Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 047

Monday, November 20 2000

• Re: Kol yimei chayecha
• RE: Kol yimei chayecha
• Re: Avodah V6 #44
• Re: faith
• Re: faith
• Re: Evolution
• kol psuka dlo pasak re:sirtut
• Re: parts of psukim
• Re: Pesukim fragments
• re:parts of psukim
• Re: kamatz b'zakeif
• Oseh (hA)Shalom
• Krias Shma and tzitzis
• Re: tzitzis
• Ra vs. Rasha, v'duk
• Hoshei'a 1:1
• RE: Nishmat
• Re: Help identifying medrash about Yisrael, Yishma'el and

On 17 Nov 00, at 13:50, Micha Berger wrote:
> According to R' Gamliel, though, the special mitzvah of leil Pesach (which
> is not what we were talking about) does require vision. "Matzah zu" requires
> being able to see the matzah. And yet, the mitzvah is at night.

> So how can he say that tzitzis is biyom because re'iyah is only biyom, and
> still say "matzah zu" is a chiyuv on leil Pesach?

Really a guess with no sources:

Because you can see the matza by the light of the Yom Tov 
candles, but to see the tzitzis, and to be able to distinguish 
between the tcheiles and lavan, would require a stronger light.

-- Carl
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.  
Thank you very much.

On Fri, Nov 17, 2000 at 12:56:08PM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
>: Now HOW do we know that layla is lav zman tzitzis?

> Ur'isem oso.

Does the pshat in u'risem oso tell us that layla lav zman tzitzis or is this
a Mesorah?

If there is a Mesorah about Tzitzis how come there was not a mesorah wrt to
zchiras mitarayim?

>: And how do it come about that the same source that cearly teaches us that
>: "layla lav zman tzitzis' is not equally clear on the mitzva of z'chiras
>: mitzrayim?

> According to Ben Zoma, because of the "kol" in "kol yimei chayecha". The
> Chachamim coupld simply say that it's because sippur, unlike tzitzis,
> doesn't require vision.

The whole process begs several questions. There seems to be a presummption
that pre-Ben Zoma there was no recitation of the 3rd paragraph of shma at
night because of ur'isem oso - at shedrashah ben Zoma.  Was Ben Zoma
mechadesh a new practice al pi drush? If so is U'risem miSinai and zhiras
Mitzrayim balaylos NOT miSinari and therefore there was a period of time
that parapraph 3 was omitted at night.

Or how about that paragraph 3 was ALWAYS said at night, but since U'r'isem
oso excluded the Tzitzis AS A REASON/TAAM, therefore another Taam - perhaps
pre-exstinging one  - was now applied by Ben Zoma and therefore BZ not
mechadesh any new halacha but only being meyashev an existing preactice that
was apparently/lich'ora problematic?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

From: Joelirich@aol.com
> I was reading an article concerning the recent AJC study on intermarriage. A 
> Rabbi was quoted as saying that "Intermarriage is so serious that a family is 
> compelled to sit shiva when one of its members , g-d forbid, marries out".
> I''ve heard of this but does anyone know of the source?

I think it's based on either a misunderstanding of the texts. See
S.O. Y.D. Hilchot 340:1 The TAz, 340:5 and 345:6 Dagul Mervavah and
especially the girsah re the Maharam M'Rutenberg, or a tradition sparked
by the people.

B'chavod, J. Rubenstein <kavyashar@aol.com>

In a message dated 11/17/2000 11:46:52am CST, micha@aishdas.org writes:
>: The dialectics Rav Soleveitchik dealt with were issues within a closed
>: system. ...
 
> You went too fast for me. How do you get from the idea that dialectic
> lacks resolution (ad yimos hamashi'ach) to the notion of a close system.
> Also, would this mean that in yimos hamashi'ach Torah ought to become
> an open system?

The question of Open System vs. Closed System is a dialectic itself, that, in 
RYBS's worldview, lacks resolution. To favor the notion of open system over a 
closed system resolves the dialectic (contrary to RYBS), which is to say ipso 
facto it opts for a closed system. So you need to think in terms of a closed 
system to accept the idea of an open system, which obviously can't work. Thus 
the supposed "resolved" dialectic is reconstituted, proving RYBS's point. 
Nicht wahr?

