Avodah Mailing List

Volume 35: Number 78

Thu, 08 Jun 2017

• 1. Re: maharat (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: maharat (Zev Sero)
• 3. Re: Explanation of the Tur? (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 5. Re: maharat (Rich, Joel)
• 6. Re: maharat (Zev Sero)
• 7. Re: Better to die (Micha Berger)
• 8. Re: Maharat (Micha Berger)
• 9. Re: Maharat (Noam Stadlan)
• 10. Re: maharat (Ari Zivotofsky)
• 11. tfillin check (Rich, Joel)
• 12. Parenthesis (Rich, Joel)
• 13. Redemption (Akiva Miller)

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 01:57:26PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
: R. Micha. ok, now we are making progress.  You are engaging in a
: theoretical discussion of Semicha, and I am simply looking at the OU
: rabbi's argument against women serving as rabbi's of shuls...

Well, my first point is a discussion of hora'ah, and consequently
for whom is semichah meaninful.

But my argument on this point is a subset of the OU's argument on
that point. See their paper, pp 8-9
<https://www.ou.org/assets/Responses-of-Rabbinic-Panel.pdf#page=8>

:                                        Given what you wrote, we both agree
: that the OU argument against does not hold water.  Even if they are
: technically correct that women cannot have 'Mosaic semicha' they can give
: hora'ah and have some sort of modern semicha that recognizes that they are
: capable of doing so (even if according to you they actually do not need
: permission from their rav).

HOW do you get from what I wrote an implication that we have agreement
on that? I think it's firmly established by aforementioned rishonim
(plus others in the OU's footnotes) that if someone is ineligable for
Mosaic semichah they are ineligable to give hora'ah and therefore have
no use for today's yoreh-yoreh. Or the Maharat's "heter hora'ah lerabbim"?

: Regarding the issue of women and hora'ah, it isn't just the sefer hachinuch
: who says it is fine, but also R. Isaac Herzog, R. Uziel, R.
: Bakshi-Doron(who clearly says that women can give hora'ah even if in a
: later letter he is opposed to women clergy for tzniut reasons, it doesn't
: invalidate the hora'ah position), the Birkei Yosef, and Pitchei teshuva and
: others.   Furthermore, many, including R. Lichtenstein(quoting the Rav)
: have noted that hora'ah in the modern age is different than previous, and
: the authority is in the sources, not the person.

Asked and answered, although in a post after the one to which you replied.

Some use the word hora'ah to mean "melameid lahem dinim". Which is not
hora'ah as the Rama is discussing it. I pointed you
to the Birkei Yoseif. The Chinuch is similar; his 

: You actually have undercut another one of the OU arguments...

Another? What's the first?

:            So their claim that it was considered and rejected is not only
: poorly argued(see R. Jeffrey Fox's analysis), but historically wrong.

The OU paper doesn't make that argument. Not that I see everything the
way the OU panel does. (But halakhah lemaaseh, I would be more likely to
follow their opinion than my own.)

Nor did I find RJF's analysis of this claim in neither
<http://www.yeshivatmaharat.org/s/160328_Women-and-Semikha.pdf> (his
general position on ordaining women) nor the only place where I saw him
discuss the OU panel <http://j.mp/2rMYd4L> on Lehrhaus.

As an activist on the subject, I'm sure you've spent more time reading
up on it than I. Could you kindly provide more specific references?

But let me deal with what you wrote:
IOW, you are saying that because our ancestors thought the idea was
absurd, we ought to go ahead? What such an argument would say is that
we historically had numerous women capable of being rabbis and even so
no one even considered making any of them one.

The OU's section on mesorah should explain why such attitudes have
precedential authority.

But again, none of this reflects on what I myself was arguing

: (and by the way, I think it is very important, if you are making an
: arguement, that it be consistent.  So if you are claiming that the reason
: women are forbidden from being dayannim is that they are forbidden from
: being considered HL, then you have to explain the ramifications, including
: that it seemingly means that they can by dayannim as hedyotot.  you cant
: have it both ways).

I argued the opposite causality. Lo sosuru mikol asher YORUKHA refers to
dayanim. So, someone who is excluded from becoming a dayan can't be the
subject of the pasuq, and their decisions don't fall under the halakhos
generated by this pasuq. Their decisions are not hora'ah, in the pasuq's
sense.

