Avodah Mailing List

Volume 07 : Number 066

Friday, June 22 2001

• Tzitzis: A Unique Mitzvah
• Re: Tzitzis on Shabbos - d'Rabanan?
• Re: Tzitzis on Shabbos - d'Rabanan?
• Re: Dor Revi'i on the m'kosheish eitzim
• Re: Dor Revi'i on Qorah
• Re: Re: Umasbia' l'khol chai ratzon
• Re: kavod av
• Re: bearing bad news
• kana'us
• Yehoshua bin Nun
• Tzadik Gozer
• Re: Schar VeOnesh
• Umasbiah...ratzon
• Re: Tzadik Gozer
• Re: Schar VeOnesh
• Jewish Week article re " aliyot for women"
• definition of 'tinokos shel beis Rabban'
• Re: Machzorim change for Yomim Noro'im
• Re: Yehoshua bin Nun
• [none]
• sotah
• RE: URL - Aliyah/Krias HaTorah For Orthodox Women

In light of our recent discussions about Tzitzis, I thought the 
following might be of interest to the Chevra. Rabbi Bodner is one of 
my neighbors.

-- Carl

The following is the lattest Shuir on Tzitzis by Rabbi Bodner.
Questions? Comments?
Call: 02-5710594 or 053-801-410
Fax: 02-5711804
E-mail: bela_hir@netvision.net.il

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tzitzis: A Unique Mitzvah

Mitzvos as a rule provide a person with a constant physical
protection. Tzitzis, however, provide spiritual protection as well;
while wearing tzitzis a person receives a spiritual protection from the
Yetzer Hora. Whereas most other Mitzvos provide the one who preforms
them with constant and ongoing physical protection, the mitzvos as a
rule do not provide spiritual protection from the Yetzer Hora (the evil
inclination). [Sota 21] The mitzvah of tzitzis is an exception to this
rule. tzitzis, in addition to offering constant physical protection,
also offers protection from the Yetzer Hora during its performance. [See
Menachos 43b, Mekor Chaim 15, Elya Raba 24:4. Sharrei Teshuva 24:4
Mishnah Brura. 24:5].

Dovid Hamelech (King David) put it this way: "Hashem stationed his
angels around the one who fear Him and He saved them [from Gehenom
(hell)]." [Tehillim 34:8] Our sages explained: this refers to the tzitzis
that are stationed around the person and save him from Gehenom. By
protecting a person from his Yetzer Hora, the tzitzis are like guardian
angels. [Menachos ibid. Yerushalmi end of Brachos; Ramban Mezuzah 6:13]

Tzitzis also offers unique physical protection. The mitzvah of Tzitzis
protected and saved the entire Jewish nation from drowning to death.

At Kriyas Yam Suf (The splitting of the Red Sea) the waters stood up as
walls as the Jews past through. The Medresh [Yalkut Shimoni Beshalach
234. Cited in Bais Yosef 8:4 and Gra at loc.] tells us that the waters
argued: "why the Jews deserve this salvation" and said "we should
no longer stand upright in a miraculous position, rather we should
naturally come crashing down and wash them away." Gavriel Hamalch (the
angel Gabriel) defended the Jewish people: "You cannot touch the Jewish
people who are going to wear tzitzis from the front and behind them. They
are protected from all sides!" [Yalkut Shimoni Beshalach 234. Cited in
Bais Yosef 8:4 and Gra at loc.]


Thus in the merit of the mitzvah of tzitzis that was going to be performed
after Kabalas HaTorah, t he Jewish people were saved from drowning as
they were crossing the Red Sea.

Hashem's great love to his people is reflected back as Jews perform this
mitzvah of tzitzis with lo ve and appreciation. When we kiss the tzitzis
we are expressing our love and appreciation to Hashem
 for creating such a special mitzvah.

