed, where Seph (and
Rhodes) have the bottom angle to make a thin line. And this is what
became the norm in most print fonts. Whereas Ashk has a flat base using
a wide stroke.

Similarlym the foot of the Ayin in Seph (and Rhodes) is downward in an
angle for maximal width (again, like most print fonts) not flat like
an Ashk ayin.

IOW, much of the rest of the kesav, as well as its basic look, is
dictated by pen angle. And in that, Rhodes is Sepharadi.

BUT...

The Rhodes sefer has an Ashkenazi qutzo shel yud in the lower left,
like a mini print ches.

And it has a zayin style head on all three forks of the shin (without
kesarim), whereas both Ashk and Seph use vav/yud type heads.

> All modern Torahs have 42 lines per column, while the 800 year-old
> Torah has 45 lines per column.

Minhag. Mes' Soferim gives a minimum of 42, like the masa'ot in the
midbar. The Keset haSofer gives a maximum of 60. The Rambam wrote his
sefer with 51 lines.

Can someone explain what was meant by:
> The "open" spacing between the words in the 800 year-old Torah show
> that it follows the Sephardic style of the Rambam called "petuhot". For
> the last 400 years all Torahs have been written with the "closed" style
> (called "stumot").

I know petuchos and setumos in terms of parashah types. Is that here too,
or did the reporter mangle something?

The gemara (Menachos 30a) says the width of a letter. which could mean
a single yud or vav, or what the Rambam does -- two skinny letters is
about the same as one average one.

Rambam Hil Stam 7:4 says the space between each word should be twice
that of a yud or vav. Which is about the width of a normal letter,
so perhaps that's how he reads the gemara.

MB 32:143 says a single yud or vav, which is narrower than the Rambam's
shitah.

Is this the intent?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             What we do for ourselves dies with us.
mi...@aishdas.org        What we do for others and the world,
http://www.aishdas.org   remains and is immortal.
Fax: (270) 514-1507                        - Albert Pine

In parshas Lech Lecha, I understand Rashi to explain pasuk 14:3 as follows:
At the time of the war of the four kings and five kings, there was an area
containing many fields, known as Emek Ha-siddim (literally, Valley of the
Siddim). At some time after that war, some other body of water broke into
that valley and flooded it, creating the Yam Hamelach.

I find myself wondering when this transformation occurred, and why Rashi doesn't tell us.

I have strong memories of hearing that the salt content of the Sea was
caused by the pillar of salt that Lot's wife turned into. That would fit
Rashi's timeline very well, which makes his silence all the more curious.
Then again, perhaps he omitted this point because it is of non-Jewish
origin, or perhaps even totally unfounded altogether.

Has anyone else heard of a connection between Yam Hamelach and Lot's wife?
Or, does anyone have more details about the formation of Yam Hamelach
according to Rashi?

Akiva Miller
____________________________________________________________
Map Your Flood Risk
Find Floodplan Maps, Facts, FAQs, Your Flood Risk Profile and More!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL3131/545fef03f22ee6f0318b8st04vuc

As known to anyone with even light exposure to Mes' Shabbos, there
is a machloqes that runs throughout as to whether a melakhah she'einah
tzerikhah legufah is de'oraisa or derabbanan.
R Yehudah: chayav
R Shimon: patur (aval assur)

It his me that this parallels their machloqes WRT a keli shemelakhto
le'issur, whether you can use it for melakhah acheres:
R' Yehudah: assur
R' Shimon: mutar

R' Yehudah in both cases tells us to look at the metzi'us and ignore
the intent. So the melakhah for the wrong intent is still a melakhah,
and moving a keli shemelakhto le'issur for mutar intent is still assur.

And similarly R' Shimon in both cases is taking intent into account.

A potential third example of the same machloqes, Zevachim 91b.

Shemu'el says that if someone was menadeiv wine it is poured on the
mizbei'ach. The gemara grapples with the problem -- wouldn't he extinguish
the fire? First they suggest it would only be partially extinguished,
and thus mutar. Then they suggest (along the way) that Shemu'el holds
like Rabbi Shimon.

IOW, R' Shimon takes intent into the definition of action even beyond
Shabbos. Which would imply that it's the definitoin of action in general
that's under machloqes, and not that R' Shimon lumps intent into melekhes
*machsheves* in particular.

Thoughts?

