Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 063

Monday, December 11 2000

• Re: Badekin
• Re: Badekin
• al yilbash
• Re: Woman and learning
• Re: Woman and learning
• RE: Woman and learning
• RE: Woman and learning
• RE: Woman and learning
• Administrivia: 18,000 posts
• Badekin
• RE: Badekin
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• Re: Parhas Vayetzei
• Urn Halacha
• Re: Urn Halacha
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Yaakov and Leah
• RE: Woman and learning
• Re: What Makes Rashi so Beloved
• RE: Intent in Get
• Get vs kiddushin
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• RE: Parhas Vayetzei
• RE: Yaakov and Leah

In a message dated 12/10/2000 8:29:57 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
MIKE38CT@aol.com writes:
> Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the 
> badekin by the m'sader kedushin?
 
> Are there any halachic implications of the badekin needing to be witnessed by 
> two kosher eidim?

No-but this is the position of the mordechai in ketubot - that nissuin 
actually takes place at the badekin (vs. Rama who says it takes place under 
the chuppah and the Rambam who says it takes place at yichud)

KT,
Joel Rich

MIKE38CT@aol.com wrote:
> Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the
> badekin by the m'sader kedushin?

I was once at a wedding where a good friend (OR) was m'sader kedushin
and did not conduct a bedeken. When I asked about this, he asked me if I
wanted to make a mockery of this ceremony, meaning they have been living
together so what would bedeken mean.

over the weekend I did some searching (my encyclopedic knowledge of shut
combined with that of the Bar Ilan CD Rom :-) and found that ROY dealt with
my issue(do we look at Jews or non-Jewish practice) in Yabia Omer chelek
vav, y"d, siman 14(yes-it is the pants tshuva) He quotes authorities and
arguments(the same as we discussed) both ways.

KT,
Joel Rich

Learning Torah is the most supreme act a Jew can do. 

The Mishna in Sotah states that teaching one's Daughter Torah is the
same as teaching her Tiflus. Nobody is sure exactly what Tiflus is
but it is pretty much agreed that it is a negative thing to do. But,
aside from the legalistic definitions and distinctions made by Poskim,
I believe that IF anything at all is Assur, it is a man teaching a woman.
But a Woman learning from other women or on her own should not be assur
at all on any subject including all of Mikra, Mishna, or Gemmarah. In
cases of exceptional women, or in certain specific situations, I would
hazard a guess that it would even be mutar for a man to teach Gemarah
to a woman. Ceratinly Halacha should be universally Mutar to teach women.


This whole thread is troublesome to me. The debate about the legalistic
aspects of women learning sounds a bit like the argument the Bush
surroagates use about the legitimacy of votes. It is really Gore's
argument that carries the most weight with me: What is most important
is that anyone who voted should have his/her vote counted. The sanctity
of the vote should overide all other considerations.

So, too, here. The issue of women learning Torah should have nothing to
do with what a woman's role in Judaism is. On this issue, the only thing
the Torah does do is define both the roles of men and of women. That men
are required to learn and women are not, is not the issue. The issue is
not Chiuv. We all know that women are Aino Metzuveh. The issue is Reshus.

Frankly it is inexplicable to me that anyone who has any kind of brain
should be forbidden to delve into even the greatest intricacies of
Torah study. As long as one fulfills their destiny as a man or a woman
one should be able to use discretionary time in the way which he or she
understands is the best use of that time. If a woman loves learning a
piece of Brisker Torah, what possible harm could there be? Why should
a woman be denied the joy of understanding a R. Chaim? Or being able to
be Mechadesh her own Torah?

I do not believe for a minute that women who are serious about learning
Torah do so as militant feminists. Nor do I believe that the learning
of Torah by women will do irreparable harm to Torah Judaism.

While it is true that a femminist Agenda should not be the cause for such
learning and there are some femminists who learn for just that reason,
I still feel that any serious student of any gender should not be banned
from that field of study. The positive benefits of serious Torah study
outwiegh the negative debits of insincere motivation.

Militant Femminism will die the same death that other such movements
over the centuries have. Torah Judaism has survived a lot worse attack
than that.

HM

On Sun, Dec 10, 2000 at 10:07:44PM -0800, Harry Maryles wrote:
: Learning Torah is the most supreme act a Jew can do. 

