Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 036

Wednesday, October 13 1999

• Re: objections to women yoatzot
• RE: Avodah V4 #33
• yoazot
• [none]
• Re: Avodah V4 #35
• Re: Avodah V4 #35
• Yoatzot
• Re: Avodah V4 #35
• Re: Yoatzot
• Re: Aramaic
• Re: Actuarial Analysis of DEFICIENT and FULL
• Re: Women/psak
• Re: objections to women yoatzot
• Derech Eretz Kadma laTorah
• Re: objections to women yoatzot
• Re: objections to women yoatzot
• Fw: Poskot/Yoatzot
• Re: Fw: Poskot/Yoatzot
• Re: objections to women yoatzot
• Torah "un" Codes

In a message dated 10/11/99 11:58:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< A respected Conservative Rabbi, Jack Riemer, has written that the full
 throttle egalitarian tendencies of his movement disturb him, because,
 expereince has shown, in the Protestant chruch, that where women are given
 equal footing as men, the women then become the predominant players in the
 Church, and the men will tend to gravitate to the other spheres that more
 naturally attract them.
 
 This problem will not afflict the Charedi world:
 
 1. Talmud Torah remains the primary sphere that counts.
 2. Women Poskot will not be accepted.
 
 Etc.
 
 This problem will afflict the MO world:
 
 1. There are other spheres that count for men on a par with TT.
 2. Women Poskot will be accepted.
 3. These women are getting far better training (as far as MO education
 goes) than the men.
  >>

Oy, 
Yosef, Yosef, Yosef....Where to begin? Now we are respecting Conservative 
Rabbis?
Oh of course, this one says something that supports your opinion.

Seriously, this quoting of a Conservative Rabbi about the Protestant Church 
is the cheapest of rhetorical tricks, and unworthy of you. If you quoted a 
Charedi Rabbi, we wouldn't pay attention. But someone from the left has to be 
taken seriously...is that it? And about the church, no less. As if the day to 
day life of a Christian clergyman or layman has any relationship whatsoever 
with the religious practices, involvements, and study of Observant Jews. The 
source is weak, the comparision specious, and the attempt insulting.

Jordan

Josh wrote:

To sum up: it is very likely that due to environmental factors (diet, stress,
autonomic) a VEST KAVUA today is quite rare in the USA, Europe or Israel.
----------------------------

In my experience as Madrichat Kalot (over 15 years) the vast majority do have Veset 
Kavua.  There are 2 reasons that this is not identified:

1)Ignorance:  many women today don't bother to mark when they menstruate prior to 
marriage and so they don't have the basic necessary information.  This is actually on 
two levels as even among religious women (including all groups!) most young women are 
taught the laws after setting up the wedding date.  The result is that they go to a 
doctor for pills prior to even investigating the issue.

2)Many have complex rythms.  In one case I came across a bride who had written down the 
information and we discovered that she had a complex 25-25-27-27 series that was Kavua. 
Many have told me that they actually have specific physical symptoms prior to Veset 
(which of course makes it difficult prior to marriage to set up a wedding date -- but 
is indeed one of the options for Veset Kavua).

A separate issue is that so many people (Madrichot Kalah/Rabbis/women) are sure that 
Veset Kavua is rare, that little effort is spent on actually investigating the matter 
thoroughly, and just assume b/c it isn't the "natural" (another fallacy) every 28 days 
or every 30, that they don't have Veset Kavua.

Shoshana

-------------------------------------
Name: Shoshana L. Boublil
E-mail: toramada@mail.netvision.net.il
Date: 13/10/99
Time: 08:25:53 AM , Israel

This message was sent by Chameleon 
-------------------------------------
Torah U'Madah Ltd. is developing a DB on the topic:
"Environmental issues and the Halacha (Jewish Law)"
any and all related information would be welcome.