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             How wonderful it is that
mi...@aishdas.org        nobody need wait a single moment
http://www.aishdas.org   before starting to improve the world.
Fax: (270) 514-1507              - Anne Frank Hy"d

RYGB on Hirhurim published a review of the new book of women's teshuvos :
<http://www.torahmusings.com/2014/11/sheilati-ubakashati-review-mah-
sheilate
ch-esther>
[or <http://j.mp/1ui3pds> -micha]

Somebody previously (privately) asked me for my view on these teshuvos,
and I wrote back as follows:

The book comprises eight teshuvos -- two written by Rabbanit Anat
Novoselsky and eight written by Rabbanit Idit Bartov. I do not know
either of these women, and have never encountered their writings before.

However I confess that I much preferred the two teshuvos from Rabbanit
Anat Novoselsky.

In particular my favourite was her teshuva on the obligation of women
in simcha on the festivals.


1. Obligation of women in simcha on the festivals.

What I particularly liked about it was her sensitivity to the position of
the shoeles -- who found herself after many years of happy marriage as
a widow, grappling with how to live her life post husband. The teshuva
also took us through, very clearly and concisely, the various aspects
of this debate: the machlokus between Abaya (husband's obligation to
cause his wife to be happy) versus Rav Zeira (women have an individual
obligation); the various rishonim and achronim and the interplay between
the two shitos, noting that the majority of the achronim follow the
Shaga'as Aryeh that women do have an individual obligation of simcha on
the festivals (perhaps this was somewhat downplayed -- but it seemed to
me not inappropriately given that the husband had always stressed the
alternative view, that it was his obligation to make his wife happy,
and in the context, undermining the husband's position could have been
insensitive)..

Perhaps the only thing I could think of to add was to wonder, especially
in the context of discussing an almanah, that if one did follow Abaye's
position, and was therefore forced to explain the reference to the almanah
in the pasuk (Davarim 16:14) as Abaye does in Kiddushin 34b that the
reference is to making happy an almanah who is regularly at his place:
could this obligation ought to be understood to be broader than merely
as set out in the Shulchan Aruch in Orech Chaim Siman 529 and as quoted
in the teshuva ie that the obligation extends only to (a) gladdening the
heart of his wife and children and all who accompany him (which might
include an almanah who regularly depends in him) and b) to feeding the
widow (with stranger and the orphan and the rest of the poor). After all
(b) does not clearly relate to engendering simcha over and above tzedaka
and (a) would seem to be narrower than even the gemora. Could it be
said that the pasuk is therefore mandating an obligation on the general
community, not just the individual, to provide the necessary simcha for
such women -- even women who are not necessarily on the breadline and
being supported financially by the gvirim of the community? But this is
a side point, not directly related to the obligations of the shoeles,
and the teshuva seems to me to provide a good solid answer on a variety
of levels to the one who was asking.


2. Lighting shabbas candles in a hotel lobby

Anat Nvoselsky's second teshuva was in response to a question from a woman
who was going to a hotel for shabbas -- where she was only going to be
able to light shabbas candles in the lobby, not in the place where the
seudah was to be eaten. Again it seemed to me that the answer provided
competently met the needs of the shoeles -- explaining the issues and
problems with lighting in a hotel lobby and giving her three possible
options (bring an electric light and make a bracha on that, bring a torch
and make a bracha on that, light in the lobby and eat some mezonos in
the lobby after the meal by the candles). The teshuva could have been
fuller -- there could have been more of a discussion of what it means
to "use" the candles -- and whether or not merely drinking tea in the
lobby, absent the mezonos,would have been enough, rather than jumping
immediately to requiring mezonos, but in the context of what the shoeles
needed it seemed more than adequate. (I would also note that I am not
totally convinced she is correct about "the minhag of most Sephardios"
-- I suspect many Sephardios actually deviate when it comes to brachos
from what is the official position of significant numbers of Sephardi
poskim. But this is a throw -- away line in the context of a teshuva given
to an Ashkenazi woman, so I would hardly put any significance on it).

However I was less keen on the various teshuvos from Rabbanit Idit Bartov.


3. Smoking and bathing on Yom Tov

The question posed was on the permissibility of smoking on Yom Tov.

During the course of the teshuva, there is a digression into bathing on
yom tov, which is held to be mutar, while concluding vis a vis smoking
that as this is assur even during chol, one certainly cannot make an
exception for Yom Tov.