(YOu had me saying: Can't give hora'ah implies can't be dayan. I am
really saying: Can't be dayan implies can't give hora'ah.)

: Regarding 'giving legitimacy to egalitarian yearnings.'  Please read the
: article by R. Walter Wurzburger that I linked to earlier.  He makes it very
: clear that the balance of values within Halacha change over time, and that
: external 'modern values' are an important part of that.  Modern values are
: neither positive nor negative...

Not because they're modern, no. But obviously some are positive, some
negative. We can judge them. Mesorah and its values are logically prior
to modern values.

Numerous halakhos are unegalitarian. Even if egalitarianism is a good
idea for benei noach, as a perspective it is inconsistent with that the
Torah expects of Jews.

: You and others keep saying this is 'egalitarian yearnings'.   It isn't
: about doing what the men do. It is about not placing non-halachic barriers
: to people who want to serve God in a halachically permissible fashion.  As
: R. Shalom Carmy wrote, it is about a Biblical sense of justice...

The motive I attributed, really echoed back from what I heard in prior
iterations, is not that anyone is about making halakhah more egalitarian,
but a desire to make halakhah fit a more egalitarian reality.

So I don't know what you're rebutting.

I argued that some realities reflect values that must be resisted rather
than accomodated. We can talk about the end of inequality in the workplace
as a good thing, but can we talk about reducing the differences in avodas
Hashem, differences that can't be eliminated because halakhah demands
they're there, as a good thing?

Good point here to address RSSimon's post. On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at
09:35:14AM -0400, Sholom Simon wrote:
: But note: Sometimes the reason for changing is not straight
: halachic, but the metizius (e.g., Sarah Schenirer , women's
: education), and we ask: "is there a halachic reason to prevent
: this", no?

To avoid making this a false dichotomy, you have to define halakhah
broadly, to include the obligation to live according to the values
and general guidelines of aggadita -- mitzvos like qedoshim tihyu,
vehalakhta bidrakhav, ve'asisa hayashar vehatov (a/k/a Chovos haLvavos
or Hil' Yesodei haTorah and Hil' Dei'os).

I think this is what the OU is trying to get to with the concept of
"Mesorah". But if I may be frank, they are handicapped in their ability
to discuss the aggadic by too many of them seeing the world with
Brisker eyes.


Back to R/Dr Stadlan... In addition to the question needing to be asked
about the Torah's evaluation of a modern value before we simply adopt
it (rather than tolerate, limit the scope, or entirely reject)....

Second, I do not think justice is served by telling women to find their
religious meaning in a headlong rush toward a glass ceiling. I think it's
more just to teach them how to find meaning in ways that aren't dead-ended
for them. More equal, if less egalitarian.

...
: Everyone agrees that there are Halachic differences between men and women.
: The question is, are you trying to make the number of differences as large
: or as small as possible?...

That decision should be made by starting with "why does halakhah have
those differences"? And what do our aggadic sources say? As I said above,
we judge whether to adopt, tolerate or resist new values based on TSBP.

: The OU paper brought up tzniut.  I do not think that the MO community
: thinks that properly dressed and acting men and women consititute a
: violation of tzniut...

Tzenius isn't about clothes. I don't agree with their argument, but don't
fight strawmen.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             You are where your thoughts are.
mi...@aishdas.org                - Ramban, Igeres haQodesh, Ch. 5
http://www.aishdas.org
Fax: (270) 514-1507

On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
>    The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a 
> woman's.  I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken 
> that way

I'm curious; is this really true?  Do MO poskim truly claim that this is 
no longer the halacha?!  On what basis could they possibly say this? 
What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument is 
that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the 
question?  If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O?

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

RMB writes:
>I think the word "source" in your translation is misleading "Al pi
haqabalah hasherashim vehakelalos" doesn't really mean mean textual sources,
like the mishnah or QSA. This teshuvah could well mean "qabalah"
>in the same sense as a mohel or a shocheit, knowledge of practice rather
than knowledge of abstract ideas.