> 
> I am not sure why, then, not just encourage the women, by popular education,
> to go to the rebbetzins of the MO community to transmit the she'eilos to
> their husbands. If, indeed, that is all the yo'atzot do - convey questions
> to poskim - why, then, the extensive and official training and
> certification? There are far more - it would seem - quicker and more
> effective routes to go?
> 
Obviously the yoatzot do not go to a posek with every question.
The vast majority of questions are straight forward and they can answer
themselves probably better than most modern rabbis. Remember that one
does not usually go to the gadol hador with every bedika question.

>> The analogue here is the situation of toanot rabbanoim in the Batei
>> Din here. When the first women toanot completed the course, it
>> was widely felt that they would not be accepted, yet they have
>> been, even by the Charedi world. The flip side is that we do not
>> have women Dayanim, because there is a Halachic bar to that, and
>> I don't expect that we will have women Dayanim. Also, AFAIK, the
>> women toanot limit themselves to divorce cases.
  
> I agree and disagree. I agree that there is an analog in that there was an
> example of women receiving training not given to the men, and thus is a
> parallel. I disagree as to the necessity. For whatever reasons, the to'anot
> were essential. I still fail to see why yo'atzot, if they are not paskening,
> just conveying, are necessary.
> 
The women toanot receive the identical training that men do, they act as
attorneys (not the PC term in a bet din) just as men do.
Again, they are necessary for women to have someone to talk to.
The wives of rabbis are usually not interested, or necessarily capable of
such a task. I would suggest that RYGB ask his wife whether she would be
willing to take on the task of dealing with these shailot in addition to
all her other jobs! Certainly in Israel it is not the job of the rabbi's
wife to deal with such questions.

I find that there is a general push in some circles not to allow women to
do many actuvities even when there is no halakhic problems. How many homes
do the women do mezumin when they are allowed to? In many circles the
books of Nechama Lebowitz are off limits and not because of the content
but just simply that one should not read Torah from women.
There was recently published a book of divrei Torah by women. I read two
reviews of this book. Rabbi Feldman, was obviously out to destroy the book.
He was against the idea and was looking what to find wrong. A second review
by Rabbi Henkin was much more balanced. He pointed out that some of the
articles were beyond the pale of orthodox thinking while praising others.

I remember listening to a derasha several years ago from a rabbi who lambasted
Beth Yaakov for teaching the girls too much tanach. The result was that
the women frequently knew more Tanach than their kollel husbands. He was
horrified by the thought that a wife might be more knowledgable than her
husband and that it would destroy any marriage.
I would like to introduce this rabbi to the leader of our local MATAN program
(high level learning for women). Her husband is a rebbe in the local yeshiva.
She is much more knowledgable than her husband in some subjects and they
have a beautiful marriage of mutual respect and much contribution to the
community.

As Carl says I suspect that that in a few years these yoatzot will be taken
for granted and we will wonder what the fuss was just as happened with the toanot.

Kol Tuv,
Eli Turkel

subject: Mizrachi

Micha asks
<<
Similarly, the RCA participated in the "shift to the right", as has the YU
beis medrash (judging from how it appears on admittedly very little recent
exposure). And, judging from some local politics, the NCYI did to some extent
as well.
Why didn't Mizrachi? That would have at least diminished their decline. Someone
ought to be the body for right-wing-mod-O. We're big enough to warrant one.
The niche is there, if they'd have taken it.
>>

I can't speak for the US but in Israel Mafdal, at least the leadership,
has definitely moved to the right, and that has probably cost them votes.
Even though there is no formal moetzet gedolim nevertheless todays leadership 
runs to the rabbis for their political advice. Then when most of the
members object to the policies the rabbis yell that the people have no
respect for the rabbis.
Except for zionist issues todays Mafdal is in many respects not different
from chareidi parties. The dominant force in Mafdal is Merkaz haRav and not
the hesder yeshivot and certainly not kibbutz hadati.

