Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 17

Sun, 05 Mar 2023

• 1. Re: the Sne and the Aish (Micha Berger)
• 2. Re: bet din but not a rav (Micha Berger)
• 3. Re: Women Davening (Chana Luntz)
• 4. Re: Women Davening (Micha Berger)
• 5. Women's Obligation in Megillas Esther (Prof. L. Levine)

On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 11:05:00PM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
>> Lemaaseh, though, the "seneh bo'er ba'iesh vehasneh enunu ukal" was an
>> illusion. That's what the pasuq says "vayar". But what actually happened was
>> that the mal'akh appeared "belabas-eish mitokh hasseneh". Notice the fire
>> was really smaller, within the bush, and just gave the appearance of
>> engulfing it.
> 
> What do you mean by "an illusion"?  What is an illusion in this context?  I
> would understand the word illusion to mean it didn't really happen - like a
> kind of mirage or dream...

Look at 3:2 https://mg.alhatorah.org/Full/Shemot/3.2#e0n6

The pasuq says that a mal'akh appeared to Moshe from a flame within
the bush. Then is says Moshe saw a bush within a flame and yet is not
consumed.

Seems to me, pashut peshat (not just RYBS's vertl) is that in reality,
the flame was smaller than the bush. It somehow looked to Moshe much
bigger than it really was. And then he went for a second look.

(According to RYBS, the whole point of the exercise was for MRAH to take
to heart the idea that Hashem doesn't need that kind of showiness. And
when he did get it, the nevuah shifted from being via mal'akh to being
a conversation with HQBH directly. Thus his idea that it was Moshe
grasping Hashem's "tzimzum" [RYBS's use of the term] that led )o both
his emulating it and being an anav mikol adam and [less speculatively]
to Moshe's special sort of nevu'ah.)


> If there was a small "fire" that did "burn" then the centre of the bush
> would be reduced to ash, even if the rest of it was not...

Or just a central branch was on fire. Or maybe the small fire would have
eventyually consumed the bush, but the blaze (be-labas eish) he first
saw should have gone through the bush rapidly.

All I am noting is that the bush not burning is in the "vayar" description,
and not in the half of the pasuq that describes the bush and the fire
themselves.

>> What the case of LEDs adds is the possibility of making light without
>> anything reaching yad soledes bo, so a lack of havarah doesn't leave you
>> with bishul. But I don't see how the old bulb was more about combustion than
>> an LED is.
...
> The problem we have with LEDs is that there is nothing remotely similar
> described in the poskim, because nothing like LEDs were known at the time.
> While they most likely did heat a gacheles shel mateches in building the
> mishkan (so truth is, whether or not it is bishul or havara is an academic
> exercise, it is clearly assur), they most certainly did not use LEDs....

Agreed. I was just identifying the novelty there.

I thought from your first post you were saying LEDs were new because of
the lack of actual combustion.

I don't think there is combustion in the earlier kinds of light bulbs.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "Fortunate indeed, is the man who takes
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   exactly the right measure of himself,  and
Author: Widen Your Tent      holds a just balance between what he can
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF    acquire and what he can use." - Peter Latham

On Fri, Feb 24, 2023 at 05:15:13AM -0500, Joel Rich via Avodah wrote:
>           When the Rambam (Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:10) lists the role of the
> 120 people required in a town to have a Sanhedrin, I noted there is a bet
> din but not a rav....

Actually, he says it's a requiement of the Sanhedrin, not the town.

You cannot convene a Sanhedrin in a town that didn't have 120 -- I presume
120 Jewish adult men. But that doesn't mean that towns were obligated
to have courts.

And going back to shas is problematic, because back then there were
both real semichah and the authority to levy kenasos and to mete out
the standard misos beis din.

Thinking out loud:
Maybe today's obligation to have courts can be statisfied with just a
rabbi who hopefully knows what he is doing, as long as he can always
find two hedyotos as the other dayanim if a case comes up.

Tir'u baTov!
-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 Life isn't about finding yourself
http://www.aishdas.org/asp   Life is about creating yourself.
Author: Widen Your Tent                   - Bernard Shaw
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF

RMB wrote:

<<You started by asking how I ignored OC 106 and looked only at 89. But
you're insisting on a read of siman 106 that would have him contradicting
what he wrote in 109. When there is really no reason to.