What to my mind is missing from the smoking discussion is an analysis of
why Rav Moshe, the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Ovadiah -- although all cited
in one line, do not forbid in the manner of this teshuva, but merely
recommend that an individual be machmir. Indeed more time is spent on
the Ktav Sofer and his world where smoking was considered healthy. In
my personal view the teshuva is right -- ie it is right to move on from
these authorities, but in order to justify doing so, it seems to me a
fuller discussion is needed. These authorities straddled a world where,
for significant portions of their lives, smoking was, as per the Ktav
Sofer, considered healthy (probably because a new fix visibly took away
the withdrawal symptoms and so could be seen to strengthen the body),
and they were already significant and recognised poskim by the time the
scientific news broke of smoking's dangers. (parenthetically, my mother
was at university in South Africa when the dangers of smoking were
suddenly all over the news, causing my mother to decide that maybe she
shouldn't contemplate taking it up, a course of action with which she
had been flirting). These authorities of the previous generation knew
firsthand the bewilderment and astonishment of ordinary Jews who were
suddenly told that one of their few pleasures was in fact dangerous. Not
only that but they appreciated the difficulty of those who had unwittingly
put themselves into a situation where their only means of extraction was
via withdrawal symptoms and the fighting of addiction. And then there
was, not just as a theoretical matter, but as matter of living memory,
the recollections of those revered talmudei chachamim of the past who
had enjoyed smoking on Yom Tov (and the rest of the week).

Today in contrast, anybody who takes up smoking has wilfully decided
not to listen to the counsel of all the doctors. And there are very few
remaining who genuinely remember a world where smoking was legitimately
considered an honourable pastime (although as we all know, there are more
secluded communities who have refused to let modern medical opinion filter
in). But it does lead one to wonder about the shoel. How did he end up in
a position of being both a regular smoker and yet asking this question in
this particular community? From the phrasing of the question (ie is there
an issur of smoking on yom tov), his being told that smoking, even on chol
is completely assur would seem likely to come as a complete shock. Is
this a psak that this particular shoel is able to abide by? Should not
more time have been spent on this question, and breaking the news gently?

Regarding the bathing -- again it is noted (in my view correctly) that
today it is not just the fastidious person of the Rema who is bothered by
not bathing every day, but the average person, and so today it is hard not
to jump to a characterisation of bathing as shave l'kol nefesh. And so,
prima facie, the conclusion would seem to follow that bathing the whole
body, and even warming up water in order to so bathe, is permitted on
Yom Tov.

And yet:

a) I don't think the teshuva gives full or even adequate voice to those
who disagree. After all, the Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata perek 14 letter 7
in the main body straight out forbids the washing of the whole body in hot
water on Yom Tov even with water that was heated from erev Yom Tov (just
as it is forbids on Shabbas). And only in the footnotes (Footnote 21) does
he appear to advance the argument of this teshuva. While the discrepancy
between the main psak in the body of Shmirat Shabbat K'hilchata and
the footnotes is well known, a teshuva that deals with the question
ought really to at least face this reaity. And even the Yalkut Yosef,
not surprisingly following the Shulchan Aruch (as opposed to the Rema)
in giving permission for the washing of the whole body on Yom Tov in a
modern bath or shower with water that was heated from erev Yom Tov does
not permit the heating of such water on Yom Tov itself (Yalkut Yosef
Chelek 4 Shabbat 4 siman 426 letter 2). If one is now saying that shave
l'kol nefesh is just as applicable to washing the whole body today as
the washing of the hands, feet and face of yesteryear, then this should
be mutar as well (and so the teshuva implies, although the distinction
between the heating and the washing itself, although originally drawn,
appears less clearly to emerge later). These are serious authorities
and the fact that neither is even quoted not to mention grappled with
seems to me to be a defect.

b) Parts of the teshuva in contrast seem a little disingenuous. Yes Rabbi
Akiva Eiger does indeed understand the Shulchan Aruch as allowing the
washing of the whole body for somebody who is "mitztaer" -- and this is
brought in the Beur Halacha, but "mitztaer" while on a lower level than
a choleh she ain bo sakanah, is not the same as just anybody. After all,
a mitztaer is patur from the mitzvah of sukkah. To go from the situation
of a mitztaer to the ordinary person is a jump, especially in the light
of the clear opposition cited above.

c) While I fully agree that a normal ordinary person today is used
to bathing every day and is bothered by not bathing on Yom Tov -- my
impression from the various communities I have lived amongst is that
nevertheless, the custom is not to bathe on Yom Tov. I am aware of this
primarily because people grumble about it -- indicating that indeed it
does impact their simchas Yom Tov (and oneg Shabbas, for the Shabbas
that immediately follows a two day Yom Tov). But nevertheless it is my
impression that this is what the hamon am are doing. If we take that
as the case, however, we then surely need a discussion about whether
this would constitute a form of "minhag taus" (due to being based on a
misunderstanding of the halacha) or whether it can be considered a valid
minhag from which people should not deviate (after all, people do manage,
and sometimes there is even a bit of bravado in the grumbling). It is
possible that mileage varies, and that in the communities addressed
by this teshuva it is now accepted that people bathe, rendering this
question moot. In that case, however, it is likely to make the teshuva
of narrower relevance than it might at first appear applying perhaps
only to a very limited community.

