Avodah Mailing List

Volume 04 : Number 129

Thursday, November 11 1999

• RE: Rebbes
• Sidelight on Brain stem dead
• Re: Sidelight on Brain stem dead
• Play Script
• Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread
• Re: Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread
• Rebbes
• Rebbes
• Re: Jastrow
• Jastrow
• Re: Jastrow
• Jastrow
• Color coding
• Re: Carlebach minyan
• Re: What is a godol?
• Acknowledging internal problems
• Re: Trig - a waste of time?
• Acknowledging internal problems
• Chabad/Rav Dworkin
• Charedi tech
• Ha-aretz article on Hillel
• Re: Kol Kevodah Bas Melech Penimah

> The questions arise: Why does the Rebbe not want to
> Paskin?

Maybe he's not qualified? The time involved to become a posek is time taken
away from learning/advising/Rebbeing...

> Does he trust someone other than himself to Paskin?

If he's not a posek, obviously he asks *his* shailot to *his* Rov.

> Does he not have the time for everything,

In most cases, no.

> and if so, does he think his guidance outside the
> realm of Psak is more important than Psak, delegating
> Psak to an underling?  If that is so than why?

Underling implies a lower position. The realm of Halacha and the Realm of
Hashkafa are two distinct realms (with some overlap). The Rebbe (or Rosh
Yeshiva) deals in the Hashkafic realm, the Rov in the Halachic. Not that one
is more important  than the other (Rebbe Nachman, for example, taught the
importance of meticulous observance of Halacha).

> What can be more important than Paskeing correctly?

*Living* correctly?

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

When the psakim accepting brain stem death as dead appeared, some RW rabbis
disagreed and insisted that the only halakhically recognized death was
stoppage of heart and breathing.

R' Levi-Yitzhak Halperin made an interesting comment. A man keels over and
the ambulance doctor discovers that there is no heart action or breathing.
The crew continue to pound the chest and force oxygen into the lungs etc.
As is quite common today, heart and breathing action return after 30 or
40 minutes.

After a hospital stay, the man is released. He goes home to discover that,
by the halakha of these RW rabbis, he is no longer married. After all he
was halakhically dead and the time for techiat hametim hasn't arrived yet.
His almana doesn't allow him to stay. He runs to the bank to make a withdrawal
only to be told that his sons have already inherited. Of course, he is
mugged and stabbed to death shortly after that but nothing can be done to
the murderer because, like the ben peku'a one cannot re-kill a dead person.

R' Halperin said that heart and lung dead was halakhic death when it was
irreversible. Today it is reversible and, therefore, is not death. At the
present time, brain stem dead is irreversible and today that is death. That
too may change in the future.

You know, I really wanted to sit this discussion out, but I see that there
is no area that cannot be made into a RW/LW debate if one does not but try.

For the record, the main poskim to reject the brain-stem death criterion are
R' Eliezer Waldenberg, R' Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and R' Yosef Shalom
Elyashiv. Last I checked, these were, in the 1990's, the formeost poskim in
the (Ashkenazic) *Orthodox Jewish World* in toto. They are not "RW rabbis".

And, of course, by that measure, pray tell, is R' Moshe Feinstein, who
ostensibly accepted the brain-stem death criterion, a "LW rabbi"?

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

----- Original Message -----
From: D Bannett <dbnet@barak-online.net>
To: Avodah <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 1999 11:49 PM
Subject: Sidelight on Brain stem dead


> When the psakim accepting brain stem death as dead appeared, some RW
rabbis
> disagreed and insisted that the only halakhically recognized death was
> stoppage of heart and breathing.
>
> R' Levi-Yitzhak Halperin made an interesting comment. A man keels over and
> the ambulance doctor discovers that there is no heart action or breathing.
> The crew continue to pound the chest and force oxygen into the lungs etc.
> As is quite common today, heart and breathing action return after 30 or
> 40 minutes.
>
> After a hospital stay, the man is released. He goes home to discover that,
> by the halakha of these RW rabbis, he is no longer married. After all he
> was halakhically dead and the time for techiat hametim hasn't arrived yet.
> His almana doesn't allow him to stay. He runs to the bank to make a
withdrawal
> only to be told that his sons have already inherited. Of course, he is
> mugged and stabbed to death shortly after that but nothing can be done to
> the murderer because, like the ben peku'a one cannot re-kill a dead
person.
>
> R' Halperin said that heart and lung dead was halakhic death when it was
> irreversible. Today it is reversible and, therefore, is not death. At the
> present time, brain stem dead is irreversible and today that is death.
That
> too may change in the future.
>

This inquiry is for the benefit of my eighth grade daughter:

Do any of our "Chaveiros" know of and have access  to a script suitable for
a Bais Yaakov elementary school "Erev Shira" that is of reasonably decent
quality?