Ever read Jorge Luis Borges? He was a famous Argentinian poet and medievalist 
who played around with these notions in terms he borrowed openly (no pun 
intended) from the Rambam, the Ramban, and early Kabbalists. 

David Finch

From: "Micha Berger" <micha@aishdas.org>
>: The dialectics Rav Soleveitchik dealt with were issues within a closed
>: system. ...

> You went too fast for me. How do you get from the idea that dialectic
> lacks resolution (ad yimos hamashi'ach) to the notion of a close system.
> Also, would this mean that in yimos hamashi'ach Torah ought to become
> an open system?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. The issues that form Rav Soleveitchik's dialectics
did not involve alternative non-Torah systems such as science or archeology.
For example as far as I know he did not concern himself with the apparent
conflict between science and Torah or archeology and Torah etc.  So all I am
saying is that since the dialectics he dealt with  were entirely issues
within the system of Torah that *implies* that he viewed Torah as a closed
system. His behavioral congruence with the idea that Torah is a closed
authority system is obviously not direct proof but is strongly suggestive
especially in the context of  the other information I described. I also
pointed out that as a general rule gedolim act as if Torah is a closed
system. [See the letter of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach regarding the ignoring
of medical information which disagrees with Chazal in R' Lerners Shmiras
HaGoof v'Hafesh page 54]

As regards your second question - there will not be even apparent
inconsistencies in the time of moshiach between Torah and science, history,
archeology etc so there will no longer be multiple systems but a single
system. [I think a more relevant question is whether there will be division
of Chasid and litvak or chareidi and modern Orthodox - especially in light
of the gemora  Shabbos 63a which implies that Jews will still be fighting
with each other since they won't be fighting non-Jews] Whether you wish to
label  a situation an open system where there is only one way to view things
but one that incorporates everything -  is your call.

                       Daniel Eidensohn

michael horowitz wrote:
>: Of course it isn't true. No one I know of have ever replicated evolution in 
>: the laboratory, yet it is considered science.

RMB replied:

>Actually, evolution has been replicated. Why do you think they
>constantly need to divise new forms of antibiotics?

I haven't yet checked the link you provided (I'm too busy to do much of
anything these days - hence my lack of posts lately!), but from my limited
knowledge, it seems to me that there is no stira here: Michael is referring
to macro-evolution, and you are referring to micro-evolution, and as far as
I know, there have been no examples of macro-evolution in the lab.

[See the site. There are numerous examples of macro-evolution of plants, and
a couple of animals. But since Bereishis refers to "limineihu" for plants
as well, I assume either is equally convincing. -mi]

>That doesn't mean that the origin of the species was necessarily via
>evolution, however. Most statistical studies would require G-d to
>have used loaded dice in order for evolution to account for the present
>reality.

At least some Gedolim that I am aware of, including Rav Yaakov Weinberg,
z"l, hold that directed evolution is how the Almighty runs the show.

RAA:
>> Of course it isn't true. No one I know of have ever replicated evolution in
>> the laboratory, yet it is considered science.

>Yes -- it IS science. Evolution is a hypothesis to explain the development
>of life. It is an explaination that fits the facts as we know them.

>AIUI:

>Facts are things which have been observed and measured. (i.e. the fossil
>records)
>A hypothesis tries to explain those facts.
>When proven to be true, it becomes a theory.

AIUI, scientists tend to regard evolution as more of a theory than a
hypothesis.

Eli

TE is attributed with connecting the laws of sirtut to the laws of kol psauk
dlo...

I found 3 tshuvos of his on the subject in vols. 8,18 and 19.  The only
connection he makes is that distorting a passuk exempts the need for sirtut.
This is a Tos.  TE then posits that since in the distorted form it is no
longer a pasuk, it is also exempted from the requirement to finish the verse
of 'kol pasuk dlo..'

Earlier in Avodah there was a discussion if the shiur of 3 words which
requires sirtut can be applied to 'kol pasuk dlo..'  This idea that 2 words
of a pasuk does not require one to finish the pasuk, I did not find in TE.

