Avodah Mailing List

Volume 06 : Number 066

Wednesday, December 13 2000

• RE: Mitzvos in Israel?
• Re: Woman and learning
• RE: Female Rabbis
• Rav Weinberg on chinuch
• Subject: Re: Women and Hanukkah lights
• Ner Chanuka
• Re: Badeken
• Re: Badeken
• "vayyishaq yaakov lerachel"
• What Makes Rashi so Beloved
• MIRESISHIS HASHONO...
• Re: Get vs kiddushin
• Blech?
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Kelayim
• TY and gezeros
• Ner Chanuka
• Re: Ner Chanuka
• Re: Women and Hanukkah lights
• Tehillim
• Re: Rav Weinberg on chinuch
• RE: Urn Halacha
• RE: Badekin

At 04:45 PM 12/12/00 -0500, Moshe wrote:
>None at all?  Difficult to believe.  I seem to recall that Nefesh Harav
>quotes RYBS saying that the kedusha of the land has continued since the time
>of Avraham.

Forgive me RMF, but another, small, manifestation of the horizons that were 
not opened before you.

This is not RYBS, but RCS himself - check the Grach Stencil on Gittin, and 
the Brisker chilluk between kedushas ha'aretz l'inyan mitzvos and the 
concept of Eretz Yisroel muchzekes lanu mei'Avoseinu.

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

From: Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org>
> Do we really know that? Nevu'ah is some kind of gnostic experience, how
> are you going to get it out of texts? R' Aryeh Kaplan held the key to
> nevu'ah was to meditate on deveikus. Again, nothing to do with having
> a seder kavu'ah in a text.

And yet Shabbat 92 states explicitly the conditions of Nevu'a and we
know that the term "Ashir" does not mean rich in material things, but
rather spiritually rich, or "Eizehu Ashir -- HaSame'ach BeChelko".  If
you just read Tehilim without understanding what you are reading and
internalizing the messages of Tikun Midot found therein, then I doubt
you can reach the levels the G'mara talks about.

The term Bnei Nivi'im is found in many places.  It refers to people
who prepared themselves for Nevu'a.  Once again, I doubt that this was
only study of texts or only meditation.  It probably involved study of
texts and internalizing the Torah Kulla so that the person changed
(Tikun Midot).

Actually one of the problems that exist today is that too many learn
the texts -- but leave the contents in the yeshiva... but that is
another problem.

> I might even argue that mimeticism has more fundamental impact on
> an existential level and is therefore MORE likely to be the key to
> nevu'ah than textual learning does.

Actually, going on what we know today of mimeticism I must disagree.
One of the basic problems of the Sephardi communities on coming to
Israel was that their Yeshivot were not re-opened when they came, and
the kids were left with only the basic mimetics of what their parents
taught them.  People were raised to keep mitzvot Mitzvat Anashim
without understanding or knowledge, and when someone presented them
with logical reasons to leave, they left as they had no answers to
counter with.  Very few managed to battle the system, and find their
way to existing Yeshivot here in Israel back then.  (The situation now
is obviously very different.)

>: 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.

> To get back to the old standby, does expertise in Hil Taharos imply textual
> learning, or mimetic learning? If everyone was makpid in Hil Taharos,
> people would pick it up without opening texts.

From my experience discussing this with women who learned only
mimetically (if alive they would be in their 70s or 80s now) -- they
complained bitterly that as soon as an obstacle arose to their keeping
a mitzva, it fell by the wayside b/c it had never become part of their
soul and spirit.  There is much basic knowledge that has nothing to do
with Shakla and Tarya and which would greatly enhance women's
connection to Hashem.

> Note that the medrash is implying gender roles to the two kinds of
> chinuch. While the father is mechuyav in formal chinuch, the mimetic
> stuff you are expected to pick up "at your mother's knee".