Or, to put it another way, if you take what you called RYME's limud zekhus
in 106 as his masqanah, it explains why he gives that masqanah earlier in
hilkhos tefillah.>>

The thing is, you see, nobody else seems to read the Aruch HaShulchan like
you do.  

From a cursory search of the web:

https://thehalacha.com/wp-content/uploads/Vol12Issue15.pdf - : (Halachically
Speaking - Compiled by Rabbi Moishe Dovid Lebovits Reviewed by Rabbi Benzion
Schiffenbauer Shlita Edited by: Rabbi Chanoch Lev  - p8 "However, many
poskim say that women are obligated in Shacharis and Minchah. 47 47.
Shulchan Aruch Harav 106:2, Mishnah Berurah 106:4, Aruch Hashulchan ....)

https://rabbikaganoff.com/tag/women-and-maariv/ "According to Tosafos, who
contends that maariv is obligatory, a woman should be required to daven
maariv daily. This ruling is stated by the Aruch Hashulchan (106:7)."

https://www.nishmat.net/Uploads/files/R_Sperling_Davening_Time_is_Short.pdf
"The obligation to recite the evening Shmonah-Esrei is also a matter of
debate. There are opinions that obligate women to say the evening
Shmonah-Esrei - such as the Aruch HaShulchan (106,7) and ..."

https://torah.org/torah-portion/weekly-halacha-5772-vaera/ ..." 2. Most
authorities agree that women are not obligated to daven Ma'ariv, since
Ma'ariv was initially established as a voluntary prayer even for men, and
while eventually men accepted Ma'ariv as an obligation, women did not. A
minority opinion holds that women should daven Ma'ariv as well, see Aruch
ha-Shulchan 3.106:7"

https://etzion.org.il/en/halakha/studies-halakha/philosophy-halakha/women-an
d-prayer "There are other authorities who rule that women are obligated in
arvit as well (Arukh Ha-shulchan, Orach Chayyim 106:7)."

The point being, it is "known" in all the women's seminaries who of
necessity cover this topic - that the Aruch HaShulchan is the machmir one -
who even says three tefilot a day, ie even more machmir than the Mishna
Brura who only says two!  I "knew" that before I ever read the Aruch
HaShulchan inside (or was capable of it).   This is absolutely halacha
l'ma'ase and is being very, very widely taught.

So I guess I struggle to continue an argument when the pshat seems to me
quite simple - at least in OC 106, and OC 89 refers us to OC 106 - and where
it is would be weird to have the maskana at the beginning with his arguments
at the end.  So although 0C 89 is not so clear, it just, it seems to me,
needs to be read as - regarding this point, see later.   But even more
critically, not only does the pshat seem quite simple to me, but the Torah
Olam seems to agree with me.  All the learned rabbonim who summarise the
topic, all bring the Magen Avraham, all give some level of credence to the
Magen Avraham, but all understand the Aruch HaShulchan as disagreeing and
ruling absolutely that women are obligated in all three tefilot.

Now I confess I do understand what you are saying when you say:

<<(Aside from my general but admittedly very subjective impression from some
9 years of learning AhS Yomi that it doesn't fit his general style to find
limudei zekhus rather than either asking the tzibbur to change or assuming
we or the generations of rabbanim who watched us "must hold" something
else.)>>

Except, that I also think this is less much true (or almost never true) of
his view of women.  With a *male* tzibbur - absolutely, he understands that
generations of rabbonim watched over it and would not let it have gone wrong
so there must be a justification.  With women though, it seems to me he is
far more willing to see them as ignorant and not necessarily doing the right
thing and out of the proper oversight of rabbonim (not surprisingly, as
there are loads of references throughout the halacha to mutav yehihu
shogegin almost always in relation to women).  This seems to be just another
example.  

>-Micha

Regards

Chana

On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 11:01:02PM -0000, Chana Luntz via Avodah wrote:
> > You started by asking how I ignored OC 106 and looked only at 89. But
> > you're insisting on a read of siman 106 that would have him contradicting
> > what he wrote in 89. When there is really no reason to.
...
> The thing is, you see, nobody else seems to read the Aruch HaShulchan like
> you do.  