Shlomo Goldstein

RYGB cites the Magen Avraham as paskenung the rule of Kol pasuk. 
However, it would seem that the MA has a different pshat in KPDLPM: not
that it is a prohibition against quoting parts of psukim, but rather not
to divide up an entire pasuk in a manner other than what appears in the
kisvei hakodesh. This would apply to his case, of breaking up Nehemiah
9:8 at "V'charos," and to all the cases cited in the g'mara: the third
pasuk of Parashas Hatamid on Rosh Chodesh and the third pasuk of Breishis
for ma'amados.  Likewise, the Tosfos in Succah referred to by RYGB is the
division of Ana Hashem into two parts, both of which are said, but are
broken up not in the manner of Thillim.  

If this is so, there is then no makor for an issur against saying part of
a pasuk. What *would* be prohibited would be a responsive reading in
which not whole psukim, but parts of psukim, are alternated.

As for those who say that we don't pasken KPDLPM, it is difficult to say
that we don't pasken either kol pasuk or kol parsha, since the g'mara
gives it as the reason for doing things the way we do it: not splitting
the pasuk on Rosh Chodesh, and not including the pasuk from Parshas Balak
in shacharis.

As for the prevalence of kol pasuk as opposed to kol parsha: one appears
twice in Shas, the other once. Is one additional mention sufficient to
make it more prevalent?

At 09:25 AM 11/16/00 -0500, you wrote:
>Why is it that when we say shelosh esrei midos,  we don't say the entire
>posuk?  When HKB"H showed Moshe Rabbenu the seder tefila,  did He stop after
>venakeh?

It seems that is the opinion of Chazal, no?

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

To my question, "eich matzinu yadeinu v'ragleinu b'vais hamedrash when
we learn gmara, and parts of psukim in the Torah are quoted?," Seth
Mandel responded, "As many have pointed out, among them RYBS in the
name of R. Yaaqov Emden, the psukim quoted in the gemoro say "vgomer"
at the end, which is a sign that when you are reading the pasuk you are
supposed to finish it."

And, to my question, "How do we learn the Mishna, and say in the Hagadah,
"l'maan tizkor es yom tzescha," without the beginning of the pasuk?,"
his answer was, "If you look in the Hagadah, you will see that first we
quote each pasuk in its entirety from beginning to end, and then proceed
to darshan out each word."

However, my question was not from the psukim of parshas bikkurim, but
from Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah's quote of "l'maan tizkor." For this,
neither answer suffices: it is not a pasuk first quoted in toto and
then dissected, nor will "v'gomer" help when it is the beginning of the
pasuk which is missing. The questions thus remain, unless we understand
"kol pasuk v'chulay" differently.

Sadya N. Targum

R'RichW wrote:
> only if the Zokeif were the biggest mafsik - IOW in a passuk w/ a 
zokeif and w/o an esnachto - would it cause a kamatz besokeif.

I wrote that kamatz b'zakef was common. You replied it is rare. As
I'm not going to count to find out, it will have to remain a matter of
opinion. It appears correct that the pausal form in the tipcha occurs
only in the absence of an etnachta but I cannot agree that this k'lal
applies also to the zakef katan. Just the opposite appears to be the case.

Just glancing through Bereishit, no example of kamatz b'zakef (kb'z)
in a sentence without etnachta jumps to my eye. On the other hand quite
a number of kb"z do appear in sentences that have an etnachta.

Among them: (not including the numerous examples where l'kha is changed
to lakh or any -kha becomes -akh. I use ashkenazi pronunciation to type an
"O" for a kamatz in a pausal form.):

Bereishit 2,17:  tov vorO', instead of ra'.
	11,3: haleveinoh l'Oven, bimkom even.
	12,5: r'khushom asher rokhOshu
	vateireh ki horOso
	es bekhorosi lokOch
	31,18 r'khusho asher rokhOsh
	ba'mincho haholekhes l'fonOi
	es Binyomin tikOchu
	hu yihyeh li Oved, 34,7

And for good measure, a few examples not in Breishis:
	gam Oni, in bechukotai-tokheicha
	nachalei mOyyim, Eikev, Devor. 8,7
	bomosei Oretz Devor. 32,13

All are kb"z, and all in pesukim containing an etnachta. And I'm fairly
sure there are many more.

'Nuff sed on said subject. I close my case without presenting further
evidence.

b'rakhot vekhol tov,
David

R' RichW has brought up the Oseh HA-shalom nusach that was discussed in
some detail on Avodah before Purim (beginning of March). The archives
should have it.