This actually gets us back to temimus vs deveikus, and the whole
discussion as to stopping your learning periodically to think about yir'as
Shamayim (see <http://www.aishdas.org/avodah/vol02/v02n106.shtml#14>,
search within the article for the heading "Contrasting a Chasid and
a Misnaged".) I'll take it as a given that learning Torah is arguably
the most supreme act, and if not it's certainly in the top 5.

It's possible that women are supposed to take the chassidic approach even
according to R' Chaim.

...
: This whole thread is troublesome to me. The debate about the legalistic
: aspects of women learning sounds a bit like the argument the Bush
: surroagates use about the legitimacy of votes...

Except for the fact that in American law, we generally tailor the letter
of the law to fit what we reconstruct the spirit of the law (and the founding
fathers' intent) to be. Or at least, this is the liberal Judicial attitude,
and can be justifiable with American law.

Halachah is divine. Which means that even the non-chukim have an element
of chok -- we can't possibly fathom what HKBH intended, or what He inspired
others to intend (niskatnu hadoros). But we do know that He constructed
halachah as exactly to the spirit of the law as possible. Therefore, with
halachah, one goes from the letter of the law to the hashkafah; and not
the other way around.

In 19 Letters, RSRH calls this the true science of Judaism -- constructing
theories about how the world works based on the halachic data. In
constrast to Geiger's approach, which is alchemy -- editing the data to
fit the theory. RYBS referred to this process as halachic hermeneutics,
stressing the fact that we are only learning ideas from the structure
of the mitzvah, not providing a foundation.

IOW, the only way we can reliably build a hashkafic shitah about women and
learning is to look at the implications of all those details of the
halachah.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 When you come to a place of darkness,
micha@aishdas.org            you do not chase out the darkness with a broom.
http://www.aishdas.org       You light a candle.
(973) 916-0287                  - R' Yekusiel Halberstam of Klausenberg zt"l

I wrote:
> But the Chafetz Chaim only advocated teaching women the basics (and 
> perhaps the more advanced) of yiddishkeit so that they would recognize 
> that Judaism is profoundly true.
     
Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> How does the "Lonely Woman of Faith" learn to recognize that Judasim is 
> profoundly true? How does one teach Yiddiskeit in a way to recognize
> it is profoundly true? What are the implications here in practical terms?
     
I am not discussing the education of women and what they need to know in order 
to be secure in their faith.  Let's assume that they receive that in their many 
years of primary and secondary education, perhaps even in post-graduate programs
in Jewish learning or maybe even in some sort of kollel.

I am talking about normal life AFTER that education.  The husband still has a 
chiyuv to learn Torah day and night even if he already knows kol haTorah kulah. 
The woman does not.

Gil Student

Harry Maryles
> Learning Torah is the most supreme act a Jew can do. 

...
> aside from the legalistic definitions and distinctions made by Poskim,
> I believe that IF anything at all is Assur, it is a man teaching a woman.
> But a Woman learning from other women or on her own should not be assur
> at all on any subject including all of Mikra, Mishna, or Gemmarah. In
> cases of exceptional women, or in certain specific situations, I would
> hazard a guess that it would even be mutar for a man to teach Gemarah
> to a woman. Ceratinly Halacha should be universally Mutar to teach women.

My explanation of RSYW is that it is wrong-minded to TEACH woman Torah
in terms of imposing or indoctrinating them into Lamdus.

If follows that it is qualitatively different if the woman herself takes
the initiative. But to force women into a role of leaning might be
what is counterproductive. AISI, women have the option to learn torah
and therefore the option NOT to learn Torah and to remain in a more
traditional/conventional role.

OTOH, men do NOT have the option. men are obligated to pursue Torah
and therefore a farther MUST teach his some Torah. But to teach is
daughter Torah is tiflus - imho - WHEN initiated out of the same sense
of obligation.

If you see what RSYW was saying, AND add the context that schools are
forcing women into lamdus via their curriculum, it all adds up.

Now to be intellectually honest, I don't know what RSYW intended and
implied. I am indeed inferring. Yet others have pointed out that some
of RSYW own relatives have had advanced learning. The issue then is
imho having a curriculum around lamdus as opposed to having an optional
"advanced placement" - type course in lamdus?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Micha Berger
> Halachah is divine. Which means that even the non-chukim have an element
> of chok -- we can't possibly fathom what HKBH intended, or what He inspired
> others to intend (niskatnu hadoros). But we do know that He constructed
> halachah as exactly to the spirit of the law as possible. Therefore, with
> halachah, one goes from the letter of the law to the hashkafah; and not
> the other way around.
<snip>

Lav davka, Prozbol yochiach

So does writing down TSBP.