No problem with that, as I was trying to get across the idea that these were
not "textual" sources - how would you translate ?????? ?"? ????? ??????
???????? better though, to keep the flow and that something is being taught
"al pi hakabalah"?

>However, the Maharil also touches on the topic in Shu"t Maharil haChadashos
45, #2, in a discussion of women saying Birkhas haTorah. 

These two Maharil's are such chalk and cheese, that it does seem difficult
to understand them as having been written by the same person.  Indeed the
Birchei Yosef, who seems to have only seen the first one inside, and seen
the second one referred to in other sources, particularly the Beis Yosef,(
who himself  seems to have had the second on but possibly not the first)
challenges the quotations from the second teshuva on the basis of the first,
and seems to suggest (in the politest possible way) that the Beis Yosef got
it wrong, because they just do not match.  I do not know any real way to
reconcile these two, and can only note that the two compilations of teshuvos
were compiled by different students of the Maharil .

: And then the Chofetz Chaim in his defence of Beit Ya'akov type schooling
in
: Lekutei Halachot Sotah 21  writes about what used to happen in previous
: generations:

:> But it seems that all this was dafka in the times that were prior to us
when :> each on lived in the place of his fathers and the tradition of the
fathers :> was very strong by each one to go in the way that our fathers
went and like :> it says "ask your father and he shall tell you" and in this
it was possible :> to say that one should not teach Torah and rely in their
practice on their :> upright fathers.

>Notice the CC is talking about mimetic chinukh, cultural absorbtion.

Yes and no.  "ask your father and he shall tell you" [Devarim 32:7] is the
pasuk used to justify saying "vitzivanu" on Chanukah candles [Shabbat 23a]
and other rabbinic mitzvot.  It is not exactly a mimetic pasuk, it is about
actively teaching (albeit oral).  Yes the CC is clearly talking about in the
context of the family (as boys were originally taught prior to the setting
up of schools), but it is a strange pasuk to use if he was talking purely
about mimeticism.

>Even oral, the "textual" TSBP was formal, rules and ideas, existing
rulings. An intellectual excercise, rather than an experiential one.

Agreed that there were some aspects of TSBP that was formal, rules and ideas
etc - but that is not the question.  The question is, can or does anybody
define TSBP as *only* those formal rules and ideas *without* including at
all the experiential aspect.  When the gemora cites a ma'aseh rav, is this
*not* TSBP because it would seem to be mimetic?

>I don't think he is talking about Oral Transmission in general, only when
you don't know what they did or would do in a given situation to have an
example to imitate.

The Rambam says if you recall - "Anyone who teaches his daughter Torah it is
as if he teaches her tiflut.  With regard to what are we speaking, with
Torah she baal peh but Torah she bichtav even though he should not teach her
ab initio, if he taught her it is not as though he taught her tiflut."

The Rambam does not say - "with regard to what are we speaking, with regard
to that portion of torah she ba'al peh that is formal rules and ideas,
excluding those aspects that can be taught mimetically, but that portion of
Torah she ba'al peh that can be or is taught mimetically or not necessarily
in a formal educational setting is actually absolutely fine".  

And nobody seems to understand him as saying this (because otherwise, they
could use this kind of TSBP as the subject of the brachot, or for her reward
etc), seems to suggest that nobody is differentiating between these two
types of TSBP.  And the other alternative would seem to be to write this
kind of teaching out of TSBP.  But is not a lot of TSBP, even though by no
means all of it, this kind of teaching.  Is not the gemora etc filled with
this kind of teaching?  I can't see us suggesting this is not TSBP.

: So is it possible that what the Tur was actually suggesting was that what
: the Rambam wrote was impossible, because there is no way of teaching women
: to do the mitzvot in which they are obligated without Torah sheba'al "
peh...

>True, but TSBP needn't be relayed by discussion of formal notions rather
than a how-to hands-on mimetic session. Making bread with mom, and she
noticed that mom made a berakhah on hafrashas challah this time. She may ask
why, etc... but it's not an >"education" setting.