The Poskim [ibid.] explain that the special powers of tzitzis lay in the
purpose of the mitzvah of tzitzis that the Torah explicitly describes:
"And you shall see them and remember all the commandme nts of Hashem. [And
also should be reminded by them] And not to sight see all the sights
your eyes are drawn towards, and not to be drawn after the desires of
your heart, which will eventually lead you in the wrong direction. So
that you will remember and perform all of my Mitzvos and be reserved
 as Hashem's people. I am your master who took you out of Mitzrayim
 (Egypt) to continue to be your
master." [Bamidbar 15:39-41]

Tzitzis serve us as constant reminder to perform all the mitzvos. This
is why tzitzis are affixed t o the Four Corners of the garment so that
any direction we turn; we will have this reminder. [Tur 2 4].


Our creator with clear understanding of Man's shortcomings and the
necessity for such a reminder, t ogether with His great love for his
people gave us this special mitzvah. [Ibid. Gemara Menachos 43b ]



Many Jews proudly display their tzitzis to maximize the reminding
potential the tzitzis contain. Ma ny also display the tzitzis to identify
themselves as Jews- Hashem's people.

The prophecies of the coming of Moshiach describe thousands of servants
will flock to serve the Jew with tzitzis. [Zecharya 8:23 Gemara Shabbos
32] The Mishnah Brura [8:26] notes that it is apparent that the Jews
worthy of salvation will be perfor ming the mitzvah of tzitzis in a
displaying manner allowing the nations to identify the Jew by his royal
badge; the tzitzis. It is our hope that our work will serve as a guide
for the mitzvah of tzitzis from the most basic a spects to the more
complex ones, assisting anyone that wishes to perform the mitzvah to the
highest degree. May we all be granted the exceptional sechar (rewards)
the mitzvah of tzitzis has to offer and be worthy of greeting Moshiach
speedily in our days.


How Tzitzis Work as a Reminder

1. The mere fact that there is something tied onto the clothing as a
reminder. [Tur 24]
2. There are five knots (double knots) on each tzitzis. This reminds us
of the five Chumshei Torah.  [ibid]
3. The numerical value of tzitzis is 600. If we consider the five knots
and the eight strands in addition to the numerical value we will be
reminded of 613, all the Mitzvos of the Torah. [ibid]

The Torah states: "You shall see them, you shall remember the Mitzvos,
and you shall do them".

The sages have taught: seeing provokes the memory. Remembering provokes
the actions necessary for the performance of the Mitzvos. [Menachos 43b]

This is why this mitzvah equals all the Mitzvos.

RCM writes:
> hat a have a hard time understanding is the sevara of the MG"A (although it 
> really comes from the Mordechai so I gues my kasha is on the Mordechai). 
> Why does the fact that one can't tie a knot on Shabbos change the bittul 
> aseh from  a d'oreisah to a d'rabanan. I'm being m'vateil an aseh-who cares 
> why I can't change the situation. Do we ever find a similar idea elsewhere ?

An example that comes to mind is Olas Riyah when Yom Tov is on Shabbos, while 
if one doesn't bring on the first day he is MIvateil an Asei (Ranbam Hil. 
Chagiga 1:1) none the less it is not Mvateil Shabbos (ibid 1:8), IOW one is 
not Ossur to enter the Azara, (even though that there is slight difference, 
but this falls under general category of "Aryei Hu Dravtza Alei")

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 07:09:31PM -0400, kennethgmiller@juno.com wrote:
: [RMF] continued <<<  Similarly, on Shabbos, because it is impossible to tie
: the knots of tzitzis, you have not been mevatel the aseh by not adding
: tzitzis to the garment. >>>

: This line of thinking seems to strengthen my claim that on Shabbos, this
: mitzvah (and all its details) lacks the force of a d'Oraisa.

The question is whether tzitzis is a direct chiyuv, or if the chiyuv is
a derivative of the issur against being oker mitzvah biyadayim.

The latter is being asserted. Which is why on Shabbos there would be
no akirah over a missing knot, but yet a kiyum di'Oraisa if the mitzvah
were performed.

BTW, since de'Oraisa only one knot is needed, I can't see how this would
come up lehalachah.