Thank you for any assistance!

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

RYGB asked, "I think I already stipulated that whether AbG justifies
TuM/CC is an extrapolation from "what does the ThR and the TYY mean by
"everything", so of course there cannot be a direct textual proof.  Maybe
someone can look in R' Lamm's book to tell us what kind of proof *he*
brings, if any?"
I haven't been involved in this thread, but I happen to be a serious fan
of R' Lamm's book. The chapter on chassidus happens to speak directly to
people like me, to whom secular education is important, and Chassidus is
the mode of Jewish expression from which we gain much of our inspiration.
He says things there that I use on a daily, if not hourly basis, to try to
come closer to the Ribbono Shel Olam.  Incidentally, I had been using his
"Hasidic model" of Toirah Umadda long before he published his book.  I had
developed his way of thinking primarily through long discussions with my
father SHLITA, and some other serious Chassidim and Talmidei Chachamim.
He says things that many people have been thinking for a long time, only
haven't formally come out and said it.
One very common misunderstanding that R' Lamm himself tries very hard to
explain repeatedly, is his "chassidic model" of Torah U'Madda.  He repeats
and asserts and emphasizes several times that he is not claiming that
Chassidus promotes his viewpoint of Torah Umadda.  His chapter starts with
the following assertion, "A Hasidic model for Torah Umadda? The suggestion
itself, the very conjunction of the two terms, seems implausible if not
incredible."
He asserts however that we can develop a model for Torah Umadda by using
the concept of Avodah B'Gashmiut and expand that concept to Avodah through
intellectualism. He further develops his thinking and he proposes why he
feels that it would be appropriate in our time to make this leap, but this
is too detailed for this post.  Please don't attribute to him the idea
that chassidus at any time held that Avodah B'intellectualism is the
proper path to G-D. This would be a very gross distortion of what he says,
and something he repeatedly tries to explain that he is not trying to do.
Shaul Weinreb 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Saul J Weinreb <sweinr1@uic.edu>
To: <avodah@aishdas.org>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 8:54 AM
Subject: Rambam and asceticism, Chassidus subthread


> 
> RYGB asked, "I think I already stipulated that whether AbG justifies
> TuM/CC is an extrapolation from "what does the ThR and the TYY mean by
> "everything", so of course there cannot be a direct textual proof.  Maybe
> someone can look in R' Lamm's book to tell us what kind of proof *he*
> brings, if any?"

That was not RYGB, but RJJB.

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

Most Rebbes don't tend to be in the paskening business because (a) paskening 
usually requires a specific knowledge of a particular person's circumstances 
and (b) a Rebbe doesn't want their posken to a particular case to be used as 
a general halacha (either l'chumra or l'heter).

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

In the yeshiva world there are at least 3 distinct roles...

Rosh Yeshiva, Masgiach Ruachani and Poseik

When I was at Ner Yisroel I took my sheilos to R. Moshe Heinemann, at YU to R. 
Nissan Alpert.

Lomdus, hashkofo, psak can be headed by 3 different "specialists".

I imagine the Chassidishe world has analogous roles.

Rich Wolpoe 


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


> The questions arise: Why does the Rebbe not want to 
> Paskin?

Maybe he's not qualified? The time involved to become a posek is time taken 
away from learning/advising/Rebbeing...

> Does he trust someone other than himself to Paskin?

If he's not a posek, obviously he asks *his* shailot to *his* Rov.

> Does he not have the time for everything,

In most cases, no.

> and if so, does he think his guidance outside the
> realm of Psak is more important than Psak, delegating 
> Psak to an underling?  If that is so than why?

Underling implies a lower position. The realm of Halacha and the Realm of 
Hashkafa are two distinct realms (with some overlap). The Rebbe (or Rosh 
Yeshiva) deals in the Hashkafic realm, the Rov in the Halachic. Not that one 
is more important  than the other (Rebbe Nachman, for example, taught the 
importance of meticulous observance of Halacha).