Eli Turkel

RYGB wrote: <<< For years and years, doubtless since time immemorial,
women have been teaching kallah classes and giving advice to other women
about taharas ha'mishpocho. ...  This is aside from the mikveh ladies who
are generally knowledgable in halachos pertaining to chafifa and
chatzitza. ... Obviously, for some quarters this was not enough. >>>

I think that I am finally beginning to understand his objections. If I am
correct, I'd like to pose a question to those of you who have clamored
for someone who women will be comfortable approaching:

Personally, every question my wife of I has had on these subjects, either
she asked the Rav or Rebbetzin herself, or I asked the Rav. Could someone
describe for us the type of question which would HAVE to go directly from
the wife to the yoetzet, where the wife would refuse to go to the
rebbetzin or mikva-lady, and also refuse to send the question through her
husband?

Akiva Miller

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.

Yes, I believe you do understand, and have formulated my problem better than
I have myself.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
ygb@aishdas.org  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

----- Original Message -----
From: Kenneth G Miller <kennethgmiller@juno.com>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 7:24 AM
Subject: Re: Avodah V4 #35


> I think that I am finally beginning to understand his objections. If I am
> correct, I'd like to pose a question to those of you who have clamored
> for someone who women will be comfortable approaching:
>
> Personally, every question my wife of I has had on these subjects, either
> she asked the Rav or Rebbetzin herself, or I asked the Rav. Could someone
> describe for us the type of question which would HAVE to go directly from
> the wife to the yoetzet, where the wife would refuse to go to the
> rebbetzin or mikva-lady, and also refuse to send the question through her
> husband?
>
> Akiva Miller

"And you need not call it Social Darwinism when kin'as sofrim will do." 
Gershon

Could you explain this comment further, please? I don't understand what
you mean.  

How does this explain why something is bad because (l'shitaso) it
encourages the best educated men who are interested in Rabbanus to
pursue that field?  Is discouraging men who have no natural inclination
toward being poskim, and who are not well-prepared, a bad thing?

David Eisenman

In a message dated 10/13/99 9:50:38 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 > I think that I am finally beginning to understand his objections. If I am
 > correct, I'd like to pose a question to those of you who have clamored
 > for someone who women will be comfortable approaching:
 >
 > Personally, every question my wife of I has had on these subjects, either
 > she asked the Rav or Rebbetzin herself, or I asked the Rav. Could someone
 > describe for us the type of question which would HAVE to go directly from
 > the wife to the yoetzet, where the wife would refuse to go to the
 > rebbetzin or mikva-lady, and also refuse to send the question through her
 > husband?
 >
 > Akiva Miller
  >>
I think we're getting to the nub of the issue.  Would the objections cease if 
instead of using the title yoetzet we used the title mikva-lady(and perhaps 
only allowed consultations at the mikveh?) As is often the case I think we're 
debating a "public policy" issue. You might find R'Frimer(s) letter in the 
most recent issue of Tradition of interest in this regard.

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 10/13/99 9:59:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, 
eisenman@umich.edu writes:

> Could you explain this comment further, please? I don't understand what
>  you mean.  
>  
>  How does this explain why something is bad because (l'shitaso) it
>  encourages the best educated men who are interested in Rabbanus to
>  pursue that field?  Is discouraging men who have no natural inclination
>  toward being poskim, and who are not well-prepared, a bad thing?
>  
While I am sure R' Gershon can explain for himself, ones choice of words are 
important Higeany Kpul rather then Kzanav Haltah, Kinas Sofrim vs. Lhavdil d.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

In v4n30 Sammy Ominsky <sambo@charm.net> writes:
: I'm not even sure Aramaic has kedushah. But I see a need (at least in
: myself) to be medakdek in my pronounciation of it in my tefilot. The
: tefilot have kedushah even if the language doesn't.

My belief is that the value of being medakdeik is unique to Hebrew, where
the language is part of Oraisa, written by HKBH, and therefore refers to
issues beyond our ken.

Otherwise, language is merely a means to communicate. I therefore would think
that mimetic Aramaic is more important than the medkadeik's textually correct
version.

:      learning to say my tefilot correctly (not that I'm so perfect at it
: even after the effort), and would like to try to be as correct with the
: Aramaic parts as well.