Speaking of tzitzis and the number of knots, it's interesting to note
that the medrash ties (pun intended, sad to say) the meaning of the
mitzvah with something that isn't ikkar hadin. There is no chiyuv to
have 5 knots. According to the Rambam except as understood by the Ba'al
haTanya, R' Amram Gaon, and one shitah in Tosafos, 7, 8 or 14 knots are
preferable when there is techeiles and therefore a din to have chulyos.

Consider this in light of RYBS's objection to kiruv literature that
focussed on things like the beauty of a white tablecloth rather than
the beauty of hilchos Shabbos.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                     Time flies...
micha@aishdas.org                        ... but you're the pilot.
http://www.aishdas.org       		    - R' Zelig Pliskin
(973) 916-0287               

In a message dated 6/15/01 1:13:36pm EDT, micha@aishdas.org writes:
> yzkd wrote:
>: In the case of Hora'as Sha'ah, which can only be done thru a Novi, it becomes
>: a Mitzvah, (of Eiluv Tishmaun).

> Which takes us back to my question: Given that Shimshon and Shelomo haMelech
> were described as being ordered, either by a navi or via their own nevu'ah,
> to marry these not-fully-converted women, why isn't this a case of hora'as
> sha'ah?

First of all I have to correct my statement as Horoas Sha'ah also applies to 
B"D (see at lentgh Divrei Nvi'im from the Maharatz Chajos), in any case it 
would become an obligation.

WRT Shimshon etc. actualy there are Rishonim who hold that it was a Horo'as 
Sha'ah (see E"T Erech Horoas Sha'ah)

> Is "eilav tishma'un" one of the few mitzvos that require kavanah, never
> mind "lishmah"?

The same question can be asked on the Mitzva of listening to B"D, which while 
I can't see why this should need any diferent Kavana then any other Mitzva, I 
would point out that according to the Rambam the Lav of Shelo Lnasoso is one 
with Lo Sinasu Es Hashem (end of Hil. Yesodei Hatorah).

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

To be posted soon on the Dor Revi'i website
www.dorrevii.org
www.math.psu.edu/glasner/Dor4

va-yiqah qorah: In the Midrash it is written:

 What did Qorah see that caused him to begin a dispute with Moshe? He
 saw the chapter of the red heifer.

This Midrash begs to be interpreted, and it appears to our master that
Qorah argued that since the whole congregation is holy and close to the
Eternal, they did not need the priests and the Levites to walk ahead of
them to be ministers and judges and officers over them. It was, indeed,
also the opinion of Moshe, when he brought them out to the Mountain of
G-d, to Horeb, that they should all be equals, a kingdom of priests and
a holy nation, with no priest or leader to rule over them. However, the
people refused to study themselves and did not want to hear the law and
wisdom from the mouth of the Eternal, which was why they placed "na'asseh"
(we will do) before "nishma (we will study), because (Proverbs 24:7)
"wisdom is too high for a fool" (ramot la-avil hokhmot). So they made
themselves a molten calf, saying "these are thy gods, O Israel." For their
souls desired their abominations, a leader that would go before them and
they after him, like an ox after his owner." (And see above, poroshat
t'rumah and poroshat ki tisa where our master has elaborated on this.)

Now it is known that when the Israelites approached Mount Sinai their
filth was terminated (paskah zuhamatan) and they became immortal. However,
when they turned to idols and they made an idol of gold, their filth was
restored as before and their mortality was decreed for the generations.
And it was concerning this that Asaph took up his song (Psalms 82:6)
"I said: ye are like godlike beings" (ani amarti elohim atem), for you all
would become like the gods that you wanted to go before you. And you would
have been the leaders. "Nevertheless" (akhein), when you chose iniquity
and idols, the filth was restored, and therefore "ye shall die like men"
(k'adam t'mutun).