But the Rambam doesn't say either - "but with regard to what are we
speaking, with Torah she ba'al peh taught in a formal educational setting,
but that not taught in a formal education setting is fine".  And note of
course that one cannot just observe Mum taking challa, one also needs to be
told about the correct shiur.  It is highly unlikely that anybody would
necessarily conclude, by watching week after week, exactly what the correct
shiur for taking chala and the bracha is by mere observation.  That has to
be communicated as a form of rule.  Ok a situational rule, - taught in
context, but the tradition would be lost in a generation if it was left for
every generation to guess the correct shiur by watching closely enough week
after week.

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we
have now is historically completely wrong. From "b'inyan semichat
chachamim' published in Or Hamizrach:
'At this time when semicha is batel, all the mishpatim from the Torah are
battel..based on lifneihem- and not lifnei hedyotot.  And nowadays we are
all hedyotot. And the only way it works is that we act as shlichim of
Mosaic beit din'
So everyone is a hedyot.  
More to the point in section five there is a detailed examination of semicha included what was required in various areas. 
'The Chatam Sofer writes...that this semicha of morenu and chaver has NO BASIS IN SHAS but is a ashkenazi minhag and does not contain anything real'. 
'They issue of semicha that they estabkished(tiknu), according to the
Rivash, because it is forbidden for a student, even one who is hegiah
l'hora'ah, to give hora'a or to establish a yeshiva(note that this
obviously is not hora'ah)while his teacher is alive....therefore they had
the PRACTICE of semicha...that he is no longer a student but can teach
others(the word is l'lamed, not hora'ah)'
There is a lot more.  But it is quite clear in the sources brought in this
article that the historical record clearly shows No connection between
Mosaic semicha and what was begun in the Middle Ages. 

Sent from my iPhone

Sent from my iPhone

> On Jun 7, 2017, at 6:39 PM, Zev Sero via Avodah <avo...@lists.aishdas.org> wrote:
> 
>> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
>>   The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a woman's.  I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken that way
> 
> I'm curious; is this really true?  Do MO poskim truly claim that this is no longer the halacha?!  On what basis could they possibly say this

Not really. They basically say either that there are other tiebreakers come
first or that the conditions are such that it would be difficult to
implement But don't explain exactly why.specific citations available upon
request
Kt
Joel rich
THIS MESSAGE IS INTENDED ONLY FOR THE USE OF THE 
ADDRESSEE.  IT MAY CONTAIN PRIVILEGED OR CONFIDENTIAL 
INFORMATION THAT IS EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE.  Dissemination, 
distribution or copying of this message by anyone other than the addressee is 
strictly prohibited.  If you received this message in error, please notify us 
immediately by replying: "Received in error" and delete the message.  
Thank you.

On 07/06/17 18:53, Rich, Joel wrote:
>> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that
>> this is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this
> Not really. They basically say either that there are other 
> tiebreakers come first or that the conditions are such that it
> would be difficult to implement But don't explain exactly why.

That's what I thought too.  I was surprised to read RNS not only 
insisting otherwise but deducing an entire shita from this supposed fact.

In practise I doubt it was ever meant to be implemented kipshuto, 
because even on its own terms it applies only when all else is equal, 
and it rarely is.  But it seems to me that when all else *is* equal, 
i.e. when we have no other information so all else is zero, and we are 
free to set our own priorities without fearing negative consequences 
(that too constitutes additional information which makes all else not 
equal), then the halacha must still apply.

-- 
Zev Sero                May 2017, with its *nine* days of Chanukah,
z...@sero.name           be a brilliant year for us all

On Tue, Jun 06, 2017 at 05:48:13PM +0000, Ben Bradley via Avodah wrote:
: > Yes, on the pain of yeihareig; but it's not technically YvAY because
: > there is no actual issur la'avor.
: 
: I don't understand you. If there was no issur then why would it be on
: pain of yeihareig? Where do you find a chiyuv of yeihareig execpt where
: there's an issur involved?

Red shoelaces?

: The only other possiblility, which you seem to be assuming, is that
: yeihareig here is a gezeira, not a d'oraisa, on which see below.

No, it could be preservational and still deOraisa.

Like my example of a ben soreier umoreh, who Chazal say dies al sheim
ha'asid -- we're also preventing the continuing deteriation in a downward
spiral.

This "downward spiral" was what I was calling Hil' Dei'os.