d) One matter that is alluded to in the Beur Halacha that is cited in the
teshuva (further on from the discussion regarding Mitztaer) is the fact
that the Shulchan Aruch alludes to the issue regarding heating up water
for washing in a totally different context -- that of a nidah preparing
to be toveles (eg if her mikvah night is on the shabbas following a two
day Yom Tov). Shulchan Aruch Orech Yoreh Deah siman 199 si'if 6 allows
a woman to rinse her hidden parts with water, including with water which
has been heated on Yom Tov. But the permission is specifically to these
parts, not to rinsing the whole body, nor does the Shulchan Aruch allow
the chafifa to be performed on Yom Tov, rather requiring it (following
the gemora in Nida 67b) to be performed on Wednesday if there is a two
day Yom Tov immediately followed by mikvah night on Shabbas. And of
course this washing is in preparation for a mitzvah, not a mere reshus,
and all nidos wash their whole bodies in preparation for tevila on a
normal weekday. Any idea that we can today therefore simply dispose of
the restrictions that have historically been in place, it seems to me,
of necessity requires some consideration of the impact on the preparation
for tevila -- and whether the stringencies imposed regarding tevila do
not therefore indicate that it is not merely a matter of shave l'kol
nefesh in all cases.


4. Pushing off l'eil tevila

Here the shoeles is due to go to mikvah on a Friday night, but asks if
tevila can be pushed off until motzei shabbas due to the fact that (a)
she has small children to look after and her husband will be in shul;
and (b) she is so exhausted by her regular shabbas preparations that
she cannot face having to prepare herself for mikvah on top.

And again, while there is more of a sense of listening to the shoeles
and where she is "at" than in the teshuva regarding the smoker, and
there is acknowledgment in the first paragraph that there are possible
"technical" solutions to the problem -- hiring a babysitter, sending the
children to shul with the husband, asking the mikvah lady to be able to
toyvel after the meal, having the husband stay home and daven at home as
well as an acknowledgement that it is a family issue if members of the
family cannot enter shabbas in a state of relaxation and simcha -- it
seems to me that there really needed to be a lot more on what is clearly
a pretty fundamental shalom bayis issue. We don't hear anything from
the husband in all this -- where is he? In my household it has always
been taken for granted by my husband that when mikvah night falls on
shabbas in such circumstances, he stays home from shul. What is the
husband asserting? How does he see the matter?

And thus, in the body of the teshuva, while there is a reasonable
laying out of the basic question of whether there is an obligation of
tevila b'zmana -- it then segues into a discussion and bases itself on
a teshuva (and not even a teshuva fully and directly on point) from Rav
Moshe (Orech Chaim chelek 4 siman 75) and a derivation from Rav Moshe's
position that there is no obligation on a woman to be toveles assuming
she is not deliberately not being toveles to cause pain to her husband.

Absent, for example, is a cite to the position of Rav Ovadiah Yosef
(Taharat Habayit siman 14 letter 2) that if the woman's husband is
in the city "it is a mitzvah on her to be zealous to prepare herself
and to toyvel on time in order not to nullify the mitzvah of onah and
pirya v'rivya even for one night". Nor are there any references to
any of the sources he quotes in his footnote there that this applies
even when pru urvu has already been satisfied -- nor, critically,
to his ruling further on in the footnote (in the first paragraph on
page 449), relying on the Rav HaPoelim (Yoreh Deah chelek 2 siman 34)
and an understanding of the Beis Yosef as explaining the Zohar -- that
despite this if the husband agrees the tevila can be pushed off for
however many days if there is a reason [siba] for this. And that gets
us back to the beginning question. Where is the husband in all this? At
least in the case adverted to by Rav Moshe, the woman appears to not
have had the strength for tashmish, but doesn't want to explain this to
her husband. Here we don't know if or why this woman doesn't and can't
explain to her husband what the problem is, and whether or not he might
be prepared to be co-operative. All we get is a ruling that she can push
off the tevila, possibily even without telling him she is doing it.


5. Use of a Dud Shemesh on Shabbat

Here the questioner notes that growing up in Bnei Brak, they were taught
that use of water heated by a dud shemesh (sun's rays used to heat the
water) on Shabbat is forbidden, but that in the yishuv in which they
now lived, they were told there was no problem -- hence they asked
the Rabbanit what are the issues surrounding the question and how does
she hold.