In this light, we can understand the connection between the red heifer
and the sin of the calf which occasioned the Midrash "let the mother come
and wipe the excrement of her son" (tavo imo v'tiqanah tzoat b'nah). For
after the sin of the calf, G-d says (Exodus 32:34) "and in the day when I
visit I will visit their sin upon them" (u-v'yom poqdi u-phaqadti aleihem
hatatam). And our master has already explained that the day of visiting
(yom p'qudah) is the day of death, as it is written (Numbers 16:29)
"and if they be visited after the visitation of all men (u-ph'qudat kol
ha-adam yipaqeid aleihem). So when each one of the Children of Israel
will die and his station will be remembered he will cause the sin of
the calf which brought death back to the world to be remembered. This
is the meaning of "and in the day when I visit I will visit their sin
upon them." And that is why the red heifer which purifies the ritual
impurity of death atones for the sin of the calf which is remembered on
the day on which a man dies. V'havein ki ha-d'varim atiqim.

Now in the future when the world will be perfected in the kingdom of the
Almighty and He will execute the angel of death, the sin of the calf
will be completely forgiven and will never be remembered or recalled
again. In this lilght we may understand that which the Sages of Secrets
possessed of the Divine Secret wrote: that in the future Qorah will
be vindicated in judgment and his righteousness will come out into the
light. And they hinted at this because the final letters of the words
"tzadiq ka-tamar yifrah" (the righteous shall flourish like a palm tree)
spell Qorah. According to what was said, we can understand this very well,
because Qorah and Moshe our teacher both held the same opinion before
Israel committed the sin of the calf. If so, when the world will be
filled with knowledge and the Eternal alone will be exalted, all Israel
will be at the top of the stairs (b'gerem ha-ma'alot), no princes will
raise themselves above them nor kings place their regime over them.

And these are the words of the Midrash. For Qorah risked his life to
differ with Moshe, because he saw the chapter of the red heifer and with
the multitude of ideas within him believed that the heifer would cleanse
completely the sin of the calf and transform entirely the spirit of
impurity. He therefore stood up to argue with Moshe and Aharon and said
(Numbers 16:4) "for all the congregation are holy, every one of them,
and why do you lift yourselves above the assembly of the Eternal?"

David Glasner
dglasner@ftc.gov

R' Michael P suggests that my reply on this subject, detailing the
sources other than Heidenheim on the mafsik-mechabber question in the
sifrei Eme"t re: tipcha = tarcha, be written to the Mesorah list. And
so, to avoid annoying the uninterested, I have done just that. If any
on the Avodah list want to be enlightened or bewildered further on this
"weird and the peculiar" subject, just send an e-mail request to me and
you'll receive the latest addition.

K"T,
David 

> I heard a shiur last night that quoted the Rambam that a convert is only
> chayav in kavod av "miktzat" for his non-Jewish father (sounds like
> hakarat hatov)....

> What about according to the opinions that kavod av is included in the 7
> mitzvot. Why don't we say ... that on a Rabbinic level they are chayav in
> kavod av or else people would say they have gone from a kedusha chamura
> to a kedusha kalla?

See Y"D 241:9 and Yad Avrohom.

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

In a message dated 6/19/01 8:30:26pm EDT, Joelirich@aol.com writes:
> By why only by death and not other cases as indicated by the gemora - perhaps 
> it's more a mida tova than an issur?

I had pointed also to the Gemara in Megila "Ein Meshivin Al Hakalkala"

Kol Tuv, 
Yitzchok Zirkind

A little in advance of parashas Pinechas,  can someone provide mar'eh
mekomos on the mida of kana'us (as applied or not by man,  not as a mida
of HKB"H)?

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

From: "D. and E-H. Bannett" <dbnet@barak-online.net>
> Second, you'll have to come up with another teirutz to explain the
> different trop for the other son, Menashe.

        You mean why he's mentioned with Yosef?  That, I believe,  is
covered by several of the meforshim.

Gershon
gershon.dubin@juno.com

Does anyone know the origin of the phrase and/or concept of "Tzadik gozer 
veHKBH mekayem"?

I think the earliest I've seen it quoted is in Noam Elimelech, which is not 
too early.