> What can be more important than Paskeing correctly?

*Living* correctly?

Akiva


===========================
Akiva Atwood
POB 27515
Jerusalem, Israel 91274

In a message dated 11/10/99 6:38:13 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
moshe_feldman@yahoo.com writes:

<< I seem to recall R. Lieberman's work in the Gush Bet Midrash and I
 think (?) that it was also in the YU Bet Midrash (definitely in their
 library, but that's no chiddush).  Can anybody corroborate my
 recollections? >>

At Yeshivat Hamivtar, it was in the library in back of the Beis Medrash, but 
that was in the good old days in Kiryat Moshe. Since YH was geared towards 
those with limited background, Jastrow was considered indispensable. The 
method used there is topic for a good discussion of Gemara pedagogy, but not 
for now.

Jordan   

Going back to the original thread...

We KNOW jastrow can be usefeul.  Can he be considered reliable?  Can one take 
his definitions as being intellectually hoenst or do we need a really big grain 
of salt?

I would be meachalik ne'emonus to differeing spheres.  In the more objective 
points - such as linguistics - I see no axe to grind there, so why not accept 
Non-Orthodox reports?  (this is very analagous to accpeting Josephus as ana 
observer).

On the areas requring analysisc, conjecture, or on touchy topics, we might 
choose to use more discretion.

Let me illustrate:

If AJ Heschel tells me how to be a good chosid, I might say who is he to say?
However, if he tells me what the Kotzker thought about being a good Chosid , I 
would tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. 

Rich Wolpoe

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________


At Yeshivat Hamivtar, it was in the library in back of the Beis Medrash, but 
that was in the good old days in Kiryat Moshe. Since YH was geared towards 
those with limited background, Jastrow was considered indispensable. The 
method used there is topic for a good discussion of Gemara pedagogy, but not 
for now.

Jordan   

In a message dated 11/11/99 12:41:11 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
richard_wolpoe@ibi.com writes:

<< We KNOW jastrow can be usefeul.  Can he be considered reliable?  Can one 
take 
 his definitions as being intellectually hoenst or do we need a really big 
grain 
 of salt?
 
 I would be meachalik ne'emonus to differeing spheres.  In the more objective 
 points - such as linguistics - I see no axe to grind there, so why not 
accept 
 Non-Orthodox reports?  (this is very analagous to accpeting Josephus as ana 
 observer). >>

I think this question is irrelevant. The dictionary has been around for 
almost 100 years. I would like to believe that at this point, any deviations 
from Traditional thought would already have been noted. Truth is, I don't 
recall anyone being able to come up with an objection to any material in the 
book itself. Indeed, the kind of neutral, "Scholarly" definitions he used are 
preferable to ones where pshat is slanted towards
the approach of a Rishon, as one might find in Artscroll, as this allows us 
to draw our own conclusions about pshat, and study the Rishonim with a fresh 
eye. (Not to knock Artscroll, but I personally prefer using Artscroll for 
Chazorah and Background info rather than my initial "Teich")

Jordan     

While the question might indeed be irrelevant to Jastrow, nevertheles, it might 
be relevant for other non-Orthodox works.

Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

I think this question is irrelevant. The dictionary has been around for 
almost 100 years. I would like to believe that at this point, any deviations 
from Traditional thought would already have been noted. Truth is, I don't 
recall anyone being able to come up with an objection to any material in the 
book itself. Indeed, the kind of neutral, "Scholarly" definitions he used are 
preferable to ones where pshat is slanted towards
the approach of a Rishon, as one might find in Artscroll, as this allows us 
to draw our own conclusions about pshat, and study the Rishonim with a fresh 
eye. (Not to knock Artscroll, but I personally prefer using Artscroll for 
Chazorah and Background info rather than my initial "Teich")

Jordan     

Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 15:38:01 -0800 (PST)
From: Harry Weiss <hjweiss@netcom.com>
Subject: Color Coding

<<red for meat as you say is based on blood and the color of meat (at
least
red meat)  the green blue AFAIK is based on Rokeach kosher soap, the 
staple in every Jewish home in america prior to the common usage of 
liquid detergent.  It came in red and blue/green colors.>>

	The Talmudical mind closes in for the kill (as one of my English
teachers used to say!).  If all this is based on Rokeach's color scheme, 
and I have my doubts,  then "hashta de'asis lehachi" that explains red as
well.  In any event, I don't find the explanation satisfactory.