Teshuvos in relation to the dud shemesh are quite difficult for somebody
from chutz l'aretz to review. For reasons I have never understood, the
dud shemesh never made it to my native Australia, despite what might
seem to be the congeniality of the climate. And while I encountered
it in my various stays in Israel, I have never had the opportunity of
really looking inside and examining the mechanism, so despite certain
descriptions in various teshuvos, it is hard not to feel that one has not
fully come to grips with the technology. It is certainly true however,
as the Rabbanit identifies, that there is a body of halachic literature
permitting its use on shabbas, and a custom has grown up amongst certain
communities to use.

There seems to be something of a contradiction in the teshuva however. The
second paragraph of the teshuva suggests that if one is able to turn off
the incoming water flow (ie preventing new water replacing old in the
dud shemesh) there is no halachic problem with using the water initially
in it. However later in the teshuva, in outlining some of the objections
of those who forbid use of the dud shemesh -- she identifies two reasons
that should apply just as much to existing water heated in the dud shemesh
on shabbas (including water that had cooled overnight, and been reheated)
namely: (a) since it is the way of the world (at least in Israel today)
to heat water by means of a dud shemesh, the idea that cooking by means
of the sun is not the normal method of cooking cannot be said in this
context, so that the heter no longer exists; and (b) that there is a
concern that people might make a mistake if they get used to using
hot water on shabbas, and use hot water heated by means of fire or
electricity. There are, as the Rabbanit notes, good reasons cited by
the poskim who permit to reject these arguments, but if taken seriously
there would seem to be problems even with the water in the dud shemesh
from prior to Shabbas.

And that leads me to some further questions around the subject, which
don't feel like they are fully addressed. The classic teshuvos on the
dud shemesh are quite old. Rav Ovadiah's seminal one was written in
Menachem Av 1960. Has the dud shemesh design not changed at all since
these discussions? One thing I do remember from my time in Israel with an
old fashioned dud shemesh is that there was a manual booster to be used
when there had not been enough sun and the water was not hot enough for
bathing. With the fall in electricity prices (relatively) and the advance
of technology (today in chutz l'aretz many of our hot water systems
are on seven day time clocks so that you can ensure you have hot water
precisely when you want it) -- I would have guessed that this booster
would have been incorporated into the design -- so that money rich but
time poor people would not find themselves kicking their heels waiting
while the manual booster heats up the hot water for a bath. If there
is any intermingling of this nature -- then surely the question becomes
much more complicated than it was at the time of Rav Ovadiah's teshuva
and those of the other poskim who originally dealt with the question.

And further -- while the dud shemesh never made it to Australia -- solar
power for households certainly has. My father in fact, despite having been
told a few years ago that his roof was not suitable for solar panels,
has now been told that the technology has moved on, and he is currently
getting quotes for their fitting (and even in London where I now live,
a place surely not the most hospitable to solar energy, the government
has been offering subsidies for those with suitable roofs to install
solar panelling). How do modern solar panels fit within the discussion
regarding toldos chama (as somewhat, but not fully, spelt out within
in this teshuva)? If you generate electricity using such solar panels
is any cooking you then do (eg with a conventional electric oven) then
only assur d'rabbanan on the grounds that it is toldos chama and cooking
by means of toldos chama is only an issur d'rabbanan? How about the
zeh v'zeh gorem argument -- especially if said oven was then set on
a time clock -- adding in some grama aspect (far more clearly grama
than Rav Ovadiah's understanding of the entry of new water into the dud
shemesh)? Can you say that I can cook a full shabbas roast on Shabbas
morning by this method? If you don't go down the -- normal way of cooking
so prohibited/people might get confused -- lines of argument, and stick
to the -- we can't institute new gezeros today line of argument, are we
not leaving ourselves open to some pretty extraordinary scenarios driven
by the advances in solar technology?


6. & 7. Women going up onto Har Habayis

These two teshuvos are part and parcel of the same discussion. The
Rabbanit was asked by a woman who wanted to go up onto Har Habayis,
who was aware of the controversy surrounding such ascent for both men
and women, but also knew that some rabbonim who allowed men to go, did
not allow women. She therefore asked to understand the issues involved
and the Rabbanit's opinion in the matter. The questioner was a married
woman and so the first teshuva dealt with that circumstance, while the
second teshuva dealt with the circumstance of a single woman who also
wanted to join the group.