A ger not marrying a former sibling is another.

While I do agree with you generally, nevertheless there are meta-issues
that do place a challenge on this.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Just thought you would want to know that we just passed the 18,000 email
mark this morning.

-mi

From: MIKE38CT@aol.com
> Has anyone ever been to a wedding where two witnesses were required for the
> badekin by the m'sader kedushin?

	I've never seen it, but considering that badekin is considered
to be chupa by some rishonim, it might make it to the chumra of the
month club.

	Rabbi Yisrael Reisman once speculated on the implications of
having a few more kibudim to give out......

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

> I was once at a wedding where a good friend (OR) was m'sader kedushin
> and did not conduct a bedeken. When I asked about this, he asked me if I
> wanted to make a mockery of this ceremony, meaning they have been living
> together so what would bedeken mean.

Given: there is no aveilus befarhesyo on Shabbos
and
Given that the Chassunah day is mecahppeir, then aren't the Chosson/Kallah
are entitled to a clean slate?

Isn't omitting the badekken a public display?  Seems to me that: 
1)There is either more to this story 
or
2) Thise OR omitted this badekken in bad taste.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

R' Yitzchak Hollander replied:
> It doesn't say that he went to sleep in the same place.  It doesn't even
> say that he went back to sleep.  Perhaps he moved a few feet over, but
> close enough to put up the matzeva in the morning.  Or perhaps the dream
> happened close enough to sunrise that he didn't need to go back to sleep.

	However even if you say he didn't go back to sleep-what was he
doing? Was he just lying there not doing anything?

> One issue that I wonder about (semi-derech-chidud) every year in Parshat
> Vayyetze is how "vayyishaq yaakov lerachel" (29:11) is explained to
> schoolchildren.  While obviously this is before Ma'amad Har Sinai,
> hayitachen that Yaakov Avinu would kiss someone he's not married to?

	Isn't there a medrash that Rochel was 4 or 5? If that's the case she
wouldn't be a niddah and there should be no issur. 

YH:
> While obviously this is before Ma'amad Har Sinai,
> hayitachen that Yaakov Avinu would kiss someone he's not married to?

Here is my take:
There are kisses and then there are kisses. After all Lavan kissed
Yaakov, too. Bepashtus this kiss was a form of greeting - probably
common in the region in that era - and was not romantic (iow not derech
chibah).

And remember Esav Kisses Yaakov in Vayishlach. So if Yaakov did indeed
do anything wrong by kissing Racchel, then he was punished mida kneged
mida by getting a kiss from Esav - and yes I am kidding! <smile>

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 09:39:10AM -0500, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
: 	Isn't there a medrash that Rochel was 4 or 5? If that's the case she
: wouldn't be a niddah and there should be no issur. 

The medrash is that she's 3. I believe the motivation is that Yitzchak as
both bechor and as the ne'ekad had the din of a kohein. He therefore
couldn't marry someone who was a shevuyah bein ha'amim or a giyores after
the age of 3.

BTW, I generally take these halachic games with medrashim more as a
statement that Chazal's meshalim couldn't be examples of people doing
issurim than an insistance that the historical facts were as presented.
(As per the Rambam on medrashei aggadah.)

Anyone see a problem with this approach?

-mi

From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
> So, what I did was to have her turn the hot
> water faucet on with her elbow, and spray hot water from the sink into the
> urn (the hot water is more than yad soledes bo).

A.  You are assuming that heating from yad soledes bo upward is not assur?

B.  Once you tell her to do it beshinui, she can do it kedarka, since that
    is now her own tzorech.

C.  Did the urn have a pipe to show the level of the water?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com

At 09:42 AM 12/11/00 -0500, Gershon Dubin wrote:
>From: "Yosef Gavriel and Shoshanah M. Bechhofer" <sbechhof@casbah.acns.nwu.edu>
>> So, what I did was to have her turn the hot
>> water faucet on with her elbow, and spray hot water from the sink into the
>> turn (the hot water is more than yad soledes bo).

>         A.  You are assuming that heating from yad soledes bo upward is not
>assur?

Above the higher shiur, yes.

>         B.  Once you tell her to do it beshinui, she can do it 
> kedarka,  since that is now her own tzorech.