But what does the mimetic "stuff" include?  Only "do not tear paper on
Shabbat";  "do not open the bathroom light on Shabbat" or does it
contain more?  Should it contain the understanding that by lighting
candles we are bringing Shalom to our home and to the world and why
this is so? (see Rav HaLevy in Makor Chayim) Should it contain the
knowledge that every time a woman sweeps the floor after the kids
dropped the cookie crumbs for the 1000th time -- she is actually
keeping Mitzvat Noy and not just "cleaning so it will be clean....".

> For the same reason, I wonder if there were actually fewer nevi'os than
> nevi'im. Or, just fewer that we know of.

> Yes, a message that is to be recorded lidoros in a text as part of
> mussar /avicha/ was far more likely to be given to a man. However,
> how much of who we are and how we live on a mimetic level isn't the
> "writings" of nevios?

Interesting idea.
[del]

>: 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.

> One would think that such divrei Torah would better come from the people
> who are actually living, thinking about, and being inspired by that
> lifestyle. Asking a bunch of men to project themselves and see what they
> can find is a much harder task.

Actually you have hit the nail on the head -- raising the issue of
what was created first -- the egg or the chicken.

Such Divrei torah should come from "people who are actually  living
...by that lifestyle"-- namely women.  But the women aren't taught the
knowledge necessary to create such Divrei Torah (wasn't another thread
about the lack of Tzni'us of a woman saying a Dvar Torah or Chiddushei
Torah at all?)!

So, we don't know ourselves.  All our knowledge comes from what men
are deciding to teach us -- and then we shouldn't turn to the same men
when we feel a lack?

And yes, women in Israel are taking up the mantle that is discussed in
Kol HaTor and developing Tikune Midot in conjunction with
housecleaning and cooking etc. -- but any philosophy or hashkaffa has
to be based on Torah, and I fear that at some point problems may arise
b/c  the rabbis aren't giving sufficient support, as this response,
and the general response on this list has shown.

Shoshana L. Boublil

The Chinuch 152 is a ra'ayah to RSYW. Note his lashon: It app;ies to *all* 
zecharim and to *isha* ha're'uyah l'horos.

Diyuk:

All men have the "potential" to be poskim.

Not so all women.

Intrinsic difference with exceptions.

QED

YGB

From transcript of Rav SY Weinberg's Q&A:
> Rabosai, halachically speaking you should learn with your sons because you
> have an obligation to learn with your sons. But practically speaking-equal
> time! Listen to me carefully, please. We are living in an age where the
> most important thing we, as parents, have going for us is the personal
> contact and caring we have with our children. ...

Beautiful!

Interesting concept that although v'shinantam l'vanecha applies to sons
only, general chinuch applies to both genders.  Can anyone provide mekoros
(anyone have Children in Halacha handy)?

Also, does R Weinberg imply that if you feel that you have a good
relationship with your daughter (and she's not the rebellious type), it's
better to spend more time learning with your son?

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Regarding the minhag of women not lighting themselves - see Chasam Sofer
Shabbos 21b (D"H V'hamehadrin) who connects it with the original halacha
of lighting outside b'zman hashas, which would make it a old minhag!

Chaim G. Steinmetz
cgsteinmetz@juno.com

The MB in Biur Halacha says that a koton shehigia lechinuch need not light
an additional candle each night,  but only the one candle of mehadrin.  Is
this common practice?  I myself have never seen this;  it would presumably
be impossible to convince the koton to do so.

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

From: "" <sethm37@hotmail.com>
> I was at two weddings where RYBS had the hoson appoint 'edim for the
> bedeken, but I was at others where he did not. When I asked him once, he
> said it was in order to teach the hoson (and the other guests) that there is
> such an opinion. IOW, to teach a little Torah at the wedding, that people
> shouldn't think that weddings are just empty ceremony...

Rav Schachter makes a similar comment in Nefesh Harav.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

> At any rate, coming back to Michael's question, RYBS did not say that 'edim
> for the badeken are l'iquva, and sometimes he didn't do it, so from his
> position, as least as far as I understood it, there would be no halakhic
> implications if it weren't done.