Looking at the second teshuva first, the sole question discussed in this
teshuva is the ban, or possible ban, on single women going to mikvah. The
primary focus therefore is the teshuva of the Rivash (who was asked why
a general takana was not made requiring single women to go to mikvah
thus preventing any relations with a single women being an issur kares,
the Rivash answering that such a course would be very dangerous, as
it would cause people to minimise the issue of having relations with
single women) and those who understand this teshuva as mandating a ban
on single women going to mikvah (such as the Sde Chemed). The teshuva
logically segues into a discussion of the teshuvos regarding whether or
not single women can go to mikvah on erev Yom Kippur, as per the minhag of
the Maharil. As the Rabbanit correctly notes, there are many who permit
this, even though there are nay sayers. It might have been more thorough
to note the modern day poskim, such as Rav Ovadiah Yosef who are part
of the nay sayers (or at least Rav Ovadiah holds that shev v'al ta'aseh
adif -- Yabiat Omer Chelek 10 Yoreh Deah siman 58) -- rather than give
the impression that it is just the Sde Chemed, but it is reasonable for
the Rabbanit to prefer those who allow to those who forbid. What was
then absent from the discussion however is whether or not toyvelling
to go up to har habayis is in fact exactly the same as toyvelling for
Yom Kippur. I can see various arguments that there are distinctions --
some making tevilla for aliya to har habayis more appropriate than for yom
kippur and some less. On the one hand, tevila for yom kippur is a once
a year event, while that is not necessarily true for tevila for aliya
to har habayis (depending on whether this is going to be a once off, or
a regular group opportunity -- but perhaps the Rabbanit has knowledge of
the habits of such groups). One the other hand, because of the fixed time
for the minhag of tevila on yom kippur, in those communities where women
toyvel, all women, and even more so all men will know that a given woman
is likely tahor on Yom Kippur. One of Rav Ovadiah's points references
the gemorah in Yoma 19b -- suggesting that the practice of women being
known to be tahor on Yom Kippur encouraged znus on that day. In contrast
individual self selected women, at random times, might be a different
story. Perhaps it makes no difference, but there is enough in the various
teshuvos permitting tevila on Yom Kippur to suggest that their authors
might not have been willing to allow in circumstances that were not once
yearly. Another is the distinction drawn by the Ben Ish Chai (av HaPoelim
Chelek 4 Yoreh Deah siman 16), who allowed women to toyvel on erev Yom
Kippur, even married women during their seven clean days, on the basis
that the erev Yom Kippur tevila was taken much less stringently than
the married woman's tevila to permit her to her husband (including not
checking hair and fingernails). Presumably the tevila for aliyah on har
habayis would need to be as stringent as that generally performed for
the husband and hence this argument of the Ben Ish Chai would not apply.

Another question this teshuva raised in my mind but didn't discuss, was
whether the single woman should make a bracha -- as it was not clear to
me whether the Rabbanit was assuming that such women will or will not
make a bracha on the tevila. In general despite poskim to the contrary,
men toyveling on erev yom kippur do not make a bracha, despite them
toyvelling for keri and the existence of takanas ezra (see eg discussion
in Benei Banim vol 3 siman 5 p 21). But I would have assumed that if
men were toyveling in order to ascend to har habayis they would.

Regarding the first teshuva, there is a serious attempt to discuss both
philosophical and halachic issues. The issue for a married woman is that
obviously they cannot go during their nidah period, and if one accepts
that women today are to be treated in all respects as a safek zavah
gedola, they cannot toyvel and go during their seven clean days. In
relation to this latter, I am assuming that is the Rabbanit's position,
although it is not totally clear. During the time of the beis hamikdash
it is clear from various sources (including some the Rabbanit quotes)
that women, even when they were waiting seven clean days for their
husbands, were being toyvel for kedusha purposes. It was not clear
whether the Rabbanit was actually advocating this, or (as seems more
likely as it seems to me that she skirts away from it) assuming that the
later decision to consider all women safek zivos was definitive for all
purposes (note this question is of relevance to the single girl too --
it was not clear whether the tevila that was being allowed for a single
girl in the second teshuva was allowed also during seven clean days after
the end of the nidah period or only after she counted seven clean days
like a married woman).

That leaves the time when they are permitted to be with their husbands,
but if they actually were with their husbands, there is an issue that
viable zera is halachically regarded as staying within the woman's
body for three days afterwards and given out over time, leaving her
repeatedly tamei. That would mean either deliberate abstention for
the three days before aliyah (which would clearly be a shalom bayis
issue, but which the Rabbanit does not contemplate) or alternatively
there is a need to rely on those positions that this is not an issue
if there is extra checking of the area and/or washing in warm water
(ie douching). While the Shulchan Aruch (Yoreh Deah siman 196 si'if 13)
appears to allow this, the Rema holds that today we are not expert in
the checking or the necessary washing and hence we cannot rely on this
today, but in all cases must wait three days. The matter has halachic
implications even absent tumah and tahara questions, as it determines
when a woman can start counting her seven clean days.