You are assuming a textualist stance, that being grammatically accurate is
more "correct" than saying it the way your avos did. As I said, I could
defend that argument for Hebrew, but only by invoking ideas distinct to
Hebrew.

You also assume a non-mimeticist stance when you don't take it for granted
that something that connects us to the Jews who lived in an Aramaic culture
has kedushah for that reason alone -- if none other.

There is also a problem with being medakdeik in tefillos -- in can distract
from thinking about peirush hamilim and from the d'veikus that tefillos are
to achieve. It's not a cost-free decision. The motivation has to be
significant.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

In v4n32 RYGB <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu> writes:
: Nope. I disagree. These Rashis are not based on grammar at all. They are
: based purely on the significance of the spelling chaser or maleh.

RRJH is not disagreeing on the significance of spelling chaseir or malei.
Rather, he asserts that that significance comes from the difference in
grammar that lead to the difference in spelling. I'd like to see where R
SR Hirsch says that, because it's hard to say every chaseir v'malei follows
a particular rule on RRJH's say-so. I don't think he learned every one.
RSRH, OTOH, counts and categorizes the machlokesim between batei Hillel
viShammai. It's realistic to think he compiled a canonical list here too.

However, introducing this step in the middle as a unifying explanation for
the significance of chaseir vs malei doesn't really change the first or
last steps. He's still saying you make d'rashos because of the spelling --
but because the spelling is because of a different rule of dikduk, which
changes the meaning to indicate the limud.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

In v4n32, Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> reposts comments
about D'vorah:
: a) she didn't in fact judge, but taught the judges the halacha (ie
: poskened for them) and they did the judging.  The problem with this
: formulation is of course it is not true to the language of the tanach, -
: if that is what she did, then why does it use the term shofta
: (especially if we are, by using the term, implying that she was
: performing an issur).

Only if I were clear on the definition of "shofeit", and how it differs from
"dayan". We hold that women can't be dayanim. I don't know what that says
about shoftim.

: b) al pi hadibur shani. ...
: However, since this answer assumes that what she did was halachically
: assur...

No, it might be saying that being a shofetes who transmits Pi haDibur is
permissable because it is different in kind than being a dayenes who paskens
halachah al pi s'varah. This is what the words literally mean to me,
"transmitting Pi haDibur is different".

: Tosphos uses the lashon above, although qualifies it with "mipnei
: hashechina" - ie the people accepted her upon them because of the
: shechina (see eg Shavuos). ...

Similarly here. Was it that they accepted her despite halachah, or despite
what they thought for non-halachic reasons, because of the Shechinah? Or
was it that because the Shechinah was involved, it is more like mediator than
leader and so the role is mutar?

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

In v4n33, RYGB <ygb@aishdas.org> writes:
: This problem will afflict the MO world:
: 1. There are other spheres that count for men on a par with TT.

To which Carl Sherer <csherer@netvision.net.il> comments:
: I agree that is a problem with the MO world. But I don't think that 
: problem arises from having women yoatzot. I think the problem 
: arises from a lack of focus on learning in the MO world, in which 
: many people often can't decide they seek Torah Im Derech Eretz 
: or Derech Eretz Im Torah.

He, Joel Rich and others then go off into a discussion as to whether derech
eretz is a distraction.

I think this is off on a tangent. The Yeshiva velt places more relative
importance on talmud torah than does MO -- even in comparison to other
mitzvos. Personally, this is that I thought RYGB was talking about.

Because MO is less limud-centric -- regardless of the reason why -- minimizing
the need for learned men is more likely to reduce the number of learned men.

And if they, like Jack Riemer's estimation of C Jewry (and the Protestant
church), "the men will tend to gravitate to the other spheres that more
naturally attract them", the MO equivalent isn't necessarily neglecting
Torah uMitzvos. It means that men who would otherwise be rabbanim are now
gevirim, working in the chevra, etc... All noble things -- but won't
help prevent a shortage of Rabbanim.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

Carl Sherer <csherer@netvision.net.il> writes:
: I wasn't trying to argue that one should not be involved in the 
: outside world. ...
:               Although "derech eretz kadma laTorah," our first 
: priority still has to be Torah.