Gershon

		

It is generally a Kabalat Shabbat service.  Specific niggunim are used (
not the standard ) that are continued after the baal tefilah finishes
each paragraph.  There is alot of participation by the tzibbur, including
singing of the niggunim, clapping and dancing.  In most minyanim where
this has been instituted, an addtional 10- 40 minutes is added to
tefillah time.  It can be very spritiual.  A siginficant minority find it
to be so alien that it is a tiercha for them to daven with this kind of
minyan.   On the positive side, it attracts literally the whole spectrum
of Judaism.  
Our minyan sponsored this for R Carlbach's yahrzeit last year.  It was
the first Carlbach Minyan in Brooklyn not in someones house.  We had
almost 200 people.  THey came in everything from streimels to jeans and
sneakers.

If you would like to attend, they are now held monthly in Brooklyn on
Ave. P & E3.  We are having one on Shabbat  Vayechi at the Yavneh Minyan
of Flatbush, located in the Shulamith school.     

> Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 17:15:20 -0500
> From: Gershon Dubin <gershon.dubin@juno.com>
> Subject: Carlebach
> 
> I await someone's definition of a Carlebach minyan.
> 
> Gershon

___________________________________________________________________
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.

In a message dated 11/10/99 6:24:06 PM EST, hmaryles@yahoo.com writes:

> As for belief in the Messiah's imminent arrival, Af Al
>  Pi SHEYIsMAMEHA, Im Kol Zeh Achakeh Lo BeChol Yom
>  SheYovo.
>  
That means that even though there is such possibilty, it will not effect the 
Emunah in his coming (and HAYOM Im Bkolee Sishmou), not that the Emunah is 
that Yismameiha C"V, L'yishuascha Kivinu Kol Hayom (part of the day is also a 
Mismameia). I once pointed out the Beis E-lokim of the Mabit, on the Teitch 
of Boi Yovoi.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

I have no direct informatiom that might clarify what happened when this
group of girls from a Yeshiva High School visited Maeh Shearim.  It is the
defensive response that, without any knowledge of what occured, assumed
that it must be at most an exaggeration of something minor which concerns
me.  Each approach within the Orthodox world has its own potential risks.
Those who are open to the outside world face the consequences of powerful
cultural influences on young impressionable minds.  The approach which sees
anything outside a narrow world as hostile requires monitering carefully
how this hostility is expressed.  
Segments of the Orthodox community are busy justifying their own approach
and criticizing any other.  There is no single approach that garantees
total success.  Will exposure to science within our educational framework
prevent any leaving of the fold?  Has a closed society with minimal or no
secular education stopped curious minds from exploring not approved books
or newspapers?
Some of our most serious problems are internal.  We are shocked when
scandals reach the media, but in most cases people within knew earlier but
failed to act.  Certain that our kind are incapable of doing wrong, our
schools often do not have a guidance counselor to check for abuse.  One can
get the impression that the critical issue is preventing mesirah (a real
consideration) but not protecting the victims.  This morning's Israeli
papers reported on an impressive number of Rabbis who were character
witnesses for a former Rosh Yeshiva who admitted to sexual improprieties
with tens of High School students over many years.  The compassion for his
suffering does not appear to be matched with equal concern for the damage
caused to the students. They mean well but the instinctive protection of
one's colleague coupled with ignoring the impact of his actions sends a
terrible message.  
When one honestly admits that there are troubled Orthodox parents and
spouces who abuse then complaints might be listened to.  Recognizing that
this incudes Rabbis and educators and youth leaders will help weed them out
early and frustrated youngsters and parents will not feel forced to go to
the police.
I have focused on one of many internal issues.  Unfortunately it is one
with perhaps the largest number of innocent sufferers  
Yosef Blau  

In a message dated 11/11/99 0:38:48 AM EST, sba@blaze.net.au writes:

> You can work it out without any trig. by using Pythagoras.
>   Btw, the mishna is Oholois 12:7, and it gives the circumference as 24 
> tefochim, but
>  according to both Pythagoras and trig, it can be a lot less, i.e. just
>  under than 21 1/2.
>  
>  
Bichlal this measurment is brought in many places in Shas (not just in 
Oholois)
The difference between Halachik and CC measurments (circle vs. square, and 
Alachson) is brought in Halacha regarding Tchum Shabbos (O"C 399), Tephilin 
"heim valchasonom" (as a measurment how much it can be off and still be 
Kosher.