David

Gil.Student wrote:
> Precisely during kerias shema, when we are trying to make sure that we are 
> mekayem the mitzvah, it seems very sensible to have tzitzis surround us.  
> Especially since we are concentrating on the meaning of the pesukim which 
> include the kavanos of the mitzvah of tzitzis.

Most people I have seen, when sitting, put the back of their tallis in
their lap, probably to keep the tzitzis from dragging on the floor. 
Since Shma is said sitting, all four tzitzios are in front, whether or
not they are held.

RMB:
>There is also a problem of hefsek. It's pragmatically more distracting to
>hunt for the back two corners.

There is a simple solution for this: while standing for Yishtabach, gather
all four together and put them in your lap when you sit down after Barchu.
Then, you can quickly and easily pick them up for Shema.

Eli

At 12:12 AM 11/19/00 +1100, SBA wrote [to Areivim]:
>Sorry - but I don't get the differences.

>"Nosen lerosho ro'oh kerishoso..." seems to indicate
>that they are equal and the same thing.

>"V'anshei S'dom ro'im v'chatoim LaHashem me'od.."
>They also weren't Reshoim?

There are many forms of Resho'im - including, for example, a Mekkeh
Rei'eihu. The term Rasha is a very broad one and somewhat ambiguous. It
can mean anything form an evil person to an occasional sinner to someone
who has lost a court case.

"Ra" OTOH, means evil - pure and simple.

Shuv Motzasi this chilluk mevua'r in the HaCarmel, from the Malbim,
based on his peirush to Mishlei 4:14 - Rasha applies to deeds; Ra applies
to thought and essence: "Ve'Ra kollel me she'atzmuso ra... u'lefi zeh
yetzuyar Rasha she'eino ra, retzono lomar she'eino Min [Apikores];
v'chein yesh Ra she''hu Min v'eino Rasha b'ma'asav."

Duk v'tiskach in the phrases you quote.

KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

On second thought, I believe that I have a better answer to Micah's
question on why only Yeravam ben Yoash (Jeroboam II) is mentioned as the
king of Israel together with 4 Judean kings.  All the the kings
mentioned are legitimate.  The Judean kings are all patrilinear
descendents of David who ruled in succession.  Yeravam was the third in
line of the descendants of Yehu.  Hashem had promised Yehu that he would
have 4 generations on the throne of Israel (Kings II 10: 30 and 15:
12).  His son, the last of the Yehu line, lasted only 6 months before
being assassinated.  The rest of the history of the kingdom of Israel is
a rapid downward spiral towards destruction and exile.  There were a
number of coup d'etats and short-lived monarchs.  Even the monarchs
having longer reigns such as Pekach ben Remalya (in Ahaz' time) are not
counted in Hoshea as legitimate.

Yitzchok

I recently came across a transcript of a question and answer session from a
Torah U'Mesorah convention, where R' Yaakov Weinberg, zt"l, Rosh Yeshiva of
Ner Yisroel, was asked several questions regarding women's learning.  I
thought that it was worthwhile to post it to the list in light of this
thread  (Apologies for the length.)


Q'S & A'S FROM TORAH UMESORAH CONVENTIONS: 
"YESHIVA DAY SCHOOLS" QUESTION #16:

Should Torah Shebe'al Peh be taught to girls?

ANSWER:
[This is a more difficult question for the rebbe than for the menahel...] It
is prohibited-and don't let anyone talk you into thinking that it isn't.
[And not only is it prohibited,] it is also the single-most destructive
thing that you can do.  You should know that teaching girls Torah shebe'al
peh destroys Jewish families-it's a fact.  But should you close the school
over it?  No.
Should a rebbe teach it?  No.  He has to ask a sheilah.
He doesn't have to do the ma'aseh isur.  It's asur; he shouldn't do it.  The
principal-is he a lifnai ivernik?
Could be.  But he has a question of nefashos too.  And a principal can have
one psak in such a case and a rebbe another. 

But again, besides the halachic aspect, you are doing an incredibly
destructive act by teaching Torah shebeal peh to girls.  And the reason is
obvious.