The Rabbanit rejects following the Rema even for those (ie Ashkenazim)
who do so when it comes to husband and wife matters on the grounds
that tumah and tahara questions are different and that the Rema is in
this siman ruling for Eastern European Jews on matters between husband
and wife (where there is an issur kares), not on tumah v'tahara issues
as they pertain to eretz Yisrael. It is a somewhat difficult position,
especially given that the Ra'avid (and perhaps the geonim) holds that in
fact the whole din relating to zera is solely a tumah and ta'hara one,
and not one between husband and wife -- meaning if you were totting up
rishonim, your kal v'chomer would go the other way. However the Rabbanit
does make an important point, noting that if one were to follow the
Rema, then it might in many cases be almost impossible for a married
woman to be involved in bringing korbanos, including the korban pesach
(where there is counter pressure in that the failure to do so triggers
a punishment of kares). But what this rather inexorably leads to is
the point touched on above, namely the seven clean days, and the extent
to which, in a beis hamikdash rebuilt situation, it would be tenable
to continue to consider women as safek zivos during those days, when
they could be considered to be subject to the issur kares on a failure
to bring the korban pesach. Any such rebuilding would face us with the
question of whether it is necessary now to teach women to count nida days
correctly (definitely ruling against the Rambam on his understanding of
the days of nidah and zivah, given that the majority rishonim do not hold
like him). And if one is not prepared to tackle that absent mashiach,
a Sanhedrin, and a fully built beis hamikdash, one wonders about the
desirability of making such a move here -- albeit that, as the Rabbanit
states, the Rema's position appears to be a chumra on the Shulchan Aruch,
not a din gemora.

I confess I am also not comfortable with the very limited discussion of
the question of the impact of this washing/douching procedure on pregnancy
(the Rabbanit merely says that if the shoeles wants to become pregnant
she should consider deferring). There is quite a lot of discussion in
the literature regarding whether there is a halachic problem engaging
in this procedure due to it apparently or possibly preventing pregnancy
(see eg Rav Ovadiah's Taharat Habayit volume 2 page 435 et seq). While
Rav Ovadiah there ultimately rules against concerns about it preventing
pregnancy or being over on the issur of shifchas zera -- the commentators
on whom he relies are, for the most part, discussing the use of this
procedure in circumstances when the woman has in fact also gone into
nidah (although some do discuss questions of eating terumah or erev yom
kippur tevila). Here we are potentially dealing with a situation right
after leil tevila at the most likely time for pregnancy.

Regarding the philosophic issues -- the Rabbanit comes out swinging
against those who are against general ascent to har habayis, likening them
to those who prohibited making aliyah to eretz yisroel before the founding
of the State. In respect of those who allow men but who don't allow women
based on shalom bayis issues -- she suggests this is mostly due to holding
that there needs to be a 72 hour wait after relations and before such
toyvel and ascent -- meaning abstinence is likely, but that given her
position that a woman can toyvel immediately after proper preparation,
she does not believe this to be an issue -- and comments that far more
extensive actions (such as one party or the other going to chutz l'aretz
for whatever reason) occur without shalom bayis being used to prohibit. I
confess I can see this attitude more if one were talking about a shoeles
whose husband was himself a keen har habayis man. But in the context of
a shoeles who admits that her husband is not interested, and does not
want to get involved in the dispute amongst the poskim on this issue,
the rejection of the existence of as shalom bayis question bothers me
(especially given the lack of full discussion on any potential risk to
pregnancy -- something that impacts on both parties). And certainly this
whole discussion is representative of a particular political mindset of
a particular halachic group -- that will not appeal to many others --
placing this set of teshuvos strictly within a certain dati leumi world.