Gil Student

--- Stuart Goldstein <stugolden@hotmail.com> wrote:
> A "consequence" does not necessarily translate into reward. Highway 
> regulations may seem like Bain Adam L'Chaveiro but in a perfect Jewish 
> world, w/o Shibud Malchiot or distractions, the Torah would be our Tax Code, 
> Penal Code and Uniform Commercial Code, all rolled up into one. If 2 
> witnesses saw you eat a cheeseburger, they would shlep you into Beit Din, 
> who would administer the proper punishment. Aha! Punishment, not as an 
> Onesh but as a consequence of what you did.

When I speak of Schar VeOnesh I should really limit myself to spiritual
Schar VeOnesh. Obviosly we know that there is physical Onesh. The Tochacha
certainly tells us that. So the fact that Beis Din can and does punish
one for his Aveiros bein Adom LaMokom here in this world is not at issue.

Also, I don't see how you can divorce the nature of what you call
consequence and the punishment that IS the consequence. They are one
and the same.

And I don't mean to push your buttons. I purposely used those phrases
to illustrate the point more vividly.

If you reduce the issue of Schar VeOnesh post mortem, then my question
remains. Essentially I am saying that in a just world both in the here and
now... and the hereafter, one must have Schar VeOnesh. This is definitive
to ultimate justice or Divine justice. The existence of Schar VeOnesh is
therefore is a "given" that is irrefutable. Knowledge of this fact makes
it inseperable from doing any Mitzvah without knmowledge of ultimate
reward of some kind. So to define "Lo Al Menas L'Kabel Pras" one must
concede that there IS a Pras of some kind and that our job is to try and
ignore it and do the Mitzvah L'Shma. But if there were no Schar VeOnesh
at all, there would be no need to do the Mitzva. As Micha pointed out:

"If the person actually had nothing to gain, then HKBH wouldn't have
commanded it. Not that sechar is for a mitzvah, but that a mitzvah is
instructions about how one is capable of getting sechar."

G-d would not have given us the Mitzva to do if there was absolutely no
gain at some level. G-d would not say "Do it but nothing will be gained"
because we would not do it.

> Not to limit ourselves with Taamei HaMitzvot, but if the problem with a 
> cheeseburger is Timtum HaLev, then shouldn't you keep Kashrut so as not to 
> be negatively affected ? 

This... is Schar, the very spritual type of Schar at issue!

> Your mother's promise of
> ice cream if you eat your vegetables does not mean that the only good thing
> about eating vegetables is the ice cream that follows. 

Again, to say (as you imply) that there is some change in our soul's
well being that we are not aware of because of our diminished, less
than infinite perspective, (as in your example of eating vegetables
being inherently good for you but we don't know that, as children),
concedes that there is Schar. This is what the inherent goodness of
eating vegetables is.

> Granted, "Ratzah HKBH
> L'Zakot Et Yisrael" and therefore we have 613 mitzvot instead of 25, so as
> to accumulate Schar. But I think we subscribe to the belief that mitzvot are
> good for you. 

Good for you? Isn't that Schar?

HM

MichaBerger wrote: 
> How do you translate this phrase?

I once heard from Rav Elchanan ben Nun in the name of Rav AY"H Kook that
ratzon here can refer to a plea to give us "ratzon" the will- to be, to
do,to strive etc...

Reuven Miller

Gil writes:
> Does anyone know the origin of the phrase and/or concept of "Tzadik gozer 
> veHKBH mekayem"?
> I think the earliest I've seen it quoted is in Noam Elimelech, which is not 
> too early.

Conceptually, the Gemara in Moed Katan 16b quotes HKBH as saying that He
is Moshel over man, while a Tzadik is Moshel over Him. How ? The Tzadik
can be Mevatel a Gezerah that HKBH makes. This is based on a Posuk in
Shmuel II, 23:3 which says "Tzadik Moshel Yirat Elokim". The Chassidishe
Sefarim (Kedushat Levi, Kol Simcha) consider the "Tzadik Gozer V'HKBH
Mekayem" perspective to be the same thing.