There is no single thing that can destroy Klal Yisroel more quickly and
directly than saying that boys and girls are the same.  Klal Yisroel is
built on the reality of the Ribono shel olam's creation that boys and girls
are not the same, that they have different functions, and therefore
different kochos ha'nefesh, and different ways of doing things, and
different obligations, and different purposes.  That's the basis of being
Jewish... and the basis for Jewish survival. 

It happens to be the basis of human survival [too.] Civilization can't
survive [boys and girls being the same.] But they don't care.  They are no
longer interested in civilization-they're only interested in
self-fulfillment and gratification... So to them it's no argument because it
makes no difference.  [But] there is no way that humanity and Klal Yisroel
can survive boys and girls being the same.  They have different obligations
to the Ribono shel olam, to their children, to each other, to the community.
And if they take the same, they are both destroyed. 

Therefore, to learn Torah shebeal peh with a girl is to make [boys and
girls] the same-and to destroy Klal Yisroel.  And all the sophisticated
explanations are destroying Klal Yisroel!  I don't care who the gadol is,
and how wise a man he is-he is destroying Klal Yisroel when he says that
it's alright to teach girls Torah shebeal peh.  It's not all right.  It
happens also to be a prohibition, one whose effects are immediate.

But, do you close a school over it?  Not necessarily.
But a rebbe has a real sheilah.

QUESTION #17:
What is considered Torah shebe'al peh?  What about Pirkai Avos, Rashi,
Ramban (which they learn in Bais Yaakovs)?

ANSWER:
...We sent our daughter to Gateshead and I got a letter from her.  She said,
"I can't tell you how grateful I am to you"-to my wife and me-"for sending
me here.
It's wonderful.  The atmosphere, the girls, the learning... everything!" But
one thing, she wrote.  "It was never my ambition to become a yeshiva
bochur!" And I'll tell you something.  I got a copy of her test on Hilchos
Shabbos-I wouldn't give it to my kolel yungeleit!  What do you want?-Heicha
timtzas?  That's Torah Shebeal Peh!  If they would have discussed it with me
I would have strongly advised them not to have them learn Shemiras Shabbos
Kehilchsa-it's Torah shebeal peh.  It includes heicha timtzas... But they
didn't ask me, so what should I do?  Avos is not Torah shebeal peh-its musar
and midos.  Kitzur Shulchan Aruch is not Torah shebeal peh-it's their
halachos.  Mishna Brurah I would say is Torah Shebeal Peh, though I can hear
someone else say it is not.  Ramban-definetely [Torah Shebeal Peh].  Rashi
in Mishpatim-Torah shebeal peh.  If you want to know Bava Kama, learn
through Rashi on Mishpatim and you'll have a solid basis in Mesechte Bava
Kama, and in Bava Metziah as well.
It's a real limud.  I think that the girls know [Rashi on Mishpatim] better
than the boys! 

But [the difference is that in these Bais Yaakovs] they don't feel it's the
same.  It could be that they are violating the halacha a little bit, but
it's inadvertent-[After all,] somebody told them that it's alright... But it
isn't built on the assumption that boys and girls are the same [so] you
don't have the destructiveness...


Q'S & A'S FROM TORAH UMESORAH CONVENTIONS:
"CHINUCH HA'BANOS" QUESTION #31:

The school is coed through fourth grade.  It has a strong gemara program for
the boys in grades five through eight, but, in order to prepare the boys for
the gemara program, they learn mishnayos in fourth grade while the classes
are still mixed.  Is there a problem with that in light of the fact that
girls should not be learning Torah shebe'al peh?

ANSWER:
Throughout our history we have faced extraordinary dangers, against our
physical and spiritual existence, from Korach all the way to the Kara'im and
the Maskilim.  [But] there has never been, in the whole history of k'lal
Yisroel, as dangerous an attack on k'lal Yisroel's existence as the one that
feminism presents to us today.  We have been able to survive heresy and
idolatry, but we cannot survive feminism.