For what it's worth, RYBS was mesader kedushin at my wedding and did not 
insist on eidim at the badekin.  

Interestingly, he "grilled" me for what seemed like five minutes to ascertain 
that the ring was mine.  He asked who paid for it, how I paid for it, whether 
I used a check or cash, where it was from the time it was purchased until 
that moment, and he even asked if I had the receipt.

Mark Dratch

From: "Markowitz, Chaim" <CMarkowitz@scor.com>
> 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.

I didn't know of this Midrash - but thought up the following - based on
a similar idea.

Q 1. Hayitochen YO kisses his cousin?

Q 2. Yaakov said Bitcho "Hak'tana" whilst later Lovon said Lo'seis
"Hatze'iro" lifnei hab'chiro. Why the different leshonos?

Q 3. Why did Yaakov - no 'yungermantchik' by now - agree to wait 7 years
before the wedding? Why not marry first and then work off his 7 years?

Q 4. 7 years later when Lovon cheated him with Leah, he married Rochel
a week later - this time (when he already had a wife and the possiblity
to have children) - there was no years of waiting. Why the different
arrangement now?

But if we accept that Rochel was a still a young child at the time -
'alles iz farentfered'.

1) Kissing your 5 year old cousin is no big deal.

2) At the time she was a 'ketana' - 7 years later she was no longer a
'ketana' but ''hatzeiro'.

3) At the age of 5 she was simply too young to get married and

4) 7 years later - she was of a marriagable age and there was no need
to wait any longer.

(I realise that this little Q&A is so poshut that probably 'es shteyt')

SBA

From: "Wolpoe, Richard" <richard_wolpoe@ibi.com>
> In Toldos, 28:5 Rashi comments re: Eim Yaakov v'Esav (the mother of
> Jacob and Esau)

> "Eini Yodea ma melamdeinu".

There is a very interesting sefer called Ginzei Yosef (vol 2) by Rav Yosef
Scheinberger shlit'a, the secretary of the Edah Hacharedis which is a
collection of interesting Rashi's from the entire T'nach and Shas.

It is a likut of every Rashi (not always Rashi originals) from which one may
learn something - either about Rashi himself or a comment/halocho/mussar etc. -
which the average learner would simply 'skip through' without giving it too
much thought. Additionally RYS gives each piece a heading in 2-3 words to
bring the uniqueness of this Rashi to our attention and often emphasises a
word in Rashi in bold type.

He brings quite a few (including the above) with the heading "Anivus Rashi".

It is a fascinating collection - which can be studied on its own - without
actually looking up the original Gemoro or Posuk.

(Volume 1 of this sefer is a similar collection but is taken from many
s'forim and meforshim - Rishonim and Achronim.)

---

BTW I saw a pshat from Tosefes Brocho (Mibaal Torah Temimah) answering
Rashi's question - why the Torah states that Lovon was Rivkah's brother.

He suggests, that, 'lechoreh' how could Yitzchok send Yaakov to Lovon -
wasn't he afraid that Lovon would be a bad influence on him?

However, Yitzchok knew that Yaakov was a tzaddik. Also he was under the
impression that Eisov was OK.

And as we know, most sons follow the traits of 'achei ho'em - in this
case Lovon.

And that is what the Torah is telling us: 'Vayishlach Yitzchok es Yaakov...el
Lovon' - and the reason is, because he was 'Achi Rivkoh' - and if Rivko's
sons turned out right - therefore he is obviously OK himself.

SHLOMO B ABELES

From: "Newman,Saul Z"
> i don't have it in front of me , but is there not the pshat of the satmer
> rebbe on the pasuk in dvarim 'einei hashem mreishit HAshana ad sof shana'
> explainig that each person starts the year saying this will be the year
> that i do a tshuva shlema, but by the end of the year it turns out to
> be not HAshana, but just like all the previous oness that were short of
> the mark....

I haven't checked my Stone Chumash either, but that vort AFAIK is not
from the Satmar Rebbe z'l but from one of his ancestors - either the
Yetev Lev z'l or the Yismach Moshe z'l.