But the ultimate and original source for this is the Gemara in Taanit
23a, where Choni HaMeAgel plays rain man. The Gemara states: Atah Gazarta
Mil'Matah V'HKBH Mekayem Maamarcha Mil'Malah"

Stuart Goldstein

On Wed, Jun 20, 2001 at 01:10:45PM -0400, Stuart Goldstein wrote:
: A "consequence" does not necessarily translate into reward...

We had a discussion back in volume 5 of the difference between "sechar
gemuli" vs "sechar segil. Seems to be much like the distinction you're
drawing.

However, looking at the rishonim RGS did on his web page, we find that
all of those who discuss the "what" rather than the "why" of oneshim
define onesh in terms of consequence.

Rabbeinu Yona describes it as cheit causing a disease whose effects you
feel -- which is the onesh. To the Ran and seifer haIkarim, cheit is dirt
on the soul which blocks out the light of HKBH, and therefore one suffers.

The difference between the two is (at least in part) whether cheit is a
pegam /in/ the soul or one that is /on/ the soul. (The "dirt" in the Ran's
model sounds much like kabbalah's discussion of the clarity of kelipos,
but I'll refrain from commenting further on it. There are limits as to
how much ignorance I am willing to flaunt in one post.)

When psychologists discuss negative or positive reinforcement they break
it into two categories: natural consequences and imposed consequences.
Say a child touches a stove. A natural consequence would be that the child
got burned. Alternatively, a parent could decide to impose a consequence,
slap the child's hand, rather than run that risk. In either case there
is negative reinforcement. In general, natural consequences are more
effective learning experiences.

(Off topic but useful for chinuch: This means that makiung a child earn
off the money needed to replace something they broke will be a better
learning experience than sending the child to his room.)

This dichotomy is roughly the one you raise.

However, for the person who doesn't believe in mikreh, the distinction
is murkier. After all HKBH created the "stove" and causes it to
persist. He causes the burn, the physics involved in burning, the
biology of pain and tissue damage. How different does burning end up
being than the petch?

When we discussing the two types of sechar I asked about the difference,
given that I find these arguments compelling. I do not recall an
answer, nor can I find the discussion in a search of the archives.

-mi

-- 
Micha Berger                 The mind is a wonderful organ
micha@aishdas.org            for justifying decisions
http://www.aishdas.org       the heart already reached.
(973) 916-0287               

 <A HREF="http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3?artid=4672">The 
Jewish Week</A> another example of what Edah considers a legitimate issue for 
discussion. Comments?
    Steve Brizel
    Zeliglaw@aol.com

What exactly is the definition of 'tinokos shel beis Rabban'? Children
of what ages (tinokos seems to be related to the term for nursing - if
so, would it mean only very small children, e.g. of nursery age?) ? Can
the term be applied to both males and females of that age or perhaps it
should be reserved (or was in the past, if not today, e.g. in time of
Chaza"l) only to males?

I would appreciate feedback with sources.

TIA - 
Mordechai

At 06:56 PM 6/20/01 +1000, SBA wrote:
>> Do other Machzorim besides the Machzor Rabbah change for Yomim Noro'im?

>All the Ashkenaz machzorim that I have seen.

Not the Metzudah. Someone should check the Roedelheim. I do not have a 
Roedelheim Machzor.

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

R' GershonD asks << teirutz to explain the different trop for the other
son,Menashe.  You mean why he's mentioned with Yosef?>>

I was not referring to the mentioning of Yosef with Menasha but to the
trop for both sons of Yosef that is different from the other ten; the
etnachta on the name of the tribe rather than the zakef.