Good point.

>         C.  Did the urn have a pipe to show the level of the water?

No. Staying out of that machlokes!
KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org      http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> C.  Did the urn have a pipe to show the level of the water?
> No. Staying out of that machlokes!

	I was kind of fishing for clarification on that machlokes.
I asked, when I bought an urn, what to do, and was told that if I could
return the one I had bought with the level, I should. I could and did.

However, I have been at many functions where many people use these either
because they hold it's mutar or because they never thought about it.
Can you amplify without taking sides?

Gershon
gdubin@loebandtroper.com
gershon.dubin@juno.com 

Markowitz, Chaim
> Yaakov misunderstood Leah's intentions. He felt she wasn't his correct zivug
> and was trying to trick her way into his family. Leah responded that yuo
> have it wrong-I acted l'shem shamayim. ...
> I heard from Rav Aharon Feldman last week that we see this play out through
> the shavatim. The bnei Leah were shepards-involved in Olam Hazeh while Yosef
> and Binyamin were home learning with Yaakov. 

Maybe Yaakov favored Rachel over Leah to ensure that Yosef would be
perceived as THE bechor. Recall that the birth of Yosef precipated
Yaakov's first try at going home.

And this would explain how the older brothers grew resentful. Yaakov was
making a statement, that just as Yitzchak was favored over Yishmael
because Sara was Avraham's ikkar zivvug, similarly, Yosef supercedes
Reuven et. al. because Rachel is the ikkar zivug. He might actually
have had nothign against Leah per se, just as Avraham might have had
nothing against Hagar per se.

Of course looking back, we are not comfortable with Yaakov's "agenda",
becasue all 12 sehvatim are kosher - unlike Yishmael. However, Yaakov
is really very consistent from day one that Yoseph is IT, and when Yoseif
disappers, Binyamin is IT.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Gil.Student@citicorp.com:
> Unbelievable as it may seem, for thousands of years Jewish women have
> managed to maintain their belief and faith in Hashem without having a
> seder kavua. Certainly, saying Tehillim does the trick also....

You know, I wonder where you all get this idea? If you go back in time,
while there may have been less Nevi'ot than Nevi'im -- they did exist,
and you couldn't become a Navi or Nevi'a just be saying Tehilim....

I recall a mention in the sources that at the time of Chizkiya women and
men were experts in all Hilchot Taharot. Again, you couldn't know this
without learning.

From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM>
> Undoubtedly, one cannot prove that the CC would support advanced learning
> for women.  However, it is clear that one cannot argue that what Jewish
> women did for thousands of years is relevant.  For thousands of years, women
> did not study even the basics, yet the CC advocated change.  Once it is
> agreed that change is necessary, the issue is one of degree.  You yourself
> cited the article by R. Meir Twersky on this point where he argued that the
> difference between RYBS (who started the Talmud shiur for women at Stern
> College) and CC was one of degree, rather than of kind.

If we check out the situation of learning of men at that time, we find
that not every person went to Yeshiva for years (as is customary today).
You didn't have Yeshivot with thousands of students. If you were lucky,
you had a few hundred.

One of the problems with the Haskala at one time and with emigration to
the States at others was that men didn't know sufficient Jewish philosophy
or Talmud to cope with the "modern" world and it's travailles either.

So, practically speaking, we always had women who were quoted by our
sages and respected for their knowledge, and womem who knew little beyond
prayers and halacha that their mothers taught them. And we also always
had men were knowledgeable and became our sages and rabbis and leaders --
and men who were Burim and Amei Aratzot. None of this is new.

What is new is the idea that men and women have to be taught _the same_
b/c of outside influences.

The result, to my mind, is unhappy. Jewish women, daughters of Israel
are expected to continue to fulfill "their" roles, but study is either
generalized or has become focused on the roles men are expected to fill.

When a rabbi says that you are not allowed to teach women Torah SheBe'al
Peh -- does he mean that women cannot be taught to read Torah, as the
Nikud is part of the Oral Torah? Does he mean that women cannot be
taught the Avot Melacha of Shabbat, which are also Oral Torah? If the
only thing forbidden to learn is actually the Shakla and Tarya, that
still leaves oceans of Jewish knowledge that women can learn and can
enhance everyone's lives as Jews.