The way I heard it was - that at the beginning of each year, we expect
and hope it will be 'HA'shono - THE year of our Geulah. However at the
end of the year we realise that it was another plain and usual year: -

M'reishis (at the beginning - we are confident it will be) HASHONO,

Ad achris - (but at the end - it is just a:) Shonoh.

To this the Satmar Rebbe added: from the K'dusha - Mussaf on Shabbos
(Nussach S'fard): "Hein Go'alti Eschem" - the year that Hashem sends
us the Geula,
"Achris" - the end of the year, "Ko'reishis" - will be similar to its
beginning...it being 'HA'shono...

Kein Yehi Rotzon

SBA

On Mon, Dec 11, 2000 at 07:45:54PM +0200, S. Goldstein quoted MSB and wrote:
>:> As a comparison, aren't we meikil by a couple who think they are married
>:> by a non-halachic ceremony? ...

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

In message , Micha Berger <micha@aishdas.org> writes
>This seems to be divarim shevileiv vs what he explicitly says. This would
>imply that we don't actually require kavannah, we only require a show
>of kavanah. Which would make for a much simpler answer to "kofin oso
>ad she'amar 'rotzeh ani'" than the Rambam's. Merely argue that he said
>"rotzeh ani" so we don't care what he's really thinking.

I think there are three different ideas all being jumbled together:

a) the requirement of lishma - ie that a get must be given with the
intent for this particular woman. A similar requirement of lishma is
required vis a vis korbanos. See the discussion on the first daf of
Zvachim for the linkage between the get lishma requirement and the the
korbanos lishma requirements. However, the Ri would seem to suggest that
this lishma requirement, at least vis a vis korbanos, if expressed to
be there, overrules any machshava to the contrary (see Psachim 63a d'h
"Rabbi Meir") so the verbal statement would overrule the underlying
intention.

b) the need for a get not to be given b'ones - ie the requirement for
ratzon (see Yavamos 106a, and similarly vis a vis korbanos, see also Rosh
HaShana 6a). ie the person needs to be intending to do what in fact he
is doing and not be coerced. For this we cannot have words overruling
intention, the whole idea of ones is that the words are being forced and
do not match the desire of the person being forced. Therefore we need
the Rambam, quoting the gemorras I referred to above, to indicate that
when a Beis Din forces him, this is halachically not considered an ones,
and hence the ratzon is considered genuine. Note again the parallel
between get and korbanos brought in these gemorras (and in fact that
the pasuk quoted in Yevamos in support of this applying to gitten is
in fact the korbanos pasuk of Vayikra 1:3, not the get pasuk of Dvarim
24:1-4 where no parallel "ratzono" language is to be found).

c) a requirement of belief in Torah. I believe it is this last that
you are fundamentally questioning. And such a question may make sense,
give than a mumar l'avodah zara cannot bring korbanos (see Rambam,
Hilchos ma'aseh korbanos, perek 3 halacha 4) - and so one might expect
the parallel to hold, and that at least a mumar l'avodah zara might not
be able to give a get. The gemorra in Chullin 5a from where the Rambam
derives his halacha darshans this rule vis a vis korbanos from "m'chem"
(Vayikra 1:2) as a miyut. Thus, given the preceeding parallels, one
might expect that a mumar l'avodah zara would also invalidate a get.
However, all I can really say is that the gemorra in Chullin does not
draw the parallel in this case, and since each of these would seem to
be some form of g'zera shava, without a limud that you are to learn the
the one from the other, one presumably could not learn a prohibition on a
mumar l'avodah zara giving a get from the prohibition vis a vis korbanos,
and hence, the default position should therefore be that he could give
a get. And, of course, the parallel certainly does not hold in the "who
may give/bring" in other respects - as korbanos can be brought for and
on behalf of women, children and even in some cases goyim, while only
an adult man can bring a get. I wonder therefore if the parallel is
failing at the ish/adam level.