8. Can a woman hold the office of a dayanit?

I was rather surprised by the order of discussion of this teshuva
(although it is not really a teshuva -- in the sense that there is no
suggestion of a particular shoel or shoeles whose circumstances need
addressing, but rather a halachic article). When writing on the question
of women holding lay leadership positions it is logical to start with
questions of sererah, because that has to be the fundamental issue and
only move on to questions of women being judges after that, with the
focus purely on how that impacts on communal positions. But here where
the invalidity of women's eidus is generally understood to lead to the
invalidity of women's dayanus (as set out in the Mishna Nida perek 6
Mishna 4, Talmud Bavli Shavuot 30a, Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma perek 5 daf
43 tor 2 halacha 7 and the Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat Hilchot Dayanim
Siman 7 si'if 4) it seems rather odd to launch into questions of sererah,
and I spent the whole first portion of the article wondering if the
Rabbanit had completely missed the real issue. She hadn't, but I would
strongly suggest that one starts reading the piece from the section in
the middle of page 45 (where the sources regarding eidus and its link to
dayanus are discussed as well as the whole question of Devorah and the
relevant tosphosim), and confine the discussion of sererah, which while
essential is a disconcerting start, to a later digression. Regarding
the fundamental discussion (and for these purposes I also set aside
the sections on questions of tznius, shalom bayis, kol b'isha erva etc,
which while important, are subsidiary issues), if one understands this
as a halachic article, rather than a teshuva, the Rabbanit does do a
good job of showing that things are not as clear cut as many no doubt
suppose. There are however a lot of bold questionings of positions,
which might make many uncomfortable if this is to be considered
anything more than a theoretical discussion. And on the other hand
there is much more to be said. A dayan, absent smicha and a Sanhedrin,
functions in many different contexts. In chutz l'aretz today more often
in the category of an arbitrator chosen by the parties (but only because
the non Jewish government has permitted a devolution of its powers to
arbitrators accepted by the parties). Is the Rabbanit discussing such
an arbitrator? On the other hand in Israel a dayan may really have his
powers vested in him by the Israeli government, and he may even be a
government appointee. How much of this discussion is about classic --
Sanhedrin appointed or derived dayanim, and how much about government
empowered arbitrators? Some of these issues come up in the writings of
Rav Uzziel in HaShofet u'HaMishpat and Rav Hertzog in T'chuka l'yisrael
al pi haTorah -- but it wasn't clear to me that the distinctions were
clearly drawn here.

However one aspect of this piece that I did rather like was the section at
the end giving a long list of places in halacha where women are permitted
to give eidus. This is of fundamental importance because, in my view,
the issue of women (and children) and eidus is one that leads, or is
liable to lead, to serious emunah issues today. We are faced today with
various overarching moral issues. One of the most fundamental is the
abuse, particularly sexual abuse, of women and children. And in order
to bring about any semblance of justice and allow for an upright and
moral society, it is clearly imperative that perpetrators of such foul
deeds are brought to justice. And yet most frum Jews believe (either
with unease or without it yet having troubled them) that the halachic
system is completely incapable of dealing with such acts of immorality
-- because the questions almost inevitably come down to the word of
an adult male (whom they understand to be a valid witness within the
halachic system), versus those who are invalidated -- namely women and
children. This is generally due to having learnt the various Talmudic
passages on hilchos eidus (often in some depth) without ever having
moved on to any serious learning of the Shulchan Aruch and its related
sources in Choshen Mishpat. They therefore have no understanding of
the amount of flexibility built into the halachic system as codified in
Choshen Mishpat. The width of the forms of eidus that a modern beis din
is permitted to accept, inter alia as set out in the sources collected by
the Rabbanit, give much greater scope, assuming there are also dayanim of
moral stature prepared to utilise such provisions, to allow for what all
would recognise as real justice within the halachic system -- so that
it is not halachically inevitable that we need to run to the secular
courts to provide basic justice for the weakest members of our society.
However an even more fundamental problem is the extraordinary number of
frum Jews who believe (and in these numbers it is hard not to credit them
with having good reason) that most betei din are corrupt. It is not clear
therefore that even were the halacha straightforward that women could
be dayanim (as no doubt the Rabbanit would like) -- that women would
be able, any more than honourable men, to join the current system --
given the halachos on sitting with other judges known or regarded as
being problematic, corrupt or evil.

Regards
Chana

On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 12:34 AM, Micha Berger via Avodah <
avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
>
>
> IOW, R' Shimon takes intent into the definition of action even beyond
> Shabbos. Which would imply that it's the definitoin of action in general
> that's under machloqes, and not that R' Shimon lumps intent into melekhes
> *machsheves* in particular.
>

Agreed, and the same applies to the famous "What have the Romans ever done
for us" mahloket in Shabbat 33b, where RY praises the Romans for their
civic works but RS holds that the self-serving intentions behind them
disqualify them from credit.

(shama'ti mippi R Jonathan Sacks in a shiur some 30 years ago)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-a
ishdas.org/attachments/20141111/60ccf620/attachment.html>

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



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


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


***************************************

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.)