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind 

Kol Tuv

Yitzchok Zirkind

The salient issue is not a lw/rw dichotomy.  Rather the issue is honesty, 
sincerity; emes!   The issue is acknowledging "what is" as opposed to twisting 
it with rationalizations in order to fit into a pre-conceived ideology.

L'olom yehei odom.... Modeh al ho'emes...  acknowledge the truth!

My 2 cents.
Rich Wolpoe


______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________

<snip>
 The approach which sees anything outside a narrow world as hostile 
requires monitering carefully how this hostility is expressed. 

Segments of the Orthodox community are busy justifying their own approach 
and criticizing any other. 
<snip>

Yosef Blau  

It is the case that before he passed away, Rav Dworkin was the rav that 
one went to in Crown Heights for she'ilot (e.g. taharat mishpacha), 
though there were other rabbis involved as well. Generally speaking, the 
Rabbe saw himself as a spiritual leader, giving hashkafa.  [A not-do 
exact parallel: there is the story that RYBS would hand new Rabbis their 
smicha certificate with Moshe Feinstein's phone number written on the 
back. I doubt that anybody thought the less of RYBS for it.]

Nowadays there are several senior rabbis in Lubavitch who answer questions.

PS: Most Chabad rabbis are NOT related to the Rebbe - but certainly it is 
true that a lot of them are related to one another. Big families - 
several generations - and that's what happens.


__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet				claude@math.wayne.edu	
					www.math.wayne.edu/~claude
Mathematics Department			313-577-3177	office phone		
Wayne State University		    	313-577-7596	department fax
Detroit, MI 48202
 

1. Machon Lev's graduates are highly thought of e.g. at the Technion. 
They know their stuff.

2. Machon Lev has been charged (and funded) by the government to start a 
new chareidi college for men in the Gush Dan (Tel Aviv) area- . The plan 
is for them to supervise it for a few years and then the new school will 
stand alone. There is talk of a similar school for women in the Jerusalem 
area. I talked to the people handling this at Machon Lev. They got 
funding very late in August and (as of then) were trying to rent space in 
Tel Aviv area in time to run classes this fall. I don't know if they 
succeeded - but in any event they have the funding and thus this is 
probably going to actually happen.

My general impression (based on walking around the Machon Lev campus and 
looking - not too scientific) is that about half of the students are 
Mamlachti Dati and the other half are further to the right.


__________________________________________________________________
Claude Schochet				claude@math.wayne.edu	
					www.math.wayne.edu/~claude
Mathematics Department			313-577-3177	office phone		
Wayne State University		    	313-577-7596	department fax
Detroit, MI 48202
 

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of the "daat v'emet" booklet
mentioned in the Ha-aretz article?

Reuven

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>Chana Luntz <Chana/Heather@luntz.demon.co.uk> wrote in v4n121:
>:                                 eg one cannot expect/require a woman to
>: come before a court and give eidus (an essential component of being an
>: eid is that attendance is mandatory...) ...
>
>I'm not sure how to generalize from this to why women can't be dayanos or
>serve as kohanos, liviyos or malkos, or hold sherarah in general.
>

Whoa there.  I think in your eagerness to formulate an all encompassing
theory you are mushing together concepts that may or may not be related.
Eidus and Dayanus are linked because of the explicit principle (applying
wider than women) that all who are kosher to judge are kosher to give
eidus (Nida 49b)- making the converse true, all those who are posul for
eidus are posel for dayanus.  The link to kol kavuda is because it is
specifically brought in Shevuos 30a.

The laws relating to kehuna and leviya are something completely separate
and I do not know of any link between them and kol kavuda.  I am not
sure, on that basis, how you can draw one.

Malkos is related to melech, v'lo malka, ie is derived from a completely
independant Torah pasuk.  The prohibition of serarah, the Rambam derives
from the pasuk, but such a position is not universal, and is much more
complicated than seems to be inplied here.

For example, read the Ramban on Shevuos 30a- u'perusho  [of the pasuk
that Devorah judged the nation] manaheges she'al pi'ha v'eitzta hayu
nohagin ze im ze k'din malka v'af al pi d'amrinan b'sifri sum tasim
alehcha melech v'lo malka nohagin hayu ba k'din malka i nami m'kablin
hayu diveha b'ratzonum.