Hirhurim and hana'ah -- devarim sheleiv in general -- aren't even
punishable altogether, how could they allow a court to decide yeihareig?
Most dinei nefashos don't even qualify.

: Rambam brings this din not in De'os but in Yesodei HaTorah in the context
: of mesiras nefesh al kiddush hashem and issur hana'a from aveira. He must
: be holding that we're dealing with issur and specfically with hana'as
: issur or it would make no sense to this halacha where he does.

And qiddush hasheim could involve avoiding something that is not assur
either. (Agian: red shoelaces.) That too is death to preserve an attitude.

I am just saying that your desire to make this yeihareig ve'al ya'avor
is putting an overly formal halachic box. Whether or not something is
a qiddush hasheim or otherwise worth dying for is not necessarily
reducible to a Brisker chalos-sheim.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger             The purely righteous do not complain about evil,
mi...@aishdas.org        but add justice, don't complain about heresy,
http://www.aishdas.org   but add faith, don't complain about ignorance,
Fax: (270) 514-1507      but add wisdom.     - R AY Kook, Arpelei Tohar

//On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
: The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we
: have now is historically completely wrong...

And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based
on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical
study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah?

The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up
to imitate the other with no continuity between them.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

The point is that it wasn't set up that way, and Gedolim like the Chatam
Sofer write explicitly that it wasn't set up that way, and that saying that
modern semicha was set up to imitate ancient semicha(to such an extent that
the same prohibitions apply) is a distortion of history and Halachic
history.  Furthermore, what you are saying is not the explicit position of
the Rambam, Tosafot, and the Rama(I still haven't been able to find the
Mahariq), it is your understanding of those sources.  The Rama makes more
sense when read in the context of the quotes that I provided from the
Chatam Sofer et al.  The Rambam, could well be discussing ancient semicha
in the sources you describe........



On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 6:17 PM, Micha Berger <mi...@aishdas.org> wrote:

> //On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:On Wed, Jun
> 07, 2017 at 05:53:03PM -0500, Noam Stadlan wrote:
> : The claim that there is a connection between Mosaic semicha and what we
> : have now is historically completely wrong...
>
> And therefore you'll pasqen differently than what you would conclude based
> on the Rambam, Tosafos, the Mahariq and the Rama? How is a historical
> study even procedurally relevant to how O does halakhah?
>
> The connection need not be historical, it could be that one was set up
> to imitate the other with no continuity between them.
>
> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avod
ah-aishdas.org/attachments/20170607/1627365c/attachment-0001.htm>

the topic is addressed in this article:
http://traditionarchive.org/news/_pdfs/0048-0068.pdf


?A MAN TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER
from Tradition in 2014




Zev Sero via Avodah wrote:

> On 07/06/17 14:57, Noam Stadlan via Avodah wrote:
>
>> The mishnah in Horiyyot says that we save a man's life before a 
>> woman's. I doubt that there are many in the MO world who would pasken 
>> that way
>
>
> I'm curious; is this really true? Do MO poskim truly claim that this 
> is no longer the halacha?! On what basis could they possibly say this? 
> What authority could they claim to make such a change? Your argument 
> is that they do so, therefore one may do so; aren't you begging the 
> question? If they truly do so, then shouldn't that rule them out of O?
>

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

[RJR poses these questions at the start of his Audio Roundup column on
Torah Musings <http://www.torahmusings.com/category/audio>. I prodded
him to share them here as well, as questions work better in an actual
discussion venue. But I didn't think he would do so without plugging
his column! So, here's my plug: Worth reading, and if you have one --
pointing subscribing to on your news agreegator / RSS reader. -micha]

A Rav posted a shiur on the internet concerning what atonement is
needed by one whose tfillin were pasul yet were worn for years without
knowing this was the case. It was claimed that he thus never fulfilled
the commandment to wear tfillin. In fact, many pasul tfillin were pasul
from the start (e.g., missing a letter). The Rav later reported that a
listener heard the shiur and had his tfillin checked and found such a
psul, even though he had bought the tfillin from a reputable sofer and
had them checked earlier by another reputable sofer. The Rav was pleased
with this result.