You have to understand that k'lal Yisroel was given a Torah only because the
women accepted it, because without the women accepting the Torah first,
there is no way that the men can maintain it.  If the Ribono shel olam is to
form a part of the life of Jews, if there is to continue to be a covenant
between Kavyachol and ourselves, it can only be if the women of k'lal
Yisroel want the Torah and accept it.  We cannot exist without their
accepting it with enthusiasm, willingness, and desire... And it isn't simply
because they are the guides [madrichos, ro'os] and essential teachers of
Jewish children.  It is a great deal more... K'lal Yisroel lives only
through the family.  It is impossible for k'lal Yisroel to exist other than
through the family.  The goyim can somehow or other manage a little bit
without a family.  Children will be born and they will conform to the nevala
that is the goyish outlook.  But k'lal Yisroel requires a morality, an
outlook, and a value system that goes against that which is prevalent in the
population in which [it] lives.  To give over a sense of different values,
and outlooks, and purpose of life requires a family environment.  There is
no other way in which that can be transmitted. 

And family requires [that there be a] different function for the woman and
the man.  There cannot be a family in which the man and the woman are
essentially the same.  It is difficult to have a business partnership in
which both partners undertake the same work.  It is utterly and completely
impossible to have a family in which mother and father do the same thing.
It has to be that the mother undertakes a different task than the father
does, that they are not competing, that they are not involved in power
struggles, that they cannot be played off one against the other, that they
can reach consensus that doesn't come from compromise.  We all compromise,
we have to-it is the breath of all communal existence.  But you have to
understand something about compromise.  Compromise means that we know that
we are doing something wrong.

Everybody agrees that the compromise is wrong, only it is less wrong than
the other alternative.  [For example, if] Reuvain says it should be A and
Shimon says it should be B and they agree on A and a half:
Reuvain says A and a half is not right and Shimon says A and a half is not
right.  But Reuvain agrees A and a half is better than B, and Shimon agrees
that A and a half is better than A.  And so we take A and a half knowing
that it isn't really what ought to be done.

It's worth it, because you lose less with the compromise than with the tug
of war that would otherwise take place.  The argument would cost us a great
deal more than the compromise does.  And so compromise is correct and the
way to go-except within the family.  When you are raising children in
outlook, desires, and purpose there has to be consensus that does not come
from a tug of war.  And there is no way that this is going to happen if
mother and father are performing the same duties.  There has to be a
division of labor between them. 

I am saying this only to explain why we cannot possibly survive feminism.
The "why" it's wrong-that is because it is against the Torah.  The Torah
clearly and explicitly outlines the functions of the women and of the men.
And there is nothing that can be done to outsmart the Creator Himself.  No
matter how smart and just and feeling we are, we are not going to be
smarter, more merciful, or more just than Him.  In the end, He is always
right-He is the one Being who is always right.  Everybody else is something
right and sometimes wrong, but He is always right-every time, without
exception.  And of course we have to do what He says.  Idolatry and heresy
oppose what He says, but we survived it.  But this we are not going to
survive.  I am explaining this in these terms in order to [illustrate] the
severity of the danger, not in order to explain why we cannot accept it-that
is because the Torah doesn't allow it. 

The Torah teaches us that we should not establish Torah courses for girls.
But the Torah teaches us that there is an enormous difference between
offering courses in Torah shebichsav and in Torah shebe'al peh.
The Torah teaches us that offering courses in Torah shebichsav is not
desirous, but it doesn't destroy.

But giving classes in Torah shebeal peh is not just not desirous, but it is
destructive-destructive of the whole meaning, purpose, outlook, and desires
of a Jewish woman.  And therefore the gedolai Yisroel, in their incredible
vision, understood that in a time when women were exposed to all kinds of
foreign winds, it was necessary to do that which was not particularly
desirable, but not destructive-to provide them with classes in Torah
shebichasav.  But you cannot say that the time requires giving classes in
Torah shebe'al peh, because that is destructive.  It teaches her tiflus, it
takes away her relationship to Torah, morality, and avodas Hashem.  You
cannot use a hora'as sha'ah to feed a person pork and say that somehow or
other he will recover his purity.  It isn't going to happen.  You cannot be
destructive.  Therefore teaching classes to girls in Torah shebe'al peh is
prohibited, destructive, and undermines the existence of k'lal Yisroel.