Regards
Chana

luntz <luntz@demon.co.uk> wrote:
> this is my take on Robert's yeshiva experience, being, from what I can tell,
> virtually the only Sephardi among all the Ashkenazim. ...
> discordance that also permiated the experience - the idea that people would 
> come and find him to get him to put various items of food back on the blech
> on shabbas in the yeshiva, because he could and they couldn't bothers me 
> intensely, without quite being able to put my finger on why...

It probably bothered you because it involved doing what was clearly
Assur for everyone else in the Yeshiva's universe. While Mutar for your
husband, he effectively became the Shabbos Goy in this one instance. This
can easily be treated disparagingly (as in chuckling behind his back)
by the other Bnei Yeshiva.

Are you saying that Sfardim treat "Chazarah" to a Blech differently
than Ashkenazim?

I thought that it was universal Halacha. Chazarah is permitted to a Blech
as long as you have never put the pot down after removing it. What is
the Sfardi Halacha?

HM

> How do you heat water k'l'achar yad (back then)?

I don't know...hold a torch in your mouth and stand by the pot - no
worse than turning on the faucet with an elbow. I'm sure there are
other creative solutions. If you don't like my bishul case so apply
the same logic to Tos. case of hotza'ah where the akum could carry the
object k'lachar yad.

U'kimta aside, you concede that in lomdus it is a good
kashe on RS"Z? 

At 05:11 PM 12/12/00 -0500, C1A1Brown@aol.com wrote:
>U'kimta aside, you concede that in lomdus it is a good kashe on RS"Z?

No!

Without the proper okimat s'iz nisht ken kashia.

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

> I tell you the truth, I am not measuring by temperature but by feel - the
> lower shiur I take to be a shiur where I can hold my hand, but uncomfortably.

That's fine for the LOWER shiur -- but how do you measure the HIGHER shiur?
Your heter seems to require the tap water being above that shiur.

Akiva

Shlomo Goldstein
> I erroneously quoted 9:9 of Meseches Kelayim when you said and meant 9:7.
> The Mishnah Rishona in 9:7 says we pasken against R' Yosi because we hold
> one must check when efshar l'vrurei in spite of a lenient ruling of a
> chazakah.

Didn't we dismiss efshar l'vrurei if thee threshold is below a certina
figure, e.g.10%?

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

Micha wrote:
>> The TY allows changes in such halachos without a b"d gadol mimenu
>> bichachma ubeminyan as soon as the metzi'us changes in a way that causes
>> the cheshash to evaporate.
 
>> I must have misunderstood the distinction, though. Because I doubt the
>> TY matired taking medicine on Shabbos.
 
From: "S. Goldstein" <goldstin@netvision.net.il>
> You're on target.  Just the TY ALLOWS a later, weaker bais-din to make a
> change, however it is not automatic that the old gezera is annulled.

However, this idea jibes with one of RRW's observations some time back.
Sephardim like a code, Ashkenazim don't.  For Sephardim, the Rambam was
enough, then the Shulchan Aruch was enough.  For Ashkenazim, the Rambam
and the Shulchan Aruch exist to be commented upon.  We don't follow the
Mechaber, or even the Mechaber+Rema, we follow Magein Avraham, Shach,
Taz, Mishna Brura, etc.  But for Sephardim, the code is IT.  This would
then reflect this TB vs. TY dichotomy, that TB requires gadol bechochma
ubeminyan to change halacha - once the decision is made, it stands.
Once the super-gadol writes the code, and the code is accepted, it 
stands.  But if the TY allows later B"D to change halacha as metzius
changes, without the gedulah requirement, it allows a lot more flexibility
to later commentators, and in fact creates a leaning towards more batrai
halacha - the more batrai rabbanim know what the current metzius is, so
they are more reliable than the code 300 years earlier.

I don't know that there's necessarily a causal relationship, that the
TB has this idea about halachic change therefore the Sephardim do, while
the TY has the other idea therefore the Ashkenazim have their idea.  But
they do seem to parallel each other, that both attitudes may reflect
an underlying difference in attitude towards halacha.