David

heras.host4u.net (heras.host4u.net [209.150.128.13])
	by majordomo1.host4u.net (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id MAA04234
	for <avodah.heras@majordomo1.host4u.net>; Fri, 22 Jun 2001
	12:31:18 -0500
Message-ID: <4A9C93D719EDD211AFB30008C7B1F9FF02F441BB@NY01.CM-P.COM>
From: "Feldman, Mark" <MFeldman@CM-P.COM> To: "'avodah@aishdas.org'"
<avodah@aishdas.org> Cc: "'Phyllostac@aol.com'" <Phyllostac@aol.com>
Subject: Re: definition of 'tinokos shel beis Rabban' Date: Fri, 22 Jun
2001 11:10:10 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service
(5.5.2653.19) Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: owner-avodah@aishdas.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: avodah@aishdas.org

From: Phyllostac@aol.com <Phyllostac@aol.com>
> What exactly is the definition of 'tinokos shel beis Rabban'? Children
> of what ages (tinokos seems to be related to the term for nursing...

Dr Yaakov Elman (Prof of talmud at YU) noted that in Mishnaic Hebrew, the
word tinok is used *instead* of the Biblical "yeled" and that tinok does not
appear in the Torah.  Thus each word could be used referred to a baby or a
child.  (Note that the Mishnah in Bava Metziah refers to giving freebies to
tinokos so that they would buy in a particular store.  That must refer to
children, not babies!). Modern Hebrew took these words and assigned
tinok=baby and yeled=child.

Kol tuv,
Moshe

Any thoughts on how the fact that a woman had been warned not to be
seen alone with a specific individual became known so that witnesses
would later come forward to say that she had been seen alone with the
individual?
Is the assumption that either the husband or the witnesses to the warning
or bet din made the warning public and that this isn't LH since there
is a toelet?

KT and SS
Joel

[A discussion from Areivim; Please reply to Avodah]

From: Stein, Aryeh E. [mailto:aes@ll-f.com]
> Then the [Halichos Shlomo] brings the gemara in Megilla: "That which it is
> written that a women should not lain b'tzibur because of kavod hatzibur, and 
> it does not say that it is asur m'ikar hadin because laining with trop is 
> considered "zemer", "efsher" that the case is dealing with a situation 
> where all those present are  from one family, or that she is laining "k'raoui 
> ach b'li nigun shel hata'amim, aval b'alma b'emes asur mishum kol b'isha
> erva."

I find this "efsher"--with no basis in classical mefarshim--to be against
pshat in the gemara, which implies that we are talking about a normal
"minyan shiv'a". Also, if all present are from one family, why is there
an issue of kavod hatzibbur? Moreover, the Maharam MeRutenburg (4:108;
discussed in R Mendel Shapiro's article in the Edah Journal, available
online) states that in a city of only kohanim, women do read the Torah
for aliyos 3-7, so as not to create the chashash of pgam to kohanim
(if they would get those aliyos). Assuming that in the time of the MMR
the ba'al koreh had not yet been instituted (he does use the language
"yikri'u ha'nashim"), this implies that women were reading the Torah.
He does not limit this to a minyan from one family or imply that no
ta'amim should be used.

In fact, Rav Ovadia Yosef, Yechaveh Da'as 3:51, states that mistamah
the pshat in the gemara is that women would lain with ta'amim, and
he deduces from here that "b'makom hashra'as shchinah lo chashishu
chachimim l'hirhur."

<snip>
> As for R' Moshe Feldman's question:
> >>>I find that a difficult pshat.  If the woman would be "laining" w/o
> singing the trop, that is a b'dieved laining.....So the gemara shouldn't
> have said that the only reason that a woman shouldn't lain is kavod
> hatzibbur.  It should have said that the reason is that she would be forced
> to lain w/o trop, and that is b'dieved.>>>

> I propose that a possible teretz could be as follows:  if a certain group
> feels that it is so important to have a woman lain, it might actually become
> an "ais la'asos," and it is worthwhile for the woman to lain, even if it
> will be b'dieved.

IMHO that is against pshat in the gemara. The gemara implies that we
are talking about a normal case--"hakol olin l'minyan shiv'a, v'afilu
katan v'afilu isha."

Is it possible that RSZA's words--that she was laining "k'raoui ach b'li
nigun shel hata'amim"--refer to laining with tropp but in a tuneless a
manner as possible? (I.e., RSZA didn't say "b'li ta'amim").

Kol tuv,
Moshe

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


[ 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         ]