It's interesting indeed, but again... the central motive for my read
isn't my instinct for how the AhS discusses cases where the widely
accepted pesaq isn't what he considers mistaveir -- it's that he tells
you in his introduction to hilkhos tefillah (OC 89:1 is the first se'if
on the topic) what his position is.

    ... ?????? ???? ?????? ?????? ??????, ??? ???? ???? ??? ??? ????
    ????. ??? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???: ???? ??? ????? ?????? ??? ???, ?????
    ???? ?? ????? ???? ???, ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ???? ??? ????? ??????,
    ???? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ??' ?? ????? ?????? ??. ?? ??? ??? ????. ??
    ??? ???? ????"?.

And a translation, for thos of you reading the digest and therefore just
saq question-marks:
    ... And therefore women and slaves are obligated in tefillah,
    because it is a mitzvas asei this isn't caused by the time. But the
    obligation of this mitzvah is thus: that a person ask for grace and
    daven every day, and speaks HQBH's praises, and after that asks he
    needs.. then praise to Hashem. Each according to his ability....

And then he argues (se'if 5) that the Ramban's position about when
tefillah is deOraisa isn't relevent to this.

So we know where he has to end up when he discusses the sugya of women
and davening in depth. The only question I have is how.

I think people are taking RYME's problem with unserstanding how they could
be exempt from davening formal siddur liturgy as groiunds to pasqen they
aren't -- even when he himself did not.

This attitude toward pesaq, after all, is why so many more posqim treat
the MB as poseiq acharon than the AhS. They are giving the AhS a MB-esque
treatment.

But Monday Morning Quateracking aside, I admit I really do not have
a solid explanation how so many web pages have him concluding in 106
something other than the thumbnail sketch he gave in the opening outline
of the chiyuv. (The whole reason that's what I started with when I entered
the convesation.)


> Now I confess I do understand what you are saying when you say:

>> (Aside from my general but admittedly very subjective impression from some
>> 9 years of learning AhS Yomi that it doesn't fit his general style to find
>> limudei zekhus rather than either asking the tzibbur to change or assuming
>> we or the generations of rabbanim who watched us "must hold" something
>> else.)

> Except, that I also think this is less much true (or almost never true) of
> his view of women...

Since we're talking about my "feel" for how he works, all I can say it I
haven't noticed any such thing.


-Micha

-- 
Micha Berger                 "'When Adar enters, we increase our joy'
http://www.aishdas.org/asp    'Joy is nothing but Torah.'
Author: Widen Your Tent       'And whoever does more, he is praiseworthy.'"
- https://amzn.to/2JRxnDF                   - Rav Dovid Lifshitz zt"l

From today's OU Kosher Halacha Yomis

https://outorah.org/p/146694


QUESTION: Women are certainly obligated in the mitzvah of Megillah reading.
Is it preferable for women to go to Shul to hear the Megillah reading, or
is it equally acceptable for them to hear the Megillah at home if that is
easier?

ANSWER: Regarding the performance of mitzvos there is a general concept of
?b?rov am hadras Melech? (when a crowd performs a mitzvah, it is more
beautiful). This is especially true for the reading of Megillas Esther
which incorporates an element of pirsumei nisa (publicizing the miracle).
The larger the crowd, the greater the publicity.


The question is whether the concept of ?b?rov am? applies to women as well.

This seems to be a matter of dispute among poskim. The Chelkas Yaakov (OC
232<https://www.sefaria.org/Shulchan_Arukh,_Orach_Chayim.232?lang=he-en&;utm_source=outorah.org&utm_medium=sefaria_linker>)
writes that there is no obligation of ?b?rov am? for women. The Mishnah
Berurah (689:1)<https://www.sefaria.org/Mishnah_Berurah.689.1?lang=he-en&;utm_source=outorah.org&utm_medium=sefaria_linker>
writes as well that only in some communities do the women go to shul to
hear the Megillah reading. However, the Chayei Adam (155:7) writes that
indeed men, women, and children should all make an effort to hear the
Megillah in shul in order to fulfill the mitzvah in the optimal manner,
?b?rov am?. In practice, there are different customs, and one should
consult the local rabbi.


Professor Yitzchok Levine



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230302/dbcaf931/attachment-0001.htm>

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



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/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://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


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.)