Bit different from the Rambam's position, no?

>It's an interesting idea, that women aren't mechuyavos in outside but have
>reshus to do so. This would explain "kevudah bas melech" (albeit not the
>"kol") as being a statement of where bas melech has a chiyuv to show kavod.
>

I must say I have difficulty with the kol also (not in the simple pshat
of the pasuk, which, as I indicated, would seem to be talking about
working one oneself internally, and not emphasizing externals), but the
halachic use of the pasuk (which itself gets into the complicated
question of the appropriate uses of k'tuvim for giving psak).

But as indicated in my earlier post, "kol" in its purest sense is
difficult to maintain.  Another example, if Rivka had believed "kol"
kavuda, then she would a) not have been at a public well; b) not have
talked to strange men; and c) certainly not have had the familiarity to
have given Eliezer water in a public place, not to mention all that
running back and forward to the camels (hardly very tzniusdik, all that
exertion - not to mention that drawing up water generally involves
bending down and walking in front of etc etc)!  Ok, she was three!  But
a) Tznius applies from three and b) what kind of training was she being
given in how to behave!

Another example, how about the Shunamite woman, from who we learn that
one is to go and visit one's Rebbe on shabbas and rosh chodesh.
Certainly a violation of "kol".

How about Chana?  OK, Eli had a problem with her appearing to be drunk,
but what about the fact that she davka chose to daven in the mishkan,
rather than at home.  Is that not a violation of "kol"?

You see the problem with taking kol the way you are doing - you are
possulling most of our foremothers!  Since that cannot be the answer, we
have to assume that kol is not meant the way you are taking it.

>It fits particularly well with RSRH's chiddush that limits the kelal of mitzvos
>asei shehazman gerama to those mitzvos that also address relationships to
>the outside or symbolize those relationships. Which is why it includes succah
>but not korban Pesach.
>
>This would suggest that outsideness for women (at prefixed times, at least)
>is a mitzvas reshus, as you are claiming.
>
>My open questions are:
>
>1- Why did Shelomo write "kol kevudah", if she's allowed to explore kavod in
>   other places if she wants?
>

The only answer I can come up with is that a) the pshat of the pasuk
does need the term kol, but is not referring to this issue at all. b)
for the halachic drash kol either does not quite fit or is being read
another way (same thing for the other drash - I don't think that by
saying that Torah is greater than being Cohen Gadol, you are saying that
there is no kavod to being Cohen gadol. In fact we know that we have to
give kavod to the Cohen Gadol, so if kol were the reading, then the
drash would be contradicting an explicit halacha).

>2- Why no sherarah?
>

As indicated above, what falls within this category is not clear (the
same issue occurs in relation to whether the Hashmonean kings were real
kings or not, given that they were not from beis David.  One view is
that they were legitimate kings, so long as it was always understood
that "real" kingship only belonged to beis David, others hold they were
complete upstarts.  Remember that the one Queen we ever had was in fact
the frum one, which needs a little explaining).

>3- Why then if the primary criterion for pitur "shehazman geramah"? Why
>   wouldn't the "outsideness" of the mitzvas asei be sufficient cause for
>   a p'tur? After all, reshus but mitzvah is the relationship to "outside"
>   in general.

Not sure. that is the same problem you have with the whole definition of
shehazman geramah, when it has more exceptions than rules.

>
>4- Even if we say she may choose giving kavod to the Melech in "outside"
>   venues, does that mean she *ought* to? IOW, wouldn't the difference between
>   metzuveh vi'oseh and eino metzuveh vi'osah indicate that it's the things
>   that are metzuveh that indicate primary focus for avodah?
>

Problem with that approach is the long list of women from Tanach whose
"outside" actions are mentioned. If the general principle is that such
tales are mentioned because we are supposed to learn from them, and find
in them role models, that wuld seem to indicate that such actions are
"ideal" behaviour (except where we are told that they are not).  Put it
simply, should Rivka, Rachel and Zipporah been at their well (about as
outside as you can get) all unchaperoned and chatting to strange men?
What are you saying about our lineage if you say that they should not
have been?

>- -mi

Regards

Chana


-- 
Chana/Heather Luntz

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


[ 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/              ]

 ]
Status: RO