I think this is a different usage of DE. I've identified what I believe to be
three different usages:
Yafeh TT im DE -- involvement in the outside world
DE kadma laTorah -- midos and being a mentsh
zu p'rishus DE -- proper usage of ta'avos gashmios (or at least one of them)

What the three have in common is knowing how to live in and proper utilize
Olam haZeh -- a/k/a "eretz".

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger (973) 916-0287          MMG"H for 13-Oct-99: Revi'i, Noach
micha@aishdas.org                                         A"H 
http://www.aishdas.org                                    Pisachim 52b
For a mitzvah is a lamp, and the Torah its light.         Melachim-I 21

I now have occasion to note another time someone who expresses my thoughts
more eloquently than I was able to do. R' Micha articulates the point I was
making. Thank you.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
ygb@aishdas.org  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

----- Original Message -----
From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
To: <avodah@aushdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 12:28 PM
Subject: Re: objections to women yoatzot


> I think this is off on a tangent. The Yeshiva velt places more relative
> importance on talmud torah than does MO -- even in comparison to other
> mitzvos. Personally, this is that I thought RYGB was talking about.
>
> Because MO is less limud-centric -- regardless of the reason why --
minimizing
> the need for learned men is more likely to reduce the number of learned
men.
>
> And if they, like Jack Riemer's estimation of C Jewry (and the Protestant
> church), "the men will tend to gravitate to the other spheres that more
> naturally attract them", the MO equivalent isn't necessarily neglecting
> Torah uMitzvos. It means that men who would otherwise be rabbanim are now
> gevirim, working in the chevra, etc... All noble things -- but won't
> help prevent a shortage of Rabbanim.
>

In a message dated 10/13/99 1:29:09 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
micha@aishdas.org writes:

<< 
 Because MO is less limud-centric -- regardless of the reason why -- 
minimizing
 the need for learned men is more likely to reduce the number of learned men.
 
 And if they, like Jack Riemer's estimation of C Jewry (and the Protestant
 church), "the men will tend to gravitate to the other spheres that more
 naturally attract them", the MO equivalent isn't necessarily neglecting
 Torah uMitzvos. It means that men who would otherwise be rabbanim are now
 gevirim, working in the chevra, etc... All noble things -- but won't
 help prevent a shortage of Rabbanim.
 
 -mi
  >>
I'm not sure what you mean by minimizing the "need" for learned men> However 
you raise an interesting issue -- what exactly is the optimum percentage of 
the male population that should become Rabbanim (and perhaps an ancillary 
question - what exactly is a Rabbi in this context - is it someone who has 
smicha? someone who gets paid to teach/pasken/speak full time?....). I think 
the percentage issue  is related to the issue of perceived psak hypochondria 
on the right  versus perceived lack of caring for daat tora on the left [or 
the perceived deference on the right for daat tora in all situations versus 
the belief in individual responsibility/creativity on the left]  One 
interesting thought - there's a perception in many circles that the demand 
for medical care is artificially raised when more practitioners are available 
(yes it's a subject of debate)

Kol Tuv
Joel Rich 

In the ongoing spirit of finding people here that can express my thoughts
beter than I can, I forward this message from a reader that I shall allow to
remain anonymous, that expands on a response I made yesterday to R' Dratch.

Yosef Gavriel Bechhofer
Cong. Bais Tefila, 3555 W. Peterson Ave., Chicago, IL 60659
ygb@aishdas.org  http://www.aishdas.org/baistefila

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 1:50 PM
Subject: Poskot/Yoatzot