BTW, I'm still waiting for some Vorts from the learned rabbis here on
housekeeping, Mitzvat Noy, Hadlakat Neirot and all the other actions a
jewish woman, a daughter of Israel is expected to do.

Shoshana L. Boublil

(Reply to R. Richard Wolpoe)

Recent research shows that "eini yodea ma melamdeinu" (in our versions of
Rashi, end of Toldot) is a tosefet from Rav Shmaya, Rashi's right hand man,
who served as a sounding board for Rashi's ideas. In close to 60 places Rashi
asked him to change something "Kach Tzivani Rabi Lehagiah." These findings
are from the Leipzig 1 manuscript, which was copied by a reliable scribe from
Rav Smaya's own manuscript. For more on this, see Avraham Grossman's book,
Chachmei Tzarfat Harishonim.

Of course, I'm not debating your main point. Rav Shmaya probably learned
his humility from Rashi's great example.

Daniel

Micha Berger:
>     how can someone have kavanah for a get if he doesn't believe in
> the concept of gittin?

Here is a quasi Brisker approach:

Kavvanah is required that the baal is freely giving a get. to whom it
is given, etc.
However, no kavvanh is needed by the ba'al that he concurs with the
meta-issues of halachic efficacy of Toras Gittin. Anan sahadi that he
is DOING a ma'ase. the only clarification required is to be mevareir is
he giving it of his own free will, and perhaps that he intends to give a
"get" and not some other writ. For whatever reason unbeknownst to me,
we don't care if he is a believer in the process.

BTW, this is based upon my expereince of being an ed several times.
At no time was the ba'al queried: "Do you believe in Toras Gittin and
the authority of this beis din to be mekayyem this get?" Instead there
were formulaic questions about the ba'als' free will. The BD did not
ask nor did it concern itself with verifying the ba'al's philosophy as
to the efficacy of the process.

Now the next question might be WHY does this not matter? But it is clear
to me that halachically it does not matter, and aisi it is because that
kind of kavvanah is not needed, the ma'ase supercedes it.

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

As a comparison, aren't we meikil by a couple who think they are married
by a non-halachic ceremony? That bi'ah never had kavannah for kiddushin
because he thinks he's married already?

In this case he says nothing.  By get he explicitly states that he is giving
a get for divorce.

Yours truly,
Shlomo Goldstein

Yitzchak Hollander wrote:
> While obviously this is before Ma'amad Har Sinai,
> hayitachen that Yaakov Avinu would kiss someone he's not married to?
     
Rich Wolpoe wrote:
> There are kisses and then there are kisses. After all Lavan kissed 
> Yaakov, too. Bepashtus this kiss was a form of greeting - probably 
> common in the region in that era - and was not romantic (iow not 
> derech chibah).
     
See another example of this kind of kissing in Avodah 17a.  The She'arim 
Metzuyanim Bahalachah on that daf goes through the poskim regarding negiah shelo
bederech chibah.

This brings into question the custom in certain areas of greeting with a kiss on
the cheek and whether it is mutar.  I'm not so sure that it isn't.

Gil Student

On 11 Dec 2000, at 10:18, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> There are kisses and then there are kisses. After all Lavan kissed
> Yaakov, too. Bepashtus this kiss was a form of greeting - probably
> common in the region in that era - and was not romantic (iow not derech
> chibah).

I believe at least one of the mfarshim says that he kissed her on the shoulder 
in an attempt to show that it was not derech chiba. 


On 11 Dec 2000, at 9:39, Markowitz, Chaim wrote:
>> One issue that I wonder about (semi-derech-chidud) every year in Parshat
>> Vayyetze is how "vayyishaq yaakov lerachel" (29:11) is explained to
>> schoolchildren....

> 	Isn't there a medrash that Rochel was 4 or 5? If that's the case she
> wouldn't be a niddah and there should be no issur. 

Why wouldn't she be? Isn't the din by kusi that they are nidos b'arisa? Since 
(presumably) Rachel was not yet misgayeres, wouldn't she have the same 
din, even if she was 4 or 5 (or 3 as someone else said)?

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

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

On 11 Dec 2000, at 10:27, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
> Maybe Yaakov favored Rachel over Leah to ensure that Yosef would be
> perceived as THE bechor. Recall that the birth of Yosef precipated
> Yaakov's first try at going home.

Wasn't that connected to Mashiach ben Yosef being the one to defeat Eisav, 
and not to questions of bchora?

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

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

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


[ 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         ]