This is the truth.  I wish there were a way to somehow or other overcome it
but there isn't.  It is the truth established by He who created the
universe.  There is no way to outsmart or undercut him.  Therefore we have
to live with this fact, that we cannot possibly have proper Jewish schools
in which women are offered courses in Torah shebe'al peh.  It is a
contradiction in terms.  And if you find that so called gedolim say
differently, rabosay, what should I do-sheker hu!  It is absolute falsehood.
There is no possibility of k'lal Yisroel living with schools that teach its
daughters Torah shebe'al peh.  You cannot outsmart the Torah, it can't be
done, because if it could be done, we don't need a Torah at all.  If the
Torah is not correct it is not a Torah.  The Torah has always been correct,
and it is correct in this too.  We cannot live with offering girls Torah
shebe'al peh.

Now you'll say but it's a fact that we do.  That's true.  But I'm going to
make a terrible statement and ask you to check it out.  The reason that
schools that do offer their girls Torah shebe'al peh have managed to put out
wonderful Jewish daughters is because, baruch Hashem, the girls don't bother
learning it anyway.  That's the truth.  They're too smart.  They have the
instinct, the feeling that this is nonsense and wrong, and most, baruch
Hashem, just ignore it.  And that is what makes it possible for these
schools that violate this halacha and are doing something destructive to
succeed, baruch Hashem, in many cases anyway.  But please check it out.
It's always the girls who boruch Hashem rejected it mentally, didn't bother,
didn't care, that in the end come out fine. 

If I have to answer the question, it is better that the boys never see a
gemara than to teach the boys and the girls gemara together.  It is far, far
better.
The boys will survive not having seen a gemara.  B'ezer Hashem yisborech
they will come to a yeshiva and will start with a certain handicap of
course.  They would have been able to do better if they had [seen a gemara],
but they'll survive.  But to teach the girls the gemara is not going to
survive.  If you have to make a choice of either not teaching the boys or
the girls or of teaching both, make the choice of teaching neither.  You'll
be much better off in regards to building Jewish neshamas. 

From: Gil.Student@citicorp.com
>I don't have a source, but it sounds like an explanation of what will lead 
>up to "Ve'alu moshi'im behar tzion lishpot es har eisav".

[I took the liberty of editing a rather long d'var Torah to skip straight
to RNA's translation of the relevent quote. The quote comes from ... -mi]

... a volume named "Yalkut Haro'im" which was printed in 1885 C.E. It
contains a collection of volumes including: "The Wellspring of Wisdom"
(attributed to Moses), "Tractate of Atzilut," "Tractate Gehinom,"
and others. It also includes "The Book of Eliyahu and the Chapters of
Mashiach." In that volume...

"And Israel will say to the king of the Arabs, 'The Temple is ours --
take gold and silver, and leave the Temple to us.'

And the Arab king will say 'You have no claim to this Temple. However,
if you will first choose an offering, as you did in days of old, and we
will also present an offering. And we will all become part of the nation
whose offering is accepted.'

Israel will present their offering and it will NOT be accepted, because
Satan will prosecute us in front of G-d.

And the sons of Kedar will present their offering and it will be accepted,
as the verse states: 'All the sheep of Kedar will gather together to you'.
Then, the Arabs will say to Israel, 'Come, believe in our faith.'

And Israel will answer, 'We will kill, or be killed, but we will not
Deny the Essence' [1].

Then, swords will be unsheathed, bows will be drawn, arrows will be fired,
and corpses will be felled from the Gate of Efraim till the Gate of Pinah.
And Nechemiah [2] will be among those that are killed.

Those who escape will flee to the desert of Moav and to the land of the
Sons of Amon.

There, the Israeli refugees will remain, and G-d will perform miracles
for them there, and a wellspring will emerge from the depths, etc., and
they will eat the roots of thorn bushes, for forty five days. At the end
of forty five days, Eliyahu and King Mashiach will sprout from there,
etc., etc. [3]"

NOTES

1: One of the forms of "Denying the Essence" is rejection of the Torah
-- joining the Arabs belief system would mean accepting the Quran which
differs significantly from the Torah.

2: This "Nechemiah" is almost certainly the "Nechemiah ben Chushiel,
from the tribe of Efraim ben Yosef" referred to in Batei Midrashot,
Pirkei Hechalot Rabati, chapters 39 and 40 -- better known as "Mashiach
ben Yosef."

3: This incident of "fleeing to the desert for forty five days" can also
be found in Midrash Rabbah, Bemidbar 11, second paragraph.

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


[ 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         ]