Two questions:
1) Given that the listener had been following a (the?) recognized halacha
   by not checking them, is atonement (or not fulfilled status)
   appropriate?
2) As a societal issue, how should current rabbinic leadership view the
   tradeoff of now requiring (suggesting) frequent checks? We will have
   some who will have the listener's result. OTOH, we will also have
   those whose tfillin will more likely become pasul due to uncurling
   the klaf and the increased costs of checking.

BTW -- why didn't the halacha mandate this in the first place? What has
changed and what might change in the future? Would constant PET scan
checking be appropriate?

Kt
Joel rich

[See my plug of RJR's column in the previous post. His question about a
distraught new widow and negi'ah as well... And that's just the column's
*padding*!

Extra credit if you answer the question about parenthesis while "vayehi
binsoa'" and its upside-down nuns is still in parashas hashavua.
-micha]

1. In the Shulchan Aruch -- who is the author of the statements in
   parenthesis in the Rama like print that don't start with Hagah?
2. In Rashi (or Tosfot), who decided to put certain words in parenthesis
   and why? (e.g., differing manuscripts, logic, etc.)

Kt
Joel rich

.

I would like to start a new thread to discuss exactly what we mean by
"redemption". I will begin by quoting most of R' Micha Berger's recent
post from the thread "Elimelech's land":

> ... it pays to just stick to trying to find a common theme to
> all the various meanings of ge'ulah (ordered in a way that
> strikes me as a progression):
>
> - the go'el hadam
> - the go'el of yibum, unless go'el is the term only when he's
>      not an actual halachic yavam. (Eg Yehudah, Boaz)
> - the ge'uilah of nachalah (Vayiqra 25:25)
> - and of people (ibid v 48)
> - the end of galus
>
> To me it seems a common theme of restoration. Perhaps even
> something familial; restoration of the family to wholeness on
> its nachalah.
>
> But I'm just thinking out loud. My intent in posting was more
> to suggest a exploring a slightly different question first --
> "What is ge'ulah?" before trying to get to a general theory of
> redemption. There may not even be one, which would explain why
> there are different words in lh"q.

Several years ago I tried working on this as part of my preparations
for Pesach. The first obstacle I encountered was (as RMB mentioned in
the last line here) that there are so many interchangeable synonyms.
The first two that came to my mind are "geulah" and "pidyon", such as
in Yirmiyahu 31:10:

> Ki fadah Hashem es Yaakov,
> Ug'alo miyad chazak mimenu.

I agree that a good starting point, as suggested by RMB, is
"restoration". This carries over to English as well, and I could cite
several pieces of literature whose theme is "the chance to redeem
myself," where someone suffered a significant loss of status
(justified or not) and is trying to correct that loss, and restore
himself to his prior status.

This is very much what Naomi was trying to accomplish. But I'm not so
sure how relevant it was to Mitzrayim, where the problem was not
merely social status, but physical danger. And that brings more
synonyms into the mix: yeshuah and hatzalah.

A useful tool for distinguishing synonyms is when they occur near each
other in the same context. I brought an example of pidyon and geulah
above from Yirmiyahu, and here is a case of hatzalah and geulah:

Shemos 6:6-7: "V'hotzaysi... V'hitzalti... V'gaalti... V'lakachti..."
On this, Rav SR Hirsch explains: "Whereas hitzil is deliverance from a
threatening danger, gaal is deliverance from a destruction which has
already occured."

In Shemos 8:19, RSRH seems to say that "padah" refers to redemption
when "anything has fallen into the power of someone else, to bring it
out of that power." I suppose that relates to kedushah (Pidyon Haben,
Maaser Sheni, etc) because the redeemed object is no longer encumbered
by the halachos that applied before. On the other hand, Vayikra
25:24-54 teaches about using money to redeem land, or a house, or an
eved. In those pesukim, the word "redeem" appears as some form of
geulah 17 times, but as pidyon not even once.

How does a "goel hadam" work into all this? There is no restoration of
any kind. If the goel hadam was interested in justice, or even
punishment, he would bring the murderer to court. But in the heat of
the moment, his only thought is revenge. This is redemption?

Looking forward to your thoughts
Akiva Miller


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



_______________________________________________
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/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)