> Dear Rabbi:
> I saw some items on this topic in the archives on the Web.  Here
> are some thoughts:
> 1. Nowadays, people already get much of their halachic input from
> sources other than their Rav (their Mora D'Asra or their main rebbe
> from yeshiva/seminary)---namely from Artscroll, Jewish periodicals,
> other books and tapes, emails, web pages...
> 2. Keeping this in mind, do we now want to encourage more
> recourse to the Mora D'Asra or Rebbe or less?
> 3. If the answer to 2. is "more", then all we need for women
> skittish about approaching their Mora D'Asra or Rebbe would be
> other women who can function as go-betweens or facilitators, as
> opposed to decisors in their own right.  (seeing as that a woman
> cannot be a halachic community's Rav).   Also, some of the rabbis
> possibly need better people skills.
> 4. If the answer to 2. is "less"----then how can one rationalize
> something that could splinter communities on gender/political lines?
> This only makes sense to someone who wants to create a new,
> politically correct "halacha", using seemingly authentic outward
> forms and words as a Trojan horse to get past the Orthodox world's
> defenses.
> 5. It's not necessary to formulate/use ideas about the thinking
> capacity of men and women to justify the status quo (i.e,. no
> poskot).  The burden is on the other side to show---based only on
> Torah principles!!!---how a continuous chain of prophets, sages,
> rishonim, and acharonim could have been totally off-base as
> regards the male role of halachic leadership.  This I gotta see!!!
>
> Sincerely,

In a message dated 10/13/99 2:18:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, 
sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu writes:

<< 
 > Dear Rabbi:
 > I saw some items on this topic in the archives on the Web.  Here
 > are some thoughts:
 > 1. Nowadays, people already get much of their halachic input from
 > sources other than their Rav (their Mora D'Asra or their main rebbe
 > from yeshiva/seminary)---namely from Artscroll, Jewish periodicals,
 > other books and tapes, emails, web pages...
 > 2. Keeping this in mind, do we now want to encourage more
 > recourse to the Mora D'Asra or Rebbe or less?
 > 3. If the answer to 2. is "more", then all we need for women
 > skittish about approaching their Mora D'Asra or Rebbe would be
 > other women who can function as go-betweens or facilitators, as
 > opposed to decisors in their own right.  (seeing as that a woman
 > cannot be a halachic community's Rav).   Also, some of the rabbis
 > possibly need better people skills. >>
Again this relates back to the proportion of the population issue.  In 
business  this would be viewed as an opportunity to better leverage the Mora 
D'atra or Rebbe by saving his time spent on issues that could be dealt with 
(perhaps more effectively as well) at a "lower" level. Woluld there be an 
objection if the yoatzot had been men trained especially in this area?

Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

In a message dated 10/13/99 1:16:13 PM EST, Joelirich@aol.com writes:

> what exactly is the optimum percentage of 
>  the male population that should become Rabbanim
As to the exact amount, you could either use Sorei Alofim down to Sorei 
Asoros, or Bloshon Hagmoroh Eleph Nichnas Vechod Yotzei (which coresponds to 
Sorei Alofim).  The issue RGYB brings up has to do with quality more then 
quantity, which I think is happening without women filling in (BTW there is 
discussion in Poskim, also brought in Sdei Chemed, wether one is obligated to 
respect a women Chachomoh like a Talmid Chochom), the unfortunate fact is 
that many Yunge Lite with good Kishronos would rather use it out in business, 
instead of enhancing the ranks of Klei Kodesh, wether it be Rabbonim Mlamdim 
Magedei Shiur etc. 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

Un-codes (with apologies to 7-up the UN-Cola) might be more interesting than the
Torah codes.

EG this weeks parsha describes the Geshem as 40 days and 40 nights.

How many other cases in the Torah/Tanach - have that same phrase?

What other examples of 40 days appear in Torah/Tanach?

Now make that connection! 

Extra Credit:
Draw a distinction between simply 40 days as opposed to 40 days and 40 nights!

Rich Wolpoe

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


[ Distributed to the Avodah mailing list, digested version.                   ]
[ To post: mail to avodah@aishdas.org                                         ]
[ For back issues: mail "get avodah-digest vXX.nYYY" to majordomo@aishdas.org ]
[ or, the archive can be found at http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/              ]
[ For general requests: mail the word "help" to majordomo@aishdas.org         ]