Can RYZK explain the Baal haTanya's nusach
	"lehadlik NER Chanukkah
as opposed to the more common 
	"lehadlik ner SHEL Chanukkah?"

(BTW AISI dikduk wise, the Baal haTtany's nusach is perferable)

Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

On Wed, Dec 13, 2000 at 10:21:13AM -0500, Wolpoe, Richard wrote:
: Can RYZK explain the Baal haTanya's nusach "lehadlik NER Chanukkah
: as opposed to the more common "lehadlik ner SHEL Chanukkah?"

I can't give the Ba'al haTanya's reason, but here's one I heard bisheim
RYBS.

"Lehadlik neir Chanukah" would make "Chanukah" an adjective, we're making
a berachah on a "Chanukah lamp". "Neir shel Chanukah" makes chanukah a noun
which posesses a light, a light which is associated with Chanukah, which
we light on Chanukah.

RYBS held that Shabbos lights should be "neir shel Shabbos", they are
lights that are associated with Shabbos, they are lit on Shabbos. But
bi'etzem they are lampts, they are not only mutar bihana'ah, they exist
so that we aren't depressed in the dark on Friday night. The neir
Chanukah is a "Chanukah lamp", it exists only for the mitzvah and is
assur bihana'ah. The etzem of the neir is that of pirsumei neis Chanukah.

-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

On 12 Dec 2000 11:07:59 Feldman, Mark wrote:
> As to the Ramo having a source in the Maharil: The parenthesis after the
> Ramo refers to the Mahara M'Prague (anybody know who that is?). (When I
> read this quickly, I thought it was the Maharal, but of course, he came
> afterwards in time.)

You of course are correct, that what comes of writing the post without
the sefer in front of you. I apologize to all the haveirim for having
misled them regarding the Remo's source. I ask mehila from the Maharil
for attributing to him a view that he might have disagreed with. And I
ask mehila from R. Avraham of Prague (he lived about a generation before
the Remo' and wrote hagohos on the Tur which have been printed in several
editions) for not giving him the honor he is due by quoting his words in
his name and giving him the nahas he deserves of having his Torah quoted.

Seth Mandel

I asked what is the makor for the segulos of certain mizmorei tehillim,
mentioned in most tehillim books.
I found out that Rav Avraham Ben HaGra says that the origin is of Rav
Hai Gaon.
Does anybody have any more information for the origin or explanation of
why certain mizmorim are good for certain things?

Thanks,
Amihai

In a message dated 12/13/00 9:04:45am EST, MFeldman@CM-P.COM writes:
> Interesting concept that although v'shinantam l'vanecha applies to sons
> only, general chinuch applies to both genders.  Can anyone provide mekoros
> (anyone have Children in Halacha handy)?

See S"A Horav O"C 343:2 (616:5 etc.)

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

At 12:25 AM 12/13/00 +0200, RAA wrote:
>> I tell you the truth, I am not measuring by temperature but by feel - the
>> lower shiur I take to be a shiur where I can hold my hand, but uncomfortably.

>That's fine for the LOWER shiur -- but how do you measure the HIGHER shiur?
>Your heter seems to require the tap water being above that shiur.

You may be right - I didn't think of that.

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

Moshe Feldman wrote:
> I seem to recall that there is an issue of whether to say "bsultah" (in the 
> Ksubah reading) when marrying a couple which has been living together.  As 
> far as I recall, most poskim advise not writing that she's a bsulah but 
> reading aloud bsultah in order not to embarrass her.
     
At a chasanah for a chiloni relative, I discussed this with the (chareidi) rav 
hamesader.  He said that unless I had absolute proof that the kallah was not a 
besulah he would not change the language of the kesuvah.  R. Hershel Schachter, 
on the other hand, suggests taking the word besultah out of the kesuvah but 
having the person who reads the kesuvah say it as if it were written.

Gil Student

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


[ 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         ]